Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas
- Thread starter blackrave
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ok, just want to spread this tip to anyone who can't play Fallout 3 on Windows 7 64bit version:OpticalJunction said:
I had exactly the same problem and no fixes worked for me. However, you can install a Fallout New Vegas Mod called Requiem for The Capital Wasteland. It fixes Fallout 3, you just start Fallout 3 after you escape from the vault technically (you start in New Vegas). There's two versions for this mod. The first supports mods and everything, but needs the patches from this guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSv4EVAMMKw (the video is really funny) and is set to hidden on Nexus, so you can't access it as of the time of this post. The newer version is much more stable (it's linked on the old page on Nexus), but has no DLC as far as I'm aware.
Hopefully, you won't give a damn like me when you can play both with the same character!
And now back to the forum, sorry for the detour. I felt Fallout 3 was a much better game in terms of the main storyline, especially when you compare it to Fallout New Vegas. In Fallout 3, you beat the Enclave with a Giant Robot. Win. It was just more fun than the Hoover Dam mission (fight these guys, and then these guys and then the sudden boss at the end [note: it was cool that you could end the war with words]). You also had to listen throughout the game to find out what the code was to let the purifier run, just that little detail really polished the ending.
Come to think of it, Hoover Dam itself was far more sealed off than the Purifier, so I would argue that that openness in Fallout 3 was so much more immersive than New Vegas. Also exploring the Mohave didn't feel as good as exploring the Capital Wasteland, there just wasn't as much variety and depth put into the towns and settlements in the Mohave. Compare Megaton (a city made out of airplanes) to Goodsprings (a town that is a town). Plus there were monuments and museums and military graveyards (a bt morbid, I know) to explore in Fallout 3, but not as much in New Vegas (at least that stood out to me).
Three Dog was amazing, you couldn't even meet Mr. New Vegas. I was also disappointed with Marcus the Supermutant, they could have done so much more with him. But companions in New Vegas were done really well, especially Cassidy and Lily. I think also with the characters, Fallout New Vegas had much less random events and NPC to NPC conversations than Fallout 3, which made it extremely clear that NPCs were NPCs and so made the world bland.
I just felt that if New Vegas had more detail (i.e. Wild Wasteland perk was just mandatory), it would have been as good as, if not better than, Fallout 3.
But in the end, if it weren't for the requiem for a capital wasteland people, I wouldn't be playing Fallout 3 now, so it definitely sucks on the newest PCs.
I kind of liked that approach though, because it made the world feel more realistic in terms of a post-apocalyptic world. In a post-apocalyptic world, it would make more sense that quests would have less to do with each other, because people are wandering around less.Anthraxus said:
Aside from that, I very much enjoyed the very "Twilight Zone"-esque nature of the quests, like, The Republic of Dave, and the like.
Voted for New Vegas.
I liked both games, but New Vegas - in my opinion - did everything better. Everything.
I liked both games, but New Vegas - in my opinion - did everything better. Everything.
I personally have to say Fallout 3. There's just nothing appealing to me about Las Vegas. Seeing Washington D.C., the seat of my nation's power, reduced to a ruined wreck and all that the founding fathers intended it to stand for long since forgotten and abandoned, there's just something very striking about that. I think the best example of that is when you find Arlington Cemetary. Our leaders' and war heroes' final resting place long forgotten to the point the headstones have been eroding and their names lost and rememberance of their deeds fading with them, if you think about it, is a pretty effecting thing.
Plus this may be just a thing from me, but the opening to New Vegas is really weak. I'm sorry, I just did not like it. I actually felt somewhat invested in the character of Fallout 3, having experienced standout points of his or her childhood, whereas in New Vegas I know almost nothing about the character except a 1950s-era Vegas guy shot him in the face.
Plus this may be just a thing from me, but the opening to New Vegas is really weak. I'm sorry, I just did not like it. I actually felt somewhat invested in the character of Fallout 3, having experienced standout points of his or her childhood, whereas in New Vegas I know almost nothing about the character except a 1950s-era Vegas guy shot him in the face.
3 has the superior atmosphere, while New Vegas is better in terms of everything else (game balance, difficulty, etc.).
Both had their good points, and both had there bad points. Both were buggy as hell (New Vegas more so). Fallout 3 Had a much more interesting world - you see some shadow in the distance, and you want to explore it, see what interesting things you'll dig up. New Vegas's locations were much more lackluster (eh, I don't really feel like exploring another cave or warehouse). On the other hand, I found New Vegas's story to be much more engaging. While FO3 was a series of glorified fetch-quests, New Vegas had a great mix of battles, diplomacy, and choices. It felt like the decisions you made actually mattered, and you could ignore whichever ones you liked and leave the Mojave to burn if you felt like it. Plus, there's only like 4 kids in FNV, and none of them are important (fuck Little Lamplight).
Overall, I've got to go with New Vegas
Overall, I've got to go with New Vegas
Fallout 3
I mean sure, New Vegas has more quests and all that, but all I seem to notice are "go here and retrieve this" or "deliver this to him" quests which are SOO BORING
I also felt that the whole "choose your side" part at the end was rather redundant since it really just meant "pick which of the 5 quests you will do because your faction tells you to and they'll be in a different order this time, I swear"
not even the final mission is all that different, it just seemed lazy and would probably have worked better with a linear story.
both games get points off for all of the bugs, but NV on PS3 was one of the worst experiences ever until they patched it, it would crash randomly at any given time, meaning I had to save every few minutes.
(I am also holding a grudge because on my first play through, a fucking Deathclaw jumped out of nowhere and ate off my face after I left the doc's office at the start of the game
I had to make a new character to make the bloody thing go away!)
I mean sure, New Vegas has more quests and all that, but all I seem to notice are "go here and retrieve this" or "deliver this to him" quests which are SOO BORING
I also felt that the whole "choose your side" part at the end was rather redundant since it really just meant "pick which of the 5 quests you will do because your faction tells you to and they'll be in a different order this time, I swear"
not even the final mission is all that different, it just seemed lazy and would probably have worked better with a linear story.
both games get points off for all of the bugs, but NV on PS3 was one of the worst experiences ever until they patched it, it would crash randomly at any given time, meaning I had to save every few minutes.
(I am also holding a grudge because on my first play through, a fucking Deathclaw jumped out of nowhere and ate off my face after I left the doc's office at the start of the game
I had to make a new character to make the bloody thing go away!)
Pure water being so rare was a stupid idea in the first place, and basing the entire plot of FO3 around it was downright retarded. Filtering water is actually very easy. It's a shame Fallout 3 never bothered making much sense of the scarcity of water. Especially in relation to the relative abundance of food, which makes no sense in a location so devoid of clean water.blackrave said: