Poll: Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas? Who cares! (rant)

[Kyrian007]

I (much like the op) really think FO3 vs NV is one of the dumbest arguments in videogame. Both games are great, there are a few differences but they really offset. NV has slightly better crafting, but FO3 has the craftable weapons lacking in NV. NV is a little bigger and more open, but FO3's wasteland seems busier and more populated. You don't have to walk for hours just to get something to happen. NV's factions and story is more complex, but it's much, much buggier. And plenty of other plus/minus that all seem to equal out. And are silly considering both games are really good. I've just always thought it wasn't really important for history to know "which was best." Frankly despite the differences, I consider them very similar games. Just with a different specific story. Just like any 2 different games in a franchise. Anybody who thinks one is significantly different or "worse" than the other... is just wrong.

 

[scorptatious]

NoMutantsAllowed...

Ugh.

From my experience, so many of these people hold the original games in high regard and refer to the newer games as the worst games ever made.

One person even has this as his signature:

"People enjoy Fallout 3"

"People enjoy heroin too."

Oh goody, you're comparing people who like a game you don't like to drug addicts. You seem like a pleasant person.

As for what I think about the games. I prefer the original games and New Vegas, but 3 was good in it's own way as well. And I have no problems with people preferring it over the other games.

FnV and F3 Aside. That shit made me laugh. I've been to NmA. And i'm willing to put aside a lot of guff just to play F2 restoration. But yeah, that sentence, that happens.

If there's anything about NMA that I'll compliment it's the F2 restoration mod made by killap. That dude is cool.

 

[Fox12]

I have never played a Fallout game so should I play fallout 3 or NV first ?

They're so different it depends. Fallout 3 felt like a real apocalypse. There's not much of a main story, but the exploration, side quests, and environments are much better. New Begas is more "colorful." The main plot is really good, the followers are amazing, and there's really good writing. However, it doesn't feel like a post apocalypse story at all. Its more sci-fi. There's also not nearly as much exploration. Both are good, and both are cheap. You can probably find both of the GotY editions for about $10 a piece at GameStop.

 

[Itdoesthatsometimes]

I think it would serve Bethesda well to make Fallout games in the same style as the first two games. They could knock those games out at a fraction of the cost as the open world games. Fallout purists are happy with an almost yearly release of a fallout game they like, Bethesda fans are happy with the occasional release of a fallout they like, and the rest of us are happy with a whole lot of Fallouts.

 

[darkfox85]

[Read with the voice of Desmond Lockheart in your head]

Here fucking here.
I couldn't agree with the OP more. He said nothing new, but damn if it wasn't on the nose.

And there's a very special place for the F3 vs NV wars. As a creature of the internet, I've seen the Mass Effect whining and anything involved in System Shock 2 compared to the Bioshock series, console wars and PC gamming, that stupid L4D2 thing, various imbalance issues with certain games, whatever the fuck is going on with Dragon Age, and a metric ton of scathe upon certain titles not smart enough, or too pretentious, or whatnot, and I'm prepared to say that the F3 vs NV wars are the stupidest and most fucking infuriating of them all. (Not counting the waves of frightening hate *real people* inspire from certain factions.)

I respect the opinion that these games are deceptively different from each other, but I'm another one of those mentally defective freaks who really loves both games with almost erotic passion. In my personal top 10 GOAT, one of them holds the #1 spot and the other is comfy at #5.

But I don't know if this is just me, but I see a lot more of this shit coming from the Pro NV Anti-F3 camp than anywhere else? Personal bias on my part? Probably. No, definitely. But come on. The dedication to lore is very nice but the vicious attacks on its "behalf" are beyond pathetic. Seriously, find me a counterpoint to the viciously moronic "baby?s first Fallout" quip to fans of 3 and I'll happily leap on my own sword. Oh I don't doubt there are fucking pricks on the other side as well, but they do seem to lack the slogans.

Because on this very site I saw some jackass post a link to his blog where he accused anyone of liking Fallout 3 as sheeple who're lowering the standards of videogame writing. And of course, everyone on the escapist was backslapping him for saying that. Another choice cut was someone telling this forum in no uncertain terms that NV was *objectively* the better game, and if you disagreed you were wrong. I really wish I could find that post. But I?m not forgetting it.


And now my obligatory F3 vs NV opinion:

Fallout 3 had better: Side-Quests, Combat, Exploration:

New Vegas had better: Main Plot, Challenge, Mechanics:

Take all that for Fallout 4 and you've one HELL of a game! But until then, all the swearing of Desmond Lockheart doesn't come close to how I feel. /rant.


But seriously I really, really fucking love these games but can never get anywhere talk about them without falling into shit. PM me and we'll talk about them until the rapture.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I'm a fan of New Vegas more than Fallout 3 because it locks up less, New Vegas I can play the whole story with maybe 2 crashes to the desktop, with Fallout 3 it's 30 minutes between the game freezing.

I guess you don't have them for the ps3. I have never had a game crash on me more (on any platform) than New Vegas on the ps3. Not just freezing up but also crashing right to the xmb; the only ps3 game I have that ever did that.

 

[endtherapture]

I'm not really bothered except I get slightly bothered when people diss New Vegas as "shit game" because it's "boring" "has multiple endings you have to play the game 4 times fuck that" and "not got an apocalypse" feel, it's really unfair.

 

[Tom_green_day]

The NoMutantsAllowed Effect

Any minor mention of either of the newest Fallouts will result in every post thereafter to explicitly state why either one is clearly superior to the other. Any disagreement will always mean the opposing party doesn't understand what Fallout is supposed to be about. All arguments must be carried out in numerical list format.

And You know what? She (or he) is absolutely right. And I'm fucking sick of it.

So when you START a topic mentioning the newest Fallouts, the whole thread will devolve into mindless shit-throwing.
I find it cute how people think being like the originals is a good thing. But let's do this the proper way: is Liam Neeson in New Vegas? No? Well good try.
EDIT: OH I forgot my main point. I think the dispute is because there's inevitably going to be a Fallout 4. People who prefer NV would love it to be more like that. People who prefer 3 would love it to be more like that. I can genuinely say that if 4 takes anything from NV then I'll be disappointed as I didn't have fun with New Vegas. But that's just my opinion and I can see how people would prefer it.

 

[Lobster9]

I find there is a similar problem with Bioshock (albeit less common) where it can be difficult to admit to liking the Bioshock series on some websites without a System Shock fan attacking you. (Disclaimer: I love System Shock too!)

There is nothing wrong with disliking something, and there is nothing wrong with trying to convince others of your opinion. The problem is that your opinion is going to count for less if all your points come packaged with childish insults and aggressive character assassination.

Sadly a lot of online forums suffer from some form of entrenched opinion, where all arguments against the popular viewpoint are crushed and ridiculed, rather than discussed and explored. It is often the case that the more focused and niche the forum, the more hard line the view.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

..... I might owe FalloutJack an apology for inadvertently starting this.

Just to clarify: the Escapist is not like the hive of scum and villainy known as No Mutants Allowed. I made that reference as an effect on the site, that superior and elitist attitude that pops up whenever a thread devolves into this kind of behavior. However, we aren't anywhere near as bad, I promise you that.

But yes, sir. You are indeed correct. It does not matter which one is "better", because the Fallout game that everyone loves has already been released. That's right. Whether you prefer New Vegas for its call backs to the writing style of Fallout 2 or Fallout 3 for introducing you to this great series as fresh as the writing style of Fallout 1, either way the Fallout game that you love is already here and is one of the newest entries in the franchise.

Even with my personal preferences, I myself absolutely love both.

Bethesda will be taking over the development for Fallout 4, so for fans of Fallout 3's style of atmosphere, the future is set for us. Will Obsidian get another chance at a Fallout entry for fans of New Vegas? Possibly, but it may be a while:

We are not into annual franchises ... These are big games that take a long time and folks need to understand that we have a very certain way of going about things.

Regardless of when we'll see another Obsidian Fallout game, you can at least be sure that both development teams are going to take their time and craft an experience worth having. I believe the future is going to be a bright one. Brighter than the sun...

 

[Someone Depressing]

I'm a big fan of the Fallout games, but really, NV was basically just Fallout 3 with some other stuff. I'm only speaking in gameplay terms, because these games are about humanity's struggle, and you are simply a watcher; in 1 you were trying to save a small colony of forsaken humans. In 2, it's the same thing. 3 was sort of an exception. I don't like NV's story because it makes the player out to be an all-important character, just better than the rest.

Really, I preffer 3 over NV, for not crashing constantly.

 

[loc978]

This thread makes me picture these:

Growing arms and legs, then beating the shit out of the one that never happened [http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mnalYbUYKv0MIkVP8ZHxoqQ.jpg] to the tune of Why Can't We Be Friends [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5DmYLrxR0Y8].

But yes, even in setting up that picture I showed my bias. Fallout 3 hanging out with Fallout Tactics. Don't get me wrong, I love both the DC spinoff and the Chicago spinoff as well as the west coast trilogy... but I do think a little bit of re-titling would settle some of my more excitable brethren down.

...and then, of course, comes the inevitable... I'll never understand how it's even possible to play a Fallout game with other than a keyboard and mouse. No malice, just confusion.

 

[deathbydeath]

But let's do this the proper way: is Liam Neeson in New Vegas? No? Well good try.

Touche, Tom_green_day. Touche.

OH I forgot my main point. I think the dispute is because there's inevitably going to be a Fallout 4. People who prefer NV would love it to be more like that. People who prefer 3 would love it to be more like that. I can genuinely say that if 4 takes anything from NV then I'll be disappointed as I didn't have fun with New Vegas. But that's just my opinion and I can see how people would prefer it.

I generally hear two arguments leveled against Fallout 3 whenever this sort of shitstorm arises. The first is that Bethesda didn't understand the subtleties of the first two games. This is undeniable but it doesn't necessarily affect the end product and shouldn't be argued here (If this turns into a flaming match I swear I will [CENSORED BY YOUR LOCAL MODERATORS. HAVE A NICE DAY.]). The second series of complaints have to do with the fact that Bethesda's version of the Fallout setting doesn't make much sense and is holier than the Pope. For example, why was Megaton built around an undetonated bomb with no nearby food/water sources? Why is there a rich/poor dichotomy when there isn't much of an economy to speak of and not many people have jobs? MrBTongue made a pretty good video* regarding this and the appropriate narrative techniques but again, plot holes don't necessarily break a work or make it unenjoyable. They are flaws, though, and hopefully Bethesda will take notes from Obsidian gasp heresy to improve on that in the sequel.

Still though, the F3/NV argument is mostly a whirlwind of preferences, but there are enough strengths/flaws on both sides to keep it from fading into irrelevance.

*EDIT-I couldn't embed a link in the post, so I'll just type it here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0

 

[Billy D Williams]

Well, as a fan of Fallout 1, 2, 3 and New Vegas, in the FO3 VS. New Vegas Battle I'd have to say I think FO3 is the far superior game. I just thought it had a much better world than NV did, Fallout 3 had a world that felt like the appocolypse came in and just fucked everything up in a million different ways, NV felt like I was in a mostly empty desert that was well guarded from the nuclear war (probably because it was). For me that tips the scales to FO3, but I don't get angry when someone else likes NV better. I don't see how or why (I know story is a big reason for some people, but I don't understand how anyone could really consider either game to have a good story. They aren't bad, but they aren't good either), but they're both great games.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

FO1 is still tops. As for the FPS's NV is a tiny bit better but both are still piss easy lulzy crap fests compared to Morrowind and FO1-2.

 

[daveNYC]

Liked both games, though in hindsight the FO3 story was... lacking. The initial motivation to leave the vault is clunky, some of the hoops you have to jump through with Three Dog are annoying, and the end game is fighting to take back the water-o-matic so you can turn it on, never mind that the guys who control it are planning on turning it on anyway.

New Vegas had a much better initial hook. You've been shot, and you're going to go kick some ass on the guy who shot you. Or something. Plus the various factions you could throw in with were cool.

Either way I'm a sucker for the sandbox games, so I'm quite happy with both games and all the DLC I got for them too.

On the DLC front though, Old World Blues was awesome on about every level possible.

 

[Muspelheim]

No, it really doesn't mean anything. They had different focus, and tried different things. They are both absolutely fantastic games in their own way.

But fandom makes fools of us all, I suppose. This IP in particular is simply too sensitive and hallowed to work on painlessly. It's still well worth doing, but there will be fandom outrage, no matter what.

I'm not really bothered except I get slightly bothered when people diss New Vegas as "shit game" because it's "boring" "has multiple endings you have to play the game 4 times fuck that" and "not got an apocalypse" feel, it's really unfair.

Very true. Both games do get rather unfair beatings for focusing on different things and not living up to immediate expectations. In the spirit of New Vegas, I'd say that there is plenty 'a room in town for the both of 'em, y'all.

Of course, in a perfect world, Obsidian and Bethesda would join forces to create an even better game with their skills combined. But it would be a world without the bad kind of producers, and it's not the world we've got. :<

 

[Orekoya]

I answered yes to the poll but saying no the original post.

Yes, it matters. This is comparing two products, and one is better than the other. That kind of blasé dismissive attitude has always irked me. If taste or preference don't matter to you, eating one's own feces is a fine dietary choice. The human digestive tract is grossly ineffective and human waste tends to have plenty of leftover nutrients. While poop isn't sterile like urine is, the bateria within it is 100% your own thus not dangerous in the least to consume. Furthermore since the food has already gone through some stages of pre-digestion, it makes it that much easier on the entire gastrointestinal tract to process.


No, it doesn't matter enough to start a flame war over.

 

[Action Jack]

I finished Fallout 3, but there were long stretches of boredom. A lot of walking through samey environments, not enough to do in towns, the same enemies over and over, and the automated targeting system and ability to pause at any time and administer 20 stimpaks while my enemies waited patiently meant that more often than not the only difficult thing about combat was keeping Dogmeat from dying, and I solved pretty much every problem just by clicking on the "make a speech challenge" option.

New Vegas was a lot more interesting to me. Hardcore mode wasn't perfect but a step in the right direction, ironsight aiming in combat made the game playable without VATS, reputation being differentiated from karma meant that you could secretly be an awful person but still have everybody like you, speech challenges were divided into other skills and the writing changed dramatically if you weren't knowledgeable enough to pass them (often with hilarious results), and the characters just generally seemed more engaging.