Fallout 3 or New Vegas? (yes, this question again)

[00slash00]

I played New Vegas before Fallout 3 because I heard it had a better story and was more faithful to the story of the first two games. If there was any connection at all to the first two games, I completely missed them. Shooting felt awful and the plot was boring. I had never been so excited for a game to be over. A few weeks ago my friend convinced me to give Fallout 3 a try, saying it was much better than New Vegas. Well the first hour or so was definitely better but after playing it for about 3 or 4 hours, I just can't bring myself to play it anymore. In terms of game play, it doesn't seem any better or worse than New Vegas. I can't speak for the story. My conclusion is that Fallout 1 and 2 were fantastic and the modern Fallout games were among the least amount of fun I've had in a video game in recent memory

 

[DaemonicShadow]

I've sunk a lot of hours into both games, and while I prefer Fallout 3, it's a very close competition for me. New Vegas had a much better main storyline, but at the same time the characters involved in the main storyline didn't have as much impact as those in Fallout 3's (Caesar is single-handedly the biggest character letdown I've ever experienced in a video game) and the characters that were interesting didn't get enough development or screentime (see Legate Lanius or Chief Hanlon).

However, New Vegas' masterstroke lay in its DLC, which actually managed to build up a better storyline than the main one, with subtle foreshadowing throughout and a satisfying conclusion with enough choices for any character build to have an option. As I've said, I prefer Fallout 3 because I think it has a better world and there's an element of sentimentality in there, but they're both fantastic games.

 

[Artea]

EDIT: Double post

 

[Artea]

Since a picture says more than a thousand words (click to enlarge):

[http://postimg.org/image/w9mse3ca1/]

Not pictured: the higher quality of writing in New Vegas, the branching and interconnectedness of the quests, the multiple quest solutions and consequences for the choices made, and the difference in development time of 4+ years for Fallout 3 vs. 18 months for New Vegas.

EDIT: Woops, double post. If anyone can delete the previous one...

 

[TheSYLOH]

New Vegas Hands down.
You'll learn that the first time some quest NPC pisses you off and you find that they are unkillable.

There is only one NPC marked as essential in New Vegas, and he's a robot that could conceivably just download into a new body.
That and the companions who would piss you off if they died (unless you turn on hardcore mode, in which case fire away)

 

[momijirabbit]

New Vegas always just seemed like a desert to me and didn't feel like the Apocalypse happened.
Fallout 3 one the other hand looked and felt like everything was nuked, people say they don't like the green tint the game had but I think that tint made the game feel apocalyptic.
FNV better game.
F3 better atmosphere.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

New Vegas, primarily because you feel much more involved in the world and the world seems more connected.

Also because fuck the Fallout 3 ending. Fuck it in it's illogical ass. Fallout New Vegas ending made sense, it was the direct result of your actions and your choices, which actually felt varied and individual.

Hopefully my answer will be fallout 4 in 2 years or something like that.

 

[Ushiromiya Battler]

Objectively, Fallout 3 would be better since it doesn't crash nearly as much, unless you like unstable games. Opinion for everything else.

Nonononono, the crashing is purely subjective and dependent on the person playing.
There is no way to objectively measure which game crashes the most. I haven't played Fallout 3 since it came out as whenever I start it up again I'm stuck with shitloads of bugs and crashes.
New Vegas, nope, only one bug and exactly 3 crashes over my countless hours played.

OT: Prefer pretty much everything from F:NW except for that shitty dlc with the massive amount of gold bars in a vault.
But, whatever you choose, expect countless of bugs and crashes unless you're incredibly lucky.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

But, no, that's not objective. In making the combat more involved, I found it to be much more frustrating, and is a symptom of why New Vegas rail-roads you down south at the start, because of bullet-immune deathclaws. Not only that, but it hardcoded the 2 key to be ammo switch, and there's no way I found to change it. I WANT 2 FOR MY SECOND GUN CHOICE, BLEH.

The techncial aspects of combat ARE much better handled. ADS actually works on just about every gun, there are more options you can choose to use or not use, and balance is much better when it comes to the different combat skills.
Additionally, if you wanna talk about railroading, how about the literal railroading FO3 does? So much of DC is linear walkways. That's not getting into the fact that many of the areas in the game DO require some story-based path anyway, and it's also actually not at all impossible to get to New Vegas via the I-15 from the start. It's also worth noting that if you do this, the game doesn't break down or insist you go elsewhere first

Look, I like obsolescence in my rpg's, and I like hard enemies. But when there's absolutely no way to hurt them until later, that's metroid-vania shit right there, which I hate. So subjective.

You can actually hurt them though, it's just that they're actually based on Fallout 1 and 2's lore, and not the jumbled mess that was 3. Deathclaws are actually DANGEROUS and don't die to papercuts.

I could tell you that Fallout 3 is objectively better because there's more interesting interior locations to explore, but that's just my opinion. Maybe people like less to explore and love empty desert settings.

Except your points are subjective, that's why you can't say one is "objectively" better.
More "interesting" locations is subjective unless you have a metric by which to measure them.

And Operation Anchorage chops Honest Hearts into little pieces. Honest Hearts is the worst of all the Fallout DLCs, followed very closely by Lonesome Road. Mothership Zeta is third worst though, I'll give you that.

[/quote]
Didn't you just complain about railroading?
Also, Operation Anchorage is basically CoD done in Fallout. It added nothing to the overall narrative, and was filled with the most ridiculously predictable storyline I've ever seen from Bethedsa or Obsidian. I'm really not sure what your method of comparison is to even the worst of New Vegas DLC (which is either Honest Hearts or Dead Money, depending on who you ask)

If there was any connection at all to the first two games, I completely missed them.

What?
NCR is one of the main factions, and their growth and reason for occupying the Mojave are both part of the main storyline
Jacobstown is founded by Marcus and populated by super mutants and nightkin who didn't really know where else to go post-Master. They continue to try to fit in despite the NCR's displeasure at their proximity to Vegas
Cass is the daughter of a companion in Fallout 2, Jass Wilkins is the nephew of an NPC in the same game, multiple characters come from New Reno
The Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave exist, but in small, hidden bases as the former has never been a major faction in the same vein as the NV NCR and the latter was essentially destroyed in Fallout 2. Both groups reflect on the choices they made that led them to their current state

Also much of the game re-uses conceps from Van Buren, which was going to be Fallout 3 but never saw the light of day because lolinterplay

Fallout 3 had the better Story and atmosphere

Look, I get if you like the aesthetic of Fallout 3, but how did it have a better story? It was a hacked together "greatest hits" list of Fallout 1 and 2 story features
"We need you to leave the vault" "We need you to purify the water with this not-water-chip" "Oh no! The should-be-dead Enclave are attacking!"
Not to mention the fact that, as has been mentioned in this thread, there's really no reason to retake Project Purity if the Enclave are going to go through all that effort to clean all of the water anyway.

 

[SajuukKhar]

In terms of being a game, I would rather play Fallout 3.

New Vegas's mechanics, from DT, to Faction armor/REP, to alt ammo types, to crafting, to pretty much everything, were so utterly broken its impossible to have fun playing the game.

On top of that, Fallout 3 has the far more interesting, is not less fleshed out, world, characters, and locations. the Mojave as just so painfully dull, and the characters were such stock-standard RPG steriotypes, that it bored me to tears.


On the other hand, in terms of being more of a continuation of the Fallout series, NV wins.

 

[Easton Dark]

I could tell you that Fallout 3 is objectively better because there's more interesting interior locations to explore, but that's just my opinion. Maybe people like less to explore and love empty desert settings.

Except your points are subjective, that's why you can't say one is "objectively" better.
More "interesting" locations is subjective unless you have a metric by which to measure them.

That's the whole point of what I wrote.

Apparently everything is personal, who fucking guessed. Even crashing if Ushiromiya isn't bullshitting, who I cannot believe based on my experience with New Vegas.

There's also a difference in my mind between being linear and rail-roading.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

That's the whole point of what I wrote.

Apparently everything is personal, who fucking guessed. Even crashing if Ushiromiya isn't bullshitting, who I cannot believe based on my experience with New Vegas.

There's also a difference in my mind between being linear and rail-roading.

Not everything
If you create a metric by which something can be judged, then within the context of that measure one thing can be objectively better than another. If you talk about content and questing and put that forth as a measure of quality, and then we compare the FO3 and FONV quest lists, the ridiculously long list that the latter boasts is an objective improvement over the former. Internal consistency and technical aspects like balance and in some cases AI are also measurable. As far as bugs go, it really is luck of the draw. For my own experiences, and that of most of the people I've talked to, FO3 and FONV are about on par for instability, which sounds about right when you consider the fact that Bethesda, as the publisher, likely handled QA for both through whatever their own methods are (internal teams or large external ones)

As for railroading:
Why does it matter if the Enclave have Project Purity? Why can't I point out that the water will be purified either way
Why did I have to be able to buy DLC to ask Fawkes to enter the code in instead of doing it myself or forcing Lyons to do it?
Why couldn't I just climb over the very low wall in front of Little Lamplight? Why couldn't I destroy it in some way like I destroyed so many other things in the game?
Why can't I talk to Three Dog without being forced into some level of arse-kissing? Same goes for several other characters in the game.
Why can't I just leave the BoS after delivering the scientists to them? Why do I have to continue to engage with them even though there's honestly no reason to do so outside of petty vengeance?
I'm sure I could find more, but it's been several years since I played the game.

Also, these two really bugged me as, despite the fact that they're not railroading in the sense that they basically force you down one path, they still feel like the same mindset due to the fact that your character gets potentially screwed over (perks, dialogue options, etc.) if you make the "wrong" choice, even when there shouldn't BE a wrong choice

Why does Bethesda continue to utilize objective value judgement in the few situations they wrote that were actually somewhat ambiguous, like the one at the end of The Pitt?
Why to they make everything turn as much as possible from an ambiguous situation to a straightforward good-and-evil decision after the fact?

And again, you can travel down the I-15 at level 1-3. I do it all the time, especially if I make a pacifist luck-based character and need supplies and armour

 

[SajuukKhar]

As for railroading:
-Why does it matter if the Enclave have Project Purity? Why can't I point out that the water will be purified either way

-Why did I have to be able to buy DLC to ask Fawkes to enter the code in instead of doing it myself or forcing Lyons to do it?

-Why couldn't I just climb over the very low wall in front of Little Lamplight? Why couldn't I destroy it in some way like I destroyed so many other things in the game?

-Why can't I talk to Three Dog without being forced into some level of arse-kissing? Same goes for several other characters in the game.

-Why can't I just leave the BoS after delivering the scientists to them? Why do I have to continue to engage with them even though there's honestly no reason to do so outside of petty vengeance?

-Because the more time the Enclave have PP, the more time they can find a way to get it working and use it to either commit genocide against all the wasteland via the FEV, or use it to convince the people to join them, making it impossible for the BoS to stop them, and allowing The Enclave to start up their new warped nation where everyone but them is basically a slave, and can only get water if the bow down before The Enclave.

Which is, you know, not the same as the BoS allowing everyone to self-rule as they always have, and giving the water freely.

-Why would Fawks go into the purifier in the first place? Hes your friend, not your slave.
-You can send Lyons to do it in the base game.

-You could, but then you would be faced by tons of kids with high-tech weaponry and would likely be swarmed and killed before you could kill them all.

-You don't have to kiss his ass? you can even tell him you think what he does is stupid.

-You can? its called not doing the MQ, and which point it turns into a stalemate as The Enclave cant get the purifier working, and the BoS has no reason to attack them over something that doesnt work.

 

[Easton Dark]

the ridiculously long list that the latter boasts is an objective improvement over the former.

But, no, what if you wanted less? Then it's not an improvement. I'm apparently someone who liked less quests. I love to see my quest list grayed out and completed, and there's only so many "kill this person" quests per game that I can enjoy. "More is better" is not always true.

Spoiler: the rest

For bugs and crashes, once I turned off Fallout 3's autosave everything goes pretty smooth, but in New Vegas, I'm hard-pressed to remember a game session that didn't end because of a crash, a lot of the time when a character loaded into the distance, which did not happen with Fallout 3. I wish I could have experienced New Vegas like you guys did, and I tried real hard to fix it, but it just does not function well for me.

For the enclave, you don't want the all-for-themselves strongest militant group in the area to control whether water is drinkable or not, and besides that, their goal is to claim the capital wasteland for themselves, meaning kill everyone. You want to defeat them, and their leader was colonel Autumn, and he's at Project Purity, so go stop him.

And talk about the gate to Lamplight, how about New Vegas' invisible walls on hills? I can't go up this hill for no raisin, oh, it's probably because it was the fastest way to a place if I went over it, but I'd miss Novac on the way or something like that. I'm pretty sure there's a mod to remove them.

You can totally just kill 3-dog. I do it every game, because fuck 3-dog.

And you could ask why you still have to help the factions in New Vegas fight for the dam if you ask about helping the Brotherhood after delivering the scientists. You don't have to, you can fuck off and do whatever, but that's the story. I didn't care about the Dam, but that was the quest line, so I did it.

I've gone through the I-15 early too, but then you get to New Vegas and it's very clear Obsidian didn't expect you to. Mr. House is like "you've come a long way" and does his speech, but, no, you haven't. You walked up the road. I'm so glad you can, but it seems the intention was for you to loop around every new game. You get nothing and nobody from going up early.

 

[ninjaRiv]

Fallout 3 is my favourite in the entire franchise. I think it's written better than the rest (not really talking about the plot) and I like everything about it. The world has a lot more going for it than Vegas, too. Vegas is big but it's fucking empty. So many of the places I discovered turned out to be boring and useless. I enjoyed going away from the story and exploring the wasteland, meeting the people and all of that. To be honest, I don't think NV had a very good story at all, anyway. Not bad, just not good.

At the end of the day, I enjoyed the writing, characters and world more in F3 than I did in NV. I don't see why NV gets so much positive attention, to be honest. I get that the lore is there, but... That's not what makes a game. I didn't really see any other improvements it had over F3; combat seemed pretty much the same with a few minor improvements (imo).

NV had some great companions, though. It's a great game, I just prefer 3.

EDIT: Also, fuck the Boomers. There was nothing about their quests and related quests that satisfied me. How about one where you teach them they're pricks? You can kill them, sure but that seems stupid and doesn't really go anywhere. There are no "You're a dick and here's why" dialogue options. You just turn up and either help them or kill them. I know that's not exclusive to them or even NV but it just really pisses me off in NV.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Fallout 3 had better game setting.
Fallout NV had a better story and characters.

But i enjoyed them both.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

It's really a matter of personal taste, I'd say. Fallout 3 feels the most like a post-apocalyptic experience to me. That means Bethesda did away with the series' humor (which some may have trouble with) but created an excessively consistent tone. The story's main beats weren't terrific, I'll agree, but there's just a sense of consistency in theme and place that feels, well, a hundred percent Bethesda, in Fallout 3. New Vegas doesn't have that, for all its other merits.

New Vegas, on the other hand, feels thematically and structurally closer to the first two Fallouts, which leads a lot of people to consider it the most "canonical" out of the two. The Western theme took longer to win me over than FO3's basics, however. Once I really got into it, though, I could really dig the prospect of turning into a sort of Lone Ranger-esque figure for the blasted heath of Southwestern America.

You'd really have to sell either game to me to get me to pick favorites. I just can't.

 

[Lightknight]

I saw the name of this thread and wasn't sure if it was the same one I'd participated in before. I guess it makes sense that every such thread have the same name going forward.

They are similar enough games with subtle differences that really just play to taste. I enjoyed both games. Either had their good points and weaknesses.