Poll: Fallout 3 or New Vegas

Recommended Videos
Mar 9, 2012
250
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
http://www.gamebanshee.com/interviews/105836-fallout-new-vegas-and-dlc-post-mortem-interview-part-one-v15-105836.html
Lastly, with regards to the DLCs, I believe Ulysses is correct, a new framework of civilization is the only solution for the Mojave and the Legion and NCR are self-destructive institutions (the Legion is more a slow burn than NCR is) and both should be cleansed with fire. ~ Chris Avellone

The leader writer of Fallout 2 and New Vegas saying purging the world in nuclear fire is the correct choice.
That really doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. Avellone isn't speaking in terms of "Suffer not the mutant to life!" He thinks the west-coast setting is becoming too peaceful and safe and is in need of a shake-up. He has been arguing that since the conception of Van Buren.

Also, neither the Master, the Enclave, or Ulysses have been considerd "evil" just very extremest.
Uh, no.

In Fallout 1, you either kill the Master or talks him into realizing that he what he does is wrong, leading to his suicide.

In Fallout 2, you destroy the Enclave.

In Lonesome Road, you either kill Ulysses or talk him into realizing that he what he does is wrong, leading him to change his views.

Attempting to use present day politics in a world where there are no other nations to worry about objecting or retaliating to any action you make, along with the fact House IS considered hostile by the NCR for his use of the three families, and his small squad of securutorns ,as a small army to prevent the NCR from immediately annexing New Vegas, along with the overall corruption of the NCr, you REALLY think they wouldn't?
The NCR still identifies itself as a constitutional democracy and has a treaty with Mr. House that recognizes New Vegas as a independent state and him as its leader. And the common NCR citizen has no quarrel with him; to them New Vegas is a benign tourist resort. Wilfully breaching a treaty without cause just doesn't fly when you are a democracy.

EDIT:

The whole point of Fallout, ever since the first words of Fallout 1's opening, has been,
"humans are screwed forever" the end.
That is the cynical way to see it, and Fallout just isn't at its heart a cynical series. It is actually rather optimistic and hopeful.

Lonesome Road's final words makes it pretty clear: "It is said that war never changes. Men do, through the roads they walk." If war never changes, then people must.
 

Ml33tninja

New member
Sep 27, 2013
32
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
Ml33tninja said:
"NO!! He was talking about the two factions in the Mojave desert. Never does the writer say the WHOLE WORLD should be burned in nuclear fire AGAIN."
He was talking about all existent government based off of old world ideals, which is to say, every single known government in the post war world from the NCR to the Pitt.

The whole point of Fallout is that war never changes, because people never change, they just do the same shit over and over again, with the same disastrous results.

Nothing short of nuclear Armageddon at the hand of Ulysses makes sense as it would imply that doing the same thing again would result in a different outcome, when it doesn't.

The whole point of Fallout, ever since the first words of Fallout 1's opening, has been, "humans are screwed forever" the end.

I disagree about "humanity is screwed". The question really is do you try to make a better world regardless to if can can actually be done. "Nature or nurture" That is my view after playing the series. Plus every single known government known to who? A man who has no idea how the rest of the world is fairing? Ulysses may not be wrong about the Legion or NCR but his argument can not be used when comparing the whole species.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
Riddle78 said:
He also says he cant directly control victor, even from goodsprings, because, again, his system is so badly damaged, his can project his face on a select few screens, but that's about it, nothing suggest his system is operational.

Hell, even the full power grid inside the lucky 38's basement isn't operational until you bring him the chip because so much of his systems are fried.

Ulysses could easily nuke him, and House would be a sitting duck since he doesnt have the power or software needed to run all of his stuff with so many of his system fried.

Pay VERY close attention to minor details like these, they are important.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
Ml33tninja said:
I disagree about "humanity is screwed". The question really is do you try to make a better world regardless to if can can actually be done. "Nature or nurture" That is my view after playing the series. Plus every single known government known to who? A man who has no idea how the rest of the world is fairing? Ulysses may not be wrong about the Legion or NCR but his argument can not be used when comparing the whole species.
Every single type of government that existed in the real world has failed eventually, and in Fallout, even the modern ones failed when the great war occurred.

There literally isn't a single type of government humanity has made that actually works out in the end, Ulysses knowing what everyone else in the world is doing or not doesn't change the fact that he is right that all of will fail, since they are all based off of pre-war governments that failed.

War, war never changes
 

Muddy

New member
Mar 5, 2014
3
0
0
New Vegas has a hole lot more going on in it both in side missions and story line involving three factions but FO3 has a more focused story line centered on the character you play.

It also depends on how familiar you are with the other games New Vegas is fantastic if you played FO1 and FO2 as it continues some of the issues, story's and characters from the previous games technically making it the true fallout 3 however if you are not a fan you'll be totally lost e.g. when your character starts talking about The Shark club in New Reno.

Fallout 3 on the other hand is set in the capital wasteland away from FO1 FO2 and NV in the west letting it do its own thing without the need to have played the previous games.
 

The Random Critic

New member
Jul 2, 2011
112
0
0
New vegas is more focused on questing, Fallout 3 is more about finding your own quest/explore stuff (that probably includes those unmarked quest)

Different game, same engine. Something like that
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
-Except character skill only matters in third person games in which the player and the character are not treated as the same, which all first person RPGs dont do, and which neither Fo3 or NV are.
No all RPGs (or at least CRPG style RPGs like the Fallout series) base the game around the skill points the player has invested into the character not the players actual skill level allowing them to roleplay a character they want to. If you want a game based around the skill of the player don't play a CRPG, play an FPS like CS or RO2 instead.


-Its a great close quarters weapon so long as you remember that the barrel length is longer then the first person view model shows, so you can avoid the bug where the bun barrel is technically going THROUGH the enemy, rather then still being in front of him, which causes that all to common bug of bullets seemingly going through enemies without doing damage.
Except you get to fire of one shot and maybe kill one person and then get killed by any other enemies while in close quarters due to the really low firing rate. This whole 'AMR is unquestionably the best weapon' shtick is stupid as hell.

-Except you forgot to factor in that DT makes all those bullets do no damage, since damage reduction is calculated per shot, instead of lumping them all into one massive pool.
I am not sure you know what slugs are.

-Except it doesn't by giving each gun type its own unique role, which guns in NV dont have, since DT just turns everything into general purpose combat weapons.
What roles do Fallout 3 weapons have then bar best sneak weapon and best overall?
DR does not give weapons unique roles it does the complete fucking opposite.


-Except power armor is made to be bullet proof from small weapons fire, it should give FAR more, technically 100%, damage reduction from all pistol weapons. what you just said is that foam and titanium steel should reduce damage to the same level.
Who was the one saying realism =/= good mechanics?

Also you do know body armour isn't made of foam right? but typically a metal, ceramic or high density plastic plate that is designed to take bullets? And while a modern one wouldn't be able to take repeated fire from 10mm bullets in the same way a power suit could it's not unreasonable to suggest the armour in the fallout universe would be made of tougher stuff given how advanced they are.

I am not saying DT is a perfect mechanic there are some flaws but the point is that in the example you used the weapon is so ineffective against both these armours comparing them is irrelevant (again you said it would take 100 shots to kill them), when you take actual examples you would encounter in game (e.g the sort of weapons you would be facing by the time you have that armour, or the sort of armour you would have when using that weapon) then Heavier armour makes a clear difference.

Also Fallout3's system is fucked, apparently Power amour is just as good at stopping small arms fire as it as taking explosions given it is just a flat reduction in damage. Like you said realistically pistols should never be able to take down power armour but Fallout 3 is actuaally worse in this regard because the best power armour in the game only has 50 DR meaning you still take 50% of the damage which is significantly more than NVs 20%. What's worse though is that a sniper rifle will also lose 50% meaning that apparently a pistol is just as effective at piercing armour as a sniper rifle.

-Except, as proven just posts ago, having high armor does NOT make a difference,
Except I have just proven the exact opposite if you where actually paying attention.

Which is part of why Dr is better, it effectively doubles the number of hits you can take.
From ANY weapon, meaning Fallout 3 only has two roles for weapons, highest damage per second and highest critical damage for sneak attacks. If all armour does is apply a flat reduction to the damage taken it is effectively like extra health.

Why would armour resist a higher power sniper rifle just as much as it resist a rolling pin? it makes no sense realistically and mechanically it spoils weapon variation. Dt means you can take more hits depending on the nature of the weapon, leather armour is going to give you some protection against knifes and low caliber weapons but it isn't going to magically make a difference against an assault rifle using AP rounds.

-Except as has been proven, it does no such thing, all DR does is force devs to design guns for specific roles based on logical uses, rather then just making every gun viable in nearly every situation, which isn't how real world weapons work.
Except it's the exact opposite because with DR armour makes almost no difference to the usage of guns apparent from the fact you have to shoot them more times. It completely breaks any logical uses the weapons could have, should we make it so high caliber weapons are more effective against armour? nah! fuck that shit lets make all weapons equally effective against armour.

-DPS is what matters outside sneaking, that's the whole point. low dps weapons are not meant to be used in general combat, that's part of weapon diversity.
No it's a complete rejection of weapon diversity. Making only DPS matter outside of sneaking is a horrible design choice.


Every good RPG game made has done this.
AHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH



--Maces do armor piercing damage, so they should be used when facing an enemy boss that has high armor.
ARFsf46635£%Q£%FAS!!!!!!! WHAT! We've already established Fallout 3 has no system for armour piercing because DR does not reflect armour realistically but is just damage reduction, so how the FUCK does that work? DT allows for armour piercing because high damage per hit weapons are more effective against armour, e.g a mace would do more DPS against an armoured target than weapons which would typically have higher DPS because it has a higher damage per hit and so is less affected by DT. Which is unlike Fallout 3 where the sword would still be magically more effective against armoured targets because the DR is just a percentage reduction.





-EXCEPT YOU DON'T, as mathematically proven before,the only weapons DT makes you use are the ones with the highest overall damage,
No it makes you use certain weapons for certain roles, high damage per shot weapons against heavily armoured targets and for when you're sneaking, middling weapons against moderately armoured ones and high dps machine guns against lightly armoured ones.

the only weapons DT makes you use are the ones with the highest overall damage, since, no matter what you use, they will take the same damage no matter what DT they have, thus making using any other weapon besides the AMR, or holrifle, not maximumly effective.
Except of course those weapons suck when you have to fight multiple enemies.

whereas DR forces you to carry a bunch of different types of weapons depending on the situation, and forces you to switch between then as combat changes.
No DR means you spray the machine gun till they're dead unless you're sneaking, talk about boring.

using sniper rifles for those first long range sneak attack shots, then going to an assault rifle as they get closer, and using pistols for non armored, or low armroed, targets where wasting your assault rifle rounds would be a waste.
Which of course doesn't apply to Fallout 3 at all, because
A) ammo is easy to get and there is no pentaly for carrying as much as you like.
B) There is no reason to use the pistol in any situation because without DT the assault rifle would simply be the better option and you may aswell use the highest DPS weapon against even the lowest of enemies unless it would be so overkill it would do more damage than they could take in one only shot. In NV you would use different weapons because against a weaker enemey a weapon with low damage per shot but high DPS may actually be more effective than a weapon with higher damage per shot but lower DPS, but this would also be the inverse against heavily armoured targets which is unlike Fallout 3 where the highest DPS is simply the best.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
I'm always torn on this question, because there are elements of both games that I really love, but both have got major flaws as well.

Personally, I love the theme and atmosphere of Fallout 3 more. It just feels more desolate, and like I really am in a post-apocalyptic world. The music is more haunting in conjunction with the area around you, the environment is more dynamic and engaging in so many subtle ways. However I did run into some really frustrating bugs once I downloaded "The Pitt" DLC, like game breaking "Oops, the game somehow wiped my save file and put me back to lvl 1 outside Vault 101" kind of bugs.

Fallout New Vegas however, had a GREAT system that I loved, the Hardcore system, and the repair/mechanic stuff to let you make new weapons, and salvage other weapons for parts to fix your preferred type. And the faction system as well. However I just didn't feel the story in NV. It was very dull to me, I didn't have much drive to follow it, and I've yet to finish the game, because I get bored with New Vegas at about the halfway point every time I've played it. It didn't feel like an apocalypse, it felt like I was just hanging out in Arizona or something.


If I had my wish, I'd have the Fallout 3 game, with Fallout New Vegas mechanics system. That would be almost a perfect game for me.
 

Insanityblues

New member
May 15, 2011
28
0
0
This is a tough one for me... Fallout 3 was one of the first western RPGs I was able to play on my own laptop.
I must have spent over a hundred hours into that game. It has a special place in my heart is what I'm saying.
However, Objectively, I must admit that New Vegas is a better game.
 

ShinobiJedi42

New member
May 7, 2012
79
0
0
Fallout 3 is one of my favorite video games of all time. I couldn't get into New Vegas. I really tried, too. I spent about sixteen hours playing New Vegas but it never hit me the same way as Fallout 3. I've bought the DLC since I set it down, so I'll likely give it another shot sometime.
 

Kungfu_Teddybear

Member
Legacy
Jan 17, 2010
2,714
0
1
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
I prefer Fallout New Vegas over all, but Fallout 3 is better for atmosphere hands down. Fallout New Vegas is better at pretty much everything else.
 

hermes

New member
Mar 2, 2009
3,865
0
0
Fallout 3

NV takes a long time to get as open as Fallout 3. You can go pretty much anywhere right after the tutorial mission, but NV is designed to follow a path until you reach the strip. For a Fallout game, to be lineal is anatopism to what I want in those games.
 

ilayoeli

New member
Jul 30, 2014
10
0
0
Definitely New Vegas:
Better writing (out of this world), better quest design, less linear story, more memorable characters, more meaningful and multi-layered decisions, more complex and varied weaponry, enemies don't scale to you level, better crafting, more content overall...
Just better...
 

JamesStone

If it ain't broken, get to work
Jun 9, 2010
888
0
0
Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
JamesStone said:
If money comes your way soon...

Get Fallout 3 first, the mods are better and it is the pillars in which FNV was built. I recommend Mothership Zeta Crew, Powered Power Armors, Enhanced Camera, Fellout, Crimson Caravan, and some High Textures thingies and Unlimited Companions. The atmosphere is simply amazing.

Then get New Vegas, and you'll appreciate it much, much more. Everything is improved from Fallout 3, it is simply jaw-dropping the first time you play NV after finishing Fallout 3. The mods aren't as epic as Mothership Zeta Crew, but if you know how to pick, the experience can be one of the best you've ever had (Tip: get everything EVERYTHING from Someguy2000).


IF your money will be short for a while, get FNV. It is simply the superior game.
Unlimited companions would break Fallout 3. As it is, three regular companions, not the three broken ones who have unbeatable health thanks to a bug in Broken Steel, could take on the final mission with low end gear at late game. Fuck, Charon plus the Brotherhood chick could beat anything the game throws at you if they teamed up. It doesn't help that three (Dogmeat, the Mr Handy and Fawkes) of the small handful of companions simply aren't logical to keep with you as their health makes them impossible to kill ruining any point in the game.

Secondly, Fellout is one of the stupidest mods of the entire of Fallout 3 to get. Its not really the clear skys, that was fine. Its the fact that some of the textures in the game don't 'appear' green tinted, because their colour was designed to negate the effect on them so it looked better. Because of that, many things look EXTREMELY bad in Fellout, as the colour is often even weirder then the green tint ever was.

Not to mention that Fellout completely destroys Fallout 3's art style.
It's advice. The quintessentials. Meaning, if you feel it's too easy, just get some mods to harden it the fuck up. It's merely there to improve roleplayability.

And that's a problem with your mod in particular. Fellout is designed with that in mind, and while playing at medium settings AND max settings I didn't notice anything. And if it's so bad for you, again, GET SOME GODDAMNED TEXTURE MODS.

And no, they aren't "Impossible to kill" because any sensible person would be using the unnoficial patches, which fix the BUG (yes bug) which makes their health scale to ridiculous values. Simply put, you're talking out of your ass in most of your affirmations.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
JazzJack2 said:
-Utterly false, D&D the board game started off that way, and early CRPGs copied it, because both shared similar technological limitations, that does not mean all CRPGs since then are made on that basis. Please stop with the RPg historical revisionism, i got tired of that with anthraxus.

-If you dont move during combat sure..... but who does that? I did the entire battle of hoover dam with the AMR, with tons of Legion enemies bum rushing me, didn't die once, really, its not difficult.

-I am not sure you know how slugs in-game work.

-I already mentioned them.
--Single shot rifles are best for long range sneak attacks.
--Assault rifles and the like are best for general combat.
--Miniguns and gatling lasers are best for swarms of large numbers of weak enemies.
--Pistols are best for lower tier monsters such as mole rats that you shouldn't waste better weapon ammo on.
Its literally the exact same system half life 2, and most other competent FPS game use.

DT however gives us
--Single shot rifles are general purpose combat weapon useful is most situations.
--Assault rifles are general purpose combat weapons useful in most situations.
--Miniguns and gatling lasers are general purpose combat weapons useful in most situations.
--Pistols are general purpose combat weapons useful in most situations.
Its a "anything can be used at pretty much any time since the amount of DT the enemy has doesn't really change how much damage you will do ever.

-I never said that it would be good game design to make power armor reisst that much damage from small arms fire, I was just printing out a bit of lore.

Except, as proven before, when facing high tier weapons like the AMr, used by white legs in the Honest Hearts DLC, or other similar high end enemy weaponry, like end game legion weapons, DT gives you a whopping ONE more hit to survive. Whereas DR gives several.

A. Power armor is made to resist everything, that's the whole point of power armor.
B. It offers 60 DR, you forgot to add in the helmets DR.
C. it offering less overall damage negation then NV's power armor is
D. Except if a pistol was as efficient as piercing armor as a rifle then it would be doing the same damage as one... but it doesn't. because its a weaker gun.

-Except, you haven't, as proven with the AMR comparison, against anything that is either low tier of high tier weaponry, DT does nothing, you only proved medium end weaponry.

-I dont know why would armor resist the same damage from various weaponry? ask DT, since it resists as much damage from a rolling pin as vault security armor does, whereas DR makes rolling pins do less damage then they did, while still making them weaker then pistols.

-Except DPS isn't the key factor outside of sneaking, where are you getting this absurd logic from?

-It is though...... even shitty RPGs like Drago nage made certain weapons better for certain situations, New Vegas just made everything general purpose.

-Are you really this illiterate? it was an EXAMPLE OF ANOTHER GAME'S WEAPON DIVERSITY.

-Except, it provably doesn't, it just lets every weapon be used all the time since DT is ineffective in changing NPC damage both at the beginning and end games.

-No, DR means use weapons like they are supposed to be used instead of using weapons based on fashion preference.

-You obviously haven't played many FPSs... or RPGs for that matter, wasting bullets at all is idiotic, regardless of how many you find.

also
>not self limiting how much ammo you carry
I bet you are one of those type of people who plays a game like Skyrim, willingly chooses to join every guild, or use map fast travel and then complains the game didn't prevent you from doing it,
 

Someone Depressing

New member
Jan 16, 2011
2,417
0
0
I think NV is a good example of a game that is better than its prequel; or at the very least, you can tell it's trying to improve. It's not a great game; a good one that you can entertain yourself with before it bugs out and crashes, but still a good game.

It improved many things that Fallout 3 slipped up on, and while Fallout 3 never did give you that crushing feeling of dread and confusion that the first two games loved giving you, New Vegas did, and it actually forced me to strategise, handle resources carefully... kind of like I was playing a game from the 90's that didn't flip the fuck out every other minute and crash to the desktop.
 

The Random Critic

New member
Jul 2, 2011
112
0
0
Someone Depressing said:
I think NV is a good example of a game that is better than its prequel; or at the very least, you can tell it's trying to improve. It's not a great game; a good one that you can entertain yourself with before it bugs out and crashes, but still a good game.

It improved many things that Fallout 3 slipped up on, and while Fallout 3 never did give you that crushing feeling of dread and confusion that the first two games loved giving you, New Vegas did, and it actually forced me to strategise, handle resources carefully... kind of like I was playing a game from the 90's that didn't flip the fuck out every other minute and crash to the desktop.
You could always mod it in though...

Though I got to admit New Vegas Hardcore mod was enjoyable (not that it's hard or anything, but I like my realism)

DT could've been better, now that I've think of it

I think some of the dlc, Honest Heart mostly comes to mind, focuses more on exploration which is kinda simlar to Fallout 3/Skyrim. Though dead money did reward careful exploration, it was more of a experiment on the devolper part then anything else, sadly it did not work cause it didn't sell well :(

Overall, at the end of the day, while I enjoy both. I like new vegas better simply due to the lack of level scaling. (along with their politics monologue and whatnot)... Please note, the lack of level scaling this does not mean the game is automatically harder, as in matter of fact. New Vegas is in many ways much easier than 3.
 

Aethryl

New member
Jul 16, 2014
9
0
0
I would have to recommend buying the ultimate editions of both and getting Tale of Two Wastelands: http://taleoftwowastelands.com/ which imports Fallout 3 into New Vegas with a subway to connect them.

Basically it lets you play both games with the same character.

You probably want to get the mod before you start playing because if you start in New Vegas and then install the mod adding the beginning quests for Fallout 3 manually is a pain.
 

Leemaster777

New member
Feb 25, 2010
3,311
0
0
New Vegas, no question.

I always see people saying that FO3 had a better story and better environments, but neither one of those makes sense to me.

The Capital Wasteland was boring. I'm sorry, it just was. The Mojave, on the other hand, was very interesting. All sorts of interesting sights to see there. It was definitely the liveliest desert I've ever seen.

The story of FO3 never really did anything for me either. It just felt like an excuse to "go here and do things", and then do it again somewhere else. New Vegas actually had alot going on, and your actions actually FELT like they had some weight, since, well, they DO, considering how much things can drastically change depending on your actions.