Poll: Fallout 3 or New Vegas

[mGoLos]

Depends a lot on the platform too. You do not want to play New Vegas on the PS3 for example ... sloppy programming makes the save-file unplayable when it reaches approximately 13 mbs in size. It also has many game breaking bugs that you may or may not avoid and several glitchy trophies especially on the DLC's. It's all about luck really and you pretty much have to finish in around 100 hours. Awful release that should haunt the companies involved for all time.

On PC I would choose both and start at the beginning with Fallout 3. It's not like you'll regret spending 200 hours scouring the wasteland because you later discover that new vegas seems even better.

 

[Bertylicious]

snip

I'm afraid I'm with Jazz Hands on this one, chum. Fallout 3 shoe horning in the Damage Resistance system from Oblivion, where it was capped at 85, wasn't the greatest idea on account of Oblivion using the magic system, with elemental damage resistance separated from physical damage.

This meant that a suit of combat armour gave you a damage resistance of 10 less than power armour for less weight, none of the stat penalties, was both easier/cheaper to repair and wearable without a special perk. The unique combat armour, if you could find it, gave you massive stat boosts and was as effective as the T-45 power armour.

The Damage Threshold system of NV went some way towards resolving this and also allowed different ammunition types to have more profound effects, with AP ammo reducing DT at the cost of reduced damage, however it was still not a perfect system.

They'd have been better off going with the classic Fallout approach of combined DT & DR for separate damage types: incoming damage was first reduced by the DT and the DR then reduced what was left. Metal armour, for instance, had a high DT but a low DR against physical damage so could completely protect you from a pistol shot but provide less protection than leather armour from a high powered rifle. Nuanced granularity FTW!

I'm also shocked that at no point during the design process of Fallout 3 nobody realised that power armour and mini-guns sucking was a red flag. They'd have been better off making them much better and having Brotherhood recruits in combat armour and paladins in vastly improved T-45s.

Fallout 3 is still a very, very, good game that I love dearly though.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I'm also shocked that at no point during the design process of Fallout 3 nobody realised that power armour and mini-guns sucking was a red flag.

What? combat armor being less powerful then outdated and crappy T-45D as power armor, without the stat penalties, doesn't make power armor suck, its just basic game balancing. Power armor is still the easiest means to get max, or nearly max, DR in the game without having to waste perks on like 3 different +DR perks.

And miniguns were great, so long as you used them properly, i.e. as a gun used solely for mowing down large numbers of unarmored, or only very lightly armored, foes. Not to mention how the superior defender perk from Point Lookout was bugged and gave every single minigun bullet +5 damage, making miniguns ridiculously overpowered.

This meant that a suit of combat armour gave you a damage resistance of 10 less than power armour for less weight, none of the stat penalties, was both easier/cheaper to repair and wearable without a special perk. The unique combat armour, if you could find it, gave you massive stat boosts and was as effective as the T-45 power armour.

-Hellfire armor DR = 60
-T-51B DR = 60
-Winterized T-51B DR = 55
-Combat Armor DR = 37

60-37=23
55-37=18
23=/=10
18=/=10

Your math doesn't compute. Nor is +5AP, and +10 guns, and +1 luck, skill a "massive" stat boost for the ranger combat armor

They'd have been better off going with the classic Fallout approach of combined DT & DR for separate damage types: incoming damage was first reduced by the DT and the DR then reduced what was left. Metal armour, for instance, had a high DT but a low DR against physical damage so could completely protect you from a pistol shot but provide less protection than leather armour from a high powered rifle. Nuanced granularity FTW!

How does metal armor proving less damage resistance then leather from ANY kind of bullet make any sense?

 

[Bertylicious]

-Hellfire armor DR = 60
-T-51B DR = 60
-Winterized T-51B DR = 55
-Combat Armor DR = 37

Your math doesn't compute. Nor is +5AP, and +10 guns, and +1 luck, skill a "massive" stat boost for the ranger combat armor

Ah, well, the special power armours are the exceptions that prove the rule. The T-51 suits were specifically added in DLC to provide power armour that wasn't waff.

Regarding the ranger armour's stat boosts; VATS in Fallout 3 (less so in NV) is basically the win button so having more VATS, more critical chance (which was really the stat you wanted as crits ignored enemy DR in addition to bonus damage) and more points in small guns (which meant higher hit chance in VATS) are all pretty mega compared to rad resistance. I guess that's just, like, my opinion though, man.

As for the minigun, well... saying it's really good against shit enemies is hardly a ringing endorsement. If they'd made it do twice the damage with each shot then it would have been fine.

 

[masticina]

That is though both of them really are good.

I love exploring the world of fallout 3, finding little nooks around and places. Killing that hard to kill super mutant, I truly like all that. Actually a few days ago I had to pretty much nuke a rather hard to kill super mutant. I rather keep my nukes but hey this one was really though. And having gone through much of my ammunition in my usual guns I was left pretty much with going big. Really big, a shame he had a pretty neat tri laser. Oh well!

Ah Fallout: NV what I like about it is that it is allot more about survival. It is tougher on you, trust me when it comes to some enemies wow. One of the worst things you can do is go straight north when you are just a level 1. You won't survive it.
What I also like is the different ammunition use. Indeed in fallout 3 your guns simply used one type of ammo. In Fallout New Vegas you might have a choice out of three types of ammo. Some of it works better against armored enemies. Others do more damage as long as it isn't stopped by armor or some of it is just dirty and will require you to fix your gun earlier.
And trust me ammunition isn't given allot in the game so you are going to have to switch.

That is just a small thing really what makes it different, the feel is different, the story is different, the fact that there are factions that will get to love or hate you is different. And trust me you will fear assassins send your way.
There is allot more to Fallout New Vegas then the eye sees. And in the end well I think New Vegas wins out. But Fallout 3 is awesome to it just is more like Skyrim, allot more open. Not saying that New Vegas isn't open but it has a stronger connection with its story.

In fallout 3 you can do what you want. In Fallout New Vegas you better watch your back.

 

[ACman]

Like a big expansion pack for FO3. Same engine, same gameplay, same controls, same visuals, same prettymuch everything. New map, new missions, new guns.

The real difference is that F:NV has more believable characters and motivations who represent fractions that have goals that are believable. And the choices and consequences actually affect the world.

F:3 is goofy nonsense. It's a fun playground but the many of the character motivations and plotlines make no sense, and you get railroaded down a path of stupid decisions without any choice whatsoever.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Ah, well, the special power armours are the exceptions that prove the rule. The T-51 suits were specifically added in DLC to provide power armour that wasn't waff.

Want to try that again?

T-51B power armor is in the vanilla game, you get it from the "gotta shoot them in the head" quest.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/T-51b_power_armor_%28Fallout_3%29

And the Enclave hellfire armor isn't even special within the Broken Steel DLC, its literally something eevry third enclave soldier wears after about level 20
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Enclave_Hellfire_armor

which was really the stat you wanted as crits ignored enemy DR in addition to bonus damage)

I am going to need a citation for that, as I've never heard of it, nor is it mentioned on either Fallout wiki.

As for the minigun, well... saying it's really good against shit enemies is hardly a ringing endorsement. If they'd made it do twice the damage with each shot then it would have been fine.

Except that would make it the hands down best weapon in the game with nearly no flaws whatsoever, which would remove any sense of weapon diversity of balance.

Guns that fire lots of bullets are supposed to have weak damage per individual bullet, and lower crit chances, that's what makes them balanced compared to the higher damage, but less DPS, and higher crit chance, guns.

 

[Sizzle Montyjing]

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.

Completely wrong. Lest we forget... Three-Dog? F3 radio shat massively on F:NV, god, after a radio host that involved in the world in F3, it was kinda embarrassing to have a radio host that plain and boring, well, at least in my opinion.

OP: F3 is better if you're looking for a game set in the remains of an old world for the most part, whereas I'd say that F:NV feels a lot more like a game set in the early stages of a new world, at least the bits in the mojave are. [DLC pretty wicked-rad, y'know?]

So, I'm completely wrong, and to back up your claim, you present... a radio station? If it's the interaction that amazes you, don't forget Three dog only gave you a quest to repair a dish and gave you information about your dad. That was it.

Also, Fallout 3 takes place 36 years after Fallout 2. Fallout 1 was a wasteland with the beginnings of civilization. Likewise, Fallout 2 had made significant progress, with multiple large settlements. Then came Fallout 3 that, 116 years after the events of Fallout 1, was somehow less advanced than the people in Fallout 1.

I know this is a little late, I've been very busy doing fuck-all, after-all. Me saying you were completely wrong was sarcastic...kind of... surely only one exact thing could be right and everything else wrong, but this is all subjective anyway so whatever. But generally, I felt three dog was a lot more fun, and stroked my ego far better. Basically, I vastly preferred F:NV in every-way apart from the radio station [and i felt that F3 kinda did the post-apocalyptic feel a little better, maybe?].