Poll: Fallout 3 or Fallout: New Vegas

[binvjoh]

I much prefer New Vegas, couldn't bear myself to finish Fallout 3.

 

[bushwhacker2k]

Both games could use some variety in setting... post-apocalyptic wasteland is nice and all but I want to go to some unique environments. Subways were fun, at first, but no matter where you go the subways are samey. Interiors are all fairly samey too, I REALLY want variety.

But onto which one is better than the other:

Fallout 3 had a better story (IMO) and I felt that I enjoyed it more overall.

Fallout: New Vegas had a better weapon system, Fallout 3 was AMAZINGLY easy if you chose small arms and the perk Paralyzing Palm, whereas even with 100 weapons skill you can have trouble killing some things in New Vegas.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

To me Fallout 3 was better. I didn't finish New Vegas but I started to get bored and the goal of the story was lame. A boy wanting to find his father is more motivating than revenge. Sure kill the person that shot you but that still you were connived. Also what happens in 3 just made me want to play more. So I guess chalk it up to story

 

[Cowabungaa]

I really want to love New Vegas, but it just craps out on me way too often. It doesn't help either that I've, apparently, broken the main quest, and now I can't seem to finish it the way I like. I've pretty much given up on it. Obsidian,; TEST. YOUR FUCKING. GAMES.

I know I like it, but thanks to it fucking up so bad I just can't bring myself to love it or even like it that much. I can't even get myself to finish it now.

Other than that;

New Vegas all the way. Better writing, better companions, better main quest, better level design, more quests, more factions, more locations, better crafting system, improved combat and the hardcore mode.

Though I must say that the hardcore mode is nothing but a triviality. I'm walking around with 36 bottles of Purified Water, an un-healthy amount of anti-sleep thingies and enough food to feed an army. Also, while it's true that New Vegas has a lot more locations, a lot of those locations are simply there as space spillers, bringing nothing interesting to the table.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

So I've played through both of the recent Fallout games (sans DLC) and after playing New Vegas for a while I realized that I wasn't having as much fun as I had playing Fallout 3. True, New Vegas has a better story line and characters in my opinion but I found the Mojave Desert really boring compared to the Capital Wasteland. Also, even though they fixed a bunch of the problems that I had with Fallout 3 like adding true ironsights and weapon mods I always found the overall gameplay in Fallout 3 to be better.

I couldn't agree more.

New Vegas was great and well written but to me it lacked the beautiful and soulful atmosphere that F3 had.

It also lacked the exploration aspect, F3 had far more interiors and large areas to search through and find all of its little hidden secrets.

 

[Laser Priest]

New Vegas is better in everyway except for one thing. Some people like the more challenging play, but I loved roaming the Capital Wastes as a god, destroying any Deathclaws or Enclave Troops foolish enough to get in my way.

 

[Yvl9921]

I still don't see where people get off saying New Vegas was better written, unless they're just assuming that's the case because it's an Obsidian game. NV's story had potential, sure, but it was never even close to being realized, with plot holes and far fetched elements (like the platinum chip) dashing its hopes of holding its own at every turn.

Add to that, the terrible design decisions when it came to equipment (specifically how broken they made armor and endurance) and NV was really just not that good agame, not deserving of being in the same sentence of FO3, let alone franchise.

 

[Lost In The Void]

Though I prefer New Vegas myself, I think it comes down to what kind of game you're looking for, between the two of them. I think that Fallout 3 was designed as an open world game from the ground up; this meaning that the story is only served to cause us to explore the world they made; and I will admit that Bethesda created a brilliant, yet depressing world to explore. This is to contrast New Vegas which I believe was designed from a narrative point of view, wherin the exploration compliments the story thus meaning the locations were designed to create the stronger narrative. While New Vegas's world is still varied and interesting it doesn't have the same punch FO3's did, the story was much stronger, while losing in exploration while Fallout 3 made up for the weaker narrative with excellent exploration. Two different types of games.

There's also the smaller factor of which would play better into the originals if you're more of the older fan of Fallout, which in that case, New Vegas retains much of the earlier works' canon, such as the NCR, The Brotherhood being less of saints and more of hoarding assholes and in general that feel is much stronger than in Fallout 3's isoloated DC area.

Basically if you liked the great exploration of Fallout you'll be disappointed in New Vegas whereas if you, like me, were disappointed by the less than stellar story of FO3, you'll find comfort in New Vegas's tighter, more coherant narrative. That and at the start you needed to be very tolerant of bugs, another throwback to the original saga.

 

[loc978]

New Vegas is better in everyway except for one thing. Some people like the more challenging play, but I loved roaming the Capital Wastes as a god, destroying any Deathclaws or Enclave Troops foolish enough to get in my way.

...there are mods that can help you out there, if you're into that sort of thing. Hell, even just console-cheating the Mysterious Stranger's .44 magnum into your inventory can turn you into death incarnate.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Fallout NV was a better written, objective oriented game. When you were doing something plot or quest related, it was great. Outside of that, it was boring as crap. Totally flat, both inside and out, everything was laid out and bare.

Fallout 3, the plot was a joke, and quests were just some extra experience. But I had so much more fun just going to an unfamiliar fast travel point, picking a random direction, and just going to see what happens. My two or three fallout NV games are about 40-60 hours each. I played one Fallout 3 game for 300+ hours, and i've done less several times.

I agree with this - the thing about New Vegas was once you did all the quests, that was it. Game over. Nothing left to do except finally go have a look at that tall airport terminal at the bottom of the map and get disappointed when you find nothing but some caps and a couple of Radscorpions.

F3 had so many more secrets, unique areas and hidden gems to find and to me offered far more replay value. It was also much, much prettier and atmospheric, with a lot more thought and time put into lighting, dungeon building and environmental design.

If we had the writing from New Vegas with the World of F3 we'd have a hell of a masterpiece.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

New Vegas, only by a little bit. New Vegas improved over Fallout 3 in almost every way but there is just something about Fallout 3 that New Vegas doesn't have.

 

[Canid117]

I will point out that I liked how New Vegas had more color. The grey got a little old after a while in Fallout 3.

 

[Laser Priest]

New Vegas is better in everyway except for one thing. Some people like the more challenging play, but I loved roaming the Capital Wastes as a god, destroying any Deathclaws or Enclave Troops foolish enough to get in my way.

...there are mods that can help you out there, if you're into that sort of thing. Hell, even just console-cheating the Mysterious Stranger's .44 magnum into your inventory can turn you into death incarnate.

The game does exist off of PC, though.

 

[DisplacedLil Ak]

I would love to love F:NV. But I can't. After getting all the achievements in FO3 and FORCING myself to in F:NV, i can say that F:NV sucked for me.
NV cons:
- DT system is broken
- Took out my favorite weapons >:O
- Radio sucks
- Boring after the short story
- You don't ever feel godly
- Worse 3rd person
FO3 Cons:
- No hardcore mode(although F:NV hardcore wasn't great)

I also LOVED FO3's story. I also missed super mutants I remember sneaking by them and jumping when one yelled "WE EAT TOONNIGHT!" Good times...

 

[TinnedPsycho]

I prefer Fallout 3's depressing atmosphere. New Vegas has better gameplay and story. Fallout 3 is still better in my opinion. In New Vegas I didn't really engage with the world.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Enjoyed both a great deal, but Fallout 3 definitely felt more satisfying on the whole.

NY was really cool, but it was your typical "slicker yet junkier" sequal. It had some great moments, but just felt a bit "spin off", and I wasn't a fan of the additional types of ammo either.

Fallout 3 however just captured the feeling of a post apoloclyptic wasteland perfectly. It maintained a superb balance of hope & depression, whereas NV always aired on the more lighter, humourous side of things.

Fallout 3 was also tighter and more "weighty" IMO.

Both great games.

 

[Tayh]

I thought Fallout 3 had the better environments, better atmosphere, better setting, whereas FO:NV had better combat mechanics.
Despite spending so much time playing FO:NV, I just could never get into the story. I just couldn't dig up any motivation, for either me nor the Courier, to actually follow the plotlines. Instead, I spent more time modding and adding immersiveness mods to the game and trying to play it as a survival game.

FO3 had less advanced mods and mechanics, but I can honestly say that I enjoyed every second of it, and lacked any motivation to keep playing. The environments, the exploring and the just excellent music certainly helped in that regard.