What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas
- Thread starter Reincarnatedwolfgod
- Start date
Recommended Videos
TACTICAL ASSESSMENT, RED CHINESE VICTORY... IMPOSSIBLE.Baron von Blitztank said:
I remember that when i tried the D3D9.dll fix, it required a lot of switching between starting it with the fallout3_launcher.exe and using FOMM. I would open then close the launcher then use FOMM, or something like that, I don't remember exactly.Reincarnatedwolfgod said:
I DO know how you can check if it will work though-
Open FOMM, click and open Game Settings at the top, and in the general tab it should have a line the says Graphics Adapter. If it has a NVIDIA GeForce instead of whatever adapter you have, you should be able to play it by (in the main FOMM window) clicking File then Run fallout.
OT:
Atmoshpere- For the overall atmosphere F3 was "Survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland" and NV was just "Survive in the desert with lots of friendly settlements"
Weapons- F3 had a generic assortment of weapons that were varied enough to notice. NV seemed like it developed a hatred for Energy Weapons because they were few and far between; and they overpriced a lot of the generic weapons; the different ammo types seemed unnecessary; and the new DAM/DPS system was just plain confusing.
Armor- F3 had enough armor for everyone and then some, and it was easily usable. NV lacked that generic sea of armor choices, and the only good ones were either Medium/Heavy or too rare to keep in good condition; and once again they over-complicated thing with the DR/DT system.
Perks/Skills/Etc- F3 had good perks, and only made better with Broken Steel; and had enough skill points to get what you wanted. NV Made a mistake with only 1 perk every 2 levels; it added/removed some good perks (Looking at you Rad Absorption and Jury Rigging); and still had enough skill points to go around.
Enemies- F3 had enemies everywhere, but they were to break the monotony of walking around and were easily kill-able. NV seemed to lack enemies (Looking at you Raiders and Super Mutants) and the ones it did have were usually just animals/creatures.
General Changes (F3 to NV)- NV added more companions, companion perks, and they dont die when they're with you (except on hardcore); added the option to use true iron sights; added option to play in hardcore mode; multiple endings; overhauled the workbench/reloading bench; removed bobble heads for SPECIAL implants; Main DLC had inter-connected sidestory (Honest Hearts (Zion) was odd man out); Map seemed smaller (half was inaccessible); and it didnt have a giant f****** robot.
Overall, i would take F3 over NV 6 days of the week.
That tends to happen a lot in nearly all of Obsidian's games, where half the content that would make the game all the more interesting gets cut due to them aiming much larger than they can handle. They gotta learn their limits and keep the experiences short, sweet, and memorable.Ultratwinkie said:
OT: Yes, like everyone has been saying, the Capitol Wasteland is much better than the Mojave. The DC warzone was all kinds of awesome, and I missed the metro systems of tunnels to skulk around in.
One thing the Capitol Wasteland had that the Mojave didn't have is explorability. As soon as Vault 101 opened up, the whole of the Wasteland was open to you. Every location is carefully positioned equidistant to you at that point. The sky is the limit. I would find myself always going to Megaton first since it's right there and I need new items, but after that I'm completely free to do what I want. No constraints. No invisible walls. No angry mutant butterflies or deathclaws to ruin your day if you didn't want to go on the plot railroad.
I found every time I created a new character in New Vegas that I would do the same quests in the same order every time. Once I left Doc Mitchel's place, the only direction I could go was south to Primm, and since the only way I could go coincided with the main quest, I might as well do it as I go. So I would stop in Primm, which had escaped convicts which I always helped kill because I'm already there, so why not; I get good gear, reputation, and experience (all of which you need if you want to survive beyond the low-level areas I'm constrained to); and I get to complete a quest, so might as well get it over with. Then you get to Nipton which you just can't fucking ignore. Next comes Novac. Then Boulder City since you've done all the main quest plot hooks at this point, so why stop now? I don't even feel the ingame constraints finally come off until you're near Freeside, and at that point, you might as well fucking go through to New Vegas!
It becomes the same thing every damn time I make a new character. Going straight to New Vegas is impossible without bypassing every goddamn town, outpost, quest, and dungeon you come across while running on a cross-country trip. And New Vegas wasn't even all that interesting to me, but it was the same for anything that was interesting. Red Rock Canyon, Jacobstown, Nellis Airforce Base--all of them are on the otherside of the fucking map, blocked off by massive natural and invisible barriers and the threat of overpowered mutants. I wasn't allowed to just explore the Mojave without feeling like I gave the game the middle finger and that I severely crippled my lowlevel character by not doing those beginning quests.
Ultimately, all this left me with one character that I actually gave a shit about, the rest being just throw aways since I would get bored doing the beginning area over again and was never able to make my way to the more interesting areas. This game was not for me. It was fun for a lark, but after I completed everything with my one character, it had nothing left to offer me. Fallout 3 had me coming back all the time, because if I wanted to redo an interesting part of the game that my main had already done, I could create a new character, maybe try a different playstyle with different skills or something and just head straight there. No constraints. No plot railroad. My dad wasn't goin' anywhere! With the map laid out before me, I could do whatever I wanted.
Also, I hated how... civilized the Mojave was. It didn't seem like people trying desperately to survive in an oppressive and cruel world. Everything was about survival in Fallout 3. That's another thing I loved. The people were desperate. There wasn't any need for a looming political war with different sides in conflict! Surviving was the conflict. The Enclave only ever became a threat if you completed almost two-thirds of the main quest. They weren't the main focus of the game like the NCR and Legion were. Everything about the Mojave came down to them. That's why I felt so compelled to just do the main quest every time I made a new character in New Vegas, since the entire fucking game revolved around them! Everything I did came back to them and the war, there was no escaping it.
The Capitol Wasteland was it's own entity, separate from the main quest with the Enclave and the Brotherhood, and because of that, the possibilities of what I could become in this cruel, barren land were endless.
All these things are what makes Fallout 3 a much more enjoyable experience to me. I don't get my panties in a twist over "lore inconsistencies", I latch onto whatever gives me a better experience overall, and Fallout 3 wins over that every time.
This. Explain. Because as far as I read it, it's 1000% incorrect. You can be an evil-as-fuck scumbag in that game. Even the multiple endings allow you to be the biggest dickweed of the Wasteland even if the evil option did seem irrational.Aprilgold said:
If you were to say "New Vegas gave you the option to be neutral", I would still argue that it would be a very difficult task to do with the karma system being what it is but I would understand the point you're getting across a little better.
Well seeings as Fallout New Vegas is about how Vegas was spared from the worst, it would be a little bit weird to have it all as destroyed as DC.TopazFusion said:
I found New Vegas a lot more interesting to play than FO3, because FO3 was too dark and enclosed most of the time, I felt like I spent most of my time in the Metro system, lost in the grey. And when you're above ground it is still very grim (I know that's the style of Post-apocalyptic wastelands), but New Vegas had the Wasteland look with out making me feel queasy to look at.
Also, as has been said, New Vegas had much better DLC and story.
I preferred the 'devastated city'. In F:NV, the city of New Vegas is built up as this (albeit slightly morally corrupt) oasis of civilisation in the wasteland but when I FINALLY reach it, the strip is two small environments and half a dozen buildings. Totally broke my immersion and killed the fallout feeling for me. Just my 2 pence though, I preffered F3 but liked the new gameplay elements of F:NVnikki191 said:
F:NV > F3
if i want post apocalyptic atmosphere and horror, i play the stalker series (1000% better and more alive world even if it is glichy, and there you can go where ever you please), if i want a good story? i go play F:NV.
if i want post apocalyptic atmosphere and horror, i play the stalker series (1000% better and more alive world even if it is glichy, and there you can go where ever you please), if i want a good story? i go play F:NV.
Honestly, I just like fallout 3 more because I could finish it (new vegas had so many bugs it wasn't even funny) and it actually felt like there was a world for me to explore. New Vegas seemed fucking barren in comparison, which is hilarious for a place that was left "mostly untouched".
RADIALTHRONE1 said:
This is actually what really bothered me about FO3. See, Fallout was never about "Survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland". Fallout was about "Hey, there is a whole new world and civilization out there, let's explore it!". It just happens so that the world after the nuclear apocalypse turned out really weird...TheDrunkNinja said:
Fallout was about LIFE after the apocalypse and not so much about crawling through abandoned subway tunnels while shooting up super mutants in the nuclear ruins of a city. That's why FO3 doesn't really resonate with fans of the original Fallout games: it's thematically just too different.
FO:NV, on the other hand, does a much, much, much better job at capturing the the spirit of the original Fallout games. It's also the game that actually continues the lore of the original Fallout games in a meaningful manner, while the story of FO3, uh, really seems to be completely inconsequential in the context of the Fallout universe.
FO3 feels more like a spin-off that maybe should have taken place a century or so before the events in FO1, because, as others have pointed out, the world in FO3 is far too broken and lifeless considering the fact that it takes place 200 years after the bombs fell. There's too little life and too little society and too little vegetation and too much radiation (FO:NV gets away with having little vegetation because it takes place in the desert).
Also, FN:NV is in a completly different league when it comes to writing. There are some things Bethesda does really well (e.g. creating nice open sandbox worlds) but writing is not one of them. In terms of story, dialogue and characters FO3 is simply outclassed by FN:NV and it's not even close. Bethesda games have always suffered from lame storylines, crappy dialogue, really weak characters and embarrassing attempts at humor (and Todd Howard, but that's a different issue). Obsidian, on the other hand, has some of the best and most imaginative writers in the industry. FO:NV has tons of memorable characters, factions and loctions.... FO3 has that guy in Megaton who looks like Chuck Norris and that giant talking robot.
Tl;dr: FO:NV is an actual Fallout game, FO3 is a thematicaly unconnected spin-off that uses Fallout-style artwork assets.
I enjoyed the world of New Vegas more than Fallout 3. Kinda got sick of constant metro tunnels. But I enjoyed how free you were to go almost anywhere in 3. Not pretty much forced down to Primm, Nipton, Novac, Freeside in that order due to Cazadors and Deathclaws.
Saying that I loved NV's story and missions a lot more. I on remember 3 having about 20 missions or so in the game :/
Although I loved the randomness at times of 3. More Super Mutants (loved that area where you have to defend the kids from them. But most of all how anything could happen. For example. I once encountered a Deathclaw outside the Super Dupa Mart when I was starting the game. That save didn't last very long XD
Saying that I loved NV's story and missions a lot more. I on remember 3 having about 20 missions or so in the game :/
Although I loved the randomness at times of 3. More Super Mutants (loved that area where you have to defend the kids from them. But most of all how anything could happen. For example. I once encountered a Deathclaw outside the Super Dupa Mart when I was starting the game. That save didn't last very long XD
Your experience and know-how =/= others experience and know how. Just because YOU didn't know about Fallout back then did not mean there weren't people who cared for it before 3.Syzygy23 said:
Here's your explanation, no matter what happens in the main story quests, you are forced to join up with the brother-hood of steel, you are yelled at, in the ending for not killing yourself and instead sending someone in there who can bloody survive it. The ending is always relatively the same and usually has the same outcome. There is about one major choice in Fallout 3, while New Vegas has 4 and then about six per story quest and any number of extra things that you can do to get a better ending.TheDrunkNinja said:
Fallout 3 is pretty much the same game every time. You have to go to Megaton to go find your dad, then you have to go and help your dads research and then you have to join the brotherhood of steel. There are no actual choices, apart from one [poisoning the water] in the main story. My comment related more to the fact that there is no real choices in the main story and side-quest choices don't change a whole lot either in the Main story. In Fallout New Vegas, who you bring with you to the final level changes who they bring as a side-helper, who you chose to befriend like the Boomers or the Enclave Revenant will determine who helps you there. Joining the NCR, Legion or House or yourself will change and affect the entire rest of the game. In Fallout 3, this doesn't exactly exist.
I take people who post LAWL in their posts about as seriously as I take memes, as a giant wise-crack. So yes, your post was LAWL worthy.Mr Cwtchy said:
Okay, so, this entire thread is nuts. The whole thing started off quite normally and then, well, yeah. There are people posting here with so much bile towards either FO3 or both games that I'd swear blind that their families were all butchered with a copy of the manual.
I mean, seriously. Holy goddamn hell.
I'll admit, my favourite argument is the one everyone's holding over the ridiculousness of FO3's story and how you can't irradiate water (Completely ignoring the fact that you can produce irradiated water - it's like you guys have never heard of dissolving stuff).
Bear in mind that this occurs in a world where:
1) Living zombies are totally plausible
2) Aforementioned zombies are immortal (or at least, more long-lived than anyone missing half his skin SHOULD be)
3) It's absolutely possible for a thousand people to live in an engineered hole in the ground for 50 years without killing each other (mostly).
4) It's also entirely possible for a huge organisation to install a hundred-odd massive vaults designed specifically to perform long-term experiments without absolutely anyone having a case of the morals.
5) There's a virus capable of generating huge piles of mass to put on your muscles - or giving you a tree to grow out of your head
6) Turning into either a big green hulk-lookalike or aforementioned zombie with various important internal parts laid bare makes you immune to radiation.
The entire world is fucking ludicrous already, morons. If you are seriously complaining about water being irradiated, then either ***** about every other scientific oddity in the series or go play a game with hard science in it. (Here's a clue: That rules out STALKER [Anomalies], Half-Life [Fucking everything], Fallout [See above], StarCraft [Zerg = practically impossible biologically], Deus Ex [Invisible and can still see? IMPOSSIBLE!] and, like, EVERY fantasy game)
Bethesda are not Interplay. They do not make games like Interplay. What they did was take a ridiculously old series and reinvented it a little.
And you know what? I goddamn love Fallout 3. It's fallout-y enough for me and I actually enjoyed the story for it's cliched, 1950's-esque beliefs about science. Regardless of the science behind it (And this is coming from an engineer, bear in mind! I know my science!) the story caught me up. New Vegas... well, not so much. The game played well (when it didn't cough up a lung or two) but frankly... it just didn't engage me as much.
I mean, seriously. Holy goddamn hell.
I'll admit, my favourite argument is the one everyone's holding over the ridiculousness of FO3's story and how you can't irradiate water (Completely ignoring the fact that you can produce irradiated water - it's like you guys have never heard of dissolving stuff).
Bear in mind that this occurs in a world where:
1) Living zombies are totally plausible
2) Aforementioned zombies are immortal (or at least, more long-lived than anyone missing half his skin SHOULD be)
3) It's absolutely possible for a thousand people to live in an engineered hole in the ground for 50 years without killing each other (mostly).
4) It's also entirely possible for a huge organisation to install a hundred-odd massive vaults designed specifically to perform long-term experiments without absolutely anyone having a case of the morals.
5) There's a virus capable of generating huge piles of mass to put on your muscles - or giving you a tree to grow out of your head
6) Turning into either a big green hulk-lookalike or aforementioned zombie with various important internal parts laid bare makes you immune to radiation.
The entire world is fucking ludicrous already, morons. If you are seriously complaining about water being irradiated, then either ***** about every other scientific oddity in the series or go play a game with hard science in it. (Here's a clue: That rules out STALKER [Anomalies], Half-Life [Fucking everything], Fallout [See above], StarCraft [Zerg = practically impossible biologically], Deus Ex [Invisible and can still see? IMPOSSIBLE!] and, like, EVERY fantasy game)
Bethesda are not Interplay. They do not make games like Interplay. What they did was take a ridiculously old series and reinvented it a little.
And you know what? I goddamn love Fallout 3. It's fallout-y enough for me and I actually enjoyed the story for it's cliched, 1950's-esque beliefs about science. Regardless of the science behind it (And this is coming from an engineer, bear in mind! I know my science!) the story caught me up. New Vegas... well, not so much. The game played well (when it didn't cough up a lung or two) but frankly... it just didn't engage me as much.
What story? Running through city ruins trying to find daddy while listening to the ramblings of a chiché radio DJ, enjoying the shitty Bethesda dialogue writing and encountering characters that are only memorable for being incredibly unmemorable?Niccolo said:
Look, I get that people who don't really care about Fallout prefer FO3 for it's more somber post-apocalyptic atmosphere and the "survivalist" world design. That's not an opinion I share but it's something I can understand - but prefering FO3 (or any Bethesda game, for that matter) for its story is simply ludicrous.
FN:NV, if anything, has proven one thing: that we can have an open-world-style RPG with a good story, memorable characters, great dialogue, a comparably high degree of freedom of choice (with meaningful consequences!). This a major achievement in a sub-genre of RPGs that has been pretty much defined by Bethesda's and Piranha Byte's ineptitude in precisely these areas. FO:NV has shown us that we can expect more. And let's not forget about the utter triumph that is Old World Blues. Bethesda couldn't produce something like that even if their lives depended on it.
Really, the only thing in my mind the FO3 did better was exploration.
You could just wander the Capitol Wasteland and find interesting things. NV didn't really have that, they had more set pieces, and a much more linear pathway to walk...there was very little to "explore"
You could just wander the Capitol Wasteland and find interesting things. NV didn't really have that, they had more set pieces, and a much more linear pathway to walk...there was very little to "explore"
