So us retro lovers could brag about the plot to Fallout 1 or the difficulty in Fallout 2, but most gamers are introduced to the Wastelands at 3 so lets start here. What was a better game or story? The great but linear Fallout 3 plot or the multiple-choice ending of Fallout Vegas. Vegas of course has some better aiming mechanics, decent endings, but nowhere near as good as the Brother Hood of Steel DLC in 3, and arguably more interesting NPCs. 3 has a fantastic plot, but looking back on it.. would you NEVER fight for the Enclave? What do you want Fallout 4 to be? Excellent linear or a good ending with some choice options to get there?
Poll: Fallout 3 vs Vegas/ Fallout 4
- Thread starter Vandenberg1
- Start date
Personally, I prefer Fallout 3. Sure it runs like ass on pretty much everything, only system I could play it decently on was my 360. But I still prefer it more than New Vegas. 3 wins mostly because of world design, DLC, and quest. New Vegas wins characters. The story is a tie. 3's quest were amazing. In this case quality beats quantity. Each quest was well made and had an effect on the world, New Vegas was just filled with repetitive quest. The world design is spectacular, we have places like Arfu, Little Lamplight (no I'm not discussing how realistic it is), Paradise Falls, Oasis, Rivet City, and Megaton. Each unique with some great places to explore. The DLC is so much better than New Vegas'... well besides The Big Empty. One continues the campaign, one involves aliens, one virtual reality, and one has the most difficult choice I've ever made in a video game. New Vegas wins with characters hands down though. I can't name anyone besides Butch as a follower in 3, I can name every single one in New Vegas. Obsidian did very well on the followers.
Fallout 3 got me into the series and I loved it the first time I played it but subsequent attempts at playing it I just find myself really bored. Things I like more about New Vegas that I would like to see return in Fallout 4: the open endedness and various factions, great companions, weapon and ammo variety. A big one is character building options. Fallout 3 has very few perks tailored for specific builds as well as a lot of useless perks, and you have so many skill points to throw around you inevitably end up as an overpowered jack of all trades by the time you hit the level cap. In New Vegas when planning a character I sometimes agonise over which perks I have to leave out, in Fallout 3 you pick the twenty or so good perks then fill the rest with whatever seems novel. I also hope they keep damage threshold over damage resistance, or do a combination of the two like in the first two games.
The DLC in New Vegas often felt like a chore but I did like that all of them are somehow connected to the Courier and/or the events in the main game, and sometimes even connected to each other.
As a personal preference I prefer the Fallout 1/2/NV style wasteland where people have already kind of picked up the pieces and are back to the usual routine as opposed to the bleak depressing post apocalypse of the Capital Wasteland.
I'd also like to see some of the humour of Fallout 2 return. We kind of got that in NV with Wild Wasteland but unfortunately is uses up one of your trait spots.
The DLC in New Vegas often felt like a chore but I did like that all of them are somehow connected to the Courier and/or the events in the main game, and sometimes even connected to each other.
As a personal preference I prefer the Fallout 1/2/NV style wasteland where people have already kind of picked up the pieces and are back to the usual routine as opposed to the bleak depressing post apocalypse of the Capital Wasteland.
I'd also like to see some of the humour of Fallout 2 return. We kind of got that in NV with Wild Wasteland but unfortunately is uses up one of your trait spots.
New Vegas for me. Granted, it's been a real long time since I played 3, but I do remember having more fun with New Vegas than I did 3 when I initially played the former.
To me, New Vegas has it all, an awesome story with several different paths, a bunch of different character builds to create, a large cast of well written characters, plenty of exploration, and some pretty awesome DLC to boot.
Really the only thing that's holding it all back is how glitchy the game gets at times.
I do also enjoy the original two Fallout games mind you. (The second one ESPECIALLY when you install Killap's Restoration Mod)
To me, New Vegas has it all, an awesome story with several different paths, a bunch of different character builds to create, a large cast of well written characters, plenty of exploration, and some pretty awesome DLC to boot.
Really the only thing that's holding it all back is how glitchy the game gets at times.
I do also enjoy the original two Fallout games mind you. (The second one ESPECIALLY when you install Killap's Restoration Mod)
New Vegas did polish out the gameplay mechanics and add some nice stuff, but the game world in Fallout 3 is vastly superior and more interesting. I just can't muster up the will to slog through New Vegas after the first complete playthrough, but I've done FO3 multiple times and likely will again. Granted, I liked FO1 more than FO2, so maybe I'm just not that into the whole silly side of the Fallout universe. I don't mind a sense of humor, but pop culture reference overloads just don't do it for me.
New Vegas all the way. Fallout 3 felt like a Bethesda game, fun but pointless and meaningless. Everything is contrived specially for player and there is a little point to anything. Also world seems like a theme park not like a living breathing world of New Vegas. Simply put, I don't really remember much of F3 nor did I put nearly as much time as I did on New Vegas or Fallout 2. It had scarce few memorable characters, cookie cutter quests and clean denominations between good and evil. Everything that Fallout is not.
I don't mean to say Fallout 3 was not a good game, just that it's not a good Fallout game.
I don't mean to say Fallout 3 was not a good game, just that it's not a good Fallout game.
fallout 3 all the way, while i've attempted many times to really like new vegas its just a really dull experience maybe because i played fallout 3 to death but the quests aren't really special, the main story seems interesting but i'm not compelled in the least to follow it because it lacks any mystery, hell its not really that interesting because so far all they've shoved in my face is "oh he was here try this other place"
and then you've got the bugs that just ruin the immersion, worst i can remember being one of the commanders from the solar complex (i believe) was wandering around in the brush, like hundreds of miles from the place he's supposed to be and he's like "oh hello"
and then you've got the bugs that just ruin the immersion, worst i can remember being one of the commanders from the solar complex (i believe) was wandering around in the brush, like hundreds of miles from the place he's supposed to be and he's like "oh hello"
New Vegas gave me a nostalgia buzz because it felt like the old Fallout games. I love the setting, I always get a kick out of "western" motifs and I got to play as a spaghetti western styled gunslinger in a sci-fi game. Wins all round.
That said, it was a broken mess at launch and the game is terribly optimised for consoles. I got it on PC later and installed the unofficial patch and it was vastly better, but I really shouldn't have to seek out enthusiast support to get a game to work well. But that's par for the course with Obsidian.
I really enjoyed fallout 3 when it first came out. Ultimately I feel that New Vegas overshadows it and I didn't find DC that fun to explore, but it was still good and I'm looking forward to Bethesdas next foray into the Fallout universe. Hope they give obsidian the reigns again, though I've a feeling they wont.
What really knocks it home for New Vegas is the DLC. It's just vastly superior to Fallout 3's DLC (with the exception of honest hearts, which was a little lackluster).
That said, it was a broken mess at launch and the game is terribly optimised for consoles. I got it on PC later and installed the unofficial patch and it was vastly better, but I really shouldn't have to seek out enthusiast support to get a game to work well. But that's par for the course with Obsidian.
I really enjoyed fallout 3 when it first came out. Ultimately I feel that New Vegas overshadows it and I didn't find DC that fun to explore, but it was still good and I'm looking forward to Bethesdas next foray into the Fallout universe. Hope they give obsidian the reigns again, though I've a feeling they wont.
What really knocks it home for New Vegas is the DLC. It's just vastly superior to Fallout 3's DLC (with the exception of honest hearts, which was a little lackluster).
I personally like Fallout 3 the best, but New Vegas was ok. I really hope they bring back the Railway Rifle in 4 though. I really love that weapon.
Fallout 3 was a great stand-alone title, but New Vegas really felt like a part of the original series and so gets my vote. Well, actually, Fallout:Tactics got my vote but out of 3 and NV I prefer NV.
Fallout 1&2 for me.
Fallout 3 and above were an abomination that shouldn't of existed. Turning the game into a first person shooter with RPG elements was the biggest mistake they could have made. That is why I don't like the Fallout series from Bethesda all that much; Elder Scrolls I can tolerate, but in no shape or form the Fallout ones.
But I will reply to the OP's question and I think that Fallout 3 had the better story, just because I hated New Vegas with a passion. I didn't like the brown desert cowboy bs one bit.
Fallout 3 and above were an abomination that shouldn't of existed. Turning the game into a first person shooter with RPG elements was the biggest mistake they could have made. That is why I don't like the Fallout series from Bethesda all that much; Elder Scrolls I can tolerate, but in no shape or form the Fallout ones.
But I will reply to the OP's question and I think that Fallout 3 had the better story, just because I hated New Vegas with a passion. I didn't like the brown desert cowboy bs one bit.
I liked 2 most of the bunch, mostly because in 1 and 2 SPECIAL mattered, and the general gameplay mechanics and variety was higher.
New Vegas was superior in many ways to 3, but I actually liked the overworld in 3 the most of the bunch(2 had best cities though).
New Vegas was superior in many ways to 3, but I actually liked the overworld in 3 the most of the bunch(2 had best cities though).
I don't think we played the same fallout 3. I found the plot of fallout 3 to be atrocious. Bethesda makes great worlds to wander around in, but that's about it. They have never been good story tellers (Morrowind is my only exception here, and even then that's dubious). That's not to say I don't really enjoy their worlds but i certainly don't play Skyrim for the story.
I still think fallout 1 had the best story, fallout 2 was the most fun, fallout NV comes in third and fallout 3 kinda missed the mark.
I understand people who started playing fallout with fallout 3 loving it, cause it was new and novel for them. I don't think many people who didn't start with FO3 would rank it very highly though.
In the end though, of course FO4 will be most like FO3. If for no other reason than Bethesda doesn't know how to do it any other way.
I still think fallout 1 had the best story, fallout 2 was the most fun, fallout NV comes in third and fallout 3 kinda missed the mark.
I understand people who started playing fallout with fallout 3 loving it, cause it was new and novel for them. I don't think many people who didn't start with FO3 would rank it very highly though.
In the end though, of course FO4 will be most like FO3. If for no other reason than Bethesda doesn't know how to do it any other way.
(Started with Fallout 3, never played Fallout, tried and didn't like Fallout 2.)
New Vegas for me. Fallout 3 is good and I'm replaying it through now, but I just prefer New Vegas. I can't even really explain why. I guess NV is more open, you're not blocked by random rubble and the gunplay is a lot better. I did prefer Fallout 3's DLC a lot more than New Vegas's though.
I could be a biased though. I play on PC and there's a ton of more mods for New Vegas than Fallout 3. At least, the type of mods I search for.
New Vegas for me. Fallout 3 is good and I'm replaying it through now, but I just prefer New Vegas. I can't even really explain why. I guess NV is more open, you're not blocked by random rubble and the gunplay is a lot better. I did prefer Fallout 3's DLC a lot more than New Vegas's though.
I could be a biased though. I play on PC and there's a ton of more mods for New Vegas than Fallout 3. At least, the type of mods I search for.
Vandenberg1 said:
Was Fallout 1's story really that good? It's been a while since I've played it but I didn't think there was much to it. All I remember isXyebane said:
find water chip, learn about super mutants/FEV, kill Master, the end. And not much happening between those events.
For me this is a very important point. I don't play the Fallout games (or the Elder Scrolls games, for that matter) for story and characters. That's just not their strength. I play them to explore an interesting world. And the Capitol Wastelands were just a lot more interesting than the Mojave. What's special about a post-apocalyptic setting in what was already a desert?Jandau said:
New Vegas felt empty and disjointed to me. The gameplay was improved and yes, New Vegas had some interesting characters and locales, but it wasn't as good as Fallout 3 IMO.
Fallout Three was more groundbreaking, but Fallout New Vegas is the superior game.
The world is much more well-realized, it's framed as practically a sequel the events of Fallout Two, it's map isn't cluttered by arbitrary urban mazes that require you to spend hours traversing same-y sewer areas to access new areas, and setting in general just appeals to me far more then Fallout Three's did. I Also like the improved faction system, and I like the characters of New Vegas way more then those of Fallout Three.
For me it's no contest, but I understand why people would remember Fallout Three better, as it had more "WOW!" factor when it came out, New Vegas didn't really have that, it was far more iterative then innovative in that respect.
The world is much more well-realized, it's framed as practically a sequel the events of Fallout Two, it's map isn't cluttered by arbitrary urban mazes that require you to spend hours traversing same-y sewer areas to access new areas, and setting in general just appeals to me far more then Fallout Three's did. I Also like the improved faction system, and I like the characters of New Vegas way more then those of Fallout Three.
For me it's no contest, but I understand why people would remember Fallout Three better, as it had more "WOW!" factor when it came out, New Vegas didn't really have that, it was far more iterative then innovative in that respect.
So oversimplification is a valid argument now?SmallHatLogan said:
Faff about for a while, then go blow up the president.
FO1's plot felt more coherent and had a sense of urgency to it. FO2 felt secondary, heck, even tertiary to the game, like something to do when you've finished all the sidequests. The Master made a far more compelling and interesting villain than the Enclave, as did the Super Mutants. Don't get me wrong, I like both games, but when it comes to the main plot FO1>FO2.