Poll: Halo:Reach Or Fallout:New Vegas?

[Elburzito]

Alright, so today I was going to preorder Halo: Reach. However, today I just saw some of the gameplay footage of New Vegas. Being a fan of Fallout 3 this obviously attracted my attention. I am equally exited about both games, being fans of their prequels, but I do not know which one to get.
So Escapists, I ask you, what is your opinion?

 

[KILLERTHING]

New vegas

Not that much of a halo fan to be honest

 

[Arkley]

It really depends. If multiplayer/online FPS is your thing, then Reach is probably the way to go. But if online FPS isn't a big deal to you or you don't have a Gold subscription, then you're bound to get a much more satisfying (not to mention lengthier) single player experience from New Vegas. That's not to say that Reach won't have a good single player, just that these games have different selling points for long term play. Frequent Live players will get the most out of Reach and dedicated single player explorers will get the most out of New Vegas. Which of these most appeals to you?

 

[TriggerHappyAngel]

defintely Fallout: NV ... i only liked Halo Combat Evolved

 

[Elburzito]

It really depends. If multiplayer/online FPS is your thing, then Reach is probably the way to go. But if online FPS isn't a big deal to you or you don't have a Gold subscription, then you're bound to get a much more satisfying (not to mention lengthier) single player experience from New Vegas. That's not to say that Reach won't have a good single player, just that these games have different selling points for long term play. Frequent Live players will get the most out of Reach and dedicated single player explorers will get the most out of New Vegas. Which of these most appeals to you?

It's quite the same. I often play Multiplayer, but I like to have long stories and good replay value also.

 

[Omikron009]

I'm really looking forward to both, but I'm probably more excited for New Vegas, simply because Fallout 3 is my favourite game.

 

[Mr Thin]

Why isn't there a 'both' option?

OT: New Vegas. Halo's fun, but it's just more Halo. New Vegas looks like Fallout 3 done right, and it was pretty good the first time round.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Was a bump really needed after 6 minutes?

OT: I'm going with Halo Reach since I can have some fun with my friends on that. Fallout New Vegas can wait for a little while.

 

[Elburzito]

Why isn't there a 'both' option?

OT: New Vegas. Halo's fun, but it's just more Halo. New Vegas looks like Fallout 3 done right, and it was pretty good the first time round.

I just added a "Both" option. Thanks for that.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

Personally it's New Vegas for me, but it seems the question you're asking yourself can be boiled down to "do I want an FPS or an RPG?". That'd be the easiest way for someone to decide I'd reckon, because that way you avoid thinking about Halo vs Fallout (and all of the hype surrounding both of these games) and think much more about the core style of gameplay and which you prefer.

 

[Elburzito]

Personally it's New Vegas for me, but it seems the question you're asking yourself can be boiled down to "do I want an FPS or an RPG?". That'd be the easiest way for someone to decide I'd reckon, because that way you avoid thinking about Halo vs Fallout (and all of the hype surrounding both of these games) and think much more about the core style of gameplay and which you prefer.

That's the thing. I Like the gameplay of both games exactly the same.

 

[Tiswas]

Fallout you get some extra content with pre-ordering don't you?

Personally I wouldn't go with either but if I HAD to choose it would be Fallout

 

[Eagle Est1986]

I don't intend to buy either but I'll almost definitely play Reach somewhere along the line.
Go with Reach, it won't last you as long, then you can let New Vegas truly get a proper grip on your life without any interuptions.

 

[Arkley]

It's quite the same. I often play Multiplayer, but I like to have long stories and good replay value also.

Would you be buying them both eventually? If so, then in spite of my love for Fallout 3, I'd have to say get Reach first. If you plan to buy one now and another later, then it's best to let the Fallout game be the one to wait. Fallout 3 was so massive and contained so much content that it was frequently (albeit understandably) glitchy in its unupdated, unpatched, unexpanded form. If New Vegas is of similar scope, it may well be the same. So if one of these games must wait, it should probably Vegas. That way, by the time you get it, the first patches (or even DLC, they rolled out Fallout 3 DLC so fast it was unreal) will be available and the game may be a better experience for it. Meanwhile, you can get to work on your ranks on Reach.

However, if you plan to only buy one or the other, at least for a long time, then I say go for New Vegas. Just because Fallout is awesome.

 

[Elburzito]

It's quite the same. I often play Multiplayer, but I like to have long stories and good replay value also.

Would you be buying them both eventually? If so, then in spite of my love for Fallout 3, I'd have to say get Reach first. If you plan to buy one now and another later, then it's best to let the Fallout game be the one to wait. Fallout 3 was so massive and contained so much content that it was frequently (albeit understandably) glitchy in its unupdated, unpatched, unexpanded form. If New Vegas is of similar scope, it may well be the same. So if one of these games must wait, it should probably Vegas. That way, by the time you get it, the first patches (or even DLC, they rolled out Fallout 3 DLC so fast it was unreal) will be available and the game may be a better experience for it. Meanwhile, you can get to work on your ranks on Reach.

However, if you plan to only buy one or the other, at least for a long time, then I say go for New Vegas. Just because Fallout is awesome.

Thanks. That helped me quite alot. I should start researching a little more.

 

[Woodsey]

I despise Halo and New Vegas is being developed by Obsidian, so I won't hold my breath. They've already put me off with that putrid orange tint that's all over the game.

I choose 'neither'.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

>snip<

That's the thing. I Like the gameplay of both games exactly the same.

Ah, I see. Well, are you online or not? I tend to find that RPGs offer a decent gaming experience regardless of whether or not you're online, whereas the problem with many FPS games today is that their single player is very much playing second fiddle to the online multiplayer experience. If you're not online I'd say RPGs have the edge, but if you're online the decision gets a bit trickier. If that's the case then are any of your friends (online and IRL) going to be getting Halo? If a few are, I'd say that maybe Halo just gets it's nose front because of the many hours of online deathmatching you'd get out of it. If none are, maybe it's best to look at Fallout again.

I'm beginning to see why this is such a tough choice.

 

[Zeromaeus]

Fallout New Vegas, hands down.

 

[OceanRunner]

Easily Fallout:New Vegas

 

[Vrex360]

Well I've already pre-ordered Halo: Reach Legendary edition and I am a huge fan of the franchise so I'd pick Reach over Vegas.