Fallout 3 or New Vegas? (yes, this question again)

[T3hSource]

Take Fallout 3 if you're really, really into Bethesda Dev's games, by that I mean The Elder Scrolls series. A big, interesting, atmospheric world to explore which never changes am characters are mostly static and badly written.

Fallout: NV is amazing when it comes to the storyline, because it's made by Obsidian Entertainment, whose writing has always made for interesting characters and storylines, more so than even BioWare. However this studio doesn't have experienced QA, so they release things big ridden games, but for the last few years, it's been been patched and mods were made, so NV is perfectly playable.

So in the end I'd suggest Fallout: NV if you value story.Or Fallout 3, if you value world design and exploring over everything else, in which case, just get Skyrim if you don't have it.

 

[Denamic]

Fallout 3 was set in a better place, so to speak. The environment was more engaging to explore. That's about the only thing FO3 did better than NV though. NV has better everything else, and though FO3 had a better environment, NV's environment was by no means bad. I'm actually pretty impressed they managed to make a fucking desert as interesting as it was. Though I'm disappointed in the actual strip, as it was somehow the least interesting place in NV, which is pretty weird, as it's up against a desert.

 

[Roxas1359]

A lot of people argue that Fallout 3 misses the point because it's supposed to be Post-Post-Apocalyptic and Fallout 3 is more of a plain post-nuclear settings. I'd like to remind those people that Fallout 1 was exactly the same way.

Thing about Fallout 1 is that you have to take the time it takes place in. Fallout 1 takes place in 2161, not even a hundred years after the bombs dropped and before most of the Vaults began to open. Fallout 3 takes place in 2277, over two hundred years since the bombs dropped and yet the Capital Wasteland has made little to no improvements, and the Super Mutant thing was an even bigger problem in the West for Fallout 1 because the Master existed.

OT: Personally I liked New Vegas more because I felt more invested in the story, characters, and had a lot more fun with the gameplay. Fallout 3 had a better environment and some more memorable quests, but the story was piss-poor, filled with plot-holes, and the game was way too easy. When I see a Deathclaw, I should be scared shitless, not go "oh boy let's punch it to death with my fists." Fallout 3 had a real problem of overpowering your character too easily and took the challenge out in many ways for me. The only enemies that are "difficult" in Fallout 3 were the Super Mutant Overlords, Feral Ghoul Reavers, and Albino Radscorpions, and the only real reason they were was because they had a bunch of health and that's it.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

Fallout 3 had the better Story and atmosphere, and New Vegas had the better gameplay. The perfect Fallout game would involve Obsidian doing ALL the gameplay and Bethesda at least doing the atmosphere + World Building. Collab on the story.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

A lot of people argue that Fallout 3 misses the point because it's supposed to be Post-Post-Apocalyptic and Fallout 3 is more of a plain post-nuclear settings. I'd like to remind those people that Fallout 1 was exactly the same way.

Thing about Fallout 1 is that you have to take the time it takes place in. Fallout 1 takes place in 2161, not even a hundred years after the bombs dropped and before most of the Vaults began to open. Fallout 3 takes place in 2277, over two hundred years since the bombs dropped and yet the Capital Wasteland has made little to no improvements, and the Super Mutant thing was an even bigger problem in the West for Fallout 1 because the Master existed.

Yeah, I'm aware of that and I do agree it's a bit of an issue. Fallout 3 would be a better game if they hadn't set it when they did.

Still, I'm really just referring to the tone. I like to rationalize Fallout 3 by assuming that the east coast was hit much, much harder than the west, making for a far slower recovery. And that maybe because the east coast would be the first thing hit, the vaults there weren't all populated in time, resulting in fewer people. Like with that one ghoul that owns the hotel who got irradiated just as she was entering the vault.

I'm talking out of my ass, but Fallout 3 is my favorite game, so I have to find some explanation.

 

[veloper]

All the reasons for F:NV as mentioned above, with one important addition.
The people and events in the Mojave are somewhat connected, while every community in FO3 appears to exist in complete isolation.

Side-quests like killing the raider boss, training the soldiers in camp Goal, or helping out in Bitter Springs often appear to be relevant to a greater goal (brown nosing the NCR in this case) and may sometimes have logical consequences for other side-quests.

In FO3 it doesn't matter if you decide to help one community and commit genocide in the next. Everything around DC that isn't crucial to the main quest, is basicly just another dungeon or just another freak show.

Try both anyway and judge for yourself. The games are cheap now and should be dirt cheap when Steam holds a sale.

 

[loc978]

New Vegas, not just for the story, characters and smarter faction relations... but for the setting. I was going to link to the Shandification video, but Smilomaniac linked it first. Suffice to say New Vegas has a well thought out world inhabited by communities and characters who have believable livelihoods... 3 has a theme park with some neat level design and iconic landmarks.

Don't get me wrong, I love Fallout 3 just as I love Fallout Tactics. They're both awesome spinoffs. New Vegas, however, was a cut above (as well as being an actual sequel).

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

Fallout 3 has the better game world and goof friendly atmosphere. New Vegas has better immersion, better story, more consistent game world and a bunch of gameplay improvements. I like them both a lot, but New Vegas feels more like Fallout to me.

Basically, if you want a game world to roam around in, finding cool stuff and always having some new exciting place to find then Fallout 3 is for you.
If you want a serious, ambiguous story contained within a deep, consistent setting that meshes perfectly with the feeling of Fallout 1 (and 2 to a lesser degree, particularly in the Strip) then go for New Vegas. That's about it.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

I was soured on NV because of Obsidian's penchant for releasing games I really want to play but the bugs keep getting in my way. Also I didn't like being herded in NV. I know you "could" get around the linear part but I loved Fallout 3's post-Vault ability to just say "Fuck this story" and wander. It was no fun for me to go out and get raped by uber-leveled Deathclaws and be told by a goddamn robot (said in Zoidberg fashion) that I shouldn't go that way. Fucking stalker.

 

[Easton Dark]

The fact is, New Vegas is a higher quality game. In most of the objective elements of both games, New Vegas is superior. The writing is more solid and makes more sense, the combat is improved, the characters are generally more interesting and the DLCs are incedible.

Just gonna point out, kindly since you chose Fallout 3, none of those are objective elements. Objectively, Fallout 3 would be better since it doesn't crash nearly as much, unless you like unstable games. Opinion for everything else.

I'm just glad you can combine these two together into one game, so no one has to choose.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The fact is, New Vegas is a higher quality game. In most of the objective elements of both games, New Vegas is superior. The writing is more solid and makes more sense, the combat is improved, the characters are generally more interesting and the DLCs are incedible.

Just gonna point out, kindly since you chose Fallout 3, none of those are objective elements. Objectively, Fallout 3 would be better since it doesn't crash nearly as much, unless you like unstable games. Opinion for everything else.

I'm just glad you can combine these two together into one game, so no one has to choose.

Except "combat improved" is objective. The combat in Fallout: New Vegas is much more involved, with more options both in terms of weaponry and how to use said weaponry. Ranging from special attacks to different munitions types and a damage resistance system that actually obsoletes low end weapons against high end armor. Fallout 3 combat always consisted of mashing attack until the opponent died or going into VATS and queuing up attacks until the opponent died, with little consideration about anything else. The rest is all subjective though (but I dare you to find anyone who finds Operation Anchorage or Mothership Zeta better than Old World Blues or Honest Hearts).

 

[Easton Dark]

The fact is, New Vegas is a higher quality game. In most of the objective elements of both games, New Vegas is superior. The writing is more solid and makes more sense, the combat is improved, the characters are generally more interesting and the DLCs are incedible.

Just gonna point out, kindly since you chose Fallout 3, none of those are objective elements. Objectively, Fallout 3 would be better since it doesn't crash nearly as much, unless you like unstable games. Opinion for everything else.

I'm just glad you can combine these two together into one game, so no one has to choose.

Except "combat improved" is objective. The combat in Fallout: New Vegas is much more involved

But, no, that's not objective. In making the combat more involved, I found it to be much more frustrating, and is a symptom of why New Vegas rail-roads you down south at the start, because of bullet-immune deathclaws. Not only that, but it hardcoded the 2 key to be ammo switch, and there's no way I found to change it. I WANT 2 FOR MY SECOND GUN CHOICE, BLEH.

Look, I like obsolescence in my rpg's, and I like hard enemies. But when there's absolutely no way to hurt them until later, that's metroid-vania shit right there, which I hate. So subjective.

I could tell you that Fallout 3 is objectively better because there's more interesting interior locations to explore, but that's just my opinion. Maybe people like less to explore and love empty desert settings.

And Operation Anchorage chops Honest Hearts into little pieces. Honest Hearts is the worst of all the Fallout DLCs, followed very closely by Lonesome Road. Mothership Zeta is third worst though, I'll give you that.

 

[nyarlathotepsama]

Yeah I'd go with New Vegas. Its more lore friendly and I never had the crashing issues that others seem to have (Might be because I'm good with modifying install files or it could just be blind luck, you decide). Fallout 3 was pretty much a game of plot holes from about the mid-point on and it really bothered me. Plus Fallout 3 was the game that kept crashing on me, even when it came out I had to modify it to allow for a quad-core because it had an issue with them. Oh and that radio stutter issue even on good systems was annoying.

I'm a pretty strong followers of the Fallout lore, I'm still an active member on The Vault and I've created a number of my own mods just because I can.

It isn't that Fallout 3 is a bad game, not at all, it just didn't feel Fallout enough for me. Plus the treatment of established characters (You all know the one) caused me to quit the game for a few weeks on the my first run.

If you want to explore a wasteland then go for Fallout 3 but is you want to experience a proper Fallout story then go for New Vegas. They both deserve attention for different reason no matter my personal grips however and I find myself almost impossible to hate any Fallout game. There is even a mod that allows them to flow into each other, which is really cool. Then again I'm kind of a Fallout fan-boy so my opinion can be ignored on those grounds If'n you like.

 

[Patrick Buck]

I've only played Fallout New Vegas, and Fallout 3, so this is based purely off the merits of the two games, not off which one is true to the fallout formula, but I much preferred fallout 3. The map was more fun, the characters too, and I just enjoyed it more. That said, I did enjoy the story in Fallout Vegas, but I feel it could have been done more interestingly. The final mission for example. It's a bit disappointing for the build up.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

Fallout 3 is a pretty huge game by itself, but beside its quite sizable overworld it doesn't have that much running for it. Combat is functional, story is fairly bland, roleplaying aspect is pretty bad because you ALWAYS have to join the blatant good guys to kill the bad guys, side quests are pretty few.

New Vegas I will not argue is a functionally better game. Story is a helluva lot better, roleplaying aspect has a pretty convoluted main quest where you can help only one of the several factions, there are more side quests, skills are less weird, combat and customization is fairly better, and the overworld seems a bit more alive. But the Mojave Wasteland never gripped me the same way as the Capital Wasteland did.

I put way more time in Fallout 3 than New Vegas, but I blame that on Fallout 3 coming out before New Vegas. You'll never get a straight answer from me on which is better, because I was pretty done with Fallout's formula by the time New Vegas came around.

 

[00slash00]

I played New Vegas before Fallout 3 because I heard it had a better story and was more faithful to the story of the first two games. If there was any connection at all to the first two games, I completely missed them. Shooting felt awful and the plot was boring. I had never been so excited for a game to be over. A few weeks ago my friend convinced me to give Fallout 3 a try, saying it was much better than New Vegas. Well the first hour or so was definitely better but after playing it for about 3 or 4 hours, I just can't bring myself to play it anymore. In terms of game play, it doesn't seem any better or worse than New Vegas. I can't speak for the story. My conclusion is that Fallout 1 and 2 were fantastic and the modern Fallout games were among the least amount of fun I've had in a video game in recent memory

 

[DaemonicShadow]

I've sunk a lot of hours into both games, and while I prefer Fallout 3, it's a very close competition for me. New Vegas had a much better main storyline, but at the same time the characters involved in the main storyline didn't have as much impact as those in Fallout 3's (Caesar is single-handedly the biggest character letdown I've ever experienced in a video game) and the characters that were interesting didn't get enough development or screentime (see Legate Lanius or Chief Hanlon).

However, New Vegas' masterstroke lay in its DLC, which actually managed to build up a better storyline than the main one, with subtle foreshadowing throughout and a satisfying conclusion with enough choices for any character build to have an option. As I've said, I prefer Fallout 3 because I think it has a better world and there's an element of sentimentality in there, but they're both fantastic games.

 

[Artea]

EDIT: Double post

 

[Artea]

Since a picture says more than a thousand words (click to enlarge):

[http://postimg.org/image/w9mse3ca1/]

Not pictured: the higher quality of writing in New Vegas, the branching and interconnectedness of the quests, the multiple quest solutions and consequences for the choices made, and the difference in development time of 4+ years for Fallout 3 vs. 18 months for New Vegas.

EDIT: Woops, double post. If anyone can delete the previous one...

 

[TheSYLOH]

New Vegas Hands down.
You'll learn that the first time some quest NPC pisses you off and you find that they are unkillable.

There is only one NPC marked as essential in New Vegas, and he's a robot that could conceivably just download into a new body.
That and the companions who would piss you off if they died (unless you turn on hardcore mode, in which case fire away)