Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas
- Thread starter blackrave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Again so soon?
Fallout 3 has the better setting. And I suppose I got used to how it played after awhile, so New Vegas' additions felt strange.
Yeah, Fallout 3 wins.
Fallout 3 has the better setting. And I suppose I got used to how it played after awhile, so New Vegas' additions felt strange.
Yeah, Fallout 3 wins.
I hated Fallout 3. New Vegas is probably one of my top ten favorites.
octafish said:
These two mentlegen pretty much cover my reasons why. I would type it out myself, but I've already done that in identical threads (not a thinly-veiled "use the search bar". It's been a few months since I've seen one I think, so you're OK).j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Depends on how you approach FO3. Take me for instance, I hadn't even HEARD of the Fallout franchise until FO3 was announced. The "previous installments" can go fuck themselves for all I care.j-e-f-f-e-r-s said:
Ten years after the nukes hit? There would still be lethal amounts of radiation, so there would be no game, unless you played as a super mutant. Fallout 3 was about finally giving a slim ray of hope to a landscape that had been stuck in "Godless hellhole" mode due to slavers, unchecked predators, and scarcity of untainted resources, as well as Fantastic Racism between ghouls and normal humans.
Except Caesar was a fucking retard and failed to note that his entire empire was based on conquest. What would he do once he ran out of things to conquer? Everything would fall apart and we'd be back at square one. Took me five seconds to see that. House is obviously the good guy choice, assuming you can hold him to his word that despite being an autocrat of the new society, he wouldn't interfere with people personal lives, beliefs, or freedoms as long as they didn't directly oppose his plan of advancing technology far enough to A) Develop his life extension tech to the point where everyone could have it and B) develop feasible space travel so humans could go out into space and find a new, hopefully unspoiled home.
Assuming you can trust him, that is.
Honestly, the politics concerning the wasteland didn't concern me. My only motivation from the get-go was to find Benny and get my revenge on him for trying to kill me. Then he DIES less than halfway through, so I lose my motivation. Just because some NRA people and House suddenly walk up to me and say "OMG GUY WE NEEDS TO TAKE OVER DIS PLACE BECAUSE OUR PHILOSOPHY IS DA RIGHT ONE FA REALS BRO COME HELP US LOL" doesn't give me ANY personal motive. I already killed Benny, gave house his platinum chip back, so now what? Retire I guess, I did my job and got my revenge, that's all I set out to do.
I don't give two shits about these assholes fighting over a god forsaken desert.
They gave me no reason to.
I found fallout 3 far more immersive, and the original sense of exploration when I exited the vault still sticks with me. Maybe it was New Vegas' use of the same engine, a lot of the same assets and a more barren setting but I definitely preferred Fallout 3
Fallout 3 had a better atmosphere and setting, but New Vegas had much better gameplay, and story if you count the DLC. Which reminds me, the DLC was better in New Vegas.
Fallout Vegas had really awesome gameplay and all of that and it was awesome. Fallout 3 just had a better sense of mood. New Vegas could easily be mistaken for an abandoned desert slum, while the Capitol Wasteland was a wasteland. It was deserted, everything looked ancient and you were almost completely alone in it.
So..I can't really choose. They excel at different things.
So..I can't really choose. They excel at different things.
Both pretty good games but are also quite different. I generally prefer the kind of game that NV was so I like it a lot better.
I can admit that Fallout 3 wasn't the worst thing ever but the writing was really bad which just didn't seem apropriate in a fallout game where the writing is usually the best part.
I can admit that Fallout 3 wasn't the worst thing ever but the writing was really bad which just didn't seem apropriate in a fallout game where the writing is usually the best part.
As has already been said, the mechanics in NV were better, but the environment (and the story for that matter) were better in FO3. FO3 gave off more of a survive amongst the ruins of a destroyed civilization thing, whereas new Vegas was more trying to fit in with one of the rising powers trying to control the land. FO3 was more about surviving, NV was more about rebuilding.
Now, I actually played NV before playing FO3. I enjoyed NV enough to go pick up Fallout 3. I almost instantly fell in love with Fallout 3. Still playing it now. So... Yeah, I prefer Fallout 3.
Now I hope they use the NV mechanics while sticking to the survival theme from FO3 for Fallout 4. I will be very happy.
Now, I actually played NV before playing FO3. I enjoyed NV enough to go pick up Fallout 3. I almost instantly fell in love with Fallout 3. Still playing it now. So... Yeah, I prefer Fallout 3.
Now I hope they use the NV mechanics while sticking to the survival theme from FO3 for Fallout 4. I will be very happy.
I'm sorry for singling you out on this, but this keeps popping up and I just can't understand it.Shanicus said:
Who in Fallout 3 is struggling to survive? NO ONE produces ANYTHING, but there are still settlements around, like Megaton, and they never mention where they get their resources from. Even the Beggars. While they complain about irradiated water, they never ask for rad away, just clean water(they say "I can#t keep drinking this irradiated shit" or something like that), so really, they just don't like the taste of dirty water instead of actually struggling to survive.
Or the hundreds of raiders. There are more raiders around than townspeople and such. Who are they raiding? How can such a big population of raiders be supported by like 3 or 4 settlements with less than 10 people each.
Also food and water is EVERYWHERE. The game says it has been 200 years since the war, but everywhere you go, there are unlooted fridges and first aid boxes whose contents have somehow not decayed in the last 200 years. (And the buildings they are in are also still standing).
Electricity is also everywhere, with 200 old computers still powered and functioning. (the most egregious example being the one at the police station near Bigtown, which just sits out in the open, exposed to the elements, and is still perfectly functional)
Slavery doesn't make any sense in this context either, and it's the lifeblood of paradise falls. Why would anyone in the capital wasteland BUY themselves another mouth to feed? Since no one is actually doing any work, that's pretty much all they would do.
Or the animals. How can such MASSIVE Predators like Daeathclaws and Yao Guai be around when there is basically no prey, since there ins't any flora that could support enough herbivores to feed on.
No matter how you slice it, Fallout 3 is just a bullshit fantasyland, and when people talk about the feeling of survival or post apocalypse or somesuch in Fallout 3, they are basically just LARPing, as far as I can see.
I'm inclined to disagree.evilneko said:
Caesar's ideal of replicating Rome and its empire was fantastic, and the allegory he places of the Empire conquering the former Roman Republic was sensible. Caesar was very well written, in my opinion. He's built up to be a savage, brutish, ignorant man with a power lust conquering innocent tribes and turning them into enslaved warriors, or executing them on the spot. In reality he's extremely intelligent and educated, and sees himself as civilizing the uncivilized by the method, through the very existence of the Legion, proving force is the most effective way of eliminating the foolish tribalism throughout the Western wastes. His views of the world are very Machiavellian in nature, and so are his methods.
The Latin and fake Latin he inserts into the Legion are a bit over-the-top, but they fit the general theme of Fallout which is serious, with a few spoonfuls of ridiculousness. Caesar justifies his actions by claiming that the NCR is dated for the very reason the "Old World" was destroyed. Corruption, representational disregard, and generally falling in step with the government of the old U.S. which was responsible in part for the Great War. I really like Caesar. I side with the NCR for the most part, but Caesar himself is very respectable and sensible after playing Legion once or twice. A shame that faction controls maybe 1/8th of the wasteland and the NCR controls at least half, meaning you get butt-raped most anywhere outside of the Camp. That and most companions refuse to ally with the Legion.
Oh well, such is the price for dedication to the cause.
OT: As is obvious, I enjoyed and got a lot more out of my New Vegas experience. As others have stated, the linearity of the start is a bit aggravating, but I enjoy the game overall much more than F3. In addition, the DLC's in F:NV tended to be more enjoyable. Lonesome Road, while not as refined as the other DLC's, had an atmosphere that was to die for. I adored that piece. The only real DLC I enjoyed in F3 was Point Lookout, the other 4 were pretty terrible.
Except Liberty Prime. Nobody hates Liberty Prime.
EDIT: Oh, hey. I hit 2,000 a few posts ago and didn't even notice!
Yay!
Fallout New Vegas is Fallout 3, with a slightly shorter story with four distinct options instead of two, which compensates easily for the length, with a greater emphasis on characters and companions, to the point where even small seemingly unimportant side quests have a larger impact on the setting. The DLC is a little bit better (and very few titles in gaming have anything as amazing as Old World Blues), and all the endings are actually in the game, rather than being sold later as DLC because the game called you a ***** for asking your radiation immune friend to go into the radiation death chamber. Also, your faithful canine companion is now a cyberdog, and can even be replaced with a remarkably intelligent and perceptive Eyebot. While it doesn't quite have the "oooh, I'm practically visiting DC!" feel of Fallout 3, it does have all the same annoying problems of large game files starting to slug, lag, and stall out, so I'd call it a null point. Though, Fallout 3 totally whupped New Vegas in terms of soundtrack. I still want Three Dog in the Mojave.
And roaming the Mojave with a hard-drinking redhead with daddy issues and a psychotically aggressive cyberdog with a litter of Boston Terrifiers is infinitely more fun than wandering around deserted subway stations with a normal dog and a pretentious super mutant.
And roaming the Mojave with a hard-drinking redhead with daddy issues and a psychotically aggressive cyberdog with a litter of Boston Terrifiers is infinitely more fun than wandering around deserted subway stations with a normal dog and a pretentious super mutant.
I'd have to say that in terms of the sake of the vision, Fallout 3 was far superior as a standalone title than Fallout: New Vegas was.
Fallout 3 had a plot where you had a father who was intrinsic to your story, and, while many people didn't like that, it's important to realize that any character you play as will have parents, and having them be visually represented in your game is not necessarily a bad thing. To be honest, the "Dad" in FO3 could have been "Dr. Joe" instead, and players would think he was great (or perhaps more fitting/better)
Environment-wise, F0:NV was terrible. The representation of New Vegas in the initial trailers left me thinking this was a vast, surviving, somewhat thriving community where the lights of teh city were something that contrasted with the emptiness around it. However, the New Vegas in the game had roughly 6 buildings to enter on the most important part of the city, and everywhere else was easily overlooked if you weren't focused on going there on your own. The desert, the actual desert, felt more abundant in life than Fallout 3 did. With growing plants and greenery in many different locations, with plants and consumables everywhere, it was hard to think that we were in a desert, and not just a particularly dry field of yellow dirt (one think I have to be petty about was how the 'sand' of New Vegas looked almost like banana pudding dripped over mountains). The sky was filled with clouds, it was very 'full' of locations, and you ended up exploring about 70% of the map by the time you even met Mr. House. Fallout 3, on the other hand, was quite more atmospheric. With broken ruined trees, no signs of plant life beyond brown-crusty looking bushes and cruddy dressers and wardrobes haphazardly discarded in the Capitol Wasteland, there was little sign of life, with purified water being more valuable than gold, there's a sense of 'realness' involved with the desolate landscape, that pure water is hard to come by, and it's needed by beggars who sound as though they are on their last legs, incredibly grateful that you'll give them water, and almost crying when you don't. With a pale green hue over the nearly empty skies, the sun leaving a sickly pink horizon line, with large mountains in the distance, you truly feel that this is a wasteland, even BEFORE you see the city so ruined that the subway tunnels are the easiest accessible routes, if you can navigate your way through them.
In terms of guns and ammo, I've got to give it to New Vegas, they did a real good job with that one. While Fallout 3 had all the important elements covered by the weapons spectrum, New Vegas jumped it by a long shot. With far more weapons, weapon customization, you became emotionally attached to the weapon, the time and caps you spent keeping it in good condition made it your own, and although there were many like it, it was yours. The different kinds of ammunition made the game more interesting as well. With armor piercing rounds making fighting what few robots were in New Vegas easier, as well as the inevitable scrambling to kill a charging Deathclaw that much easier. Fallout 3 didn't have those moments, and the fact that some enemies like Super Mutant Overlords did a guaranteed 40 damage to you BEFORE the damage from their tri-beam laser rifle was calcualted, makes New Vegas the clear winner in that respect.
In terms of actual SURVIVAL, this being a wasteland survival genre, Fallout 3 takes the prize there. With cheap, inefficient weapons, you were pressured to save every bullet, to take as few shots as you could, and even when you were in the mid-game, exploration was key to setting up a good armory, with vendors selling scrips and scraps of various itedm you could use to make your own weapons with, or maybe some 24 rounds for your Chinese Officer's Pistol, it was caps well spent (usually). New Vegas has a thriving economy, and it shows. With the cap for the Winterized T51-b armor from the Operation: Anchorage add-on usuall hitting the cap limit of 999, New Vegas laughs at that and gives you a Marksman Carbine for 5499 caps, which you eagerly throw away, since even pretending to save has netted me almost 200,000+ caps, 5 gold bars from the Sierra Madre, and large amounts of NCR dollars and Legion Denari(i?)(us's?). The economy was something that did not make the game feel like survival, in so much as an adventure. For an RPG, that's not bad, but for a wasteland survival RPG, that's not hitting the right mark.
While New Vegas has factions, it feels to organized, with the only real raider band being the Fiends, and the only other pseudo-bandit faction being the Great Khans, The story drove all the main faction choices, with so much that could be done with the factions (another entire monologue there), the world felt a lot smaller than Fallout 3, with bandits camping on a ruined overpass, using destroyed cars as cover as they took potshots at you with Hunting Rifles, and you're low on stimpacs. That's a more "wasteland survival" experience than running into prisoners who drop like flies FIGHTING flies (not cazadores, whole other experience there). Now, I've only played the console versions, so I've seen the base game, unedited, and unchanged apart from add-ons, and DLC's, so mods aside, I'll stay with Fallout 3, it was hard, tough, and challenging. It felt desolate, ruined, and there was enough in that seemingly empty wasteland that I felt like I was truly alone, working only at my whims to help or to hinder those around me.
Fallout 3 had a plot where you had a father who was intrinsic to your story, and, while many people didn't like that, it's important to realize that any character you play as will have parents, and having them be visually represented in your game is not necessarily a bad thing. To be honest, the "Dad" in FO3 could have been "Dr. Joe" instead, and players would think he was great (or perhaps more fitting/better)
Environment-wise, F0:NV was terrible. The representation of New Vegas in the initial trailers left me thinking this was a vast, surviving, somewhat thriving community where the lights of teh city were something that contrasted with the emptiness around it. However, the New Vegas in the game had roughly 6 buildings to enter on the most important part of the city, and everywhere else was easily overlooked if you weren't focused on going there on your own. The desert, the actual desert, felt more abundant in life than Fallout 3 did. With growing plants and greenery in many different locations, with plants and consumables everywhere, it was hard to think that we were in a desert, and not just a particularly dry field of yellow dirt (one think I have to be petty about was how the 'sand' of New Vegas looked almost like banana pudding dripped over mountains). The sky was filled with clouds, it was very 'full' of locations, and you ended up exploring about 70% of the map by the time you even met Mr. House. Fallout 3, on the other hand, was quite more atmospheric. With broken ruined trees, no signs of plant life beyond brown-crusty looking bushes and cruddy dressers and wardrobes haphazardly discarded in the Capitol Wasteland, there was little sign of life, with purified water being more valuable than gold, there's a sense of 'realness' involved with the desolate landscape, that pure water is hard to come by, and it's needed by beggars who sound as though they are on their last legs, incredibly grateful that you'll give them water, and almost crying when you don't. With a pale green hue over the nearly empty skies, the sun leaving a sickly pink horizon line, with large mountains in the distance, you truly feel that this is a wasteland, even BEFORE you see the city so ruined that the subway tunnels are the easiest accessible routes, if you can navigate your way through them.
In terms of guns and ammo, I've got to give it to New Vegas, they did a real good job with that one. While Fallout 3 had all the important elements covered by the weapons spectrum, New Vegas jumped it by a long shot. With far more weapons, weapon customization, you became emotionally attached to the weapon, the time and caps you spent keeping it in good condition made it your own, and although there were many like it, it was yours. The different kinds of ammunition made the game more interesting as well. With armor piercing rounds making fighting what few robots were in New Vegas easier, as well as the inevitable scrambling to kill a charging Deathclaw that much easier. Fallout 3 didn't have those moments, and the fact that some enemies like Super Mutant Overlords did a guaranteed 40 damage to you BEFORE the damage from their tri-beam laser rifle was calcualted, makes New Vegas the clear winner in that respect.
In terms of actual SURVIVAL, this being a wasteland survival genre, Fallout 3 takes the prize there. With cheap, inefficient weapons, you were pressured to save every bullet, to take as few shots as you could, and even when you were in the mid-game, exploration was key to setting up a good armory, with vendors selling scrips and scraps of various itedm you could use to make your own weapons with, or maybe some 24 rounds for your Chinese Officer's Pistol, it was caps well spent (usually). New Vegas has a thriving economy, and it shows. With the cap for the Winterized T51-b armor from the Operation: Anchorage add-on usuall hitting the cap limit of 999, New Vegas laughs at that and gives you a Marksman Carbine for 5499 caps, which you eagerly throw away, since even pretending to save has netted me almost 200,000+ caps, 5 gold bars from the Sierra Madre, and large amounts of NCR dollars and Legion Denari(i?)(us's?). The economy was something that did not make the game feel like survival, in so much as an adventure. For an RPG, that's not bad, but for a wasteland survival RPG, that's not hitting the right mark.
While New Vegas has factions, it feels to organized, with the only real raider band being the Fiends, and the only other pseudo-bandit faction being the Great Khans, The story drove all the main faction choices, with so much that could be done with the factions (another entire monologue there), the world felt a lot smaller than Fallout 3, with bandits camping on a ruined overpass, using destroyed cars as cover as they took potshots at you with Hunting Rifles, and you're low on stimpacs. That's a more "wasteland survival" experience than running into prisoners who drop like flies FIGHTING flies (not cazadores, whole other experience there). Now, I've only played the console versions, so I've seen the base game, unedited, and unchanged apart from add-ons, and DLC's, so mods aside, I'll stay with Fallout 3, it was hard, tough, and challenging. It felt desolate, ruined, and there was enough in that seemingly empty wasteland that I felt like I was truly alone, working only at my whims to help or to hinder those around me.
Both were fun for their own reasons but New Vegas was a significant improvement over Fallout 3.
Then again I am a massive Obsidian fanboy so take my advice with a grain of salt.
Then again I am a massive Obsidian fanboy so take my advice with a grain of salt.
I was actually having this debate with a friend of mine a few days ago. I was advocating NV and he was advocating Fallout 3. I won handily on pretty much every point except music and bugs, and I was primed to win the discussion overall. That was until I remembered that Liam Neeson is in Fallout 3. I lost.