Fallout 3 or New Vegas

Recommended Videos

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Legion said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
CokeColaForTheWIn said:
Axolotl said:
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.
If setting the game in a nuked area means it has to have repetative locations, doesn't that make it a bad design choice to set it there on behalf of the developers?
 

Kpt._Rob

Travelling Mushishi
Apr 22, 2009
2,417
0
0
Axolotl said:
New Vegas is the same game but made by compotent people.
Really? Because my understanding has been that Obsidian, the people working on New Vegas, are kind of infamous for "flawed masterpieces." Actually, I think that's what the author of the Experienced Points article called them in his last article. They always get some gameplay elements wright, but they fuck up enough of the gameplay elements to completely undo all the good they've done. Their most recent release was Alpha Protocol, and for anyone who hasn't been keeping up with it that was an absolute disaster. It's gotten horrible reviews for everything from bad core gameplay to the fact that it's got a picture in the dictionary next to the word "glitchtastic".

So, Fallout 3. I would highly recommend getting it. So, downsides first. The story is nothing to write home about, but it's not horrible either. It does have a few glitches, though many of them have been patched, and honestly, considering the size of the game it's surprising that there aren't more bugs. Lastly the primary shooter mechanic doesn't feel as good as the mechanic would in an actual tactical shooter (I'm basing this on the console version though, maybe the PC version is better, I wouldn't know), and some of the movements feel off sometimes, though not to the extent that it's a huge detractor from the game.

That said, the game's got a hell of a lot in it's favor. It's got a massive world, there's lots to explore, lots of quests to do, and lots of fun to be had. Admitedly, I feel like Oblivion (A different Bethesda game) did somewhat better on the exploration element (some of the dungeons (or forts in the case of Fallout) start to feel a little bit repetative because for the most part you'll be finding the same guns, stimpacks, etc... as you wander the world, moreso than they did in Oblivion. Still, if you enjoyed Oblivion, you'll probably enjoy Fallout 3, because like I said, there's still lots to explore, and you'll be finding all sorts of fun things. As for combat, while the main combat mechanic, like I said, feels a teensy bit off, the VATS part of combat is a lot of fun (especially if you get bloody mess). The expansion packs are hit and miss. Broken Steel is a great edition to the game, and Point Lookout is kind of like the Shivering Isles of the Fallout 3 world in my opinion. Operation Anchorage isn't a lot of fun to play, but you get some really good items for completing it. As for The Pit and Mothership Zeta, I would suggest avoiding them completely. Finally, as others have mentioned, Fallout 3 has been around long enough and sold enough copies that you'll probably be able to get it for a pretty good price.

So I would say go ahead and get Fallout 3, and if you enjoy it (and personally speaking, I can't imagine how someone couldn't enjoy it) then you'll probably like New Vegas when it comes out, because it looks like it's going to have more of the same.
 

Cliffie

New member
Nov 25, 2009
60
0
0
Kushin said:
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.
Get both. Seriously.

In all seriousness tho, if I had to chose one I'd have to say Fallout 3 simply 'cause that's the only one I've actually played. I bought Fallout 3 at release for the PC and I still play the game from time to time. This is largely thanks to the fact that I can mod the game and whatever but even so it's a fantastic game.

If I had to pick out the "bad" parts of Fallout 3 there's the shooting that's really not all that great if you compare it to other shooters (... but since Fallout 3 isn't a shooter that's hardly fair). The shooting is by no means bad, it's just not great either. The same thing can more or less be said about the main story, it's not bad, but that doesn't mean it's great either. The side stories are way more fun then the actual plot.

All in all Fallout 3 is a fantastic game and one of my all time favorites. If you're even remotely interested in the game you just have to pick it up.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
CokeColaForTheWIn said:
Axolotl said:
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.
Easy. As it stands, Fallout 3's world was made up of roughly 75% Wasteland and 25% Capital. What they should have done is have a few more distinct areas (something like Point Lookout) actually be part of the main world, but smaller. They should have had more smaller areas, something like:
25% Wasteland
25% Capital
25% [For example]Swamps
25% [For example]Canyons

[Again: Not neccesarily those exact environments, just something different. "Swamps" and "Canyons" are just examples of what they could have done.]

See, the size of Fallout 3's world is certainly impressive, but it just isn't practical. I'm sure if they'd gotten rid of all the buildings and enemies they could have made an even bigger world, but it wouldn't matter because there wouldn't be anything to do.

See, I personally find the size and emptiness of The Capital Wasteland to add to the immersion of the experience, but I certainly understand why people hate it.

Oh, and about the whole "linear quest stucture" thing people are complaining about: I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure what Axolotl was referring to is the fact that, no matter what you do in the main quest, you always get the same ending. (Yeah, know there's a different monologue about your life playing after you beat the game depending on what choices you made, but come on. It's a fucking monologue. It has no effect on the actual gameplay whatsoever.)

You're still dead, no matter what choices you made. Thus: Linear.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Axolotl said:
Legion said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
CokeColaForTheWIn said:
Axolotl said:
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.
If setting the game in a nuked area means it has to have repetative locations, doesn't that make it a bad design choice to set it there on behalf of the developers?
You have never played Fallout 1 or 2 have you? The entire game premise is set in a post apocalyptic wasteland, and millions of players see no issue with it. So no, I wouldn't say it was a bad design choice.
 

Axolotl

New member
Feb 17, 2008
2,401
0
0
Kpt._Rob said:
Really? Because my understanding has been that Obsidian, the people working on New Vegas, are kind of infamous for "flawed masterpieces." Actually, I think that's what the author of the Experienced Points article called them in his last article.
That is true. However this time they aren't making an engine they're buiilding on top of someone elses. They're just redoing some of the animations and tightening up the combat I doubt even they could fck that up. However the main thing they're doing is a new setting, with new story quests and so on. We know they can do that, they have some of the best writters in the industry. While it'll probably be bugged up horribly I can't think what they could do to truly cock up New Vegas.
 

Kpt._Rob

Travelling Mushishi
Apr 22, 2009
2,417
0
0
Axolotl said:
Kpt._Rob said:
Really? Because my understanding has been that Obsidian, the people working on New Vegas, are kind of infamous for "flawed masterpieces." Actually, I think that's what the author of the Experienced Points article called them in his last article.
That is true. However this time they aren't making an engine they're buiilding on top of someone elses. They're just redoing some of the animations and tightening up the combat I doubt even they could fck that up. However the main thing they're doing is a new setting, with new story quests and so on. We know they can do that, they have some of the best writters in the industry. While it'll probably be bugged up horribly I can't think what they could do to truly cock up New Vegas.
I really do hope you're right. Fallout is the only thing that's helped me get through my Elder Scrolls withdrawal, and I'd really like for New Vegas to be amazing. But I just have this bad feeling in the pit of my stomach.
 

Legion

Were it so easy
Oct 2, 2008
7,190
0
0
Monkeyman8 said:
Legion said:
Axolotl said:
Legion said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
CokeColaForTheWIn said:
Axolotl said:
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.
If setting the game in a nuked area means it has to have repetative locations, doesn't that make it a bad design choice to set it there on behalf of the developers?
You have never played Fallout 1 or 2 have you? The entire game premise is set in a post apocalyptic wasteland, and millions of players see no issue with it. So no, I wouldn't say it was a bad design choice.
Fallout 1/2 also weren't horribly horribly repetitive.

True, but they are a hell of a lot more buggy. They also, strangely have less re-playability in my opinion, even though there are many things they did better than Fallout 3. Kind of odd really.

Admittedly I am hoping for them to incorporate what made them two so good in New Vegas, especially the humour and the character creation, I prefer the older style.
 

AzrealMaximillion

New member
Jan 20, 2010
3,216
0
0
Legion said:
AzrealMaximillion said:
CokeColaForTheWIn said:
Axolotl said:
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.
Watch a movie called "The Day After" It's know as the most realistic portrayal of a world after Nuclear Onslaught. It shows farmlands where everything looks normal except the livestock all died from fallout. The grass was still green, and soil was still dark brown. This movie focuses on the town of Lawrence, Kansas & Kansas City, Missouri and it showed different environments of a nuclear war.
 

Nmil-ek

New member
Dec 16, 2008
2,597
0
0
Fallout 3 ONLY if your going for the PC version hell get New Vegas on the PC aswell modding is almost required it's just far to bland and buggy otherwise.
 

AlphaOmega

New member
Oct 10, 2008
1,732
0
0
Get FO3 PC, mod it to hell and back.
By the time you are bored with it New Vegas will be cheap.

(And during that play the originals!)
 

Humble85

New member
Jun 6, 2010
176
0
0
Valkyrie101 said:
Axolotl said:
the linear quest dsign
What? How can you say it was linear?
its always the same. only because midway through you get the option to do either A or B doesnt make it less linear or repetetive.

OT: the game is far from perfect. Immersion is great for an RPG...as long as you stay outside and wander around and keep away from NPCs, because the look like fucking puppets, have the same personality and give you essentially the same fetch/collect quest. If you played oblivion you might have a rough idea what its about, but thats not necessarily all whats to it.

as for new vegas: how can everybody claim that "its the same"? have you guys ever played it, or are just judging by the trailers? because, if its the latter, your fucking stupid!
 

Humble85

New member
Jun 6, 2010
176
0
0
Valkyrie101 said:
Take "You Gotta Shoot 'Em in the Head", "Blood Ties" or "Temple of the Union": many, many different solutions and outcomes.
Could you expand on that? Funnily enough, i'm about to do my 3 playthrough of the game, and i am would like to know which many different solutions and outcomes you are talking about, for example with "Blood Ties".
 

Ken Sapp

Cat Herder
Apr 1, 2010
510
0
0
Kushin said:
Fallout 3 and am thinking of getting it. "Can anyone honestly tell me the negatives behind it."
That one line will bring you more anti-FO3 flames than you would ever want.

Everything has negatives. FO3 has flaws, but in my opinion none are gamebreaking. If you know someone that has it already then see if they will let you play it for a little while and if you like it go out and pick up the GOTY edition as it has all of the dlc included. and get New Vegas when it comes out. Other than that
 

Viking man

New member
Aug 13, 2009
11
0
0
Get the game of the year edition with all the expansion packs that should last you a will. then when New Vegas comes out get that as well, it dose look like Fallout 3 but with some new weapons, Armour and it might as well be an expansion pack for Fallout 3 but it will still be good.