Poll: Do I get Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

[spartan231490]

The graphics are pretty much the same. New Vegas is definitely far more than a "glorified expansion".

After years of playing both extensively. I think it comes down to.

Do you want the most focused and atmospheric game with plenty of content that doesn't feel like too much and easily all doable? Go Fallout 3.

Do you want a lot more freedom but a lot less focus in story and pretty much everything else overall? Go New Vegas. New Vegas has a fuck ton of content, but a lot of it isn't very interesting, there is plenty to explore though. However for the first 10 hours or so you're pretty much confined to a big linear path because you're far too underequipped and underpowered for most of the Mojave.

If it came down to one and one only I'd go Fallout 3. New Vegas is still an incredible game though. And 3 is definitely the one you'd want to go into first to get an idea how of Fallout games go.

Beat me to it.

3 has the better atmosphere, but New Vegas has(IMO) slightly better gameplay and a more open feel. If I was only ever going to play one of them again, I would play New Vegas, but it really comes down to whether you'd prefer the atmosphere of the more open world/sandboxy feel.

 

[vallorn]

If you get New Vegas you can use the Tale Of Two Wastelands mod to play Fallout 3 in it's engine, as well as that Fallout 3 has the horrible carbuncle known as Games For Windows Live attached to it and that hasn't changed as far as I remember.

 

[Jandau]

Depends on what you want...

Fallout 3 has a better overall world to explore. Better atmosphere, better locations, etc. It's a proper wasteland and has you picking through the ruins of a civilization. NV in comparison is a shitty desert full of bad Mad Max cosplayers with a gaudy run-down casino in the middle.

New Vegas has a better main story. That's not saying much, it's still not very good (some of Obsidian's worst work ever), but less garbage than FO3. The one thing in favour of FO3's main story is that it felt less obtrusive.

Many people say NV is a better Fallout game, but I disagree - it's attempts to stay "true" to the first two games just fell flat for me. They either didn't work or they came off as trying too hard. I found more enjoyment in FO3's approach, drawing inspiration from the original games, but doing its own thing.

Finally, and this is VERY subjective, I didn't enjoy NV's attempts at a cowboy theme. I just didn't feel they worked. They felt chessy, and not in a fun way...

Overall, FO3 is IMO a better game. NV has it beat in a few areas, but as a total package FO3 is much better.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm surprised New Vegas more than doubles FO3 in votes, but both games are equally pro'd and con'd in the posts.

 

[Zontar]

One important thing to remember is that both start with an unskipable, linear opening section which exists before you can go out there into the world and explore, but their length is different. For Fallout 3, it's about half an hour. For New Vegas, it's 9 hours. People talk about how NV has a lot more freedom, but that's only after you've reached the city of New Vegas using the longest possible route. The main quest in NV is better, the map is bigger (but also a LOT more empty, I honestly can not for the life of me figure out which has marginally more content) but Fallout 3 sure feels more like a fallout game while NV feels more like a Western with a bit of nuclear punk mixed in. If I hadn't been told it was in the Fallout universe, I sure wouldn't have assumed it was by playing it.

 

[Zontar]

I'm surprised New Vegas more than doubles FO3 in votes, but both games are equally pro'd and con'd in the posts.

I think it might be down to a combination of New Vegas being newer (and thus more fresh in people's memories) coupled with Fallout 3 being the shock absorber for fanboy grievance with the fact that Van Buren never got made and that Bethesda bought the IP (even though Brotherhood of Steel 2 was in production and they saved us from that nightmare).

Both games are good, both are as open ended once you get to a certain point in the game, both have about as much content, so it gets right down to weather you want your nuclear-punk game to be in the ruins of a city or the ruins of a desert.

 

[immortalfrieza]

This is basically the reason I selected Fallout 3 on this poll. After playing New Vegas it's really hard to go back, so playing 3 first is probably the best idea.

You did read the first paragraph of the OP, where he said that he would only be getting one? It's a thread about which is better if you have to choose one, not which you should play first.

Yeah I know, but I find it pretty likely that eventually the OP going to get the other one anyway, so I responded as such.

 

[rgrekejin]

One important thing to remember is that both start with an unskipable, linear opening section which exists before you can go out there into the world and explore, but their length is different. For Fallout 3, it's about half an hour. For New Vegas, it's 9 hours.

...what are you on about? In FO3 you are *literally* trapped inside the Vault for the first hour or so of the game. In New Vegas you get turned out into the wild pretty quickly, and there's nothing that says you *have* to go to Vegas straight away. Sure, you have a quest, but you can ignore it a la Skyrim to your heart's content.

 

[ThreeName]

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?

They use the same engine and look the same.
Fallout 3.
Fallout New Vegas.

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?

It honestly depends on whether you prefer a bigger, worse written, more immediate post-apocalypse about everything still being fucked with noble goodies and evil mustache-twirling villains over a more compact, well-written, more ambiguous "everyone's an asshole" atmosphere where humanity is working their way back up to civilisation and all of the problems that comes with it.

Probably the easiest answer is this; would you rather play a game where you have to side with the "good guys" and think it's "cool" to fight alongside some ludicrously overpowered plot device robot who lazers people in the face and spouts "hilarious" anti-communist banter

OR

would you rather play a game where you get to the end and hate everyone, because every faction is full of assholes, so you say "fuck it" and don't side with anyone. (The bad guys are still mustache twirlers though, sadly).

 

[Halla Burrica]

I'll vote for Fallout 3, because when I was three hours into New Vegas, the game just froze completely and then the laptop I was playing it on (which ran Fallout 3 just fine) just broke. Maybe it was because it was getting old and had seen its share of hardships, but still, I do wonder from time to time.... Anyways, I can at least say Fallout 3 is a great game. It's got a good sense of humour with ridiculous action and memorable characters, solid gameplay and quests that are really fun and sometimes manage to dabble into rather serious themes and issues, that it handles surprisingly well and even with a bit of subtlety here and there, emphasis on sometimes. It manages to be interesting when it really wants to, but it mostly sticks to a kind of goofy camp that contrasts the dreary depressing landscape you're in (but somehow doesn't feel out of place). Overall story is ok I guess, but it's the side-quests and setting that are what will keep you playing for hours. The Capital Wasteland is very well realised, with tons of memorable locations that really capture the feel of a world gone to shit. Graphically, it isn't as advanced as others, but the strong art direction carries it through. Bethesda sure knows how to do environmental storytelling. So much about the place is told through the environment, either with logs made by others or through the architecture and personal touches made to it. In other words, I really like this game.

EDIT: After reading through a lot of these comments and other comments in general, I find it kind of funny how there seems to be barely any consensus about these two games, other than that they are really good games.

 

[Zontar]

One important thing to remember is that both start with an unskipable, linear opening section which exists before you can go out there into the world and explore, but their length is different. For Fallout 3, it's about half an hour. For New Vegas, it's 9 hours.

...what are you on about? In FO3 you are *literally* trapped inside the Vault for the first hour or so of the game. In New Vegas you get turned out into the wild pretty quickly, and there's nothing that says you *have* to go to Vegas straight away. Sure, you have a quest, but you can ignore it a la Skyrim to your heart's content.

I was talking about the fact that the very long, indirect path to New Vegas basically being what the game is built around, as deviating from the path tends to often lead you to an area with mobs which are hostile, numerous and too high level to handle. The starting area is particularly bad, having only one path which is viable to go.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

From another thread:

I dunno really, I can't quite decide between 3 and NV, 3's environment was so much better, the initial play through was favourite game ever, but after you've explored the carcass of civilisation you realise it's just that, a dead world with a couple of tiny pockets of survivors. But then I suppose that's what it was meant to be, probably wouldn't have been as effective if it had been as populated as NV.
NV environs were boring as shit, "oh look, more desert", but it felt like it was alive with actual people.

I feel 3 has more initial "wow" factor, the first playthrough is great but a second doesn't seem to work for me, whereas NV took longer to hook me in but had a bit more staying power, there was a reason to be there beyond exploring, which was good, because exploring was not particularly fun.

Do you want to explore a beautifully made but depressing post apocalypse city, or do you want to get involved in the political manoeuvring in some sort of weird sci-fi wild west frontier?

 

[Texas Joker 52]

I would have to recommend New Vegas. Both are fantastic games, and each has a distinct feel to them: Fallout 3 better captures the feel of a major urban center after a devastating nuclear war. New Vegas, on the other hand, is more about how life has begun to truly rebuild after the war. Likewise, Fallout 3 is more linear, but also more fundamentally quirky. New Vegas has a lot more freedom to it, while at some points being more grounded than 3. The option of Wild Wasteland, though, can easily make it much more quirky.

What New Vegas has over Fallout 3, though, is the fact that it's simply beefier: More quests overall, more variety in the weapons and armor, the addition of weapon mods, the addition of a Hardcore mode if you want to focus on a more survivalist playthrough, as well as a larger sense of scale. So, I'd have to go with New Vegas: Some would say it's a glorified expansion to Fallout 3, and I wouldn't say they're wrong. It's still a wonderful standalone game too, because even though it refines quite a bit from Fallout 3, it can stand on it's own.

 

[greatcheezer2021]

fallout 3.

its got more of the charm than new vegas.

also, trying shooting at a deathclaw while aimed down-sights in new vegas and end up returning the game.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

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?

They use the same engine and look the same.
Fallout 3.
Fallout New Vegas.

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?

It honestly depends on whether you prefer a bigger, worse written, more immediate post-apocalypse about everything still being fucked with noble goodies and evil mustache-twirling villains over a more compact, well-written, more ambiguous "everyone's an asshole" atmosphere where humanity is working their way back up to civilisation and all of the problems that comes with it.

Probably the easiest answer is this; would you rather play a game where you have to side with the "good guys" and think it's "cool" to fight alongside some ludicrously overpowered plot device robot who lazers people in the face and spouts "hilarious" anti-communist banter

OR

would you rather play a game where you get to the end and hate everyone, because every faction is full of assholes, so you say "fuck it" and don't side with anyone. (The bad guys are still mustache twirlers though, sadly).

That's fine but which is which?

 

[ThreeName]

That's fine but which is which?

Oh, sorry, tried to do in in order but it wasn't clear; Fallout 3 is a large, desolate wasteland full of mutants with a bad story, while New Vegas is focused on humanity rebuilding itself through ordered factions and group tension but is a bit more constricted for the first little while.

If you're playing on PC, I found mods like New Vegas Bounties were amazingly well written and fun and enhanced the experience exponentially.

What do you value most in an RPG?

 

[Eddie the head]

One important thing to remember is that both start with an unskipable, linear opening section which exists before you can go out there into the world and explore, but their length is different. For Fallout 3, it's about half an hour. For New Vegas, it's 9 hours. People talk about how NV has a lot more freedom, but that's only after you've reached the city of New Vegas using the longest possible route. The main quest in NV is better, the map is bigger (but also a LOT more empty, I honestly can not for the life of me figure out which has marginally more content) but Fallout 3 sure feels more like a fallout game while NV feels more like a Western with a bit of nuclear punk mixed in. If I hadn't been told it was in the Fallout universe, I sure wouldn't have assumed it was by playing it.

What are you walking backwards everywhere? If it takes you 9 hours to reach New Vegus, even the long way, you're doing something horribly wrong. And anyway wrong regardless New Vegas doesn't have a unskipable opening section. You can skip it trust me I do it all the time. I can get to NV in like 20 min if I want. Just sneak in between the super mutants and the deathclaws it's not hard. Granted a new player won't know this, but it's disingenuous to say it's unskipable.

 

[WonkyWarmaiden]

One important thing to remember is that both start with an unskipable, linear opening section which exists before you can go out there into the world and explore, but their length is different. For Fallout 3, it's about half an hour. For New Vegas, it's 9 hours. People talk about how NV has a lot more freedom, but that's only after you've reached the city of New Vegas using the longest possible route. The main quest in NV is better, the map is bigger (but also a LOT more empty, I honestly can not for the life of me figure out which has marginally more content) but Fallout 3 sure feels more like a fallout game while NV feels more like a Western with a bit of nuclear punk mixed in. If I hadn't been told it was in the Fallout universe, I sure wouldn't have assumed it was by playing it.

What are you walking backwards everywhere? If it takes you 9 hours to reach New Vegus, even the long way, you're doing something horribly wrong. And anyway wrong regardless New Vegas doesn't have a unskipable opening section. You can skip it trust me I do it all the time. I can get to NV in like 20 min if I want. Just sneak in between the super mutants and the deathclaws it's not hard. Granted a new player won't know this, but it's disingenuous to say it's unskipable.

But if you do go straight to New Vegas, like I did my first time playing, you completely screw yourself and jump ahead in the main quest, leaving you lost and confused on certain plot points. Which sucks because the first thing anyone wants to do in a game like Fallout is go to that big glowing city in the distance.

 

[Eddie the head]

One important thing to remember is that both start with an unskipable, linear opening section which exists before you can go out there into the world and explore, but their length is different. For Fallout 3, it's about half an hour. For New Vegas, it's 9 hours. People talk about how NV has a lot more freedom, but that's only after you've reached the city of New Vegas using the longest possible route. The main quest in NV is better, the map is bigger (but also a LOT more empty, I honestly can not for the life of me figure out which has marginally more content) but Fallout 3 sure feels more like a fallout game while NV feels more like a Western with a bit of nuclear punk mixed in. If I hadn't been told it was in the Fallout universe, I sure wouldn't have assumed it was by playing it.

What are you walking backwards everywhere? If it takes you 9 hours to reach New Vegus, even the long way, you're doing something horribly wrong. And anyway wrong regardless New Vegas doesn't have a unskipable opening section. You can skip it trust me I do it all the time. I can get to NV in like 20 min if I want. Just sneak in between the super mutants and the deathclaws it's not hard. Granted a new player won't know this, but it's disingenuous to say it's unskipable.

But if you do go straight to New Vegas, like I did my first time playing, you completely screw yourself and jump ahead in the main quest, leaving you lost and confused on certain plot points. Which sucks because the first thing anyone wants to do in a game like Fallout is go to that big glowing city in the distance.

What? What plot points do you miss? You don't get to see the exact rout that Benny took, but I hardly see how that's going to confuses you. You might miss out talking to those khans, but that's like tertiary to the overall story at best. Maybe just "understanding" the setting more, but that just comes with time.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

Fallout: New Vegas for sure, I used to prefer Fallout 3 but eventually I realised just how much more to do in New Vegas there is, and you honestly feel like you can make a difference for better or worse, if that's your thing. DLC adds a neat secondary story that flows through them all and is hinted at in the main game as well.

I do miss Three-Dog though.