Poll: Do I get Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

[Johnny Novgorod]

I feel like I'm the only one who does these "Do I buy X or Y" threads. Most of you would probably just download both for $10 each off Steam and be done with it. Well, I'm poor/stingy enough that I will only get the one. So:

Which one of these two do I go for?
Is Fallout 3 GOTY worth it?
Is New Vegas' Ultimate Edition?
Do Fallout 3's graphics hold up in comparison?
Which one has the bigger sandbox, the lengthier campaign, the "bigger" experience overall?
Which one has the better story?

I'm mostly concerned New Vegas feels like a "glorified expansion" as I've read here and there. Or that, despite filing F3's rougher edges (prettier graphics, stuff like that), it's simply not that good/better a game. That true?

No "Why not both?" please. And thank you.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Fallout 3 has the better "feel" overall. The world, the characters, even the music... it just has more spark to it. And the open-world of DC is designed a bit better.

New Vegas has the richer gameplay and deeper RPG mechanics. Though the world feels more lifeless, which makes sense I guess since it takes place in the desert. However, unlike in Fallout 3 you actually have the ability to forge alliances with the various factions, though you'll probably just stick with the NCR anyway. It also has the better Companions. Boone is the man.

Fallout 3 is probably the better first choice. Also a bit less buggy from what I remember.

 

[Rack]

Fallout 3 has a richer world with more content and stuff to find. It's also more open with New Vegas having "soft" walls everywhere in the form of unlevelled enemies.

New Vegas has a vastly better story, in terms of writing, coherency and freedom of expression. It also has some improved mechanics and the utterly sublime DLC "Old World Blues" which is completely hilarious and has a richer (though much much smaller) area than any in Fallout 3 or any of its DLCs.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

For my own personal tastes New Vegas is a vast improvement over Fallout 3 in most respects. I'd say the one thing Fallout 3 does better is the arrangement of the map. New Vegas is designed so that you'll have traversed a lot of the map by the time you reach Vegas so it ends up feeling smaller overall even though both games are roughly the same size in square miles (at least I think they are). Fallout 3 is a lot better for just piking a direction and starting walking and waiting to see what you'll discover.

But when it comes to story, characters, game mechanics and whatever else you can think of, New Vegas wins in my eyes.

As for "glorified expansion", I think that's a bit unfair (I know you're not saying that but some people do). It does run on the same engine so obviously there are a lot of similarities but New Vegas definitely stands on its own two feet. If we're calling New Vegas a glorified expansion we might as well call Fallout 2 a glorified expansion of Fallout while we're at it since those two have far more similarities than 3/NV.

 

[Cette]

Fallout 3 is probably the better game for someone who just wants a post apocalyptic sandbox. New Vegas on the other hand is an infinitely better Fallout game. If you haven't played the first two I could see New Vegas not selling itself as well as it really builds on themes and returning elements from it's predecessors. Even without that though I feel like writing is enough better to make it at least a toss up between the two.

 

[Post Tenebrae Morte]

Don't forget that there exists mods to help fix rough stuff, like graphics and issues like bugs.
I loved both, but if I had to choose, new Vegas was pretty darn good. It had bugs, but with mods that is fixed. The overall story is getting vengeance on the people who left you for dead and then handling the whole ncr vs the legion. There is no karma, your actions are yours and you decide what and how to react.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Aim down sites, proper survival mode and better writing make new vegas the winner. Though the world is a little less content dense and more linear(it uses horrible dangerous things to make you take a certain path at the start to get to vegas... Though if youre sneaky enough you can bypass it.) than Fallout 3 so id pick New Vegas myself.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

While the story in NV is much better overall by way of Obsidian being just good at RPG driven storylines, it also fails on a lot of other fronts immersion-wise. Like the way factions are done. The issues I've had with the game can be fixed by mods but if I had to pick by Vanilla experience, Fallout 3 felt more fleshed out as a world than NV did. I enjoyed the fuck out of the Capital Wasteland over the desert wasteland just by the volume of interesting things I found lying around the area. NV had its moments, but didn't feel as cohesive as Fallout 3. Great storyline though... Bethesda's crew seems to be better at making a world feel alive, Obsidian writes stories better. If they could get together and collaborate on a game I think I'd be happier that way, as long as they put a LOT of money into QA because both dev studios are horrible at bug finding and fixing.

 

[Zhukov]

Eh, flip a coin.

They're basically the same game. New Vegas is essentially a Fallout 3 expansion upsized to a full game. It has a new map and all new content, but mechanics, graphics, UI and whatnot are all nearly identical.

New Vegas has marginally better story and characters (which isn't saying much since FO3 was shit in that department) but also has more bugs, although hopefully the worst ones have been fixed by now.

 

[Dark Prophet]

If I had my way I'd have Fallout 3 with New Vegas dlc my perfect Fallout game. As is I'd take 3 there are some minor issues like lack of iron sight and poor weapon variety which however are easily remedied with simple mods. 3 has a lot bigger map actually and if you add the metro you'd get a shit load more although they look alike they are still fun to explore also the world feels organic unlike NV which is like a world designed my committee.

 

[WonkyWarmaiden]

Get Fallout 3 because Liam Neeson is your dad. Also 3 has the better environment. New Vegas is, obviously, mostly desert so it's kinda boring to look at after awhile.

New Vegas also railroads you onto a specific path for a good chunk of the beginning and if you try to leave that path you either get killed by annoyingly strong enemies or you can break the main quest by talking to certain characters too early. In Fallout 3, once you complete the first bit you can go basically anywhere immediately.

 

[dangoball]

I'd vote for Fallout 3.

3 has great atmosphere and feels more Fallouty, that is the feeling of a post-nuclear wasteland. New Vegas has the better story and mechanics, while 3 is reskinned Oblivion in that regard. New Vegas also seems more faithful in lore, but beware: New Vegas has a strong Cowboy feel to it and if that ain't your thing, prepare to suffer in the first few hours. I had a very hard time getting over that as it almost ruined the game for me before it even started. That's coming from someone who thinks Fallout 2 is one of the best RPGs ever made.

 

[Wuvlycuddles]

Fallout 3 is dumb.

I mean, I enjoyed my first playthrough, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. After you start really thinking it about it, the characters, the world and the story all make little to no sense. If that kind of thing bothers you then avoid. New Vegas is a better game all around.

Playing 3 now, it's nice. I tried starting with NV but they don't give you any tutorial. So better start with 3.

It doesn't "force" the tutorial on you, you have to go to the bar and speak to Sunny Smiles and she'll give you the (optional) run down on a few things.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

New Vegas hands down.

Stronger story, stronger theme, better sidequests, better DLC(All of them are good, and I'll defend Honest Hearts till the end) since you'd best go ultimate edition, better companions(in terms of mechanics and they all have their own story tied to a KoTOR II-esque approval system).

Better in almost every single facet. FO 3 is only better in atmosphere, but it otherwise doesn't stand up to New Vegas.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

Playing 3 now, it's nice. I tried starting with NV but they don't give you any tutorial. So better start with 3.

They do, the tutorial is just optional. You go to Sunny Smiles in Goodsprings and help her out, that is the tutorial.

Anyway New Vegas is the better game by a mile. Pretty much every aspect of the game is better. It's my favorite Fallout game. Get it. The two are basically unconnected plot wise so there is nothing stopping you going back and playing Fallout 1, 2 and 3 after you play it.

I've never understood people calling New Vegas more railroady than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has exactly 1 path to follow on the main questline that you have to do no matter what character you are playing, New Vegas had 4 main paths. Fallout 3 has numerous essential NPCs. All New Vegas has is Yes Man and children of which there aren't many and Yes Man has an in-universe explanation for why he can't die. And while getting to Vegas right away may be a little tricky it isn't impossible at all. You can not care about these aspects of Fallout 3 but saying Fallout 3 is somehow less railroady seems strange to me.

 

[kommando367]

New Vegas - better characters, story, weapons, quests, creatures, and actually uses all the crap you find lying around the wasteland.

The only thing I preferred in Fallout 3 was the extra experience from enemies on higher difficulties.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

Playing 3 now, it's nice. I tried starting with NV but they don't give you any tutorial. So better start with 3.

They do, the tutorial is just optional. You go to Sunny Smiles in Goodsprings and help her out, that is the tutorial.

Anyway New Vegas is the better game by a mile. Pretty much every aspect of the game is better. It's my favorite Fallout game. Get it. The two are basically unconnected plot wise so there is nothing stopping you going back and playing Fallout 1, 2 and 3 after you play it.

I've never understood people calling New Vegas more railroady than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 has exactly 1 path to follow on the main questline that you have to do no matter what character you are playing, New Vegas had 4 main paths. Fallout 3 has numerous essential NPCs. All New Vegas has is Yes Man and children of which there aren't many and Yes Man has an in-universe explanation for why he can't die. And while getting to Vegas right away may be a little tricky it isn't impossible at all. You can not care about these aspects of Fallout 3 but saying Fallout 3 is somehow less railroady seems strange to me.

I'd say Vegas is better because it lessens the power of the protagonist. You're not supposed to be some badass of the wastes initially, so you have to exercise caution. The world is revealed gradually and piecemeal so that you gain more of an interest to actually explore.

Fallout 3 kind of just splurges everywhere. It's less railroady only because the main quest is just a back and forth between various edges of the map, so it has a larger emphasis on trekking throughout the game, whereas NV stops that once you reach the Strip.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

New Vegas. The story is far better, the characters are better, the companions are better, the DLCs are better, the gunplay is better (iron sights), the world is more alive (based off of the real area around Las Vegas). The only major strikes against it are the amount of bugs, and one major faction isn't as fleshed out as it should be.