Poll: Fallout 3 or New Vegas

[SajuukKhar]

In fact I'd go as far as to say NV has some of the most interesting characters of any Rpg ever,

What? how could anyone say this when New Vegas's companions are nothing more then stock standard RPG cliche archetype companions played 100% straight?

-Boone has no personality beyond "cliche former soldier who has given up on life because he was unable to protect his friends/family"
-Raul is nothing more then "old man who thinks he is too old to be useful"
-Veronica is "peppy outgoing cheerleader who is peppy and outgoing to get away from home issues"
-Cass is just "cowgirl"
-Arcade is "smart asshole who is only an asshole because he does think hes doing what his father would have wanted"

New Vegas's characters, from Arcade all the way to Ulysses, are nothing more then the most stock standard cliches with nothing to set them apart from all the other cliche archetype characters who have the same personality, back story, and "plot arc".

Every single element that could make them different, such as Raul being a Ghoul, is either thrown out, or let entirely superficial, except in the same of Rex and Lilly, where "old senile grandma" trope is twisted by her being the hulk, and Rex being a cyber dog actually plays into how to fix him.

It doesn't help that they do the same "lets spew massive amounts of dialog about our bacsktories in an entirely inhuman and unnatural way in order to make our lives seem more complex and well written then they actually are.", which really does nothing but fully cement the fact they are what they are RPG COMPANIONS instead of attempt to make realistic and believable people.

I honestly cant recall a single actual detail about any character in New Vegas back stories, beyond the most basic premise, because they were just so copy pasted from every book/movie/tv show/game that they blended in with everyone else.

Just like every other character from any obsidian game ever from KOTOR 2 to MoTB.

Not to say Fallout 3's characters were by any means great, but at least Jericho and Charon didn't blather on about their pasts to some random dude they only met a couple days ago then then ask that guy to fix their lives for them, because they apparently haven't tried to do it themselves cuz "RPGS EXIST TO STROKE THE PLAYERS EGO AND HE HAS TO BE THE ONE TO SOLVE EVERYONE'S PROBLEMS". THAT was far more believable.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

New Vegas.

Fallout 3 had a Bethesda plot; in that it had the depth and complexity of a Saturday morning cartoon. Obsidian on the other hand can actually write.

Add that to the improved gameplay, more quests, much better morality system and IMO a cooler setting overall and I don't see how anybody could possibly prefer Fallout 3.

 

[Don Incognito]

I love them both, and I would recommend getting both when they are on sale.

HOWEVER, if you can only get one, definitely get New Vegas. At first, it doesn't seem that much better, but it is almost impossible to play Fallout 3 after playing New Vegas. You'll wonder, where's the disguise system, where's the faction system, where are all the different weapons and ammo types, etc. etc. etc. New Vegas, in addition to having a much better story, has more interesting characters, far superior companions and companion management, an astounding increase in the amount and different types of weapons and armor and different loot, significantly better balanced character progression... I could go on and on.

 

[Sylph_14]

Fallout: New Vegas had a better story, and more fleshed out interesting characters.
Although I think Fallout 3 had the whole desperate, post-apocalyptic atmosphere done way better.

Both are definitely worth playing, but New Vegas is definitely worth playing more, imo.

 

[JazzJack2]

-Boone has no personality beyond "cliche former soldier who has given up on life because he was unable to protect his friends/family"
-Raul is nothing more then "old man who thinks he is too old to be useful"

Just because you can make a crude simplification of a character does not make that character actually simplistic.
I could say Gordon Comstock (one of my favourite characters of all time) was just a cliched struggling 20 something artist if I was to simply look at him on a surface level and purposely ignored the things that make him interesting. All characters will appear to match some cliche or another because cliches are simplistic attempts at making real characters, however writing characters off as simplistic because they share traits with simplistic character tropes would be utterly moronic and quite frankly it shows your ignorance that you think that because the general summary of a character matches a cliche it makes them cliche.

-Veronica is "peppy outgoing cheerleader who is peppy and outgoing to get away from home issues"

Yeah I won't argue there Veronica never gelled with me as a character.

-Cass is just "cowgirl"

Unless of course you know, you actually pay attention to what she says.

-Arcade is "smart asshole who is only an asshole because he does think hes doing what his father would have wanted"

Arcade is probably as far away from as asshole you could get, did we even play the same game?

New Vegas's characters, from Arcade all the way to Ulysses, are nothing more then the most stock standard cliches with nothing to set them apart from all the other cliche archetype characters who have the same personality, back story, and "plot arc".

Complete unsubstantiated bullshit, If that's the case tell me what cliche Ulysses is or Mobious is or Dean domino is without completely ignoring their personality outside of their role in the story.

Just like every other character from any obsidian game ever from KOTOR 2 to MoTB.

Oh wow that's hilarious, Kotor 2 is probably the closest video games have ever come to having a legitimately good stand alone plot and characters (unlike most games where you have to add the qualifier 'for a game') I think it's probably the only game of which I could read the plot in book form and still think it was enjoyable.

You'll fail to find a better written character than Kreia in any game, maybe funnier more enjoyable ones in games like Grim fandango but certainly not better written.

Not to say Fallout 3's characters were by any means great, but at least Jericho and Charon didn't blather on about their pasts to some random dude they only met a couple days ago then then ask that guy to fix their lives for them, because they apparently haven't tried to do it themselves cuz "RPGS EXIST TO STROKE THE PLAYERS EGO AND HE HAS TO BE THE ONE TO SOLVE EVERYONE'S PROBLEMS". THAT was far more believable.

No instead the characters of F3 fail to rise to even be mediocre cliches (like most Bethesda characters usually manage) and are simply content with being non entities that have no humanity whatsoever and fail to even be logical components to the plot.

 

[Denamic]

NV is better is practically every way. Gameplay, characters, quests, plot, environment, DLC, arsenal, etc. The only thing F3 did better was the intro and the initial wow factor.

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

The problem with you argument is that unlike Gordon Comstock the characters in New Vegas actually dont have anything more to them besides their back story.

What does Raul like to do besides fixing things? what his favorite food? what does he like to do when hes not fixing shit? What is ANYTHING about him besides his back story? Same with Boone, or anyone else? what do they do or really talk about that doesn't further the plot?

Unless you know, you actually pay attention to what she says.

Except everything she says further reinforces that, though as nails cowgirl, who can stand up to any man, with an overly large attachment to MUH FAMILY NAME! and a trigger happy method of solving all her problems. Literally, every, cowgirl, character, ever.

Arcade is probably as far away from as asshole you could get, did we even play the same game?

Did we? because Arcade is incredibly smug and self confident about his intellect and constantly talks crap about everyone who isnt him because of how futile their efforts to do stuff like find medicine from plants are, despite the fact you CAN do just that in-game. Nice consistency obsidian.

Complete unsubstantiated bullshit, If that's the case tell me what cliche Ulysses is or Mobious is or Dean domino is without completely ignoring their personality outside of their role in the story

Ulysses is the world hating destroyer, he believes all existing life is corrupt, flawed, and should be destroyed so his ideal, which he believes is correct, can flourish, aka every other Megaman badguy from Sigma in Megaman X, to Master Thomas and Albert in Megaman ZX.

Mobius is "the sane scientist" the only one in his group who realizes they have gone to far and either tries to stop or contain the horrors they have made, a character found in pretty much every scifi movie that involves super viruses orsome other potentially world destroying device.

and Dean Domino is Gatsby, the man who cant let go of a long lost past something to the point it eventually destroys him, but that's pretty much every character in Dead Money.

I think it's probably the only game of which I could read the plot in book form and still think it was enjoyable.

then you have exceedingly low standards, and dont care about series consistency.

No instead the characters of F3 fail to rise to even be mediocre cliches (like most Bethesda character usually are) and are simply content with being non entities that have no humanity whatsoever and fail to even be logical components to the plot.

They shouldn't have anything to do with the plot, they are just relatively normal people, at least for their world. Just like 90% of the people you met in the real world will have had little to no life impact from the war in iraq, character in the game shouldn't have any ties to the plot, to do so would be massive shoehorning, a trait obsidian is notorious for.

and they have humanity, as they have lives, they just are content with urnealsitically splerging it out to every random passerby for no reason.

 

[JazzJack2]

The problem with you argument is that unlike Gordon Comstock the characters in New Vegas actually dont have anything more to them besides their back story.

Unless you actually pay attention to what they're saying and how they are saying it.

What does Raul like to do besides fixing things? what his favorite food? what does he like to do when hes not fixing shit?

Right which again shows your failure to understand basic characterization. Someone's favorite food is not characterization, personality is someone's response (mostly their emotional response) to situations and conversations and the personal growth arising from that, of which all of NVs Companions have at least a reasonable amount of development in.

Did we? because Arcade is incredibly smug and self confident about his intellect and constantly talks crap about everyone...

We clearly didn't play the same game, Arcade Gannon is mostly awkward, shy and self deprecating and as far from smug as can possibly be.

how futile their efforts to do stuff like find medicine from plants are, despite the fact you CAN do just that in-game. Nice consistency obsidian.

Wait because one character expresses doubt about something you can actually do in game you believe that's an inconstancy on the part of the developers? Jesus...

Ulysses is the world hating destroyer, he believes all existing life is corrupt, flawed, and should be destroyed so his ideal, which he believes is correct, can flourish, aka every other Megaman badguy from Sigma in Megaman X, to Master Thomas and Albert in Megaman ZX.

Mobius is "the sane scientist" the only one in his group who realizes they have gone to far and either tries to stop or contain the horrors they have made, a character found in pretty much every scifi movie that involves super viruses orsome other potentially world destroying device.

and Dean Domino is Gatsby, the man who cant let go of a long lost past something to the point it eventually destroys him, but that's pretty much every character in Dead Money.

Did you miss the part where I said 'outside of their role in the story'. All you did was just describe the characters purpose as plot devices, not their personality which are completely separate. I'll bring my Gordon Comstock example up again, his purpose in the story is a struggling socialist artist which is a very common cliche in literature but that is not his personalty and by extension it's not his character and so he is not a cliche and nor are the characters I brought up.

Even then though you clearly fail to understand the basic function of plot devices given you completely misread Ulysses. The idea that Ulysses is a radical world hating villain who despises humanity and wishes to enforce his ideal on everyone is laughable because he is quite the opposite, he is a man who fundamentally believes people and life are good and who actually hates the sort of people who you purport him to be. Literally the whole DLC is about him criticizing fundamentalist ideologues and faceless, inhuman grand political plans which he despises and yet you claim he wants to destroy the world to enforce his ideal. You clearly didn't pay attention to the story in the slightest.

then you have exceedingly low standards, and dont care about series consistency.

Yawn.

They shouldn't have anything to do with the plot, they are just relatively normal people, at least for their world. Just like 90% of the people you met in the real world will have had little to no life impact from the war in iraq, character in the game shouldn't have any ties to the plot, to do so would be massive shoehorning, a trait obsidian is notorious for.

Except as far as I am aware Fallout isn't a massive post modern epic which critiques the standard structure of novels or storylines failure to accurately depict the function of real life human interaction. And the claim that Fallout 3's Npcs are purposely purposeless because it is a reflection of real life is hilarious given that
A)They are for more forced and 'gamey' than any of the other Fallout games (even more so than 2)
B)The main story is the complete opposite to that idea anyway being a typical YOU must save the world hero's tale.

 

[SajuukKhar]

-Unless you actually pay attention to what they're saying and how they are saying it.
-Right which again shows your failure to understand basic characterization. Someone's favorite food is not characterization
-We clearly didn't play the same game, Arcade Gannon is mostly awkward, shy and self deprecating and as far from smug as can possibly be.
-Did you miss the part where I said 'outside of their role in the story'
-Wait because one character expresses doubt about something you can actually do in game you believe that's an inconstancy on the part of the developers? Jesus...
-Did you miss the part where I said 'outside of their role in the story'
-And the claim that Fallout 3's Npcs are purposely purposeless because it is a reflection of real life is hilarious given that
-B)The main story is the complete opposite to that idea anyway being a typical YOU must save the world hero's tale.

-You keep saying this, but have yet to provide any actual examples.

-"things that define what the character likes and why are not characterization" What? no really... what? Are you seriously saying that things that define characters outside of the main plot focus isn't characterization?

-Arcade is FAR from shy, his willingness to splerg his past life, and give overly long details about scientific stuff he encounters to a person he met only days ago shows this. Choosing not to be around people because they aren't as smart as you isn't be shy, its being smug,

-No, him expressing doubt that something every other person in the wasteland would know how to do is inconsistency. It's like doubting that you can hold water in containers despite everyone having cups.


-But that's ALL they are, plot devices, they have no role outside the story, no lives outside the story, they are constructs, built solely for the purpose of furthering a plot, they have no lives, no existence, outside the plot.

And Ulysses does not like people, hate hates them, a lot, he hates all the NCR, he hates you, and he hates what the legion is becoming. He hates every major power in the wasteland, and even several minor ones like the BoS, and sees everyone who is part of them as idiots. Even Avellone said so, even Ulysses own audio logs say so.

-Except, that's not what I said, not being part of a quest =/= purposeless. they are there to make the world believable, and, in a believable world, most things arent tied into some massive mega conspiracy like New Vegas was. They are there for the same reason most stuff in Fallout 3 was, because it should be.

Like all of those old car dealerships, drive in movie theaters, baseball parks, schools, and everything else that has no quest tie in Fallout 3, its there because it logically would exist in that world.

-except it isn't, as every single faction in every single game, new Vegas includes, needs YOU to solve all their problems and win the day for them.

 

[Rastrelly]

...

In F3 a random guy suggests you to blow up the nuke in a city for reward. F3 has no conceptual logic of any particular area (food supplies? fuck 'em! trade routes? fuck em! shops full of eatable food? fuck yeah! electricity in postapocalyptic bombarded ruins? fucking everywhere!). F3 storyline is ridiculous on each level: most plotmoving reasons end up with "Because I was doomedto do so!" Father's urge to fix the cleaner, enclave's will to clean up the wasteland, ... oh, yeah, end of factions. Locations like Oasis and Little Lamplight are ridiculous (first one is especially sad for each and every F1 and F2 player). There is no reason to actually play as a pure diplomat. There are TWO cities in the whole game (Megaton and Rivet City), everything else doesn't even come close to, at least, Shady Sands.

In FNV there are three major factions and lots of minor, each is important in one way or another, and their relations with player are calculated dynamically. Plot revolves around plausible conflict. Story with platinum chip normally fit into psychotic concepts of original games. Companions are not just additional firepower in case you need some. Basics of worldbuilding are taken into account - electric, food and water supply are explained and visible. There are at least 6 F1/2-level cities on the map. There ARE reasons to play as a pure diplomat.

Overall: F3 == Oblivion with guns; FNV == Fallout 2 worthy successor (could be better, but still)

 

[TristanBelmont]

While I love both, I play them each when I'm in different moods.

Fallout 3 when it's late and I wanna be creeped out or just wanna roleplay with my imagination, or NV when I want to kill a lot of time or go to war, since I keep a save file set to the Battle of the Hoover Dam permanently.

 

[Sansha]

Fallout 3.

First, I like how the game completely changed from Fallout 1 and 2, but in fairness I'm not sure if it's a good 3. NV was a better sequel to 2.
Fallout 3 stands on its own as its own game, with its own world, history and important characters. And I like that.

I can't come up with any kind of dialogue that would do justice to the expression of how much I aggressively did not give one fuck about the story in New Vegas. I found it utterly uninteresting, even after playing through all four endings. Fallout 3's, on the other hand, I really got immersed into. I felt like what was happening in the Capital Wasteland was an actual problem, and more importantly, my problem.
New Vegas strikes me as little more than a top-heavy government, a horde of barbarians and House fighting over a small square of desert. Don't - couldn't - care.
Rather like the NCR, the whole reputation and political decision system felt stretched too thin, and I managed to beat the system and get exalted with everyone at once, so what's the point?

The population of both games is about as interesting as each other; the everyday folk from both games all have fun stories and shit to do. Though ultimately I found myself far more at home in Megaton, the Citadel and Rivet City than anywhere in the Mojave, though Novac is lovely.

Fallout 3's game world is unquestionably better. It's larger, more varied, has tons more interesting locales and stuff to stumble upon, and just feels more like a real wasteland than a patch of desert, which doesn't need to be post-apocalyptic to be a hostile environment.

DLC's - Honest Hearts was the only one in New Vegas I found interesting. The others ranged from too silly to actual rancid shit(Dead Money). Fallout 3's are all really fun for me each time I play 'em, except Mothership Zeta, which falls under 'rancid shit'. The Pitt still holds the most difficult karmic decision in both games, and Anchorage is an awesome little mixing of the formula, and Point Lookout is almost a whole other game.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Is it bad that I thoroughly enjoyed Dead Money? It wasn't your typical shoot'n'loot and worked great as horror.

Main topic, I think New Vegas is the objectively better game but Fallout 3 should be played first in order to appreciate the improvements.

However, if you prefer open-world games over roleplaying, I think you'd enjoy F3 more.

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

In Fallout 3 there's a town built around a live nuclear bomb (the worst imaginable weapon and prime reason for the post-apocalyptic setting you're in!).
In Fallout New Vegas, every town you come across has some sort of renewable food source.
Very little makes sense in Fo3, while FNV actually feels like someone put some thought into making it.

I'm not exactly sure about it, but I think there was something in Fallout 3 about the Capital Wasteland soil being too irradiated for farming. Ok, yes, radioactive soil is a lot harder to clean than water.

Except ... over the course of the game you get your hands on a GECK, a device that can terraform a big patch of nuclear wasteland into a fertile green paradise. Too bad you used it up to complete the water purifier your dad and his colleagues developed, because they can't make a bigger version of their own work. Something they shouldn't have had to do because every Mr. Handy comes with liquid condensators that produce radiation free water.

So yeah, you wasted the miracle machine because these supposed top minds are too terrible at their job to solve the engineering problem of upscaling their own technology or reverse engineer an already existing and proven one.

Ugh, I could go on and on about the sheer stupidity of the writing in Fallout 3.

 

[Wilco86]

Is it bad that I thoroughly enjoyed Dead Money? It wasn't your typical shoot'n'loot and worked great as horror.

Not at all. That was my favorite DLC because of the survival horror theme (that came out of the left field when comparing to the main game even in HC), great characters, and melancholy as hell story and atmosphere. And because I and many of my childhood friends had moved apart because of studies and/or work, the themes of "letting go" and "begin again" were more than a bit personal.

Good times.

 

[ThreeName]

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.

The greedy dicks taking control of the dam felt much more like a real struggle between people. Fallout 3 gave you an FES virus that they hardly explained and then yelled at you throughout the ending if you took the option they gave you. Piss off Fallout 3, you're going to abuse me for choices made in a god damn RPG?

It may be that the true defining difference between Fallout 4 and New Vegas story preference is the difference between wanting to play the hero and wanting to play the everyman. I prefer the latter; heroes bore me. The goody-goody Brotherhood of Steel, the cackling mustache-twirling Enclave, the stupid, stupid "heroic sacrifice" at the end that could have been easily avoided, these are things I find terrible because heroism is cliche and boring. It's probably why every single playthrough of New Vegas I play ends up being Independent. Oh well, maybe I'll finally side with someone next time.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of criticism I can level at New Vegas (why are the Legion so cartoonishly evil in a game so otherwise morally grey?) but Fallout 3 was a worse in every area for me (People send assassins after you for being "too nice"? What?). The problem with Fallout 3's originality was it never made any sense. A town made entirely of children? "Superheroes" and "supervillains"? The Republic of Dave? The best part of Fallout 3, without a doubt, was Harold, The only quest that seemed to truly capture the struggle and moral ambiguity that should follow in the anarchy of a post-apocalypse.

 

[madster11]

A fully DLC'd, fully updated copy of New Vegas with an unofficial patch and a few graphical modifications (plus a new radio station for variety - CONELRAD) is my favorite video game of all time. Flat out best - so much stuff, such an excellent atmosphere, fun gameplay. It's just excellent.
If bethesda did what everyone else is doing and updated Fallout 3 and New Vegas on a modified skyrim engine and released them for the Xbone/PS4/PC, i would throw so much goddamn money at them so hard.


Walking through the desert with a .357 listening to Big Iron blaring with that echo is just...
YES.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Podnos3GnLE


Also just like to put it out there, any PC players of new vegas still running the 4gb mod, you don't really need to. Just download Large Address Aware and make sure the flag's set and you're all good.

 

[zombiejoe]

New Vegas won me over right from the start. It's a proper sequel to 2, the world feels more real, the story is much more complex and morally grey than Fallout 3's, the faction system is a welcome change to the black and white nature of Fallout 3, Hardcore mode is a welcome addition, the companions are better, the missions are more complex, I just think New Vegas did everything better than Fallout 3.

 

[LobsterFeng]

Oh, this again. Anyone else noticed how this thread seems to pop up once every 6 months?

I know right? It's like I'm actually on /v.

Personally I like New Vegas a lot more. I even like the map better because it didn't shove you into tunnels all the time or have everywhere you needed to go in the city be blocked by fucking rubble so the you'd have to go through the tunnels.

 

[someperson1984]

I liked Fallout 3 because it felt more focused and the world felt more distinct. New Vegas was fine, but it a bit disjointed at times. Maybe that's how the original Fallout games were, I don't know. But that's how I felt.

If you asked my mom, however, she'd tell you Fallout: New Vegas is better because a lot of Fallout 3 take place in cramped subway systems where everything looks that same and it's hard to know what you're looking at, and that gives her motion sickness.