Poll: Fallout 3 or New Vegas

Rastrelly

%PCName
Mar 19, 2011
602
0
21
It's funny. If you'd look at polls somewhere around 2011 they'd show FNV leading with muuuch lesser break (60% to 40% at best) and sometimes even losing. Luckily, people seem to start understanding why FNV is actually a great game, while F3 is just a good one :)

Also, I recommend to pick FNV now (Ultimate edition, of course), and visit Nev Vegas nexus to stock yourself with mods (I'd recommend as clean game as possible for the first playthrough):
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/53635/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/45104/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/34744/?
http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/42666/?
 

GabeZhul

New member
Mar 8, 2012
699
0
0
Rastrelly said:
It's funny. If you'd look at polls somewhere around 2011 they'd show FNV leading with muuuch lesser break (60% to 40% at best) and sometimes even losing. Luckily, people seem to start understanding why FNV is actually a great game, while F3 is just a good one :)
If you ask me, the reason for that is that F:NV started out with a really bad first impression. It was buggy (even buggier than the usual Bethesda fare established by F3), graphically underwhelming (most of the textures and models were completely lifted from F3) with a weaker intro (credit where credit's due, F3's intro sequence with your character growing up was phenomenal) and its plot didn't pick up until you actually got the Platinum Chip back. Most people (including Yathzee in his ZP video) didn't really look past these issues and only considered it a crash-grab. In fact, if what I have seen here and on other sites, a lot of people that played F3 didn't even try it because of the lukewarm reception it got.

Skip a few years ahead with four DLCs, extensive bugfixes and an active modding community later and people are finally getting to the point where word of mouth starts to convince them that F:NV is actually a really, really good game and giving it a try instead of rejecting it by a knee-jerk reaction, and we have today's situation.

Of course I am not saying that some people don't have legitimate issues with the game or don't prefer F3 over it, but as they say, different strokes for different folks. I personally think that NV was leaps and bounds better than F3 in almost all regards and I am glad to see that it is slowly getting the recognition it deserves.
 

Wilco86

New member
Oct 5, 2011
99
0
0
Elfgore said:
For the story, Fallout 3's came off as unique. Purify the water source
Sounds a bit like famous "Get the waterchip to save Vault 13" plot from the first Fallout to me. (But I have only played Fallout 3 a couple of hours.)

GabeZhul said:
If you ask me, the reason for that is that F:NV started out with a really bad first impression. It was buggy (even buggier than the usual Bethesda fare established by F3), graphically underwhelming (most of the textures and models were completely lifted from F3) with a weaker intro (credit where credit's due, F3's intro sequence with your character growing up was phenomenal) and its plot didn't pick up until you actually got the Platinum Chip back. Most people (including Yathzee in his ZP video) didn't really look past these issues and only considered it a crash-grab. In fact, if what I have seen here and on other sites, a lot of people that played F3 didn't even try it because of the lukewarm reception it got.
And remember that Bethesda forced FNV out even though Obsidian asked some more time to fix bugs, etc. That led to the famous Metacritic award system fiasco.
 

Odbarc

Elite Member
Jun 30, 2010
1,155
0
41
New Vegas feels more complete and thought out.

FO3 everything requires you to have 25, 50, 75 or 100 of a specific when prompted to have enough of a required stat.
NV has instances where 5 points can make a difference.

FO3 has a handful of weapons and a named version of slightly better performance.
NV has variety of each gun. There are 10 pistols, rifles, SMGs, shotguns, ect. ect. and unique top tier weapons.

FO3 rewards you with a massive amount of perks which you quickly max out your play style and branch into other styles out of abundance.
NV rewards perks half as often but gives you the option to benefit your play style throughout the game.


FO3 enemies spike in difficulty and you'll often find yourself easily clearing a group of bandits or fleeing from terror from an invincible mutant.
NV enemies have a squishy to solid variations to each of their kinds of enemies changing up your kills withing the same area.
(Examples would be:)
(FO3: All enemies have the same gun and die from headshots.)
(NV: Enemies have multiple weapons and vantage points and take different amounts of hits to die.)



Story wise, they're both good but NV gives your final battle some preparation for variation and makes more of a point to make you feel like you've had an impact with the decisions you make.
Both are prone to crashes and game freezes. The DLC isn't vastly important to me in either but their GOTY editions are worth their value.
 

Pyramid Head

New member
Jun 19, 2011
559
0
0
Definitely 3. Fallout: New Vegas has a much weaker story, and while neither game has groundbreaking villains, Caesar's Legion is just shit. At least with the Enclave you could KIND OF understand their efforts to try and restore what was lost in the war, which is more than you could say for the Fourth Reich in Metro. If they gave us a better third faction than the Legion though? I would have called New Vegas better. That said, they're both good games, both of them have special editions that come with all of the DLC and are cheap, and if you can, i'd honestly recommend both; Fallout 3 for the better story and personality and New Vegas for the fun DLC.



Just be warned. Both games in their vanilla versions are glitchy, so if you can't patch whatever you buy and didn't buy the special edition version that had the patches on the bonus disk, be sure to make manual saves instead of entirely relying on autosave as i have lost autosave files to the game crashing and bad moments.
 

Riotguards

New member
Feb 1, 2013
219
0
0
considering i played fallout 3 to death and i quit NV 1/3 in because of how boring the game is

fallout 3 hands down
 
Mar 9, 2012
250
0
0
Elfgore said:
For the story, Fallout 3's came off as unique. Purify the water source
Eh, the story is hardly unique. It is literally a combination of Fallout 1 and 2's story (there is even some Tactics mixed in there):

Save the people by bringing them clean water, also the super mutants are trying to use FEV create more of their own, and the Enclave are trying to commit genocide by poisoning stuff!

(Also; the villain is is a mad pre-war computer!)
 

Tayh

New member
Apr 6, 2009
775
0
0
I'd pick FO3 for the enviroment, atmosphere, radio soundtracks, post-apocalyptic feeling and plot/story. I felt much more involved in the story in FO3 than I did in NV.
FO:NV for the more evolved gunplay, weapon customization, better mods, hardcore mode and more balanced stats. It's more of a steampunk/Western/gunslinger game than the post-apocalyptic FO3. Hope you like repetetive, soppy Country music that makes you put a gun to your head after it repeats the same 5 songs for the hundredth time. Radio mods are your friend.
 

Nowhere Man

New member
Mar 10, 2013
422
0
0
So hard to choose. Fallout 3 captures a post apocalyptic world better, but New Vegas has iron sights. F3 has better dlc imo but New Vegas has better dialogue. F3 has Dog Meat. But NV has a whole mess of super interesting companions. F3 has Liam Neeson, but NV has Chandler and Machete. F3 has explodable nuclear cars strewn everywhere. But NV has black jack and hookers.

I can compare forever but I love them both. I only chose New Vegas in the poll because I am in the middle of my second playthrough of it and if you're getting it for PC you're less likely to have issues running it.
 

Zeterai

New member
Oct 19, 2009
66
0
0
Both, as some have said. Fallout 3 is the very, very typical hero's journey. You wander across the wasteland following your father, always just a few steps behind him, and that's.. about it. Sure, there are tons of storylines and sidequests, but the main plot is steady as a rock regardless of what you realistically choose. And the ending sucked until bolstered by DLC. Beyond which, an awful lot of the game makes very little practical sense, something a great number of people have pointed out innumerable times.

By contrast, in New Vegas, you start out just looking for answers and revenge, and make up your own story along the way based on the various factions. There's a much greater sense of the right person in the right place at the right time, who can make a difference entirely on their own agenda and decisions. There's an introduction of Survival skills that involve drinking and eating to stave off hunger or thirst, and a whole bunch of ammunition subtypes which have their own quirks - not to mention a crafting system to whip up all three of these things.


If you've tried out Shadowrun Returns, I feel that one can draw a near-perfect analogy from it; Dead Man's Switch was good, Dragonfall was excellent. One establishes the engine and basic playstyle, the other shows what it can really pull off. Fallout 3 is well worth playing, and New Vegas takes the experience, polishes it up, and makes it just better overall. 'ts like having a piece of cake, versus having a piece of cake with some ice cream.


But I'm feeling uncharacteristically human and unspiteful at the moment. How's this sound - pick up Fallout 3, play through it. PM me your Steam name, I'll send you a copy of New Vegas on Friday. Then you can decide which was better for yourself. Or the other way around I suppose, but as has been said, NV adds so many little improvements and enhancements that going back to Fallout 3 afterwards feels like a significant downgrade in terms of playability. Your choice though.
 

Mad Nicole

New member
Mar 19, 2014
2
0
0
Fallout 3, definitely. NV was just too linear for me, and the story wasn't nearly as good. Also, it's pretty much just an rpg in the future Mojave, it's not nearly as post apocalyptic was I like.
 

AuronFtw

New member
Nov 29, 2010
514
0
0
Nil Kafashle said:
Fallout 3's plot


New Vegas is better.
NV's plot:
Hurr some guy shot me in the face, gonna go track him down and interact with hilarious overblown caricatures along the way, finding towns and completing quests with very little overarching significance, and when I find him, the story will literally stop existing so I have to join with any of the existing groups of massive retards or run NV personally as a dictator

3's was far better. The characters, their motivations, the areas, the whole plot all seemed far more thought out and coherent than NV's mess, especially if you go back and do each of the retard faction endings in NV to see all the conflicting canon and "whoopsie" lore mistakes. Actually running around and shooting stuff with guns is a better experience in F:NV, but trying to feel lost in a post-apocalyptic world was a far superior experience in FO3. But honestly, it's a moot point because...

Nitpicking the details of either "main story" will reveal them both to be huge jokes compared to "real RPGs" - I honestly thought the story in both games was akin to breadcrumb quests in your typical MMO more than something to be paid attention to as the main attraction. Compared to the total amount of time you spend in the game, the "main story" takes up a ridiculously small fraction - the characters involved in it are typically the least interesting, most predictable, and overall shoddier than the random ones you can find tucked away in small towns. Due to that, I figured the "story" was just there to help new players along in figuring out how the game worked. It exposes them to different towns, usually major quest hubs (rivet city, DC area, even "new vegas"), gets them used to traveling far and wide. Once at any given town, you get to the *actual* meat of the game which is the hundreds of sidequests for random NPCs, various factions (if you can put up with their varying degrees of stupidity), or just running around exploring.

Both games are, primarily, sandbox RPGs. You don't need the majority of guns, armor or perks available to "beat the story." But they exist because they're part of a bigger world - the game experience would be poorer without them. Because both games are sandboxes, they both benefit from their different overall tones/mechanics; NV's superior combat and weapon viability tweaking makes the roaming around slaughtering deathclaws much more enjoyable and varied, while FO3's dark, dank and gloomy areas (and lots of tunnels) enforce the notion that you're scrounging to survive, which is huge bonus points to immersion. Trying to write all that off because the main plot is a joke (they're both jokes, be real here) kinda hints that you're missing the point of these huge open world sandbox rpgs :(
 

TheOneGuyInNebraska

New member
Apr 9, 2013
33
0
0
Man that's tough.
Fallout 3 has a much better overarching story, Fallout New Vegas has more interesting side quests.
Fallout NV has way more great companion characters, while 3's only awesome companion (Fawkes) shows up only like two hours before the end.
I guess what it really comes down to is the different tone each game sets for itself:
Fallout 3 tries to be a serious post-apocalypse journey, while Fallout New Vegas tries to be a campy SciFi/WildWest adventure.
And man do I love NV's silliness more then 3's seriousness. (3 did have a few great silly moments though)
 

JazzJack2

New member
Feb 10, 2013
268
0
0
AuronFtw said:
...and interact with hilarious overblown caricatures along the way...
Wait what? You're saying New Vegas is the game with the overblown caricatures when Fallout 3 has the sum total of ONE character who feels even vaguely 3 dimensional and human (who is ironically not a human but a super mutant.) where as a huge portion of the characters in NV are great and interesting
In fact I'd go as far as to say NV has some of the most interesting characters of any Rpg ever, most games could only wish for characters as good as Joshuah Graham or Dean Domino or Arcade Gannon etc etc

so I have to join with any of the existing groups of massive retards
Funny you should say that since almost all of the faction motives in NV are for the most part believable given the situations they're in, are multifaceted and with the exception of the Legion (who had large amounts of content cut) most of their motives are morally ambiguous and thus throw up difficult choices to the player as opposed to F3 which only attempts to smack you over the head with horrible 'good vs evil' morality and believes the player is to stupid to be challenged to make their own choices.
 

Gorrath

New member
Feb 22, 2013
1,648
0
0
I would pick NV over 3 but I also fall into the camp that says, "Get both!" F3 is a great game. And for me F:NV is one of the greatest games of all time.
 
Mar 9, 2012
250
0
0
AuronFtw said:
3's was far better. The characters, their motivations, the areas, the whole plot all seemed far more thought out and coherent than NV's mess
Surely you jest. 3's characters and dialogue was pretty wooden and flat. Just the difference in the companions' characterization and how choices in quests are handled between the installments are staggering.

if you go back and do each of the retard faction endings in NV to see all the conflicting canon and "whoopsie" lore mistakes.
Please, by all means; can you explain or at least qualify this?
 

Storm Dragon

New member
Nov 29, 2011
477
0
0
Funny thing, I just got New Vegas on Steam a few days ago, although I've played the console version several times before (I'm a recent convert to the Glorious PC Gaming Master Race). I like New Vegas a lot more than Fallout 3; the story, characters, and setting are just more interesting to me. My favorite thing about the main storyline is how you can choose to support one of three factions fighting over the area, or you can say "Screw those jerks!" and take over New Vegas for yourself. Why be the kingmaker when you can be the king (or queen)? Word of warning though: New Vegas is just about the buggiest and most unstable AAA game I've ever played. It is not a question of whether or not the game will crash, but how long until it crashes. If you're getting the PC version, there are some mods you can download that alleviate these problems (Like this one: [link]http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/53635/?[/link]), but if you're getting the console version, you won't have that option. That said, I have to stress that I love this game enough to keep playing it despite its stability issues. At times, I think of its frequent crashes as a feature, because otherwise, I would keep playing for far too long.

As a last note: If you do get the PC version of New Vegas, here are some mods I recommend:
-Daughters of Ares lets you play as an android, although there is no male option. Also, it makes the entire plot of Old World Blues make no sense. [link]http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/53683/?[/link]
-One HUD gives you numerous options for customizing the in-game HUD. [link]http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/44757/?[/link]
-MTUI makes the UI a bit more amenable to playing on the PC. [link]http://www.nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/34902/?[/link]
 

mitchell271

New member
Sep 3, 2010
1,457
0
0
Oh, this again. Anyone else noticed how this thread seems to pop up once every 6 months?

Both games have their strong points, whether it be NV's contribution to Fallout cannon and the huge expansion of weapons and items or Fallout 3's fantastic story and better radio station. I personally prefer 3 because while the Mohave wasteland was much bigger, it just felt empty. The capital wasteland was full of enemy spawns so even if I was just walking to another side quest, I'd have something to do other than walking.