Poll: Fallout 3 or New Vegas

Ironbat92

New member
Nov 19, 2009
762
0
0
I've been thinking, after all these years, of giving Fallout 3 or New Vegas a try. Problem, I only have enough for one of the them, right now. Which is the better game?
 

zen5887

New member
Jan 31, 2008
2,923
0
0
NV hands down.

Captures the "feel" of the old Fallout games so much better, is more polished, and I feel like it's way more interesting. Like, instead of a "grim hopeless post apocalyptic wasteland" it's a "grim hopeless post apocalyptic wasteland BUT with gambling and people who think they are ancient Romans!"
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,655
23
13
Gotta be 3. Better story , better quest , overall better DLC, gameplay after beating the game, and more memorable places. The only thing NV wins is for followers. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on my mobile right now.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
It depends.

Fallout: New Vegas has the better narrative, and have a lot more fleshed out mechanics than Fallout 3. 3, however, have far better enviroments and overworld.
Fallout 3 focuses more on the immediate after-apocalypse. The Wasteland is only just beginning to become reasonably inhabitable, and friendly people are few and far between.

Fallout: New Vegas is more developed, with factions and semi-nation states beginning to rebuild their world, while fighting over strategic resources. There are more people, more agendas and more intricate story lines.

F: NV is far better written, with neat characters and groups compensating for the barren enviroment. F:3 is much more Spartan and simple in that reguard, but the fantastic enviroments and general feel compensate for that.

Fallout: New Vegas is a political thriller with guns and ghouls. Fallout 3 is a more simplistic heroes' journey to make a barren land slightly better for everyone.

Honestly, get both. I would suggest you get started with F:3, since F:NV's mechanics builds on them very well, and going the opposite direction will feel like a downgrade. But that depends on your own preferenses. Get 'em both in the future, you won't regret waiting.

If nothing else, both are great bits of craftsmanship, well worth enjoying.
 

Trinket to Ride

New member
Jul 13, 2014
91
0
0
New Vegas hands down. NV should be retroactively called "Fallout 3" and the current FO3 should be renamed "Fallout: Capital Wastes." Much better writing, much better companions, much better gameplay, and much more true to the first two.

That being said, I still love FO3 for being more atmospheric, and its loose ties to the other games do make it a good place to start the series.
 

Muspelheim

New member
Apr 7, 2011
2,023
0
0
Trinket to Ride said:
New Vegas hands down. NV should be retroactively called "Fallout 3" and the current FO3 should be renamed "Fallout: Capital Wastes." Much better writing, much better companions, much better gameplay, and much more true to the first two.

That being said, I still love FO3 for being more atmospheric, and its loose ties to the other games do make it a good place to start the series.
Agreed, now that I think of it. Even if 3 is my favourite, I feel that the number is a bit... Too illustrious for it. A lot of the hostility towards that game would've no doubt been negated if they'd called it "Capital Wastes". Which is a very neat title, actually.

Of course, changing a more or less sanctified franchise is always going to be a bit of an upwards slope, but still.

On that note, OP, keep in mind:

Fallout 3 was made by the Bethesda developers, in between The Elder Scrolls IV and V. Fallout: New Vegas was made by the original Fallout 1-2 developers. New Vegas is the more "pure" experience, in that reguard. Both are still worth playing, but if the dev lineage feels important, that is how it is.
 
Jan 12, 2012
2,114
0
0
New Vegas is my vote. If you can, get the Ultimate Edition; absolutely worth the $5 extra (or whatever piddling sum) to get the 4 DLCs plus weapons packs.

Plus, the music is great. FO:3 had good stuff, but New Vegas has a mix of similar 50's stuff, along with big band music suitable for Vegas, crooners, and even some good country. Plus, the radio doesn't crap out on you when you go out of transmitter range, so you can have the music and other broadcasts everywhere you go. Immersion-breaking, maybe, but I'm just glad I didn't have my songs interrupted.
Elfgore said:
Gotta be 3. Better story , better quest , overall better DLC, gameplay after beating the game, and more memorable places. The only thing NV wins is for followers. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on my mobile right now.
I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that. The story in Fallout 3 seemed pretty simple and straightforward, while I felt like there was more choice and thinking in New Vegas (granted, there was more blue/orange morality stuff too).

As well, the DLC of New Vegas is my favourite of all time, far better than FO:3. Old World Blues has really clever dialogue and plot, fun weapons, a massive place to explore, and is just fantastic, while the other 3 are pretty good. The places of Fallout 3 blend together in my mind as a mass of tunnels, broken buildings, and greyish scenery, while NV has colourful settlements that people have rebuilt in a variety of styles, along with some nice brownish scenery.
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,655
23
13
Thunderous Cacophony said:
Elfgore said:
Gotta be 3. Better story , better quest , overall better DLC, gameplay after beating the game, and more memorable places. The only thing NV wins is for followers. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on my mobile right now.
I'd like to hear the reasoning behind that. The story in Fallout 3 seemed pretty simple and straightforward, while I felt like there was more choice and thinking in New Vegas (granted, there was more blue/orange morality stuff too).

As well, the DLC of New Vegas is my favourite of all time, far better than FO:3. Old World Blues has really clever dialogue and plot, fun weapons, a massive place to explore, and is just fantastic, while the other 3 are pretty good. The places of Fallout 3 blend together in my mind as a mass of tunnels, broken buildings, and greyish scenery, while NV has colourful settlements that people have rebuilt in a variety of styles, along with some nice brownish scenery.
For the story, Fallout 3's came off as unique. Purify the water source, while New Vegas was just three groups fighting over a dam. The choices may have been greater and yes the endings are different, but you don't see any of it. I understand why they didn't, as making about ten different endings would be very tedious, but I stand by my point. The side quest in 3 actually were well-written compared to the quest in New Vegas.

Hate to nitpick, but I said overall for DLC. Old World Blues is probably in my top two DLC of all time, but the rest sucked. Dead Money had cool characters, but nothing else. Honest Hearts the same. I haven't beaten the last one, but what I did play was rather dull. The only bad DLC in 3 was Point Lookout, which was just stupid hard.

I should also add that New Vegas had ten times better characters overall, while 3 had the better environments. The dull color pallet thing makes sense too. DC would have been nuked to hell, a desert and the gambling capital of the U.S. not so much. I prefer my apocalypses darker anyway.
 

matrix3509

New member
Sep 24, 2008
1,372
0
0
It all depends on what you want. If all you want is the typical Bethesda schpiel (i.e. an RPG in name only, where nothing you do matters, a cool looking world that makes no sense if you stop and think for 5 seconds, etc.) with a post-apocalyptic flavor, basically the Elder Scrolls with guns, then you should stick to Fallout 3. Stay away from the DLCs, when they aren't terrible, they're offensively boring.

If you want actual role playing where you'll need to specialize, interesting factions in a interesting story, a chance to affect the story, and a cohesive world, with slightly less interesting level design, then you'll want New Vegas, including it DLCs, they are all excellent, with the arguable exception of Dead Money.

TL;DR Fallout 3 if all you want is some exploration and some cool shit to look at and shoot for however many hours. New Vegas if you want an actual in-depth RPG.
 

Rebel_Raven

New member
Jul 24, 2011
1,606
0
0
New Vegas, IMO. With the DLC, there's plenty to do, and enjoy.
I do kinda have a spoiler, though.
Even with DLC, New Vegas doesn't have a post game. FO3 does have post game play with DLC. IIRC, anyhow. I roam the wastes not doing my last mission in New Vegas.

I like the followers in New Vegas more by leaps, and bounds. The DLC was nice, and generally added to the game. It seemed a bit more light hearted.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
New Vegas all the way. Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 is a great stand-alone title, but that's precisely it's problem - it's merits rest upon it being a stand-alone title. The '3' in it's name signifies that it wants to be compared to the previous games, and it is when this otherwise awesome RPG is laid next to it's predecessors that it's flaws become apparent. NV has much more connection to the originals, keeps the sense of humour (sadly lacking from 3, except Moira and maybe Cerberus), builds on pre-established canon, and more than anything continues the story of the rebirth of humanity two centuries after an apocalyptic event. Fallout 3 had it's good points, but it played like a game the took 20 - not 200 - years after said event.
 

Fayathon

Professional Lurker
Nov 18, 2009
905
0
0
I liked the general feel of Fallout 3 better, but the gameplay to New Vegas is infinitely superior. If you're PC then get NV first and play it, then when you get the chance grab FO:3 and use the Tale of Two Wastelands mod to play it with the NV engine.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,837
0
0


......right, money... Hmmm...

Well, I'm biased because New Vegas is the only Fallout game I own but even before this thread was made I was thinking of going back to it to make another character and follow those quests I never bothered going through the last 3 times I played.

It's got a lot of replayability and I find it really captures the desolate, post-apocalypse desert life well. Combat is fun, lots of optional places to explore and the main story is good too.

I watched my friend play a lot of 3 and I do want to buy it eventually but I'm not complaining about what I've got.

[sub][sub]Also dogs. Beware of the eyes.[/sub][/sub]
 

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
I know this is a crazy thought, but... play both. Seriously. Start with 3, it's definitely got a better intro, and the "immersion" is greater - there are still bugs and other issues, obviously, but it's well worth your time.

NV trades a lot of that immersion in for better gameplay mechanics. More types of weapons, more types of ammo, weapon upgrades that make even melee playstyles quite viable. The problem? It's... pretty silly. The first two Fallouts were also silly, with a lot of tongue-in-cheek comments or just wacky humor thrown in an otherwise serious post-apoc setting. FO3 doesn't have much of that - it takes itself seriously, and so I was able to get drawn into it far deeper. The feeling of wandering a truly desolate wasteland, ravaged by humans and by time, scrounging what you need to survive whilst avoiding any unnecessary conflicts that could easily spell your doom. I loved it.

F:NV has a lot less of that. The map is more crowded, and far more linear. Even early on (especially if you have the full edition with all the dlc items) you have weapons that are competent-or-better, so you can jump right into the exploring and skip as much storyline as you want. Luckily, F:NV does have a setting to retain a LITTLE bit of its immersion: avoiding the wild wasteland perk will remove some of the most immersion-breaking silliness, but a lot of it is still present in how NPCs act and what they say.

That said, they're both "good games." Neither one is "objectively" better than the other - they have different strengths and focuses. The common element that both share is very high quality DLC. Normally I'm not a fan of DLC of any type, and I think it's a fucking cancer on the industry, but Bethesda outdid themselves and made sure that each mini-campaign was worth the time. Sometimes they'll just be small standalone stories, sometimes they'll restrict your weapons and make you go through a FPS training simulator (which mocks the FPS genre as much as possible), sometimes it'll be a massive zone with a shitload of optional content. If you, for some reason, choose not to play both games, rest assured that either one will have some quality DLC content for you to enjoy.

But really, the premise is silly. Play both games; they're the best post-apoc we've seen in awhile that don't go straight for calladoody FPS gameplay.
 

ThreeName

New member
May 8, 2013
459
0
0
Elfgore said:
Gotta be 3. Better story, better quest , overall better DLC, gameplay after beating the game, and more memorable places. The only thing NV wins is for followers. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on my mobile right now.
U wot m8?

Fallout 3's story is atrocious. And the original ending is one of the worst in gaming. Yeah, "Chase the guys that shot you" isn't exactly inspired but it's still better than finding Daddy.

Also, better DLC? What?

Operation Anchorage aka "Fallout 3 - Mindless Shooter Edition" (Do you hate all the RPG in your FPS/RPG? This is for you!)
Broken Steel aka "Fallout 3 - Actually Get An Ending Edition" (Pay extra for a real ending? Hooray!)
Point Lookout aka "Fallout 3 - Fucking Bullshit Edition" (Enemies without any armour wielding 200 year old weapons can kill a hulking killing machine in two shots? Seems legit)
Operation Zeta aka "Fallout 3 - What The Fuck Are We Doing, We're Totally Out Of Ideas Edition" (Let's throw some aliens in I don't know thinking hurts)

The Pitt is the only DLC worth anything because it actually has the moral choices Fallout 3 purported to (and definitely didn't) have. Yet that's somehow better than Lonesome Road and Old World Blues? No thank you sir.

Also there's no Little Lamplight in New Vegas so it wins anyway
 

The_Blue_Rider

New member
Sep 4, 2009
2,190
0
0
Fallout New Vegas for sure, its one of the best post apocslyptic games out there, F3 is good as well but its a lot more generic than New Vegas, its the very standard post nuclear wasteland you've seen a million times in other stories about the apocalypse, with a few Fallout references tossed in to loosely connect it with the series. Its not a bad game, its still very good, but New Vegas has a great personality to it, it shows a post apocalypse getting back on its feet, humanity trying to be better than those before them, yet not always succeeding.

All three factions in the Mojave are all interesting and worth supporting, I know a lot of people paint the legion as the clear cut "bad" faction in the game, but really the NCR and Mr House arent exactly that much better. Listen to people you talk to in game, there are a lot of characters who will point out the flaws of the NCR and the positives of the Legion.

Also gameplay wise New Vegas is the clear winner, not much else to be said, it does pretty much everything 3 does better.

You cant go wrong with either title, but Id say New Vegas is the better bet
 

Elfgore

Your friendly local nihilist
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
5,655
23
13
ThreeName said:
Elfgore said:
Gotta be 3. Better story, better quest , overall better DLC, gameplay after beating the game, and more memorable places. The only thing NV wins is for followers. I'd go into more detail, but I'm on my mobile right now.
U wot m8?

Fallout 3's story is atrocious. And the original ending is one of the worst in gaming. Yeah, "Chase the guys that shot you" isn't exactly inspired but it's still better than finding Daddy.

Also, better DLC? What?

Operation Anchorage aka "Fallout 3 - Mindless Shooter Edition" (Do you hate all the RPG in your FPS/RPG? This is for you!)
Broken Steel aka "Fallout 3 - Actually Get An Ending Edition" (Pay extra for a real ending? Hooray!)
Point Lookout aka "Fallout 3 - Fucking Bullshit Edition" (Enemies without any armour wielding 200 year old weapons can kill a hulking killing machine in two shots? Seems legit)
Operation Zeta aka "Fallout 3 - What The Fuck Are We Doing, We're Totally Out Of Ideas Edition" (Let's throw some aliens in I don't know thinking hurts)

The Pitt is the only DLC worth anything because it actually has the moral choices Fallout 3 purported to (and definitely didn't) have. Yet that's somehow better than Lonesome Road and Old World Blues? No thank you sir.

Also there's no Little Lamplight in New Vegas so it wins anyway
I had to google "U Wot M8?" God, I'm getting out of touch.

So moving on, Finding daddy is the first part, then it changes into something much more and bigger than yourself. New Vegas did the same, but I still prefer 3's. I rather purify water than help some greedy dicks take control of a dam.

...Anchorage was fun for those who wanted more lore and a slightly more combat oriented DLC. Broken Steel at least let's us continue the game, which hey, New Vegas doesn't. Point Lookout... sucks. I can't argue with that. Operation Zeta, the fun wacky DLC that all old Fallout fans should enjoy. You know, we can have funny things.

I really don't understand the hatred of Little Lamplight. The kids are fucking annoying, but I don't get the hate the town gets. At least 3 tried to be a little original.
 

TheYellowCellPhone

New member
Sep 26, 2009
8,618
0
0
Fallout 3 has better mod support and an incredibly good world. Broken Steel DLC is pretty much a necessity.

New Vegas has an eh world but is better in... pretty much every way, I hate to admit.

The general gunplay is the same between each game, so if you hate that (which is understandable) then you're not going to be happy with either game.

Worth getting both though.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Much of a muchness really.

I played a fair bit of Fallout 3 before getting bored, then tried New Vegas a couple years later and it basically just felt like a big expansion pack for FO3. Same engine, same gameplay, same controls, same visuals, same prettymuch everything. New map, new missions, new guns.
 

mavkiel

New member
Apr 28, 2008
215
0
0
Honestly, hard to choose between them. I'd say get them both when they go on sale. With ttw, then you can play *both* of those games at the same time. Its like having your cake and eating it too.