Poll: Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas: Which did you like more?

[ajh93]

Fallout 3 would be my choice,basically because it had more missions and stuff to keep you occupied (DLC not included).New Vegas is just...empty.
sure you can choose what factions you want to be allies with,and the characters are better written,but it takes more than the main campaign for games like the Fallout series to hold gamers over.i did like that they made the unique weapons look different though,nice touch.

 

[mexicola]

Fallout: New Vegas for me.

And anyone who says Fallout 3 is wrong.

 

[Terminate421]

Story wise, Gun wise, and difficulty wise: New Vegas

Dungeon Wise, Scary Wise, Enemy Rising in Difficulty Wise: Fallout 3

 

[supermariner]

New vegas for me
The characters, the setting, the companion system, iron sights, no longer having to rely heavily on an underground train system anymore

Sure Fallout 3 was my game of the year when it came out
thats how much I like it
I just think New vegas does it all better

but i'm loving how close this poll is

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

i will admit this is truly...amazing

basically deadset equality on likes/dislikes of each game and the other. I might have to go play both games now to re think my feelings about both games..

 

[AlternatePFG]

Wait, why is having almost 100 in every stat by the end of Fallout 3 a plus? By that point, it's pretty much killed any possible character building, by having almost everyone the same (even with a perk that lets you get all 9 SPECIAL)

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

Wait, why is having almost 100 in every stat by the end of Fallout 3 a plus? By that point, it's pretty much killed any possible character building, by having almost everyone the same (even with a perk that lets you get all 9 SPECIAL)

Agreed. Having to decide to sacrifice some skills for others led to varied gameplay and role-playing in New Vegas.

 

[rt052192]

fallout 3 kept my interest more than new vegas. I like new vegas alot but it doesn't have anything new that really kept mt interest. more importantly: skyrim needs to come out now!

 

[Wolfram23]

Everything in New Vegas is better than Fallout 3 except 3 things: The story missions, the main character, and 3 Dog. Liberty Prime, Tranquility Lane, doing tasks for the insane Moira's book, and destroying Raven Rock were just plain awesome. I don't know anything about the Courier, and since I had to experience Lone Wanderer's birth, first steps, and 10th birthday, I feel a bit of more connection to him. Mr. New Vegas just can't compare to 3 Dog. And that's about it.
It sort of reminds me of the difference between Mercenaries 1 and 2.

I sort of agree... I mean, well first off 3 Dog is a million billion trillion times better than Mr. New Vegas, not to mention the songs were way better IMO. Then again, I hardly listen to the radio in game.

Now, I do think FO3 had a better main story arc, BUT, I think New Vegas has better side missions. Many of which I've found myself really getting into, moreso than I did for most FO3 missions.

As for character, I see what you're saying and at the very start of the game I did feel that way. But, after making my way to New Vegas I feel like I've estabilshed my character and her personality fairly well so I can't say I prefer my FO3 char to my FNV char.

 

[Rottweiler]

"2. Fallout 3 had piss poor weapons."

The Shocksword. Being able to *make* a bunch of weapons. Named versions of every one of the weapon types. I completely disagree that New Vegas- which claims to have 'more weapons' but instead has a bunch of variants of single weapons, none of them worth much- has better weapons.


"3. You did it wrong. Remember that New Vegas follows the originals. You have strengths and weaknesses but rely on the team to buffer those weakness and buffer their weaknesses too. NV isn't a mad max lone wanderer. That is just lazy game design to let you become a walking tank."

If you have 30 Levels and cannot become a reasonably self-sufficient, multi-talented PC...*I* am not the one 'doing it wrong'. I think Fallout 3 gave you the option if you put the effort into it, while NV takes away the option no matter how much you do.


"4. Original fallouts. Everything you do is referenced in the ending. Fallout 3's quest stories only seem unconnected because they only covered 5% of what you actually did. NV covers it all."

Being connected in the end and giving Omniscience to NPC's is a far different matter. NV went the 'if you punch a guy in a bar fight you lose faction with people 2000 miles away instantly' route, which if you like that more power to you.

 

[KingofMadCows]

New Vegas. The story is better and the world is much more internally consistent.

There's just so much stuff in FO3 that just don't make any sense. How do all those crappy little towns protect themselves from mutants and raiders? How come there's so much unlooted stuff lying around? The entire main plot made no sense. First of all, how did James know that Project Purity would even be intact after 16 years? Why was Project Purity intact after so long? Considering how the place is filled with high tech stuff, it should have been looted in no time. Why didn't the Enclave take over Project Purity after it was abandoned? How did the people of the Capital Wasteland even survive so long without clean water? So much of the FO3 world just made no sense.

The reputation system in New Vegas is a bit sensitive. Your reputation shouldn't suffer if you use stealth to assassinate a couple of people. However, it's still better than FO3 where you can nuke an entire town and no one seems to care.

 

[TheSquashedOrange]

New Vegas here. I do like fallout 3, but I get the feeling that FF:NV's gameplay is much more superior/balanced (hardcore mode, stimpaks/guns cost a lot, etc.) The faction and reputation system is also great, better than having one overall reputation (karma.) Of course, you could always argue that Fallout 3 set up the game better with life in the vault, but I still think that NV's fine tuned gameplay and more colourful world (plus no subway systems, YAY!!!) make it the superior game.

I do find it interesting how close the two games are in terms of votes. It isn't usually like this, everyone seems to go one way most of the time.

 

[wizard_joe88]

Both are good games with flaws that stop them from being 100% perfect, I loved NV's faction system, but i felt like I was the only one interested in doing anything about the war, couldn't they have added random encounters where opposing factions had squads fighting each other? But F3 was good too, and I liked the different towns in the game (well, the ones with more than 10 people in them) and even then, the smaller towns felt more alive than the actual new vegas city, but then I thought the story was horrible (not writing wise, the actual doing the quest part was dumb) so, I like them both equally

 

[Darks63]

I felt like New vegas had more of the Fallout feel than Fo3 did.

 

[ImSkeletor]

I think New Vegas is better. You should watch Shamus Young's "SpoilerWarning" LP of FALLOUT 3 for EVERY single reason to why.

 

[badgersprite]

They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I preferred the variety of Fallout 3 and found it more interesting to explore, but, to an extent, I think Fallout: New Vegas was better written and had far more interesting characters. It actually integrates moral choice into gameplay way better, has a fascinating "villain" and happens to have my personal favourite examples of LGBT characters in games in the form of Arcade and Veronica.

I would say New Vegas is definitely better, but I'd be lying if I didn't say that I found Fallout 3 more enjoyable at the time I was playing it because at the time it was wholly unlike anything I had played before. If I played them side by side now though I'd probably like New Vegas more.

 

[Sucal]

New Vegas was much better written, actually fit inside the Fallout universe, and I didn't railroad you constantly. Also a much better variety of weapons (to be fair, there are quite a few Fallout 3 weapons in there).

Fallout 3 was good on it's own merits, but as a Fallout game, it's rather meh. The constant railroading on the main story detracted from my enjoyment but the exploration and atmosphere was better than New Vegas's.

I prefer New Vegas though. I really like the design of the quests, and the multiple paths you can take through them that actually make a significant difference.

Edit: Also, you aren't forced to work with the Brotherhood like you were in Fallout 3 (Who were ridiculously out of character in that game) nor any faction for that matter. I felt like my destiny was my own, rather than being forced around by a few unkillable NPC's.

New Vegas doesn't rail road you my ass. I mean seriously.

Obsidian: Oh what's this, you want to head straight to the strip, rather then taking the long way around the mountain and doing all of the fetch quests..? Have three Cazadore's and a deathclaw.

More seriously though, I'm kind of having to go with Fallout Three on this one. Everyone talks about how the brotherhood wasn't in character... yet the brotherhood doesn't really have a character. Considering how many different sub factions have split off and decided that they wanted to actually use their knowledge, rather then just die out *cough* New Vegas *Cough* its obvious that something is wrong with them.

I'm going to get crucified for saying so, but I actually think three is closer in tone to the originals, rather then new vegas. V.A.T.S for example was only created because old beards would have complained that the combat wasn't 'turn based'. Three also had that apocalyptic wasteland vibe to it, rather then a far more shoddy 'gah be a cowboy'.

Its funny, that for all of the 'railroading' I think that Fallout 3 is better for one main reason. You actually make a long term difference. Sure, you could ensure that one faction gets control of the power plant in NV, but in three to four hundred years time that wont matter. In Three however, between Oasis and the Main plot, you could have just ensured the slow but permanent revitalisation of the entire DC hellhole. In a way that is almost impossible to undo.

Not to mention the Pitt, and potentially aiding in the cure of mutation. Its also funny, that despite the Outcasts being jerks who stick to the true purpose, they are still nice then the so called 'true' Brotherhood.

 

[AlternatePFG]

New Vegas was much better written, actually fit inside the Fallout universe, and I didn't railroad you constantly. Also a much better variety of weapons (to be fair, there are quite a few Fallout 3 weapons in there).

Fallout 3 was good on it's own merits, but as a Fallout game, it's rather meh. The constant railroading on the main story detracted from my enjoyment but the exploration and atmosphere was better than New Vegas's.

I prefer New Vegas though. I really like the design of the quests, and the multiple paths you can take through them that actually make a significant difference.

Edit: Also, you aren't forced to work with the Brotherhood like you were in Fallout 3 (Who were ridiculously out of character in that game) nor any faction for that matter. I felt like my destiny was my own, rather than being forced around by a few unkillable NPC's.

New Vegas doesn't rail road you my ass. I mean seriously.

Obsidian: Oh what's this, you want to head straight to the strip, rather then taking the long way around the mountain and doing all of the fetch quests..? Have three Cazadore's and a deathclaw.

Yeah, that's true I'm not denying that you are forced on a single path at the beginning of the game. But they can't simply have you easily killing Deathclaws at the beginning, otherwise they wouldn't seem like much of a threat. I'm talking about the railroading in the campaign, you are given little choice over anything in the main plot.

The Brotherhood was never about being nice, and the fact that they are dying out is the point, they are too reclusive.