Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas

[Jolly Co-operator]

I really don't know what it is about Fallout 3, but I've always enjoyed it more than New Vegas. In my opinion, New Vegas had far more interesting factions than Fallout 3, but the world of New Vegas just never really captured me the way Fallout 3 did. Regardless, they're both great games.

Captcha: ZOMBIE PROM. I can't decide if that should be a video game, a movie, or some sort of bizarre murderous reality T.V. show. Either way, it needs to exist NOW!

 

[TheNamlessGuy]

DELETED

 

[CityofTreez]

NV easily.

Fallout 3 is poop.

 

[Conn1496]

The smaller map let New Vegas down a lot, but with DLC, it's far better than Fallout 3. As a base game however, Fallout 3 is better.

 

[Tinygiant]

I have to go with New Vegas.

I loved Fallout 3. I still do. But the only things I miss about it are Three Dog and the GNR. Everything else, I prefer New Vegas. The story is more involved and interesting, the weapon choices are better (and thank God for iron sight aiming), so on. I also prefer the feel. 3's raiders just made the wastes seem more hospitable - sure, people are trying to kill you, but the land can support life. The random tiny outposts (Girdershade, for example) also made the entire thing feel less dangerous. New Vegas helped fix that. People are really only found in large groups, and the world (while smaller) feels so much more more lived-in.

I'll take New Vegas any day, and I hope Bethesda learns from it for Fallout 4.

 

[The_Lost_King]

it collapsed 200 years ago during the war. plus fallout 1 is set like 100 years after the war and they have started farming(fallout 1 is also set in a desert) and rebuilding societies and factions, oh and they had an even bigger problem with super mutants(you know with the Master and his super mutant army who was going to conquer the world with them).

It doesn't really matter how long ago the war was, as long as society isn't built yet, it's about survival, and the world being against the people.

And, on the Super Mutants, my point exactly.

Did you not read my post. In fallout 1 they are trying to rebuild society and they have it worse than in fallout 3 yet they are still doing a better job. My point with the super mutants was to show that in fallout 3 they are trying to rebuild even though there are supermutants(which are even more dangerous tha fo3's super mutants) both of the original fallouts focus around picking up society Which they are doing. Fallout 3 deviates from this by making it center around surviving. And yes it does matter how long it has been. In 200 years if you haven't adapted to living in this wasteland than you are dead. You also didn't respond to my point of them still scavenging. By all rights the food should be either gone or spoiled(no food can survive 200 years). Maybe I'm just not good at putting my point across in words.

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

You're being too harsh
While FO3 really felt less like a Fallout game, it was slightly more fun, than FO:NV
Like I said they should have set FO3 couple decades after the great war, not 200y
Then the plotholes would matter less

I'm not being harsh. FO3 is a fine game on its own merits, but it's not really a Fallout game and it's not nearly as good as New Vegas(at either being a Fallout game or an RPG in general.) I can't see how you would find it more fun than FO:NV though.

NV has literally 10x the quests F3 has, and every single one of them has multiple different ways to solve it. Ways that are all quite different and all well fleshed out. FO3 has pretty much one singular way to solve most quests, and a few of them had two. Or rather not two ways to solve the quest, but two outcomes, like a binary switch you just flip at the end that really didn't effect gameplay at all.

NV had way more armor/clothing customization, weapon customization. A ton more interesting characters, more interesting places to visit. A faction and disguise system. Gameplay that could actually be difficult. A SPECIAL system that actually meant something. Character specialization rather than joke-mode: 'here have all the perks and 100% in every skill.' Less bland dialogue writing. Less muahahah I'm evil because I'm evil, villains. Less I grew up in a wasteland with cannibals and murdering drug high rapists, but I'm lilly white pure good because? NV had way more funny references and wasteland silliness. The only thing F3 had in that regard that wasn't fairly boring was the ant lady vs robot man fight.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

You're being too harsh
While FO3 really felt less like a Fallout game, it was slightly more fun, than FO:NV
Like I said they should have set FO3 couple decades after the great war, not 200y
Then the plotholes would matter less

I'm not being harsh. FO3 is a fine game on its own merits, but it's not really a Fallout game and it's not nearly as good as New Vegas(at either being a Fallout game or an RPG in general.) I can't see how you would find it more fun than FO:NV though.

NV has literally 10x the quests F3 has, and every single one of them has multiple different ways to solve it. Ways that are all quite different and all well fleshed out. FO3 has pretty much one singular way to solve most quests, and a few of them had two. Or rather not two ways to solve the quest, but two outcomes, like a binary switch you just flip at the end that really didn't effect gameplay at all.

NV had way more armor/clothing customization, weapon customization. A ton more interesting characters, more interesting places to visit. A faction and disguise system. Gameplay that could actually be difficult. A SPECIAL system that actually meant something. Character specialization rather than joke-mode: 'here have all the perks and 100% in every skill.' Less bland dialogue writing. Less muahahah I'm evil because I'm evil, villains. Less I grew up in a wasteland with cannibals and murdering drug high rapists, but I'm lilly white pure good because? NV had way more funny references and wasteland silliness. The only thing F3 had in that regard that wasn't fairly boring was the ant lady vs robot man fight.

Very good Mr. Holmes!

couldn't agree more in your detailed opinion on NV/FO3

 

[Do4600]

Definitely New Vegas. Fallout 3 tried to be Fallout, and completely missed the tone. Fallout is inhabited by darkly funny scum, they tell jokes right after they've lost an eye. The whole game is full of jokes and bad asses. Let's sample some:

Fallout 3: Gob: "Wait - you're not gonna hit me? Yell at me? Not even berate me a little bit?"

New Vegas: Cass: "Nobody has a dick that long. Not even Long Dick Johnson, and he had a fucking long dick. Hence the name."

Fallout 2: Mason: "Well, check out this bouquet of assholes."

Fallout:
Jain: Are you a child?
Vault Dweller: Lady, do I look that young to you?
Jain: Mocking our holy cause is not appreciated. You will be punished if you continue.
Vault Dweller: And who's going to do the punishing? Ooh, I'd like to request the extra hard whip, if you don't mind.

Fallout 3 is bland, they tried to play it straight and it didn't work. It reads like a dirty tear-stained hallmark card, with your mother dying at the beginning and your father's persistence to make her dream come true. All the blubbering from three dog about the high morals of James and his crusade to give all peoples of the wastes clean water doesn't help. Fallout shouldn't sound like a late night ad for the Feed the Children fund. New Vegas gets back to the dark scum of Fallout. In Fallout 3 I was trying desperately to find something that was interesting, there just wasn't much there, everything was either a bombed office building in a arbitrarily invisible walled section of downtown or a cave with ants in it. All of the "wacky" things felt really forced like "Ant" Man vs....whoever the hell it was. The only random encounter that I really enjoyed was that asshole who was holed up in his building with his whores and hundreds of bottles of whisky.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

I prefer New Vegas, if only for the atmosphere, and they had a lot of references to Fallout 1 and 2 in there. I enjoyed that more than Fallout 3 (which I did enjoy an awful lot already, but probably only due to the mods I used).

 

[johnnnny guitar]

Yeah it's a tough one for me they are both amazing games for their own reasons.
I love fallout 3 atmosphere and the DLC's all have that atmosphere in there somewhere (even operation anchornage and Mother ship zeta IMO).

But

Fallout NV has great characters, gameplay/mechanics and the DLC's in this are amazing especially with the Ulysses back-story throughout them all and having them all have a completely different feel (Fallout 3's DLC did this as well but I think New vegas has slightly better DLC).

But I still replay each of them and while they feel the same you could really say that they are two different beasts in the way they present the world to you and the way they tell their stories.

 

[Elfgore]

Fallout 3 will always be my favorite of the two. Just because there are fewer side quest in fallout 3 so every side quest actually has a story. Not like in NV where all it is go here talk to him or shoot him. Better soundtrack to 3 as well.

 

[Thatrocketeer]

It takes so much less effort and thought to just throw a hodge podge of quests out there which have no relation to each other, than to come up with something that makes sense with the world and actually connect and interact with each other and the main story arc.

It's like Obsidian actually thought shit out, while Bethesda says "THIS SOUNDS LIKE A COOL IDEA, LETS THROW THAT IN THERE TOO "

I chuckled when I read this. That's what I thought when Obsidian shoehorned that 4-way by the end of New vegas.

Obsidian Dev 1: "Hey guys, What happens after the courier killed Benny? Should the game just end there?"
Obsidian Dev 2: "HELL NO! Let's include a huge fatal 4 way for the control of New Vegas!"
Obsidian Dev 1: "Why? I thought the motive for finding Benny was revenge? What motivation would the player have in the 4 way?"
Obsidian Dev 2: "I dont know, but who cares? IT'S FUCKING COOL! LET'S THROW THAT IN THERE!"

And yes, Obsidian Dev 2 is a frat boy in my mind.

OT: It's hard to pick since it's either a fallout game with an orange filter, or a fallout game with a green filter. I'll pick New Vegas, since I loved Old World Blues, no matter how annoyingly bullet spongy the enemies were. But if the DLCs were excluded, then I'd pick FO3, since the only railroad you can experience in that game are the literal tracks underground.

 

[Kaavel1993]

The biggest downfall of fallout 3 in my opinion was how dark it was. It was a bit too dark. I know it was meant to be but even so. There were no lighter sides to it, there was no where you could go for it to let up a bit. This made it a bit too depressing. And then in Fallout New Vegas it was too light. It didn't completely show how dark the world was meant to be and unlike fallout 3 you didn't fully appreciate the devastation of the fallout. This brought both games down for me. Now if the lightness of New Vegas was to be combined with the sense of utter destruction of Fallout 3 Both would have been pretty awesome. I admit Fallout 3 had the superior soundtrack and the characters in New Vegas were by far more interesting. And yet both of their biggest flaws? The lack of emotion in the characters faces. Anyway I think that Bethesdas next fallout game should be biased in London because not enough games are set in the UK.

 

[Simonoly]

I find it difficult to choose between the two. In my eyes they perfectly complement one another in terms of setting. Fallout 3 had it's barren, inhospitable wasteland with little human contact, whereas Fallout:NV had it's relatively unscathed, generally safer and more densely populated wasteland. They were basically two different takes on a post-apocalyptic America.

But technically, Fallout New Vegas is better in every possible way, so I guess I better vote for that one.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Fallout 3 is way better in my opinion. Heres why :

Fallout 3 : The wasteland with entire villages wiped out, great scenery and in general you get the feeling of walking around in a graveyard. A rich back story with a lot of interesting plots and quests. Excellent music.

New Vegas on the other hand was very generic. The starting location was pretty cool, but the coolness ends as you travel through the utterly boring desert. The empty areas in Fallout 3 has some nice stuff like broken highways and lots of other stuff. New Vegas is just empty. Quite frankly New Vegas is more like a mod. A lot of the buildings are cut and paste from Fallout 3, and they just look wrong.

Iron-sights in New Vegas are obviously better, but atmosphere were way better in Fallout 3.