Ok Johnny, let me see if I can help with your questions:
Overall for the world I would say 3 if you prefer to follow the main quest, NV if you like to wander off and explore.
As for the main campaign itself, 3 is probably longer (if not by much) in terms of time taken to complete but only because you frequently get to a point where a character blocking your progression will give you a fetch quest or some such before they will give up the next quest marker so the whole thing feels rather padded.
With NV on the other hand you can dash through the campaign quicker if you want to but it feels alot more organic and interesting.
So yeah, overall I would cast my vote for New Vegas but both are good games.
New Vegas.Johnny Novgorod said:Which one of these two do I go for?
Definitely worth it but not as much as New VegasJohnny Novgorod said:Is Fallout 3 GOTY worth it?
Definitely, game feels more enjoyable, the world design feels less contrived, and the expansions hang better with the original game than with 3. Also, NV is closer to the original fallout than 3.Johnny Novgorod said:Is New Vegas' Ultimate Edition?
No real difference between the two - other than the default colour for the HUD. The world does feel a little "washed out" in 3 with a decidedly greenish tint but this was a deliberate design decision rather than a lack of graphical capability and NV while better isn't exactly "all colours of the rainbow" either.Johnny Novgorod said:Do Fallout 3's graphics hold up in comparison?
The two are about the same in terms of total actual size. In 3 the world feels more "full", at least around DC, whereas NV does feel like a big desert with alot of empty space. However, in 3 there are swathes of the map with very little in if you head off of the beaten track but in NV most of the map has something in it if you look for it. In addition, while 3 is sandbox, it tries very hard to turn the city of DC into a series of linear corridors, by blocking off access to most of the city, making you use the underground metro stations to get from area to area, which was the least enjoyable part for me.Johnny Novgorod said:Which one has the bigger sandbox, the lengthier campaign, the "bigger" experience overall?
Overall for the world I would say 3 if you prefer to follow the main quest, NV if you like to wander off and explore.
As for the main campaign itself, 3 is probably longer (if not by much) in terms of time taken to complete but only because you frequently get to a point where a character blocking your progression will give you a fetch quest or some such before they will give up the next quest marker so the whole thing feels rather padded.
With NV on the other hand you can dash through the campaign quicker if you want to but it feels alot more organic and interesting.
Both stories are good but overall I feel NV edges it, mainly because you get more meaningful payoffs from your actions with real alternate endings whereas 3 just kinda runs through the same motions and at the end sums up whether you have been naughty or nice.Johnny Novgorod said:Which one has the better story?
In the sense that it was built from the same engine with almost exactly the same mechanics, interface, enemies, items etc yeah I can see why someone might call it more of an expansion pack than a sequel. However, this is a criticism that comes from playing 3, and then finding NV hasn't really developed the experience further, just expended it. NV certainly has the scope of a full game and from the point of view of someone who hasn't played either this doesn't have much bearing.Johnny Novgorod said:I'm mostly concerned New Vegas feels like a "glorified expansion" as I've read here and there. Or that, despite filing F3's rougher edges (prettier graphics, stuff like that), it's simply not that good/better a game. That true?
So yeah, overall I would cast my vote for New Vegas but both are good games.