You can build all your skills to 100, even without the Broken Steel level raise. I did it with a character once, it was fun hunting down all the skill booksRottweiler said:
Poll: Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas: Which did you like more?
- Thread starter Wolfram23
- Start date
Recommended Videos
New Vegas had the gameplay, sure.
But fallout three had an atmosphere so well done that it remains one of my favourite games of all time. Summed up perfectly by the moment you first step out of the vault into the sun, as your eyes adjust to the light you begin to make sense of your surroundings and see destruction all the way to the horizon.
"OK" you think "I'm going to enjoy this".
[sub]Also, new Vegas pissed me of with impenetrable force-fields (FO3 had them too, but to a lesser extent). If I can hill-climb it it should be fair game.[/sub]
But fallout three had an atmosphere so well done that it remains one of my favourite games of all time. Summed up perfectly by the moment you first step out of the vault into the sun, as your eyes adjust to the light you begin to make sense of your surroundings and see destruction all the way to the horizon.
"OK" you think "I'm going to enjoy this".
[sub]Also, new Vegas pissed me of with impenetrable force-fields (FO3 had them too, but to a lesser extent). If I can hill-climb it it should be fair game.[/sub]
Having an altitude cap? In Fallout 3 if I needed to get to the other side of a wall style ridge I could jump and climb my way over. In New Vegas it is so amazingly arbitrary I wonder how they decided which rocks you cannot climb.ChupathingyX said:
I also prefer the BoS in the CW; they were more likable so I actually felt like I wanted to join them and fight for them.
Finally, a distinct lack of Three Dog, I don't care how convoluted it would be, just bring Three Dog in to replace Mr New Vegas. Whenever I hear Mr New Vegas I imagine an extremly tired and depressed person (/AI) as opposed to Three DOgs lively radio shows, with more variation and better songs.
Otherwise I prefer NV in most ways I can think of ATM, factions, scenery, weapons, mods, companions, locations etc. etc.
Fallout 3 was just better.
The isolation made everything feel more grave. Also, it was less complex with all of the item creation. Sometimes simplicity is just plain better. New Vegas just felt wrong to me. Even if it wasn't bugged up the ass, a lot of the missions felt so meaningless. I cared more about my character in fallout 3.
The isolation made everything feel more grave. Also, it was less complex with all of the item creation. Sometimes simplicity is just plain better. New Vegas just felt wrong to me. Even if it wasn't bugged up the ass, a lot of the missions felt so meaningless. I cared more about my character in fallout 3.
New Vegas was a piece of shit. I've lost count of the times things have spawned underneath the fucking floor.
The game was a literal copy+paste of Fallout 3 with some new quests and some new characters. It's still a buggy mess and it still bores me to death.
Fallout 3, on the other hand, was fucking fantastic.
EDIT: Also, everyone in New Vegas tries to make out that there's some kind of war being constantly fought, but every single fucking part of the game is as barren as the starting town. You'll occasionally see 4 legion guys fighting 4 NCR guys, but it's always the fucking same. 4 guys spawn in a spot, and 4 other guys walk into their spawn point. A few hours later, everyone'll respawn.
At least FO3 had a good reason for being so barren: it was a wasteland. The populated areas actually felt populated.
The game was a literal copy+paste of Fallout 3 with some new quests and some new characters. It's still a buggy mess and it still bores me to death.
Fallout 3, on the other hand, was fucking fantastic.
EDIT: Also, everyone in New Vegas tries to make out that there's some kind of war being constantly fought, but every single fucking part of the game is as barren as the starting town. You'll occasionally see 4 legion guys fighting 4 NCR guys, but it's always the fucking same. 4 guys spawn in a spot, and 4 other guys walk into their spawn point. A few hours later, everyone'll respawn.
At least FO3 had a good reason for being so barren: it was a wasteland. The populated areas actually felt populated.
I liked fallout 3 better because the expiration was interesting things seemed more solid and less buggy and the story was absolutely told better. The expiration gets special mention because the environments were way more variedly and interesting as well as being complex and full of neat things to see and find. There were sewers abandoned city's, military insalations, secret caves and man made tunnels, A HUGE series of subway tunnels connecting isolated parts of the city, open countrysides and lakes.
Both.
Each has a few things better and overall New Vegas might be better specially for those that played the previus fallouts and missed the humour they had. All that you can find in NV and I also liked the weapon and ammo crafting. It's small things that make a real RPG.
Each has a few things better and overall New Vegas might be better specially for those that played the previus fallouts and missed the humour they had. All that you can find in NV and I also liked the weapon and ammo crafting. It's small things that make a real RPG.
I picked Fallout 3 mostly because vault diving was a lot more fun than in New Vegas.
Sure there are vaults in NV, but they're either tied to a quest or just don't have that much interesting stuff in them, whereas in Fallout 3 each vault had an interesting story to discover and was actually able to be navigated.
seriously, some of the vaults in NV were just mazes, which was really irritating. (I got lost in the one with the armory, despite having a MAP)
Sure there are vaults in NV, but they're either tied to a quest or just don't have that much interesting stuff in them, whereas in Fallout 3 each vault had an interesting story to discover and was actually able to be navigated.
seriously, some of the vaults in NV were just mazes, which was really irritating. (I got lost in the one with the armory, despite having a MAP)
I liked both fallout 3 and NV but NV wins my vote. I just thought it was whole lot different from fallout 3 and even though I have this nagging feeling in the back of my skull whenever I play it I still enjoy it. (I've worked out what the nagging feeling was. I wasn't fully understanding why I was no longer a invisible ghoul cowboy who could kill everything in one shot.) Though there have been moments where it's failed me for example the speech checks now require a certain amount of points invested to work instead a percentage chance of working and the fact I want to help both House and the Brotherhood but can only have one or the other...
Fallout 3 actually felt like a wasteland. New Vegas was just a shooter in a faction-based desert. It was INSANELY easy as well, even on very hard with hardcore on. Fucking retarded.
The fallout series is dead anyway.
New Vegas was a nice game, good twist. Where NV failed for me was the ending. Once the credits roll, you're done. That's it. Start over. No free-roam like in FO3.
That sucked.
And FO3 seemed....bigger. Much bigger. More land to travel etc. If I wanted to walk from Rivet City to the mountain in the NW corner of the map in FO3, it would have taken me a long while.
In NV, a diagonal walk across the map would take only minutes. At least it seemed that way. NV seemed smaller.
That sucked.
And FO3 seemed....bigger. Much bigger. More land to travel etc. If I wanted to walk from Rivet City to the mountain in the NW corner of the map in FO3, it would have taken me a long while.
In NV, a diagonal walk across the map would take only minutes. At least it seemed that way. NV seemed smaller.
Fallout 3.New Vegas had better writing, better game play and so on.But it didn't fill me with awe like 3, it felt kinda disjointed and like oblivion where i don't really felll like exploring when i've got nothing to do.Also the bugs(OMFG!).I felt that if it was put together better it could have been great.I loved the first fallouts and it reminded me of fallout 2(and i like all the references),But that may not have been a good thing fallout 2's nutritive structure. just wouldn't work in modern graphics(3d etc.).I can't wait till obsidian make a new one on the new engine skyrim is running on,it was dated when they used it in oblivion (also i think they rushed it out to fast after the first one).
(also i think they rushed it out to fast after the first one).
I agree with you about it feeling small,but remeber the ending of fallout 3?Hop-along Nussbaum said:
You die no free-roaming!
I also agree with the posters saying that FO3 made me want to explore. The DC Ruins were awesome. Like a childrens playground. You never knew what was just around the corner (especially if your karma level was grossly skewed one way or the other.).
But in NV, you were just in the friggin desert. Whoop-de-doo. And then you get to Vegas, and that was it. The Vegas strip. Big deal. Nothing unexpected. Once you had seen it all, you were over it.
But in NV, you were just in the friggin desert. Whoop-de-doo. And then you get to Vegas, and that was it. The Vegas strip. Big deal. Nothing unexpected. Once you had seen it all, you were over it.
A lot of people have only played the game of the year version, which let you continue on afterward.hecticpicnic said: