Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[MaxwellEdison]

Perhaps I'm biased due to being able to relate to the landscape in NV more due to my actual location, but I played at a friends house. I quit 3 after level 6, still playing NV.
I ADORE the faction system in NV. I dunno, my opinion lacks validity since I haven't played either through, but right now, NV.

 

[Sparkytheyetti]

I feel alone when I say that Fallout 3 was much better compared to new vegas. From the discussions I've seen, Almost everyone thinks that new vegas is better.

This is the 400th thread I've seen like this:
One: You're obviously not alone
Two: Just because the majority of people prefer the stellar writing of new vegas doesn't mean they aren't both fine games.
Three: No matter how many of these threads you people make you will not hear anything dramatically different than what you've heard before.

Still, I play them a lot more than Fallout 1 or 2 (Which I just picked up) and from my non-nostalgia-blinded point of view the two games do not hold up well as time goes on. The rabid, near-delusional fan-base makes that possible.

I think you're letting your opinion of the rabid, near-delusional fanbase sway your opinion. In any event, that is, just your opinion.

BTW I'm 15, and still think that F2 is the best, so the nostalgia factor doesn't really apply to me.

Tip of the hat to you, sir.

fallout 3 is a better game because it was first. if new vegas had been more different, it was obviously the better game. 60 bucks for what amount to a new map and new weapons! a hardcore modding community could have done that for free!

You... obviously didn't play it. As for being first, New vegas was made by the makers of the first two games. That kind of muddies the waters of primacy.

THANK YOU! Everyone says "Hey its bethesda..." But Beth didnt make NV. Obsidian Entertainment did.

 

[FoRtMinor44]

I would lean towards NV mainly because i like that the story line is much more flexible than fallout 3's, so many different options!

 

[CheckD3]

Personally I find that FO3 is more exploratory, but NV gives you more rewards and gives you more opportunity to do so.

In FO3, even in the Point Lookout DLC, you could roam around the swamp and find stuff, loot stuff, and such. The wasteland was a ***** to travel, but you were always looking for new places to go and explore, and the story, while yes was more open, didn't capture me enough, there wasn't also that many quests that were easy to get done. You could find them, and the ones you found while exploring were fun, but I enjoyed the exploration more than the Story

In NV, it gives you WAY more choice, as well as giving you some fun places to search. The story is also much more fleshed out, and much more, well a bit more wackier than 3 did.

Overall, I enjoyed FO3 WAY more than NV, but I still really like NV. Both are fun, both are exploratory, both offer some unique things, the only problem is the bugs, but...what're you going to do?

 

[Ashendarei]

I liked Fallout 3 a HELLOVA lot better then NV. So much so that I've beaten / run through F3 at least 3 separate times, and after 50+ hours invested in New Vegas I still haven't been able to bring myself to play it again.

 

[Yureina]

I like both about the same. With that said... Fallout 3 had a much bigger impact upon me personally than New Vegas ever did. Its more open-ended nature also allowed me far more replayability potential.

So... Fallout 3 I guess.

 

[devotedsniper]

I like them both, the only issue i have with NV is the fact it was so buggy for me when i first got it, then after the recent update its beeen very stable (except for the same random crash), my only real issue is the whole you finish the main story but you can't continue with either of them, now i know 3 lets you if you buy a certain DLC but surely they should have learnt from 3 that most people like to do the story then continue on with the game considering i've only found 100 odd places randomly walking about out of the thousands on my map.

 

[Brotherofwill]

So wait, a barely irradiated wastland with tons of farms and a large body of fresh clean water along with a prewar city and power feels more apocolyptic than a barren, irraidiated hell hole filled with monstrosities, impure water, mutation and a destroyed city? Bullshit. When I think apocolypse I don't think New Vegas, besides Fallout 3 had to remove the bad taste that BOS left in people's mouth as well as attract new players and catch them up to speed.

I meant that in terms of lore and character interaction. F3 has a beautiful setting, but the characters and everything around just weren't that believable to me, so my immersion was completely shattered whenever I talked to anyone.

In NV people are more easy going and take the whole apocalypse with a pinch of salt and some heavy sarcasm, which really drives home the apocalypse feeling for me just like in the second Fallout game. Just personal preference. Scenery was awesome in F3, that was believable!

 

[Mr. Google]

I feel alone when I say that Fallout 3 was much better compared to new vegas. From the discussions I've seen, Almost everyone thinks that new vegas is better. I completely disagree. Seriously, Play new vegas for a few days, then play fallout 3. Fallout 3's graphics are better than new vegas'! Plus when you start out in new vegas, Its secretly linear. Because if you go anyway but south toward Primm, you get either eaten by cazadors or mauled my deathclaws. I'll admit it opens up once you finally start heading north, but still. Plus the story of revenge just doesn't resonate with me as much as finding my father does. Oh, and if you say that new vegas is better because of the new weapons and mods, well listen to this. Almost EVERY new addition to game play(i.e. new weapons, weapon mods, special ammo etc.) all of that had already been done by the modders of fallout 3. Everything that makes New vegas unique from fallout 3 was already done before obsidian began development on next game. There were new weapon mods, weapon mod... mods,special ammo mods and even desert mods for fallout 3.

But I digress...

So which do you think is better and why?

Fallout New Vegas because of one single detail for me. No Subways. I hated those things so much. They completely slowed down the game and made it so boring. As much as you want to say that fallout 3 wasnt linear it really was once you realized that everywhree you wanted to go had to be done by going through a subway at some point (at least in the middle of the map).

 

[trouble_gum]

Except the DC wasteland is contrived, but it stays the same for 200 years while the West Coast developed its own culture, technology, and governments. California was worse off than DC, and yet it still developed the NCR.

The Capital Wasteland doesn't really "stay the same" for two centuries. Just because it didn't produce a nascent government/state like the NCR or the Legion, doesn't mean that it didn't develop its own culture, nor that it simply stayed the same.

The DC Wasteland seems consistently more fragmented than the West Coast - more centred around individual settlements like Megaton, Tenpenny Towers and Rivet City. Its arguable that the nature of the surrounding territory; higher radiation levels, a greater prevalance of super mutants and a higher incidence of savage raiders lead to a longer period of Mad Max-esque "everyone outside of our scrap-metal walls is the enemy" mentality from the inhabitants of the DC Wasteland.

The NCR itself, by the time of FO:NV has only existed for around 100 years, and had several advantages in terms of creating a new society - salvaged tech from Vault 15, stable and extensive farming. Fallout canon suggests a comparatively calmer and more peaceful socio-political atmosphere on the West Coast allowing for the growth of large settlements and trade in between them.

In short, both sets of circumstances are contrived by the desires of the game designers and they provide 'reasons' behind both situations.

Also, I'm not sure why you keep referring to New Vegas as being "50s baby Las Vegas," like somewhere, something in Fallout's extensive lore says "Las Vegas didn't become the sprawling metropolis of towering hotels, gaudy theme-casinos and laser-projecting pyramids" we see in the 20th Century. There's nothing that suggests Vegas was a small city, or remained time-locked in its 1950s state/size.

The New Vegas we do encounter is not overly impressive and its surrounding ruins, compared to the desecrated familiar landmarks of the Capital Wasteland, are mostly crumbling tarmacadam and twisted flyover ruins. It would've been amusing to have seen the ruins of say, the Pyramid or Caesar's Palace - even if only as objects protruding from piles of rubbles.

Now, I'm not going to suggest that this makes either game superior/inferior to the other, but the argument of "its a desert you don't find buildings higher than one or two storeys very often" is a flawed one.

OT: I liked the Hardcore mode in NV a lot. At least in concept. In practice I liked it a bit less since just adding three new meters to the game and giving Hydra and Doctor's Bags an actual function wasn't that awesome in terms of adding immersion to the game, but it was fun to have to actually sleep from time to time and it did mean that many objects that were effectively useless in non-Hardcore finally did something other than clutter up my PipBoy's inventory.

 

[Mavinchious Maximus]

FO3 was so much better, but I still love NV.

FO3 is my first Fallout game though, I liked the lonely isolated feeling you got when you explored around places. NV is very cluttered with CAZADORS.

Oh the horror.

A Cazadors worst nightmare is the fireaxe and alot of stinpaks.

I found it easy to sneak up on the Cazadors in the tribal village at the star of the game via mountains. all you need is A shit ton of dynamite and some stinpaks and A varmant rifle.

 

[Daverson]

I prefer the mechanics and gameplay of NV, I found the storyline (both the main quest, and sidequests) and environment in FO3 to be much better.

The big thing, The map, is much better in FO3. I mean, in NV it's pretty much a case of:
"You're in this town, follow the road south. Don't go North, you'll get dead-ed by all the nastiest creatures we could come up with" (someone said Cazadors, but there's also Deathclaws there!)
Whereas in FO3, it's more a case of:
You've found this town, and got some clues that suggest you should head to this place in South-East. But there's so many different ways to get there! The first time I played through I found myself fighting supermutants and raiders in the ruined streets, the next time I ended up sneaking past ghouls in the sewers.

sigh.

Again, Its a desert. There are few towns, and straying off the highways is just a way to die pretty damn quick. The east coast doesn't have that problem because it has vegetation. I swear when it comes to geography this thread fails.

Which doesn't mean it couldn't have been a more interesting desert. The last time I checked, geographic location doesn't factor into how linear a game is. (especially when you consider the map in NV isn't based off any real height or road data)

For example, the road north could have led somewhere else, there could have been tracks leading to other locations, the city could have been much larger (in FO3, DC takes up a good quarter of the entire game area, whereas NV's Vegas isn't even half the size), the start location could have been in the centre of the world, rather than one of the edges.

 

[Dyskresiac]

I didn't bother to read all 150+ responses to this post, and I doubt many people will read mine, but from what I have observed people who played Fallout 1 and 2 like NV much much better, while those who only played 3 and NV prefer 3. I think it is because NV goes back to the roots of the series much better than 3 did and, for gun owners like myself we enjoy the amount of work they did making the guns as true to life as they did in NV (it was not so in 3)

Oh my, someone read your post! O.O

In all seriousness, though... I feel it's nostalgia's rose colored glasses and very little more. It's hard to make an argument for FO3 that doesn't involve "because I just feel that way." And that said, to each his own.

However, people would likely be saying the same thing if they played NV first.


It's just like I swear the only reason why FFVII is so popular is that it was most people's first RPG. I don't know a seasoned RPG player who puts that game in their top 20.




And ULTRA: You really need to just pack up your bags and go home. Seriously, you're not contributing anything and you keep posting the same thing over and over again. Isn't that called spamming?

 

[RanD00M]

New Vegas
Why? Because it looks better, it plays better, despite having been out a shorter time it has more interesting mods and it has so much more to do. Also trying to say that FO3s story is a good one has always baffled me. Why should I care about this man that I met for 10 minutes twice. I mean him just being Liam Neeson isn't enough, not in this case anyway.

 

[RanD00M]

snip

Saying that mods did it first for FO3 isn't a good way to debate because most people played it on the consoles. And those don't have mods, so if we look at it in hindsight, NV gives you more options while FO3 gives you more character.

 

[KaiRai]

I liked fallout 3 but everything felt....smoother. I can't put my finger on it, but I just enjoyed New Vegas more.

 

[valleyshrew]

You obviously don't care for writing in games because that was New Vegas's strong point. Fallout 3 was frankly laughably badly written, and had a very unmemorable plot. New vegas had far better characters, better dialogue, better quest design and better reputation system. Both games are pretty much the same though. They're 2 of my favourite games but after 200 hours in that sort of world I wouldn't want to play another one unless they add vehicles and more radio stations and less dull walking about and dungeon crawling.

 

[Tiswas]

Both are about the same for me.

While I preferred New Vegas to Fallout 3 in terms of landscape (3 bogged down because of the whole DC area and the tons and tons of underground tunnels.) I felt New Vegas almost forced you to go a certain route. Want to go directly to New Vegas? Lets go nor...OH Cazadors! Well how about we go down and left through this other rou...DEATHCLAWS!

Played through it three or four times and I think every time I had to got the same route to progress in the game. Fallout 3 you could go pretty much anywhere from the start (except Deathclaw areas obviously.)

New Vegas had a lot more varied missions and characters however. Which was nice.

It also felt that the map was smaller on New Vegas. There were quite a few places I recall on the map that were simply impossible to get to.

My main gripe is that NV seemed to glitch way more than Fallout 3 did. And it just got tedious having to repeat things because of freezing etc.