Fallout 3 or New Vegas

[Kushin]

Ok guys, I've been told everything positive about Fallout 3 and am thinking of getting it. Can anyone honestly tell me the negatives behind it. I fail to believe the game is perfect, so any criticisms would be appreciated.

If Fallout 3 is not as good as it appears, would it be an idea to wait for New Vegas to come out?

I'm on PC just for reference.

 

[Axolotl]

New Vegas is the same game but made by compotent people.

The main flaws in Fallout 3 are the story (if you've played the originals this literally has nothing new), the writing, the linear quest dsign, repetative enviroments and horrible level design.

 

[Valkyrie101]

the linear quest dsign

What? How can you say it was linear?

 

[reg42]

Well if you think you'll enjoy New Vegas, then you'll enjoy F3; they're basically the same with NV having a few touch-ups.

 

[Eliam_Dar]

for PC get Fallout 3, and start looking for mods

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

Wait for New Vegas. Problems I have with Fallout 3: bad facial animations, without Broken Steel the story is bad, it's hard to do but you can max out all your characters stats, after you reach a certain level with your character (can't remember which) the game stops being challenging even on the highest difficulty. Those are a few problems I have with it anyway.

 

[Axolotl]

the linear quest dsign

What? How can you say it was linear?

Well the main quest is just a straight progression. You do them all in a set order and within the quests there liottle deviance from that. Most of the side quests that are actually quests while they have multiple solutions they generally boil down to the same thing, for example the Harold quest plays the same way but you choose a different option at the end.

 

[Harlemura]

I'd say get Fallout 3 anyway, if you've got it on PC.
I've only got it on PS3, but I've heard if you have it on PC the real fun starts when you get the mods going, not just what the actual game has in store.

 

[Hatchet90]

Horrible writing, bad story, dead environments, lack of set pieces, useless stats, poor game design choices, VATS is broken as hell, unbalanced skills, lack of cohesion, all choices are absolutely superficial. That's just all the negatives off the top of my head. That doesn't mean I'm saying you should get New Vegas over 3, we've barely seen anything of New Vegas and for all I know it's just as much bullshit as Fallout 3, but looking at who's making it, it could be good.

Some of these I can agree with, but.... dead environments? Isn't it an apocalyptic wasteland? Isn't everything supposed to be kind of y'know dead?

 

[Legion]

If you like Fallout 3 then it seems likely you will like New Vegas. As Fallout 3 is so cheap I suggest getting it to see if you like it rather than taking a gamble on New Vegas.

I'd ignore all the sweeping statements about linearity the environment and so on as well. You will get people arguing both sides of this.

 

[HSIAMetalKing]

Fallout 3 can be glitchy. The NPCs have been known to exhibit strange behavior and VATS isn't exactly flawless-- I experienced a lot of grenades thrown in VATS waiting to explode until I exit it, or shooting through an enemy's head at close-range but not damaging them. And my favorite helmet in the game kept randomly disappearing when I had it equipped. Plus, my PS3 version crashed a lot.

My criticisms of Fallout 3 are mostly technical issues, so some people might not have encountered them at all.

EDIT: Oh yeah, too many useless stats/perks.

 

[Axolotl]

Did you even play it? It wasn't linear, the enviroments were repetative, but how can you make invidual enviroments in a game that size.

If they can't make interesting enviroments for an area that size then they shouldn't make a game that sized. Even if you think the size outweighs the negatives it's still a flaw. Also Fallout 3 had much more repetative enviroments even than other sandbox games of similar size. And yeah the quest design is very linear. See my above post.

 

[Valkyrie101]

the linear quest dsign

What? How can you say it was linear?

Well the main quest is just a straight progression. You do them all in a set order and within the quests there liottle deviance from that. Most of the side quests that are actually quests while they have multiple solutions they generally boil down to the same thing, for example the Harold quest plays the same way but you choose a different option at the end.

Well I'll concede the point that the main quest isn't the pinnacle of story-telling or free choice, but most of the side quests are pretty good. Take "You Gotta Shoot 'Em in the Head", "Blood Ties" or "Temple of the Union": many, many different solutions and outcomes.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

New Vegas is the same game but made by compotent people.

The main flaws in Fallout 3 are the story (if you've played the originals this literally has nothing new), the writing, the linear quest dsign, repetative enviroments and horrible level design.

Did you even play it? It wasn't linear, the enviroments were repetative, but how can you make invidual enviroments in a game that size.

Oblivion had different individual environments and was the exact same size. Also made by the same people.

 

[Legion]

New Vegas is the same game but made by compotent people.

The main flaws in Fallout 3 are the story (if you've played the originals this literally has nothing new), the writing, the linear quest dsign, repetative enviroments and horrible level design.

Did you even play it? It wasn't linear, the enviroments were repetative, but how can you make invidual enviroments in a game that size.

Oblivion had different individual environments and was the exact same size. Also made by the same people.

It was also not set in an area hit by a Nuclear weapon.