Aaaaaand, Sajuukhar shows up, waving the Bethesda banner furiously. I don't understand why you take such issue with people criticizing Bethesda games, man.
Just figured out why I like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas
- Thread starter Saviordd1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
At least FF12's desert settings only lasted through the first 1/4th of the game then you got much more rich locales.balladbird said:
I also much prefer to play New Vegas, the characters and storyline is great and the game improvements are very welcome (though I still never bother with ammo reloading benches). As far as setting that reminds me of Fallout 1&2 though, FO3 takes the cake on that one.
In Fallout 3 you finish Vault 101 and then you're off in the wastelandAbomination said:
In New Vegas you always have to go south, then east then north then west and then you can explore to your hearts content.
It takes a REALLY long time to open up the whole sandbox in NV
Says the person who never took on the Cazador swarm with dynamite, or used a stealthboy to sneak past the Deathclaw quarry.Mikeyfell said:
Right in the thick of it, the concept of 3 is "Firing laser guns in a cold and calculating manner at super mutant things in the ruins of DC while blasting old-timey music" - that thing just writes itself!
New Vegas is a much more sober affair. It might have crafting and stuff, and it might be more tactical, and the Legion are a pretty cool enemy I've gotta say. But I think the situation is just more crazy-fun in the former.
New Vegas is a much more sober affair. It might have crafting and stuff, and it might be more tactical, and the Legion are a pretty cool enemy I've gotta say. But I think the situation is just more crazy-fun in the former.
But are those items in enough abundance to feed the large settlements? And Even then for how long? We are to take it that many of those settlements have been there for years subsisting on hunting and scavenging alone. That might work if you kept moving to follow the food. But as it is they would exhaust local food supplies before long. And again they don't set this up in game we never hear of people going out to hunt and gather (as far as I can remember I haven't played it in like 2-3 years.) And even if they did tell us that would break the rule of 'show don't tell'. Almost all of that food you mentioned is irradiated in the game.SajuukKhar said:
I'm not saying FO3 is bad because of this mind you, but Bethesda just didn't care as much as Obsidian did and it shows. I've replayed NV far more times than I have FO3.
well east coast supermutants are boring. west coast mutants are interesting because they basically are just big stompy people but the east coast mutants are basically just monsters with no brain cells to rub together.
and it really felt like a game that was supposed to happen at around the same time as fallout 1 or maybe even earlier and then they decided to add factions and character that have business being there.
except maybe the enclave and they could have been handled better by making the east coast ones not be total dicks. They fucked around with every other faction, why not with them?
and it really felt like a game that was supposed to happen at around the same time as fallout 1 or maybe even earlier and then they decided to add factions and character that have business being there.
except maybe the enclave and they could have been handled better by making the east coast ones not be total dicks. They fucked around with every other faction, why not with them?
What Fallout 3 really trumps New Vegas in is the level design. While NV has the stronger and more ambitious writing, Fallout 3 takes the 'open-world RPG concept' and delivers in a way New Vegas simply doesn't. The interior spaces in New Vegas are mazes, the overworld is bland and has a nasty habit of doing what TV Tropes calls 'Beef-Gating'.
i kind of have to agree. it is much more impressive and you could see it as an actual place where people live. they payed more attention to detail and while i miss all the destroyed civilization bits it is cool to see that people tried to rebuild it. i really don't belive that more people don't inhabit more places in the capital waste
I like FO3 because the plot makes more sense then FO4 I can fallow a girl who looking for her dad but not a guy or girl who just got shot in the head and lost all good sense and decided to go get the guy who shot them because they wanted their crappy chip back for no reason other then to look at it. I also hated the music in 4 I spent the whole game wishing for three dog and felt the game wasn't nearly as fun, Vegas was disappointing.
The only thing I liked about Fallout 3 compared to New Vegas was how, like FO 1 and 2, it basically followed a storyline where it was realistic that you stepped out into the wasteland and literally had no idea how anything worked or what the world at large was like (since you were a Vault Dweller in FO 1 and a Tribal in FO 2), and thus it was a journey of discovery more than anything else. In New Vegas, it's sort of established that your character had already spent time on the surface world, and thus it felt unrealistic that they were starting from scratch and had to ask people about everything to learn what was going on in the world.
But, on pretty much everything else, I liked New Vegas better. It brought back reputations, it pushed the Enclave to the backburner (I think we'd had enough games with them), to me it felt wackier than FO 3 (Fallout is, ultimately, supposed to be kind of funny), it gave you iron sights aiming and way more (and better) weapons, it brought back the morally ambiguous Brotherhood of Steel, had way more quests and side activities, and to me captured the world of Fallout better. The original Fallout games had tiny towns struggling to survive combined with shockingly advanced and established cities (ie. New Reno), and I think New Vegas captured that better.
But, on pretty much everything else, I liked New Vegas better. It brought back reputations, it pushed the Enclave to the backburner (I think we'd had enough games with them), to me it felt wackier than FO 3 (Fallout is, ultimately, supposed to be kind of funny), it gave you iron sights aiming and way more (and better) weapons, it brought back the morally ambiguous Brotherhood of Steel, had way more quests and side activities, and to me captured the world of Fallout better. The original Fallout games had tiny towns struggling to survive combined with shockingly advanced and established cities (ie. New Reno), and I think New Vegas captured that better.
Then Fallout 3 should be set somewhere around Fallout 1 or earlier times. It's simple: my immersion in F3 was generally destroyed due to setting inconsistency. In F2 we were shown the civilization rebuilding itself - new states and new societies are forming, and humanity is starting to fight Wasteland instead of hiding away from it. In F3, which is set after F2, we see none of this progress. Even moreso, there are no signs of any population being able to exist at all! Those people have nothing to eat, lots of establishments had to be robbed completely hundreds of years ago, etc. It's impossible to immerse into such a flawed from logical standpoint universe.Saviordd1 said:AH GOD, RUN FOR COVER; IT'S A NEW VEGAS v. FALLOUT 3 THREAD!
Wait, no, stop; it's not!
...
Don't give me that look.
...
I PROMISE this isn't a New Vegas v. Fallout 3 thread.
...
Well be that way.
Dick.
ANYWAY
For a while now I've tried to figure out exactly why I like Fallout 3 better. I mean New Vegas has more guns, more in common with the original Fallouts, more characters, mostly better characters, etc. Yet Fallout 3 was my Fallout port of call, not New Vegas; why?
Blaming the bugs was to easy, especially since several hundred patches and user made patches has fixed most of the problems.
And "Fuck Obsidian" is a bad argument.
So what is it?
Well today while roaming the New York State Museum (Which is a nice place to go for anyone who lives around Albany BTW.) it hit me rather suddenly.
It's the atmosphere. I don't mean atmosphere as in the greenish lighting of 3 versus the organgish of New Vegas. I mean how the game really feels to wander in.
Fallout 3 makes you feel like you're truly treading through a destroyed civilization. Like the hundreds of dead civilizations before it this one died suddenly and left its remains behind. You walk amongst the ashes of a true super power whose history is quickly being lost to all but a bare few people.
Compare to New Vegas, who shows civilization on the rise. Empires are being built, lines drawn, old world comforts returning, etc.
Fallout 3 is post Sherman Atlanta and New Vegas is Reconstruction.
Fallout 3 is walking through a radioactive Pompeii and New Vegas is the wild west.
And obviously some people prefer the wild west, I can't begrudge them that; especially with better gameplay systems in New Vegas.
But for me, I can't help but like the utterly destroyed civilization feeling of 3.
But that's my opinion, what do you think?
[HEADING=3]TL;DR[/HEADING]
Yep, down to the atmosphere. New Vegas felt like it was trying too hard to cram as much of FO1&2 into itself and ended up cluttered. The game world didn't feel like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, it felt like a slightly run down section of today's world. It just felt... silly, and not in a good way. Fallout 3 had the atmosphere and the feel down to a T.
I understand why some people feel like NV was truer to the old Fallout games than FO3, but I wouldn't necessarily agree. NV was truer to FO2 - with all the silly nonsense and the wild west theme and people rebuilding. However, I'd argue that FO3 was truer to FO1. With the feeling of desolation, of treading on the bones of a dead civilization, searching through rubble and the ghosts of the past. And I always did like FO1 more than FO2, so I suppose that's why I like FO3 more than NV...
I understand why some people feel like NV was truer to the old Fallout games than FO3, but I wouldn't necessarily agree. NV was truer to FO2 - with all the silly nonsense and the wild west theme and people rebuilding. However, I'd argue that FO3 was truer to FO1. With the feeling of desolation, of treading on the bones of a dead civilization, searching through rubble and the ghosts of the past. And I always did like FO1 more than FO2, so I suppose that's why I like FO3 more than NV...