Poll: Do I get Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

[Auron225]

Most people like one over the other for entirely different reasons. I'm undecided about which is better so all I can do is give you info on both, for you to decide which you like the sound of more.

New Vegas has far many more side quests than 3. However, the few side quests in 3 were lengthier and seemed better written than the many in New Vegas, which I consider a point in 3's favor (but some people prefer lots of short side quests over longer ones).

New Vegas has the better plot in general, but 3 has a better beginning and is more immersive.

New Vegas has a Hard Core mode which makes for more interesting game play. For instance, ammo weighs something in your inventory making you ration how much you carry around (like everything else) and food/water/sleep is necessary or else you'll be suffering for it. Also injuries are a bigger deal in this mode.

I haven't played all the DLC for each so it's hard to comment on that - both had at least one DLC which I really enjoyed.

I don't know why but I found 3 much harder to get-by at the beginning. Raiders could kick my ass which made them all the more threatening and me all the more cautious (which I kinda enjoyed). In New Vegas, I was kicking ass & taking names from the get-go. It doesn't take long at all to acquire semi-decent weapons.

Some people vastly prefer the companions of one game to the other. I slightly preferred the New Vegas companions but not by a whole lot.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

This is basically the reason I selected Fallout 3 on this poll. After playing New Vegas it's really hard to go back, so playing 3 first is probably the best idea.

You did read the first paragraph of the OP, where he said that he would only be getting one? It's a thread about which is better if you have to choose one, not which you should play first.

 

[JoJo]

I'm in the minority here but I genuinely preferred Fallout 3, lore contradictions and a slightly silly mainline plot in places which people have mentioned can be easily be ignored when exploring a huge map where you can go in almost any direction to start with. I headed north after Nuketown and explored for ages before even touching the main plotline. New Vegas is good but it feels more railroaded how you have to follow a u-shape around the map to start with if you don't want to have some giant bugs feed your own bollocks to you.

 

[Woiminkle]

I vote for Fallout 3 for now and then pick up NV later, say in the Christmas sale. Buying the GOTY edition is probably the way to go because you need at least the Brotherhood of Steel DLC to continue playing after completing the story.

New Vegas is the better game unquestionably but F3 has just a bit more charm and way better soundtrack, IMHO. What F3 did better was putting loads of extra little notes and computer terminals into the world so almost every building had a micro story that would unfold as you searched floor by floor, through diary entries or back and forth e-mail conversations and the like. NV seems to have very little of that and the few you do find are usually tied to quests.

With regard to the maps, a minor annoyance to me was that in NV when you look at the map on your pip boy a large border of it on all the edges is not actually used or accessible. A major annoyance was invisible walls around a couple of locations. Neither of those problems are present in 3.

And yes NV's world makes more sense but it also takes itself more seriously, while F3 takes a more light-hearted approach and has a kind of tongue in cheek awareness of its own sillier elements.

Bottom line is that they are both well worth playing but playing 3 first means your enjoyment will curve upwards, with 3 serving as a good light-hearted introduction and then NV for some down to serious business role playing.

 

[Pompey71]

New Vegas has better questing and the survival mode is a must, which is missing from Fallout 3.

 

[WonkyWarmaiden]

Get Fallout 3 because Liam Neeson is your dad. Also 3 has the better environment. New Vegas is, obviously, mostly desert so it's kinda boring to look at after awhile.

Compared to what exactly in Fallout 3 that's interesting to look at? One has warm filters and cacti the other has cool filters and shapeless piles of junk.

I don't know, I guess I prefer the run down metropolitan aesthetic over the barren desert of New Vegas. Yes, in 3 there is a ton of random garbage and rubble spread out but there are also a lot of little civilizations hidden around the map, giving you a reason to explore. New Vegas just felt empty to me, other than the actual city of New Vegas there weren't really that many towns or interesting things to find. At least from my experience of playing the game.

And again, Liam Neeson is your dad so obviously Fallout 3 is the better game.

 

[Rattja]

Playing 3 now, it's nice. I tried starting with NV but they don't give you any tutorial. So better start with 3.

Say.. what are you playing it on? I'd love to replay Fallout 3, but it just does not want to work on newer systems. On the 3 different computers I've tried it on it just freeze at random quite frequently, to the point of making it unplayable.
Tried a bunch of fixes like changing that ini file and changing windows stuff.
It's rather annoying as it is the only game I really want to play right now and is also the only game I just can't get to work.

From what I can tell many seem to have problems with running this exact game on windows 7 or 8 so it's worth noting if you want to pick it up.

New Vegas is a fun game and all that, but whenever I play it I find myself wishing to play FO3, it just doesn't feel the same.

 

[CeeBod]

New Vegas hands-down. According to Steam I have 507 hours on record playing that game, and that would be much higher if it wasn't so prone to crashing when heavily-modded. Fallout 3 I have played for a grand total of 12hours, and whilst I have the game of the year version I found that I had pretty much zero interest in seeing the DLC. I really hope Fallout 4 feels like a place I'm actually interested in exploring, because 3 totally wasn't.

 

[NotEvenOnce]

If I had my way I'd have Fallout 3 with New Vegas dlc my perfect Fallout game. As is I'd take 3 there are some minor issues like lack of iron sight and poor weapon variety which however are easily remedied with simple mods. 3 has a lot bigger map actually and if you add the metro you'd get a shit load more although they look alike they are still fun to explore also the world feels organic unlike NV which is like a world designed my committee.

What you want is Tale of Two Wastelands, which is pretty much my favorite thing ever at this point. They have a website and TTW is extremely stable despite its "in development" state. Check it out.

 

[GabeZhul]

Chalk up another recommendation for New Vegas. Fallout 3 was nice in its day and I spent a ton of time in it (thought ironically it was because of its "Elder Scrolls with guns" aesthetics rather than its Fallout roots), but New Vegas is an improvement in literally every aspect. There are a lot of people complaining about bugs (there aren't any anymore) or being railroaded (only if you are not brave enough to sequence-break, which the game actually accounts for) or finding the aesthetics of F3 better (completely subjective), but when it comes to the important details, such as the plot, characters, game-mechanics or lore, NV is equal or superior to F3. If you are only getting one, get NV and maybe watch Shamus' Spoiler Warning let's plays on youtube about F3.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

New Vegas, hands down. Bethesda's entry is just too goofy, too dumb, too contrived, too simplistic by comparison. Obsidian's world feels causal, and coherent - a mishmash of communities and cultures struggling to get along (or trying to edge each into destruction).

As others have stated, however, at times the Mojave can feel like a big ol' empty space. I didn't mind that, as NV's areas of population are far greater and more believable, ergo long lulls whilst travelling just made the world feel more real.

I'll go down the list, though:

Which one of these two do I go for? NV.

Is Fallout 3 GOTY worth it? Eh... maybe for Point Lookout and your first glimpse of the DC area.

Is New Vegas' Ultimate Edition? Hell's yeah.

Do Fallout 3's graphics hold up in comparison? Neither game is a looker.

Which one has the bigger sandbox, the lengthier campaign, the "bigger" experience overall? I've not gotten through NV's yet, so I can't entirely say for sure. Fallout 3 plus the DLC does make for a fairly huge experience, but most of its DLC were bloody awful.

Which one has the better story? NV, without a doubt, especially if you intend to RP a character more than just mess around. Its faction system and set of followers are superbly presented, and F3 really has nothing like 'em.

I'll put it this way: do you generally rate Bethesda's quality of writing, stories, and characters? If not (as I sure as hell don't), then avoid F3 like some kind of post-apocalyptic plague because it's just more modern Bethesda-y level writing.

This video elaborates on the sameness yet difference [and superiority of NV] between the two games, primarily from a world building and narrative POV:


Skip to this bit [https://youtu.be/wvwlt4FqmS0?t=9m9s] for the 'reason/s' (it's certainly spoiler free, although there's no need to watch it - his audio's the important bit).

 

[Don Incognito]

If you're only going to play one, DEFINITELY New Vegas. And yes, get the Ultimate Edition.

NV has a better main story, better side stories, MUCH better DLC, MUCH better companions, more weapons, more armor, much better balance, Hardcore Mode, better economy, better crafting, better dialogue, better backstory...

I loved Fallout 3. But when I try to play it now? Good lord, I can barely get through an hour or two before wishing I was playing New Vegas instead.

 

[rgrekejin]

Also I really enjoyed Dead Money DLC, so don't let other people slating it put you off necessarily

The main problem I, and probably many others, had with Dead Money, is that a. once you leave for the Sierra Madre, you can't go back to the Mojave until you've finished the DLC b. once you've gone back to the Mojave, you cannot go back to the Sierra Madre. Ever (unless, of course, you mod it in). For me at least, it led to a somewhat distressing determination to explore every nook and cranny of the area, even when I'd have much preferred just to take a jog back to the Mojave to break up the gloom every now and again. Thankfully, all subsequent DLCs allow more-or-less unrestricted movement between the new locations and the Mojave, at least once you've advanced the plot far enough.

 

[wulfy42]

My take on this is the OC has not played either game yet. Both games are incredible, but in many ways NV was slightly better. That being said, you should play both, and you'll enjoy Fallout 3 more...if you play it first.

Now you say you can only get one...but here is the thing. Of the games I have played over the years, Fallout 3 and NV are in my top list of games I have enjoyed. If I could go back and replay a game from scratch...both of them would be way up there on the list of games I would choose. Basically, if you are ever going to pay money for a game again in your life....I'd highly recommend getting the other game (fallout 3 or NV) that you don't get now.

Because of this, and because both games are great, and also because (in my opinion) Fallout 3 introduces you to the game better, I'd suggest going with Fallout 3 first....and then, if you love it, spend hundreds of hours playing it, and finally finish it.....you can decide if it's worth plunking down the money to get NV as well later.

Honestly even if you have to go around and collect bottle caps in real life to sell as scrap metal (or just metal cans/bottles)....it would be very worth it to get the other game. Each game should give you well over 100 hours of entertainment, and not just mindless entertainment either. They are both excellent (I think maybe the best) examples of this kind of RPG/FPS hybrid. You can get lost in the worlds for months, spending all your spare time playing them.

That is rare for a single player game. Skyrim didn't work for me as well as either of the fallouts did for instance (not even close). Both have immersive worlds and the constant feeling of building up your character, collecting better equipment, ammunition etc, and making a change in the world around you as you play. The DLC for both is pretty good (think NV DLC is better but both are worth playing). The combat does not get old, and you have different ways you can play the game...so you may find yourself replaying it again (multiple times). I've played through Fallout 3 over 10 times over the years. I have only played through NV about 4 times (not sure why..I love both games, I just tend to play fallout 3 more then NV). Perhaps it's just the feel of Fallout 3..where the world is new, and there is not as much order.

Maybe it's just due to F3 having 3 dog heh.

Whatever the reason, I suggest going with fallout 3 first (even if it ends up being your only one). If you do love it and play it for hundreds of hours though, I bet you'll find some way to get NV eventually and probably even the new fallout coming out on november 10th. So much fun can be had from the fallout games...and they can be had for the cost of seeing a movie now.....incredible value.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Also I really enjoyed Dead Money DLC, so don't let other people slating it put you off necessarily

The main problem I, and probably many others, had with Dead Money, is that a. once you leave for the Sierra Madre, you can't go back to the Mojave until you've finished the DLC b. once you've gone back to the Mojave, you cannot go back to the Sierra Madre. Ever (unless, of course, you mod it in). For me at least, it led to a somewhat distressing determination to explore every nook and cranny of the area, even when I'd have much preferred just to take a jog back to the Mojave to break up the gloom every now and again. Thankfully, all subsequent DLCs allow more-or-less unrestricted movement between the new locations and the Mojave, at least once you've advanced the plot far enough.

Personally, I liked that. I do enough completionist stuff in the main game that the idea of a small area with a set goal

Spoiler

and poison gas/zombies all over the place that restricts your exploration

actually gave me some forward momentum, rather than wandering around trying to find every little thing. I was happy to leave Sierra Madre with secrets unknown because

Spoiler

I don't have to worry about getting all kinds of gear to go there in a second playthrough, just a decent level,

rather than worrying about missing something in a corner of a gigantic desert and never going back to that area again.

To each his own, though. I can see why that might bother you, especially if you never wanted to go back to the game again.

 

[kitsunefather]

If you go Fallout 3, don't get GOTY on Steam; it's got serious issues and won't run on a lot of machines. It's a known issue with Steam, but their response is, basically:

"This is a fault in the software; Bethesda's problem."

While Bethesda's response has been:

"That title is too old for us to spend resources fixing."

Rinse. Repeat.

 

[Danbo Jambo]

Personally it's FA3 for me every time.

New Vegas is still good, so you aint gonna lose out, but FA3 nails that post-apocolyptic feel way more convincingly. New Vegas is more comical and light hearted, whereas FA3 carries moe weight.

It's really down to your own taste.

 

[spartan231490]

The graphics are pretty much the same. New Vegas is definitely far more than a "glorified expansion".

After years of playing both extensively. I think it comes down to.

Do you want the most focused and atmospheric game with plenty of content that doesn't feel like too much and easily all doable? Go Fallout 3.

Do you want a lot more freedom but a lot less focus in story and pretty much everything else overall? Go New Vegas. New Vegas has a fuck ton of content, but a lot of it isn't very interesting, there is plenty to explore though. However for the first 10 hours or so you're pretty much confined to a big linear path because you're far too underequipped and underpowered for most of the Mojave.

If it came down to one and one only I'd go Fallout 3. New Vegas is still an incredible game though. And 3 is definitely the one you'd want to go into first to get an idea how of Fallout games go.

Beat me to it.

3 has the better atmosphere, but New Vegas has(IMO) slightly better gameplay and a more open feel. If I was only ever going to play one of them again, I would play New Vegas, but it really comes down to whether you'd prefer the atmosphere of the more open world/sandboxy feel.

 

[vallorn]

If you get New Vegas you can use the Tale Of Two Wastelands mod to play Fallout 3 in it's engine, as well as that Fallout 3 has the horrible carbuncle known as Games For Windows Live attached to it and that hasn't changed as far as I remember.

 

[Jandau]

Depends on what you want...

Fallout 3 has a better overall world to explore. Better atmosphere, better locations, etc. It's a proper wasteland and has you picking through the ruins of a civilization. NV in comparison is a shitty desert full of bad Mad Max cosplayers with a gaudy run-down casino in the middle.

New Vegas has a better main story. That's not saying much, it's still not very good (some of Obsidian's worst work ever), but less garbage than FO3. The one thing in favour of FO3's main story is that it felt less obtrusive.

Many people say NV is a better Fallout game, but I disagree - it's attempts to stay "true" to the first two games just fell flat for me. They either didn't work or they came off as trying too hard. I found more enjoyment in FO3's approach, drawing inspiration from the original games, but doing its own thing.

Finally, and this is VERY subjective, I didn't enjoy NV's attempts at a cowboy theme. I just didn't feel they worked. They felt chessy, and not in a fun way...

Overall, FO3 is IMO a better game. NV has it beat in a few areas, but as a total package FO3 is much better.