What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas

Recommended Videos

Judgement101

New member
Mar 29, 2010
4,156
0
0
Out off all the things, I feel like Fallout 3 nails the atmosphere. I know "But everything has a green filter over it" well, so did New Vegas except in orange. Also, Fallout 3 had more lively towns. In New Vegas, Goodsprings is boring and pointless, Novac is more or less a quick stop for a follower and a merchant, and sadly New Vegas itself is just kinda static, it seems like they are just there for gambling and the occasional quest. Where as in Fallout 3 Rivet City feels like a living city with people going to their jobs or shopping at the rundown market. Also, I know this has been said before, but the soundtrack is great. All the songs are from the 40s,50s, and 60s which really boosts the atmosphere and really sells the whole "Atomic war froze advancement of civilization" kinda feel.
 

Cerrax

New member
Feb 15, 2009
164
0
0
Fallout 3
-Excellent intro
-Great environments
-Horrible main quest line
-Varied and interesting side quests
-Lame black-and-white reputation system
-No hardcore/survival mode
-Lots of tunnels / underground levels
-Awesome music and radio stations

Fallout: New Vegas
-Weak intro
-Highly improved and streamlined character building
-Better dialogue options
-Excellent main quest line
-Boring and repetitive side quests
-Fun and useful companions
-Excellent multi-faceted reputation system
-Hardcore mode is way too easy
-Decent music and lame radio stations

As many have stated, Fallout 3 really hits home the "you are stuck in this lawless shithole all alone" atmosphere, but sacrifices some key elements of the Fallout franchise and is much less of a story-driven game and more just about exploring and random encounters. New Vegas takes more of a "you're stuck in this lawless shithole, but at least you can make some friends and band together" approach. The game itself is a bit buggy, but the ability to come together with different companions and factions and really truly choose a side makes the world feel bigger and more rich, even if the map is significantly smaller and less populated with random quests. New Vegas is much more story-driven, but that's not to be confused with linear. You get to make the story as you go along.
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
Nothing, absolutely nothing. The gameplay in both is the same so no one does it better. The story in fallout 3 was shit and New Vegas has Obsidian so obviously we can tell whose is better(though it isn't their best story it is still a really good one). Most everything is like Fallout 3 but improved. Though some people say exploring is better in fallout 3, I am not much into exploring(yet I have invest hundreds of hours into Bethesda's games, how 'bout that). When ever I try my copy of fallout 3 I can't help but think New Vegas is better.
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
A lot of people are going to say that F3 doesn't fallow cannon as much as they'd liked. They have some valid points, but I'd ignore most of them and just enjoy the game.

Well, F3 has a lot better story than FNV vanilla, but with all the DLC the hunt for Ulysses makes up for the gap in the main game.
I also think F3 does a better job at atmosphere. The dark blues, greys, and green make the Wasteland heavy, but the heaviness doesn't extend to movement. From the get-go the whole map is open, but there are some areas where you'll find some difficulty. There's also a lot better passing in the begining.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
I actually think Ulysses was a terrible character.

they built him up to some some uber badass with a deep past, and then in Lonesome Road they turn him into yet another "WAA YOU BROKE MY HOME I HATE YOU" crybabby.

Ulysses is badass, until you find out his motivation.
 

Sean Steele

New member
Mar 30, 2010
243
0
0
Both are great games, I LOVE the extra systems in NV though, along with the wider array of ending options.

-Disguising as Faction Members
-Hardcore Survival Mode
-Almost every encounter had a nonviolent solution (Except for things like random bandits and the like)
-The Perks you get at random for playing the game in specific ways.
-More conversations can be won with skills besides speech then with speech. (Its pretty clever because if your sitting there with a guy trying to defuse a bomb your deep knowledge of explosives will probably much be more helpful then your charm and wit.)
-Better Companions (Raoul's Storyline almost brought a tear to my eye. No one in 3 even sits in my memory besides you know my easymode friend at the end, Faux)
 

Excedrin

New member
Feb 22, 2012
20
0
0
This discussion happens over and over, but,


Eomega123 said:
IMHO, Fallout 3 had a better world, while Fallout New Vegas had a better story. The Capitol Wasteland was pretty interesting to explore, and if you saw a shadow on the horizon, you knew there'd be something interesting if you went up to it. Compare this to the innumerable ammount of boarded up house in New Vegas. Why even put the house there if I can't do anything with it? However, Fallout 3's story pretty much consisted of bouncing from person to person completing fetch quests before watching a giant robot and a team of super-soldiers complete the final mission for you. At least with New Vegas you got some choice in how things went down and could just say 'Fuck all you guys, I'm burning Nevada to the ground!' if you so pleased.
Agreed on all accounts. While I liked FO3 a lot, NV will always win in my mind because of how many directions I can take it. It really made me feel immersed in the world, much more so than 3. For one, your character's entire origin story is immutable in 3, and the choice surrounding the ending is as complex as, "kill everyone or save the capital wasteland!" I mean, the plot isn't even that good; I'll be the first to defend Bethesda's games, but they don't really make a compelling main story. I also feel like the dialogue was better, and I enjoyed minor tweaks to gameplay in NV (repair not being so central, hardcore mode, greater weapon variety, changed skills, etc.)

But to the OP: if you haven't already come to this conclusion, get both. They're both solid games and your personal taste will decide what you prefer.
 

GloatingSwine

New member
Nov 10, 2007
4,544
0
0
Reincarnatedwolfgod said:
What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas?
Not a lot. To be honest.

New Vegas is a better game in just about every respect. It matters more where you spend your skill points, as you'll get less of them, it matters more which perks you take, as you'll get less of them, the combat balance is better, so that endgame fights aren't tedious slugfests between bullet sponges (as your armour will be so good nothing can hurt you save by cheating, but everything you meet has a million hitpoints), the way the world and factions work is better, and more in keeping with the Fallout 'verse, and the main quest is far, far better.
 

Zaik

New member
Jul 20, 2009
2,077
0
0
It's basically the same game done in the entirely opposite way.

In NV, everywhere you go has something to do with a quest, there's very little actual aimless exploration that goes on because the world is pretty much totally flat.

In Fallout 3, there's very few quests(maybe 40ish?), but you can pretty much just pick a direction and start running and you'll almost always find something interesting to do.
 

ZombieMonkey7

New member
Dec 24, 2009
178
0
0
EVERYTHING
-Different locations (unlike FO: NV with hundreds of coyote dens) and almost all worth exploring
-Music is much better
-Also the gameplay and engine from FO: NV was ripped out of FO3 so it's the same
-More effort put into quests
-Less bugs, although if you are having trouble getting to play FO3 that may be a different story
-The Pitt, Brotherhood, and point look out are all amazing dlc (the others suck)
-Better weapons, COMBAT SHOTGUN FTW
 

Gorilla Gunk

New member
May 21, 2011
1,234
0
0
Fallout 3 had better atmosphere. In some places it's so thick that it's practically a survival horror game.

New Vegas is just... there.
 

TwentyPercentCooler

New member
Jul 28, 2012
24
0
0
Fallout 3 had more atmosphere and a slightly better story (in my humble opinion, and provided that you have the DLC). That being said, I liked the combat and the characters a bit more in NV.

Cass = boss.
 

Headdrivehardscrew

New member
Aug 22, 2011
1,660
0
0
I really love Fallout and Fallout 2. I know Fallout 3 has its inconsistencies, but I prefer it to New Vegas, even lots so.

I don't like gambling and I don't like the very concept of Las Vegas. I suppressed the negative feelings as best I could, but I was unhappy pretty much from the start, very unhappy the moment I entered the strip.

Fallout 3 conveys the feeling of being stranded in a post-nuclear world much better, methinks. Also, while some NV expansions are stunning and exceptional, the whole package that is Fallout 3 is much more... I don't know how to put it, more varied yet somehow all better integrated, more homogenic. Apart from those subway tunnels, of which there are many, I loved pretty much every bit of Fallout, and finding new things simply by bumping into or stumbling over them was a fantastic trip.

In NV, I ended up hating all available factions safe for the Brotherhood of Steel and the Followers of the Apocalypse, and I pretty much killed everyone else on sight. Neo-Roman fascists? Nah. Idiotic NPR? Nah. Old guy in a Michael Jackson oxygen tube? Nah. Drug-dealing prison inmate dicks? Nah. Mafiosi types? Nah. Cannibals? Nah. Kill'em all.

Oh, and I really hated, no, still hate those Cazadores giant insect things. WTF? The first encounter was pretty much three minutes into having walked outside, and it was deadly. Not too cool, that.
 

Terminate421

New member
Jul 21, 2010
5,773
0
0
Freaky Lou said:
Terminate421 said:
Size, I still prefer Fallout 3 due to its size. New Vegas may have disguises but that's just me.
New Vegas is bigger than FO3. More quests at release than FO3 had with every expansion, and way more enemies, weapons and mods to play with.
I don't remember new Vegas having vaults that had nothing to do with quests, or many underground subways.

Size has nothing to do with quests, size means that it takes a long time to walk from one area to the next. Also, a desert didn't feel post apocalyptic IMO. The capital wasteland felt more tied to fallout "feel" IMO. New Vegas was not bad, it just had a little less than Fallout 3
 

elvor0

New member
Sep 8, 2008
2,320
0
0
pspman45 said:
Fallout 3 had a really great atmosphere, it combined the tunes from the various radio stations with the destroyed ruins of a once great civilization to present either a depressing or uppity feel. that, combined with the occasional silliness of the game (which could only be found if one searched for it) lead to a very enjoyable experience for me, one that no game to this very day has been able to achieve.

Fallout: New Vegas seems like it grabbed all of these aspects, but put it together wrong. just placing the things that made 3 great, thinking "WHAT made 3 great?" over "WHY did that make 3 great?"
the world honestly doesn't seem that destroyed when the Las Vegas strip still has power and staffed casinos! also the wasteland itself was just boring. brown desert all day. no "downtown DC" area to loot at lower levels despite the danger. and the invisible walls, my god, they're everywhere! I once tried sneaking past the deathclaw infested mine area as a shortcut to new vegas, only to discover that there was an invisible wall at the very end of it which prevented me from actually getting there! because heaven forbid I remember where to go and can shave off a few hours of the main story like I could in 3! If I know where the villain is, LET ME GO THERE WITHOUT MAKING ME HAVE TO FIND OUT AGAIN!

I also hold a terrible grudge against that game for being poorly optimized as fuck on release and bugging out constantly, such as the time on my very first character when I walked outside of the Doc's office and was instantly murdered by a deathclaw! Talk about bad first impressions!
why was that there??
why won't it leave, despite constant checkpoint reloads? ITS THE FIRST LEVEL DAMN IT!
all that fallout NV taught me was to save every 10 seconds because the game hates me :(
I could honestly go all day about why I feel that it is an inferior game to Fallout 3, but I'm just tired of being flamed because I think that.
Did you play Fallout 2 by any chance? I'll take it you jumped on board with FO3, because there was New Reno in FO2, which was full of fully staffed and lit casinos, along with the completely rebuilt Vault City, which was all high tech, and wasn't underground, and Califonia Republic, which was almost totally rebuilt, with proper police officers, laser grids, farms, and proper housing. And the "western" theme still was around, not the whole time, but it was there. I mean you're in Nevada, makes sense it's going to have that western desert vibe. FO3 just didn't feel like the same world that FO 1/2 were in.

It's been a long time since the bombs fell, people have had a chance to rebuild now. FNV felt much more like a Fallout game than FO3 did. The aesthetic and atmosphere just fits more. FO3 is set 200 years after the bombs fell, yet everyone's still picking around in the dirt, people would've been trying to rebuild by then. Nevermind the fact that the amount of radiation hanging around is ludicrous, Chynobal is fine now, as are Horishima and Nagasaki (well aside from the genetic problems, but in general the /area/ is fine.)

The world of Fallout /is/ a post apocalypse world, yes but it didn't just happen, it's set a long time after the bombs fell, and we can see that as the games progress, Fallout 1 is pretty dead and closest to the traditional PA setting, Fallout Tactics people were better off, and things were starting to be reorginized, and by FO2, society has started to rebuild to some degree, it's still a bit shit, but you can see the evolution, ignoring FO3 for a second, NV then is the next step of that. Fallout 1 they were better off than they were in Fo3, and FO1 happened only 80 years after the bombs fell.

Technology is obviously vastly different to our world as well. They never invented the transistor until 2070, and LCD was never invented. Instead invented compact nuclear fission, (such as the Fission battery) and nuclear power was the main source of power, even in the cars (which are actually based on a real concept car by ford, but was given up, given the obvious dangers of having a small nuclear reactor in your bonnet, and hence why they explode with mushroom clouds). Given the amount of nuclear arms in the Fallout Universe, it's entirely plausable for them to be powering places with it. And the Hoover Damn is providing power to Las Vegas as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator

These exist in the real world and the FO universe, and are how they power things as well I would assume, given they are powered by radioactive /decay/ rather than just harnessing the nuclear power. A massive key point is the development of Nuclear FUSION, another fantastic energy source which we haven't developed yet.

Not only that, Las Vegas never really got hit by any bombs, as Mr House states that he used the anti air defenses on Las Vegas to shoot down 77 nukes. So the Mojave state is more natural and merely fallout induced(as in nuclear fallout), as opposed to being hit by nukes.

Check out this: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Divergence

It's actually quite an interesting read on how different the Fallout Universe is to ours beyond the nuclear war.
 

The Artificially Prolonged

Random Semi-Frequent Poster
Jul 15, 2008
2,755
0
0
Mainly the environments are better in FO3 (with the big exception of the subways tunnels, screw them), apart from that in my opinion everything else is done much better in New Vegas, which is not without a few interesting places of its own.
 

Maeta

New member
Jun 8, 2011
186
0
0
Dr. McD said:
the metro/sewers FUCKING SUCK
To be honest, I liked them a lot more than walking over boring ground for miles, maybe seeing some pack animals. The metro had that kinda horror atmosphere, and you had to find your way around: blockages were actual blockages rather than invisible walls stopping you climbing a hill that was not steep enough to prevent you from climbing.

Maybe it's just cos I played 3 first, and it was one of the first games like it that I ever really played (I mean, before hand all I did was stuff like Footy Manager, sports games, GUN and GTA) and that I played it at a weird time of my life and my housemates at the time got me into it and that's why I love it way more than New Vegas, but then again, my point about the whole Lanius ending being really, really frustrating and the fact that Boone shooting an ant crashed the game in the same place literally about 20 times, even when I told him to piss off for a while, kinda pushed me over the edge.

Both are great games, but picking on the stupid bits about 3 when they show up again in New Vegas does seem like a shit argument, especially 3 was actually more rounded in terms of character creation and development (you could do the whole thing as a combatant, sneak or charmer) whereas in NV you were either the perfect warrior v Lanius (which still had me pretty much boned) or bribe him... right... because shooting him in the face with 6 rockets and not damaging him is way smarter than a town of kids.

I view that the motivations in 3 are way better than in NV. In NV, why the hell would you want to go on a one man crusade against a gang who buried you alive? What have you got to gain by going off into this dangerous environment? You were a courier, not a soldier. In 3, you were whatever you grew up to be, and you made your own path there.

captcha: construction ahead... Well, I guess there would be at the end of both stories...
 

Sutter Cane

New member
Jun 27, 2010
534
0
0
What Fallout 3 does better than New Vegas:

* Environments both interior and exterior. (of course it is it's a bethesda game)

* Balancing the different weapon skills. (guns and energy weapons seem to be underpowered in New Vegas)

What Fallout New Vegas does better:

*Crafting a story that isn't full of gaping plot holes

*More Consistently interesting characters

*More interesting sidequests

*Providing a wide variety of choices for how you want to go through the game, and who you want to side with (The fact that the game didn't even give you the option to side with the enclave kind of pissed me off, in new vegas you have 4 different options on who you want t side with in the main quest)

*Providing better opportunities to actually roleplay as your character. (In fallout 3 I can't tell you how many times I was railroaded into saying things my character wouldn't say)

*Not having little lamplight

*Greater consistancy with fallout lore