Fallout New Vegas: Why all the hate?

[Terminate421]

New Vegas to me had the better:
Weapons
Story
Difficulty

Fallout 3 had the better:
Size
Location
Super Mutants
DLC

 

[GonzoGamer]

You know what I hate? Fallout 3 supporters complaining about things in New Vegas that were present in 3 and complaining about the lack of things in New Vegas that weren't present in 3.

New Vegas improved EVERYTHING that was wrong with 3, had a better story, had more additions and features and was a good Fallout game. 3 was a good game, but a bad Fallout game.

New Vegas did make huge improvements over 3 in terms of story progression, combat, and companion interaction/usefulness. But in my opinion those improvements weren?t able to outweigh all the ways it devolved from Fallout 3.
While they both had a lot of bugs and crashes, New Vegas was a lot more frustrating. It eventually started crashing constantly on me, not to mention disappearing companions, lock quests, and all the other annoying bugs that didn?t come up in Fallout 3. And I felt the DC wasteland was more fun to explore. There were less plottable locations in 3 but those locations were deeper and had interesting spaces in between them where all manner of unique encounters would happen. So while Fallout 3 felt spontaneous, organic, and seemed like a real place, the Mojave felt like a Hollywood backlot where everything was already pre-determined.
But while I think I would?ve still liked Fallout 3 more, I definitely wouldn?t have hated New Vegas if it wasn?t completely broken.
I think this says it all:
http://www.savethezombies.com/node/4
And the pic is really funny.

 

[JPArbiter]

my main problem with Falliut New Vegas is that it keeps crashing on me when IU try to play it normally, the plot setting and visuals are on par with FO3, I can not complain there, and I kinda miss Three Dog

the Ammunition and Armor system bugs me, but it is not to far removed from Fallout 2 so complaining would be off kilter. it just seems though like Obsidian was trying to hard to teach bethesda what fallout was about, and they failed (AGAIN) at the basic coding of games themselves.

in short, if you release a patch to fix a break in a game, and it breaks the game further, you fail as a developer.

 

[Jake0fTrades]

I prefer the atmosphere from F3, but I like the story from NV better.

 

[PunkRex]

Because its the most broken game ive ever played.

I loved Fallout 3 but ill admit it had its issues. New Vegas however actually prevented me from playing it with all the bugs. Character glitchs, freezing, un-ending loading screens... I still loved the story and aesthetics but I dont buy the expansions for at least a month after release.

Patchs... patchs everywhere.

 

[fleischwolke]

I really like FNV, and it's at least on par with FO3 in my opinion. The only thing I missed was a large crumbling city to explore.

 

[MgsTheFury]

I can tell you one thing. I love it more then fallout 3!

 

[RaikuFA]

i liked NV's story and atmosphere more than 3's but damn the bugs. my game just refused to work.

 

[Jimmybobjr]

Theres a large ammount of hate on Vegas?

I certanly didnt notice. i remember people complaining about the bugs, but i dont think anyone said anything about it being bad...

Did they?

 

[the_Origin]

I think NV has more potential to be a better game than FO3 the faction/companions were a great addition, and the nerfs to some of the combat makes the game challenging all around.

The issue is that I have started the game up three different times, played ten hours then encountered a game ending bug, that reverting to an old save file couldn't fix. Due to that, NV really pisses me off, but that is fixable with patches i suppose...

 

[RipperSU]

I also preferred NV to 3 due to it's more imaginative storyline, characters and more varied settings. I do however think the game deserves all the flak it receives from a technical standpoint. Towards the end of the game, it was crashing every hour or so for me.

 

[Vandenberg1]

WEELLLLLLL.... for a game to claim it was bigger then FO3 was absolute lying bullsh**.. It was maybe bigger a little on the map but THERE WAS NOTHING THEREEEE. Seriously, one can travel in FO3 and ALWAYS find something new to explore or some quarky little plot point that had nothing to do with story. Vegas Had a better story becasue you could change it, but the combat scene in the end was NOTHING compared to Prime kicking ASS. The glitches almost killed the game for me, een the Expantion pack was unplayable for a week untill a patch came out letting GET PASSED THE FUC**** well with Dog..or god..FO3 was a better game in my opinion.

 

[GameMaNiAC]

Fallout 3 was a good game, but I've always loved New Vegas more. It has much more player freedom and choice than Fallout 3. FO3 had a much better post-apocalyptic atmosphere, though.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

I've never seen anyone who liked it better than Fallout 3.

Let me be the umpteenth. I loved F3, but i liked NV much more. 1) As mentioned, canonicity. 2) Greater variety of choice in terms of main story path. (Granted, some might argue that the physical path had less variety, but that didn't really bother me. The first 2 games were much the same.) 3) Lots of nice improvements, like the crafting and modding systems. 4) Slightly better (in my opinion) story and dialogue.

Again, though, don't take that as bashing on F3, because i loved F3, aside from the abomination that was Motheship Zeta. God i hate that DLC. And i hate the fact that when it comes to Fallout games, i'm a completionist...

 

[JoJo]

I think both had their own merits, my opinion as abreivated as possible:

Fallout New Vegas had: more engaging overall storyline, more interesting factions and surroundings, fairer difficulty if played on hardcore mode, more large places to visit,

Fallout 3 had: better atmosphere and player character, deeper immerision, larger map, less boring NPCs you couldn't speak to, a more useful town for being based in (Megaton)

Overall I prefer NV but it's a close match, they are both among my top 5 favourite games ever.

 

[triggrhappy94]

I liked it, probably just as much as Fallout 3. Well 3 had a bit of a surprise hit with me, and the story was a bit better. NV just has the hype pay off aspect, at least for me.

People don't like the newer Fallouts (3 and NV), because they seem like sell outs. Giving up the birds eye view 3rd person camera work for FPS. People also call it a full price expansion pack. I don't think that's neccesarily fair. There's a lot of new stuff, new locations, a new full length story, and new characters. There's even a different developer.
Its not completely different, but it does more than other sequals.

 

[superdelux]

Yeah it seems a lot of bugs took 1.5 points from all those 8.5s, Personally I loved vanilla New Vegas more than a GOTY-modded-the-shit-out-of-it Fallout 3.

And for all those who disagree beat New Vegas then FO3 again and tell me which was more fun.