In some topics I have recently commented on the diffrent themes between the two games Fallout "BOS" 3 and Fallout "Ave" New Vegas(you might not get the Ave part). My opnion is that Fallout 3 is surviving in Post Apocalyptia and laying the foundation for a society, while NV about shaping that society. What are your opinions about the two themes? Can you think of other themes?
What Do You See are Big Diffrences Between New Vegas and Fallout 3?
- Thread starter KangKhan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The biggest difference for me (and I'm gonna have to disagree with Discon here) is that in New Vegas you're forced into the role of The Courier. You are not an unknown quantity as you are in FO3. You are, whether you like it or not, an amnesiac who got shot in the head and buried alive, and you cannot escape this identity and its history, it follows you. Red-headed pyrokinetic 12 year-old you are not*.
Contrast with FO3. You emerge from the vault completely unknown to the outside world, and unknowing of the outside world. You could've been anyone. You could even be a kid (with Children of the Wasteland, of course). No one knows a damn thing about you on first meeting you. You could, in fact, even RP it as if you were multiple people. The Lone Wanderer's story could be the blending of multiple tales, like the composite character that is Paul Bunyan.
I don't really agree with the idea that in FO3 you're "building" a society and in NV you're "shaping" it. I think in both you are shaping an already-existing society. No matter what you choose, massive changes will follow for the Capital Wasteland and the Mojave. Society's already there, it will just be changed by your actions. The games are more similar to each other than they are different in that regard.
*a reference to my ongoing story in the Falloutverse. I can't link to it here as it's NSFW.
Contrast with FO3. You emerge from the vault completely unknown to the outside world, and unknowing of the outside world. You could've been anyone. You could even be a kid (with Children of the Wasteland, of course). No one knows a damn thing about you on first meeting you. You could, in fact, even RP it as if you were multiple people. The Lone Wanderer's story could be the blending of multiple tales, like the composite character that is Paul Bunyan.
I don't really agree with the idea that in FO3 you're "building" a society and in NV you're "shaping" it. I think in both you are shaping an already-existing society. No matter what you choose, massive changes will follow for the Capital Wasteland and the Mojave. Society's already there, it will just be changed by your actions. The games are more similar to each other than they are different in that regard.
*a reference to my ongoing story in the Falloutverse. I can't link to it here as it's NSFW.
I guess one difference in New Vegas is the introduction of morally grey factions In fallout 3 the Enclave were puppy kickingly evil and the brotherhood were basically saints. In new vegas all faction have good and bad points depending on your own personal philosophy, even Caesar's legion to an extent.KangKhan said:
I also find New Vegas to be a lot less morally distinct. Even the Legion, the 'bad guys'', have potential to do great things with the wasteland (after all, they're pretty much Romans, and we've all seen how they turned out), plus with their love of old weaponry there probably wouldn't be another nuclear war for a very long time after they took control. The NCR are the 'good guys' but they seem to be forcing their ideals on people just as much as the Legion; they've strolled into the Mojave like they own the place.Felix Benandex said:
On your second point, I think that is due to filters. I recall seeing a New Vegas mod that removed said filter, can't remember where though.
Oh, and another big difference: Hardcore mode. It adds more of a survival element, which is very fitting in a post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Fallout New Vegas felt to me to be about who you serve, whereas Fallout 3 was about why you serve. In New Vegas, I often stopped and thought "Why on earth is this Courier aiding the Legion? Or the NCR? Or Mr House?" I found it hard to come up with a reason, whereas if I chose to go it alone against all three, I can say "I'm an anarchist who wants to watch the world burn" or "I'm an egotist, it all should belong to me" or "I care about these folks, but these three groups ultimately don't; I should screw all three groups over". As a result, I find the three established factions unworthy of my aid because either I can see where they're going and why and don't like it (NCR and Legion; the locals really, I mean REALLY don't want you, I don't really benefit, so why should I?) or I can't (Mr House; he never says a thing, so really could my character trust him? I mean, for all I know, he'll dispose of me once he's won.)
In Fallout 3, you grew up in the Vault, so dad is all you really know; perhaps you keep going because you care, or because you're simply curious to see where it ends or maybe because you want revenge. If you don't care, you can wander off into the wasteland, uncaring about your missing father and immerse yourself in its intricacies, perhaps one day stumbling back upon the trail and deciding to see where it ultimately goes. In Fallout New Vegas, I can't help but feel all roads lead to Rome, I mean New Vegas; you HAVE to go there, else most game feels ancillary.
Ultimately I find both game's storylines rather unsatisfactory in comparison with the core games; they have their moments, but ultimately they often don't give me a reason; I do them because that's what will further the story, nothing else. Contrast that with the side missions where I don't have to do them, but perhaps there is reward to be had, because my character is supposed to be the good guy who helps out or simply because they're a curious Vault dweller who thinks this is a good way to see more of the world. And if I decide to turn round, give them a digit salute and a wall of lead, it won't prevent me from getting to the ending...
Anyway, I tired and therefore rambling. Apologies if this doesn't make the sense I intended it to make.
In Fallout 3, you grew up in the Vault, so dad is all you really know; perhaps you keep going because you care, or because you're simply curious to see where it ends or maybe because you want revenge. If you don't care, you can wander off into the wasteland, uncaring about your missing father and immerse yourself in its intricacies, perhaps one day stumbling back upon the trail and deciding to see where it ultimately goes. In Fallout New Vegas, I can't help but feel all roads lead to Rome, I mean New Vegas; you HAVE to go there, else most game feels ancillary.
Ultimately I find both game's storylines rather unsatisfactory in comparison with the core games; they have their moments, but ultimately they often don't give me a reason; I do them because that's what will further the story, nothing else. Contrast that with the side missions where I don't have to do them, but perhaps there is reward to be had, because my character is supposed to be the good guy who helps out or simply because they're a curious Vault dweller who thinks this is a good way to see more of the world. And if I decide to turn round, give them a digit salute and a wall of lead, it won't prevent me from getting to the ending...
Anyway, I tired and therefore rambling. Apologies if this doesn't make the sense I intended it to make.
New Vegas has far superior writing. Although the plot comparison between the 2 games is very much personal taste.
Hardcore was a nice idea but not very well executed. You can also "game" New Vegas far easier than F3.
For some reason I like speed running New Vegas now. Quickest time was 4 hours. Finished it at level 9.
Hardcore was a nice idea but not very well executed. You can also "game" New Vegas far easier than F3.
For some reason I like speed running New Vegas now. Quickest time was 4 hours. Finished it at level 9.
To you, maybe. It's not like i didn't enjoy fallout 3 but I just enjoyed New Vegas that much more. There were different focuses from the teams involved, clearly.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:
I feel the Mojave is more civilized than the Capital Wasteland. Makes for a different feeling. Gameplay wise, they're pretty similar, but New Vegas is definatly better is that regard.
It's really a matter of taste. I thought both were good in different ways.
It's really a matter of taste. I thought both were good in different ways.
While it seems like there were more choices in Fallout: New Vegas, I felt that the choices were more limited in their possibilities. So, Fallout 3 has a more linear story with clearer karma distinctions, and Fallout: New Vegas has a less linear story, but I wasn't as affected by it.
This, and that New Vegas was pretty much like hick central, but that might be just me.Ephraim J. Witchwood said:
New Vegas has a better (and more varied) atmosphere, as opposed to Fallout 3's relentless oppressive dreariness. It also has the better story, or at least a better developed story. You can understand every factions view (not that understanding them always justifies their actions, but you can at least see how their particular worldview developed over time) and you're given more choice in how you decide to change the future of the Mojave.
Those two things really made all the difference in the world to me. I hated Fallout 3 and loved New Vegas, and those are turning points. There are countless other smaller differences, but they are ones that I could take or leave.
Edit: God dammit, Dusty! Read the freaking OP and not just the thread title before you post.
Thematically...well, I think the OP got it pretty much.
Those two things really made all the difference in the world to me. I hated Fallout 3 and loved New Vegas, and those are turning points. There are countless other smaller differences, but they are ones that I could take or leave.
Edit: God dammit, Dusty! Read the freaking OP and not just the thread title before you post.
Thematically...well, I think the OP got it pretty much.
In my opinion, on one hand Fo 3 its the one with history, atmosfere and charm: escaping the vaul 101, a place where you were "born" and yur last hope its to find your dad in the VAST wasteland and survive, later you learn how to use it at your advantage... priceless. On the other hand FO NV only get the last part, the history its meh (two factions fighting for something that somethingnize something), the combat its improved but without any guidance it loose purpose, everyone in the game have the same accent/speech/reactions, and so on...
Point is, FO 3 its so immersive that it would suck all your life more that a night with a succubus, but more gratifying.
Point is, FO 3 its so immersive that it would suck all your life more that a night with a succubus, but more gratifying.
Just one thing. I don't think you're really an amnesiac in Fallout NV. You just (almost) never talk about your past. However, sometimes when talking to certain people you have the option to say something about your past that involves what your talking about. Like you can say you once saw that one singer back in New Reno, or that you're possibly the Lonesome Stranger's Dad.evilneko said:
That's why I hate the main character's "story" in NV, because they have us playing a character who has a history but we don't know about it, and not cause he/she is an amnesiac but because they just don't tell you and have your character never tell his/her story. WTF.
P.S. The other things you said are much more neat. Sorry, I just wanted to say that for a while now.