Did you happen to watch this video at some point?Eddie the head said:New Vegas, for one simple reason. "What do they eat?" The world is just a lot better realized. Just think about the first town you come across in Fallout:NV vs Fallout 3. One is build next to a nuke, the other is build next to a water spring. I hope I don't need to explain why I think the second one makes more sense.
Also I didn't play the others.
Why do you prefer 3's story? I really can't comprehend why, so please explain, because I thought its story was boring and completely uninteresting.Elfgore said:The first Fallout game I played was Fallout 3 and it is also my favorite. I can only compare between NV and 3 since I have no will to play the first 2 (I hate TPS).
So the reasons I prefer 3 would be: Quest are actually unique and do not feel like I'm repeating the same quest, The DLC (minus the swamp one) are awesome (NV's is good too, I just prefer 3's), the quest actually possess consequences like Megaton being destroyed, and lastly the story was ten times better than NV's, god I hated NV's story it was awful.
I better prepare a flameshield.
New Vegas was basically made by the original team for 2 (same creative heads anyway) and has everything in common with the originals, where as 3 was basically just Bethesda fucking up continuity. Both are absurdly fun games, but plot wise New Vegas wins hands down, especially if you're looking for something closer to the older games.00slash00 said:So every since Fallout 3 came out, I had refused to play it because it never really felt like a true sequel to Fallout 2. Fallout, to me, had always been a somewhat strategic, isometric, turn-based rpg. Making it a fps, even if it was an fps with rpg elements, just felt like too big a change. Lately I have been defending Final Fantasy 13 a lot because I feel it gets too much hate and that the main problem a lot of people have with it, is that it's so different from other Final Fantasy games that it is not really even recognizable a part of the series, to which I have always said, "Simply being different, does not make it a bad game." then last night I realized something...I am a massive hypocrite, because that's exactly why I refused to play Fallout 3 and New Vegas.
First of all, do both games still hold up today. I don't just mean graphics, I know there are mods for that, I mean the way the game feels. Also, which game has more in common with the story of Fallout 1 and 2. I have heard that New Vegas has the better story and more in common with the first 2 games, but logic would suggest that Fallout 3 should have the most relation to the original games.
Yeah that part was great, and with the right mods the game is still pretty damn fun and entertaining, but it's plot makes me want to die. Bethesda are the kings of the "I don't want to pick any of these options" dialogue tree.Cette said:2 then New Vegas followed by 1. Fallout 3 gets a silver meh award for not really feeling like a fallout game at all.
The bit at the beginning where you play as your character growing up I rather liked though.
Well, as much sense as the Fallout premise ever made from the start, anyway.Ftaghn To You Too said:Fallout New Vegas. It's like Fallout 3 but made by a competent developer and with a world that makes sense.
Oh, of course. It isn't high speculative fiction or anything. But it stretched belief far less than Fallout 3.Muspelheim said:Well, as much sense as the Fallout premise ever made from the start, anyway.Ftaghn To You Too said:Fallout New Vegas. It's like Fallout 3 but made by a competent developer and with a world that makes sense.
Ah, good old Bethesda. Taking "Cool" over "Sensical" ever time.Eddie the head said:Just think about the first town you come across in Fallout:NV vs Fallout 3. One is build next to a nuke, the other is build next to a water spring.