Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[nexekho]

Why would the stupidly nice Brotherhood help you if you're an evil bastard throughout the game?

Because you're the son of the man who built the water purifier which is so close to improving all life in the Wasteland. You know the code to start it up and probably have insider knowledge about how it works, etc. The Brotherhood took on an unofficial DC Protection role as a result of their war with the Super Mutants and the purifier is part of that.

Also, it's not the brotherhood, it's an offshoot on the other side of the continent.

 

[Macrobstar]

I prefered FO3 because I enjpyed exploring most of all, and in new vegas there was no point to exploring as you wouldn't find anything interesting and you had so much money you didn't need to loot ammo or meds

 

[AlternatePFG]

Why would the stupidly nice Brotherhood help you if you're an evil bastard throughout the game?

Because you're the son of the man who built the water purifier which is so close to improving all life in the Wasteland. You know the code to start it up and probably have insider knowledge about how it works, etc. The Brotherhood took on an unofficial DC Protection role as a result of their war with the Super Mutants and the purifier is part of that.

No, they don't know you know the code. The code doesn't even come into play at all until the stupid ending. There is literally no reason for them to help you at all.

 

[Macrobstar]

I also don't like the fact that if you put on faction armour, like the super cool ranger armour then everyone who hates the faaction trys to kill you, so you can't wear it, I think that feature should have been saved for hardcore mode

 

[Johnson294]

I can't believe how many people are saying New Vegas felt better and slicker and had better mechanics. It's as if Obsidian just made a laundry list of things to change, but none of them actually made a difference, iron sights are nice, except it feels nothing like a good shooter and the sights are purely aesthetic, the reloading benches are just useless, you alreayd get enough ammo anyways, there's no use scrounging for tons of scraps to get a few bullets, the game still controls like shit, the glitches are even WORSE, hardcore mode was just boring, it added needless frustrations, it was a pain to constantly scour for food and water, and it didn't make it any more fun, the reputation has so many flaws (if you do one thing to make a whole group angry (anything from opening a forbidden crate or locker, to pickpocketing, to assaulting a person, to even turning off a jukebox can cause a whole group to hate you and they won't yield either), they're angry at you forever if you're aren't on good terms with them, and it's almost impossible to get their trust back, not to mention there's no three day rule like in Fallout 3 where you can be forgiven, you have to kill everyone who hates you or they'll keep attacking...), the karma was also ruined (karma gain for killing ghouls, absolutely no karma loss for killing anyone..?). It just ruined so many things, the rep ystem alone almost made me want to rage quit halfway through it ws so frustrating, on one of my saves, I accidently turned the Kings jukebox off (I was extremely good with them) and every single person in there tries to kill me... I mean, seriously, what the hell..?

 

[Macrobstar]

Also in NV all the god damn invisible walls stopping you from climbing a rock!

 

[AlternatePFG]

I can't believe how many people are saying New Vegas felt better and slicker and had better mechanics.

Opinions are funny things aren't they?

 

[Macrobstar]

i liked both but i spent about 10 times longer playing 3, and i didn't even bother finding every place in new vegas so i guess Fallout 3 would be better. If new vegas wasn't so linear at the beginning and wasn't littered with caza-whatevers i would have playn through alot more of it, that and it needed more places, in Fallout 3 there was literally a place on every square, and nearly all of them had something unique to offer... looking at my post it appears that i actually found alot of ways that Fallout 3 is better (in my opinion) although i think new vegas had more potential.

You DO realize the west coast is low density areas right? "The lack of places" IS the real West coast. Did you honestly expect a huge metropolis in a fucking desert? Where states continually fight over the legal right to water?

from a post I made on another forum:

I've been playing New Vegas a lot and now have 2 and a half playthroughs done, about 100 hours in total. After this short amount of time, I feel like I've seen everything the game has to offer. Most map markers are hugely disappointing, consisting of shacks with nothing but an empty bottle, a campfire on a hill, an airport terminal with nothing but two cases of caps and some radscorpions, a few caves with not a single piece of loot or backstory in them... it feel so empty compared to the Capital Wasteland which had something new, unique and interesting over every hill.
There are sweet fuck all large, dungeon like areas to explore.

There are no huge, detailed interiors like Nuka Cola Plant, Capital Building, Red Racer Factory, Springvale Elementary, Roosevelt Academy, The museums of History and Tech, National Archives, LOB Industries, Hubris comics... this was my favorite part of fallout 3 and all we have in New Vegas are a few vaults, 4 Casinos, Repcomm and an empty sewer. Very disappointing.

The dialogue and writing are much better in NV and sure, there are more quests but most of them just involve 'travel to point A talk to 'x', watch long loading screen, travel back'. F3 had less quests but the ones it had were amazing and much longer... Reily's Rangers, Tranquility Lane, Oasis, Take It Back, The Superhuman Gambit, Wasteland Survival Guide, Stealing Independance, Trouble On The Homefont... all great. New Vegas had the Vault quests which were fantastic but none of the others were (to me) as memorable.

Doing the Camp McCarran and Freeside quests is horrible because of the excruciating load times. So much going in and out of areas and they don't even give us travel points inside the Strip and McCarran which is just bizarre. The load times are twice as long as they were in F3 too.

And then there's the atmosphere... Fallout 3 was haunting, beautiful and soulful. Standing on a ruined flyover watching the sun set over the burnt out forests and ruined Washington monument was just sublime. Nothing in Vegas gave me that same feeling or immersed me in its atmosphere like f3 did at any given moment. Just sand, sand, red rocks and more sand.

Now don't get me wrong... I still love New Vegas more than 99% of games and there are areas it improves over F3. Better combat, better dialogue, better sound, better characters and story. But to me it falls short of its big brother in many areas. I went back to the Capital Wasteland this week and was surprised how much better it looked, felt and played.

Look up.

Thats a terrible excuse, just because they picked a boring setting on purpose doesn't make it fun

 

[the saint83]

fallout 3 reminded me of oblivion, NV reminded me of the old fallout games, especially Fallout 2. So in my opinion NV is twice the game that fallout 3 was, inspite of the bugs.

 

[Macrobstar]

New Vegas is the one I prefer, mostly cause it doesn't have awful story and writing like 3 did. I still really, really enjoy 3 for it's atmosphere and exploration, but it would have been better if it was:

A) Not named Fallout

or

B) Set shortly after the Great War, that would explain away why everyone is still scavenging 100 years later.

Fallout 3 is a great game, but a shitty Fallout game.

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

 

[Johnson294]

I can't believe how many people are saying New Vegas felt better and slicker and had better mechanics.

Opinions are funny things aren't they?

Everyone is expressing their opinion... it's a game vs. game thread, it's based on opinions, why do you call mine out simply because I don't like New Vegas...?

 

[AlternatePFG]

I can't believe how many people are saying New Vegas felt better and slicker and had better mechanics.

Opinions are funny things aren't they?

Everyone is expressing their opinion... it's a game vs. game thread, it's based on opinions, why do you call mine out simply because I don't like New Vegas...?

I'm not calling out your opinion but when you say "I can't believe how many people are saying New Vegas felt better..." it just seems like your criticizing other people for theirs. Sorry if that was not the intent though.

 

[OakTable]

Fallout 3, by far, everything was better, dialogue, the radio stations by far, the cities (NV cities were dull empty and consisted of just a bunch of unnamed NPCs), the wasteland is much more interesting, some "locations" in NV consisted simply of an abandoned shack and a never inhabited bed (this made up about 1/3 of the locations), the quests and characters were much more memorable (really pretty much every quest in NV was boring, FO3 had you assassinating people for an old man, blowing up towns, murdering an entire skyscraper worth of people, going back to your vault and solving the problems, etc. I can't even remember a single quest in NV tbh...), the story was more original (you're near death and are on a trail of revenge, sooo original...), a better, grittier atmosphere, reputation is just awful and has many irritating flaws, karma in NV is broken (no karma loss for killing humans but you gain karma for killing ghouls...?), and not to mention the glitches, oh god, the glitches...

I can't really help but think the people who like NV better are just thinking it because of old Fallout and Obsidian nostalgia, as FO3 is really the better game in every respect.

Dialogue

Hahahah, NO.

You tell me straight to my face this is good dialogue. Come on, tell me this is not at all retarded.

EDIT:

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

There's that exploration thing again. I don't remember exploration being the main draw of Fallout 1 and 2. I thought it was talking to interesting characters and doing things in different ways with completely different characters. You know, ROLE-PLAYING? I promise you all of my life savings that if I made a hiking simulator, I would steal away ALL of Bethesda's fans.

 

[Johnson294]

Fallout 3, by far, everything was better, dialogue, the radio stations by far, the cities (NV cities were dull empty and consisted of just a bunch of unnamed NPCs), the wasteland is much more interesting, some "locations" in NV consisted simply of an abandoned shack and a never inhabited bed (this made up about 1/3 of the locations), the quests and characters were much more memorable (really pretty much every quest in NV was boring, FO3 had you assassinating people for an old man, blowing up towns, murdering an entire skyscraper worth of people, going back to your vault and solving the problems, etc. I can't even remember a single quest in NV tbh...), the story was more original (you're near death and are on a trail of revenge, sooo original...), a better, grittier atmosphere, reputation is just awful and has many irritating flaws, karma in NV is broken (no karma loss for killing humans but you gain karma for killing ghouls...?), and not to mention the glitches, oh god, the glitches...

I can't really help but think the people who like NV better are just thinking it because of old Fallout and Obsidian nostalgia, as FO3 is really the better game in every respect.

Dialogue

Hahahah, NO.

You tell me straight to my face this is good dialogue. Come on, tell me this is not at all retarded.

EDIT:

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

There's that exploration thing again. I don't remember exploration being the main draw of Fallout 1 and 2. I thought it was talking to interesting characters and doing things in different ways with completely different characters. You know, ROLE-PLAYING? I promise you all of my life savings that if I made a hiking simulator, I would steal away ALL of Bethesda's fans.

cherry-picking one line of dialogue out of thousands does nothing to disprove my dialogue point, yet alone all my others...

 

[mythicdawn12]

After sinking more than a hundred hours into FO3, I was super excited for New Vegas. I played it whilst believing I was having loads of fun. But a while ago I realized that I was tricking myself. It wasn't fun. I didn't feel the connection to my character (read the Extra Punctuation on FNV), the world was pretty bland and I was tired of the combat.
I would blame it on too much FO3 ruining my experience, but that's the thing. FO3 ruined it because it was the same game. It was like another expansion for FO3 that conveniently allowed for iron sights.
I can't wait for a Fallout on Bethesda's new Creation engine. At least it will probably actually CHANGE.

 

[OakTable]

Alrighty then, Stealthmonkey, although there are thousands of lines just like it (The Wasteland Survival Guide quest is a treasure trove of them).

I will agree with you on the radio station, and Bethesda is pretty good at telling stories through the environment. However, when it comes to NPC's, they fall pretty flat. NPC's have very little personality in Bethesda games. I can't remember any of the side characters in Fallout 3, besides Moira, and that's because her voice hurts me. Characters like Veronica, Boone, Arcade, and Cass have some very good backstories and conflicts, whereas the companions in 3, save for Fawkes, have little to no backstory. The villains (or allies, if you side with them), have well thought out motives, but Fallout 3's villains, Col. Autumn and President Eden, have almost no motivation for their villainous actions.

The quests in Fallout: New Vegas are pretty cool. I've fought my way up a mutant infested mountain, investigated a fancy casino with a dark side (Beyond the Beef is perhaps the best quest in the main game), helped a man find out who killed his wife and disposed of the killer in an original way, stopped the assassination of a president, and more. Fallout 3's quest hurt me with their stupidity sometimes; I have no idea what's so compelling about helping two weirdos who dress themselves up as superheroes, destroying an entire town because some old guy thought it was blocking his view (Great motivation, by the way), and helping some ghouls into a hotel full of rich people only for the rich people to be killed anyway and giving me bad karma for killing the guy who caused it.

The grimdark environment you like is kind of undermined when everyone in the game is doing stupid shit like dressing up in costumes, kids are running around in some cave, and the Brotherhood of Steel is super pure and nice and are defenders of the wastes. The story of 3 took various plot elements from the past two games like the Enclave, Supermutants, and the BoS without even trying to explain why they were there, so I don't see how Fallout 3 is more "original" when it's trying to copy everything from the first 2 games. I don't understand your beef with repuation. Could you give some specifics? I will agree that the karma system is broken, but don't pretend it wasn't the same way in Fallout 3; for example, the game gave me bad karma for stealing a password from Moriarty, a drug-dealing and slave-owning bastard.

Oh, and Fallout 3 was also glitchy as fuck.

 

[RuralGamer]

There are a lot of things that I missed in New Vegas, which I think made Fallout 3 good;
The lack of a selection home-made weapons.
The fact the world was supposed to have been nuked; I found it too easy in New Vegas to forget what the Fallout games are about.
The places felt less memorable, even though some of them were much grander (probably because they only had like 1 quest and like or no reason to go back)
The persistent invisible walls annoyed me
Stealth didn't work as well, yet Speech and Barter were a bit too necessary; skill balance was for me slightly better in 3

There a few more, but suffice to say I felt that 3 did some things better. That said, there were a few features of New Vegas I liked better. Can't really say I preferred either, they come close to one another, perhaps New Vegas wins, but just .

Oh, and Fallout 3 was also glitchy as fuck.

As was New Vegas; I can't say I've seen any really improvement in the stability area.

 

[OakTable]

There are a lot of things that I missed in New Vegas, which I think made Fallout 3 good;
The lack of a selection home-made weapons.
The fact the world was supposed to have been nuked; I found it too easy in New Vegas to forget what the Fallout games are about.
The places felt less memorable, even though some of them were much grander (probably because they only had like 1 quest and like or no reason to go back)
The persistent invisible walls annoyed me
Stealth didn't work as well, yet Speech and Barter were a bit too necessary; skill balance was for me slightly better in 3

There a few more, but suffice to say I felt that 3 did some things better. That said, there were a few features of New Vegas I liked better. Can't really say I preferred either, they come close to one another, perhaps New Vegas wins, but just .

Oh, and Fallout 3 was also glitchy as fuck.

As was New Vegas; I can't say I've seen any really improvement in the stability area.

I've already said that they both are buggier than a south Virginian bog.

 

[RuralGamer]

I've already said that they both are buggier than a south Virginian bog.

Good analogy. Speaking of bogs, I can't really say the DLC for New Vegas has impressed me that much, pretty much the same story as 3; with the exception of Broken Steel and possible Operation Anchorage; Point Lookout was particularly disappointing because for a moment it seemed it would have replay value... then it didn't. I didn't even have stuff worth getting IMO.