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

[Brian Tams]

(I would just like to note before I begin that I do know there are a vast number of individuals that don't act like this. My main beef is with the mobs that derail every fucking discussion. And I'm in a fairly self-righteous mood today, so let me be a fucking self-righteous lunatic for a bit).

"3 was a great post-apocalyptic game that really captured humanities struggle to rebuild after a devastating nuclear war!"
"NV was the true successor to the original fallout series!"
"3 turned a densely populated part of the country into a vast, empty wasteland!"
"Fallout isn't supposed to be about post apocalyptic survival!"
"3 is better!"
"No, NV is better!"
(together) "SCREW YOU!"

Spare me. In another thread, we were talking about "laws" or "observations" that have sprung up around the escapist, and somebody posted the following:

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.

It seems as though every discussion that attempts to approach the two games in a calm debate always devolves into a vitriolic mixture of anger and fanboy fury. People just cannot agree about these games! Its always "Emptiness" this, and "more content" that.

Guess what. I love both games. I love them to death. They're fantastic. I have at least over a hundred total hours on both of them (and that isn't even combined). I've also played the original series (but after I had played 3 and NV). I could talk for days about how each one is a fantastic game and that they both have sprawling, fun to explore worlds (I could also talk for days about how each game is so vast that they appear to be held together by little more than wax paper and the tears of programmers who have been chained to their work stations).

I do, however, love one more than the other. But I won't say which. Why? Because that would incite the inevitable fanboy RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE that always comes along with it.

Can I point something out? The thing that always derails the discussion is someone will make a comment about how New Vegas was "the true successor" (or some shit) to the fallout series, and turn their nose up at 3's own entry. Not because the game isn't good or anything, but because they feel "the true successor" should be the numbered entry, rather than something that was going for a little bit different setting. And then some Fallout 3 fanboy will snap back, and bing-bang-boom, we have our thread war.

So, it seems the problem isn't actually the software. Its the title?

If New Vegas was actually titled Fallout 3, and Fallout 3 was actually titled Fallout: DC Ruins, would we have the constant fights we have now? If so, if everyone's big problem is with the the title of the video game rather than anything the video game has to offer , then you know what? Enough. If that is your problem, that is pretty damn shallow. Grow up. You want "the true successor" to the fallout series? Here's Fallout New Vegas. Go play that. You want something new or didn't like the original series? Here's 3.

You don't give a fuck either way, and just want a quality gaming experience? Oh, hi there New Vegas and 3! I notice the two of you don't spontaneously combust just by sitting next to each other in my gaming library!

How about theis, guys? How about you treat each individual entry (because that is what the fallout games are, they aren't continuations of a single story arc, but each is its own game) as their own game, and judge it like that. /rant

(again, when I refer to "them", I'm referring to the people who ruin our thoughtful discussions with their anger. I also predict some of the forums smarter users to rip my post to shreds since its most likely a damn flawed argument. I do admit that I mostly make flawed argument because I have a hard time getting my thoughts into text. Especially when I'm angry.)

Edit-I would also like to point out that I used to be guilty of this. Very guilty.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I only played about half of Fallout 3, I did enjoy it as I was playing it before a game I really wanted came out. I didn't finish it before said game came out and just never got back to it. I never played the previous Fallouts so I don't care which one is closer to them. From the stuff I heard of Fallout New Vegas, I think I'd like it better just because Obsidian made it and I really hate Bethesda's writing so Fallout 3's mechanics (slightly tweaked most probably) + Obsidian's writing is probably better than Fallout 3. If I were to go and play one of the Fallouts, I think I'd go and start New Vegas instead of finishing Fallout 3 (I still have the game save too).

 

[Elfgore]

Yeah, any thread involving the two newest fallouts always result in a war. Which is sad as they are both amazing games. I too prefer one over the other and have made that point clear in several other threads. I did have one civil debate about it with TheLostKing which ended in an agreement to disagree.

I think it was a good idea for Bethesda to move away from the west coast to the east coast. Like I think it would be okay to expand to Europe, Canada, or maybe even China. It gives a chance for game designers to shine as they think of new factions and lore to go with the new location.

 

[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.

 

[kingthrall]

I like both too. I actually find it good to play both cause It avoids me over-playing and losing that spark to each game.

 

[The Madman]

Maybe someone more familiar with Fallout mods can help me out:

I tried playing Fallout 3 and New Vegas but just could never really get into either. Fallout 3 I disliked and never really got to liking, but New Vegas was actually catching my attention. That is right up until Vegas itself, which was small and lifeless and rife with loading screens. It was just such an anti-climax to finally get to the center of the game, what should have been its equivalent to Amn, Baldur's Gate, or the Citadel, and find it so boring and empty.

I remember reading about a mod out there which opened New Vegas up by tearing down the loading screens and added in a bunch of NPC and events, but then further research made it seem like installing that mod could be a big mistake since it conflicted with a bunch of other stuff and I stopped looking. This was maybe a half-year or so ago.

Was I wrong to stop looking? Is there anything out there which makes Vegas less shitty? I think I might give the game another shot if there was, but my level of caring isn't quite high enough to delve into the cesspool of nude skins and creepy porn mods that seems to litter 'the nexus' unless I know there's some payoff to be had.

 

[w9496]

Some people like Fallout 3, and some people like Fallout New Vegas.

I know that I like New Vegas more than 3, and that's good enough for me. If somebody else likes 3 more, then good for them.

 

[mrvenom]

I liked Fallout 3 for the story and quests, but NV for the mechanics and the overall layout.

 

[keiji_Maeda]

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.

Inb4:better that bioware forums. because, folks on NmA are tophat wearing people of quality in comparison to the aggravating demi-troglodytes that assaults those that claim to "like the artistic integrity of ME3's ending"...That discussion never gets a classy end.

 

[keiji_Maeda]

snip

My guff with F3 was AFTER i finished it, it was fun while it lasted, the ending was underwhelming, but as A gaming experience? It was a pretty Jazzy ride, the writing was underwhelming in comparison to F2 (restored, don't get me starte on the bug-fest that is vanilla). And i like the characters and writing better in FnV. But sure, people get to like both.
Why not.

Also, at least NmA gaves the Fallout 2 restoration mod. so, all praise Killap i guess.

 

[Easton Dark]

Snip

That mod would only affect Vegas by the sounds of it, so who cares what it conflicted with, unless it was a bug fix mod or something. Even without the loading screens though, Vegas is, like, 5 buildings, and one of them is an empty train station with a dirty bathroom. No mod has fixed the underwhelmingness.

 

[Knight Captain Kerr]

There's a user on NMA called "Knight Captain Kerr" total asshole.

Anyway I like Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas. I also like Fallout 1 & 2. Liking the older games and Fallout 3 isn't impossible. I prefer 1, 2 & New Vegas over 3, and I'll argue for why I do. But if you prefer 3 than fine. However there are some less than nice Fallout 3 fans as well as classic Fallout fans.

 

[mohit9206]

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

 

[Directionless]

I guess it kind of does, if only to make sure the following fallouts follow the layout of the imo superior one (NV). To me, FO3 and FONV are very different games.

One is essentially exploring the wasteland at your own volition, while the other is a directed story driven game in which you make allegiances and are delivered consequences to the choices you make along the way.

Without that sense of roleplay; with fleshed out companion characters integrated into the story, multi path story with many different outcomes, and lots of side-quests that further complement the overall story and factions; i can't enjoy myself.

I can't play anymore than 20 or so minutes of Fallout 3, because it is just not what i'm looking for in this type of game. And i guess through some foolish hope that i have, if enough people say it, Bethesda will see that Obsidian's contributions were vital, and integrate some of what they did into Fallout 4. If Fallout 4 is just like FO3 or Skyrim in structure, i won't enjoy it. And that breaks my little heart.

 

[IronMit]

If they were both good and/or limited in the same area's they would be the same game!

I'm happy they are different and some parts are relatively good or bad compared to the other game.

We should be thankful NV is not like other 'sequels' and total trash and we should be happy that fallout 3 holds up to it's 'successor' unlike other franchises.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

One of the reasons I think Fallout 3 and Fallout NV are compared so often is that they reveal the difference in RPG-style Bethesda and Obsidian make, respectively.

Bethesda knows how to make you involved with the world and give you plenty of different out-of-the-way places to explore, while Obsidian's far better at writing and making the quests/story more branching.

A lot of RPG fans are stingy of the Bethesda route being the main way of making RPG's nowadays, which is the "real" reason why they despise Fallout 3.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Yes, I know which one I enjoy more (in the spirit of the thread I wont say which) but I hesitate to say which one is actually better because it really depends on what kind of game you want to play.

One of the reasons I think Fallout 3 and Fallout NV are compared so often is that they reveal the difference in RPG-style Bethesda and Obsidian make, respectively.

Bethesda knows how to make you involved with the world and give you plenty of different out-of-the-way places to explore, while Obsidian's far better at writing and making the quests/story more branching.

A lot of RPG fans are stingy of the Bethesda route being the main way of making RPG's nowadays, which is the "real" reason why they despise Fallout 3.

Another one for you, Obsidian was better at making the conversations seem spontaneous and Bethesda was better at making the actual encounters seem spontaneous.
This part I understand. Both games have very different strengths & weaknesses (which is odd because they are very similar at a glance) which attract different kinds of gamers.
What I never understood is why one group is noticeably more obnoxious than the other.

What I would love is if both studios could team up on an uber-fallout.

 

[Xan Krieger]

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.