Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas

[blackrave]

So I've done both of them with my favorite mods
And I'm kinda unsure
While I admit that New Vegas have better game mechanics (Hardcore mode, various ammo, increased weapon and armor choice, better crafting and social system)
I still find Fallout3 as better game, as more immersive.
I don't know why.
Maybe it is because of different environments?
FO3 is set in urban area, while NV is set in desert.
And in the middle of desert apocalypse isn't as obvious, as in the city.
Maybe that is the real reason?
What are your thoughts?

Captcha: Howdy Partner!
Oh hello to you too, Victor. Thanks for dragging me out of grave, but I'm still going to kill your boss.

 

[Alhazred]

I've played through both games two times now, and I still can't decide which is better.

Fallout 3 is a typical Besthesda game; they prioritise making an expansive, atmospheric world for the player to explore, but they don't put as much effort into the NPCs. Conversely, New Vegas has an uglier, more plain world, but fills it with interesting characters.

I will argue that Fallout 3 had the better soundtrack though.

 

[Zenn3k]

NV Hardcore mode was awesome. The story was much more interesting. The characters were better. The weapon upgrade system was fun.

NV was leaps and bounds better than FO 3.

 

[Fr]anc[is]

I'm kind of in the same position. I liked the environments of 3 better, but NV had better mechanics, more guns, and better characters. I really liked the ruined city and subways, it actually felt like surviving in a wasteland. At the time I thought it was silly that nobody was growing anything, but the way they did it in NV felt empty. Freeside is a perfect example, all the requisite buildings just lazily dropped in with nothing else. Westside was slightly better, but I never had reason to go back there.

 

[blackrave]

NV Hardcore mode was awesome. The story was much more interesting. The characters were better. The weapon upgrade system was fun.

NV was leaps and bounds better than FO 3.

While I understand this, I still enjoyed FO3 more
It would be perfect to combine NV game mechanics with FO3 setting
Need to mod it even more

 

[Zenn3k]

NV Hardcore mode was awesome. The story was much more interesting. The characters were better. The weapon upgrade system was fun.

NV was leaps and bounds better than FO 3.

While I understand this, I still enjoyed FO3 more
It would be perfect to combine NV game mechanics with FO3 setting
Need to mod it even more

My only gripes with NV was how small the map was, and how linear the opening of the story was up till you got the Vegas. It resulted in a stronger narrative, but sacrificed the free roam;

 

[Fractral]

I played NV for a little while, got bored pretty early on. I actually bothered to complete Fallout 3, mainly because I managed to get my hands on a plasma rifle early on; just owned everyone with it. But then I decided to do Point Lookout, and just stopped playing.
From what I've seen, I'd say Vanilla Fallout 3 is better than Vanilla NV. I have to say that something about the game really started to charm me when I played it. The capital wasteland just felt nicer than the Mojave Desert.

 

[blackrave]

NV Hardcore mode was awesome. The story was much more interesting. The characters were better. The weapon upgrade system was fun.

NV was leaps and bounds better than FO 3.

While I understand this, I still enjoyed FO3 more
It would be perfect to combine NV game mechanics with FO3 setting
Need to mod it even more

My only gripes with NV was how small the map was, and how linear the opening of the story was up till you got the Vegas. It resulted in a stronger narrative, but sacrificed the free roam;

Not to mention the abuse of invisible walls and fairly common pure water

I played NV for a little while, got bored pretty early on. I actually bothered to complete Fallout 3, mainly because I managed to get my hands on a plasma rifle early on; just owned everyone with it. But then I decided to do Point Lookout, and just stopped playing.
From what I've seen, I'd say Vanilla Fallout 3 is better than Vanilla NV. I have to say that something about the game really started to charm me when I played it. The capital wasteland just felt nicer than the Mojave Desert.

Yeah, Point Lookout was the worst expansion pack for FO3, but The Pitt and Mothership Zeta was good

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

New Vegas for me. It had a better story, better characters, more quests, more weapons and more refined mechanics, meaning the game had more re-playability than Fallout 3. As for bugs, in my experiences with with both games I've found Fallout 3 and New Vegas to be on par with each other bug wise.

Spoiler: And speaking of bugs...

Hard crashes by the number
Glitches by the score
Everyday you're a buggy mess
each day I play you more
Yes, I've got hard crashes by the number
Quest I can't hand in
But with the patches that are coming
I know we'll get there in the end

Hard crash number one was when you froze on me
I never knew a game released this way
And hard crash number two
Was when I booted up again
You came back but never kept my save

 

[Terminate421]

They were both amazing, but I liked Fallout 3 better for its scale and introduction into the series for me.

 

[evilneko]

Most of the "advancementS" in NV were already mods in FO3 anyway...

...most of which, I wasn't all that interested in, tbh. So I consider them neutral, at best.

I much prefer the world--and even the story (ooh, gonna get some flames for that, better put my suit on!)--of FO3. NV is so empty. Yes, I get it, it's a desert, but even so it's still boring and empty. Further, I never really cared about it. I found the main quest in NV uncompelling, in no small part due to the lack of play after it, but also because it just failed to make me care. On the up side, it's still better than Oblivion. And, eventually I did find motivation for my character to continue on the MQ... right after she returns to the Mojave after finishing her business on the east coast.

 

[Muspelheim]

Fallout 3 for the enviroments, the general story arch, the design and the whole "feel" of the game. It just... Clicked for me.

However, New Vegas was infinatly more polished, with tidier gameplay and, lest we forget, iron sights (I am the only person in the world who like them). I really enjoyed it as well.

But if I really need to declare one as "the best", it's going to be Fallout 3. I just enjoyed it more, felt more immersed and connected with it. I think it's the enviroments that did it for me.
Also, I really did enjoy the baby-sections, I felt a bit more attached to ol' Pa and my own character after seeing them growing up, albeit only for a few glimpses at a time. While I understand why... It's a shame they didn't work it in somehow in Skyrim (or New Vegas, for that matter).

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

I didn't like Fallout 3. It had one of the stupidest main stories that I've ever had the displeasure of playing through. New Vegas is in my top 20 games of all time. Dead Money is also arguably by favorite DLC of all time. So....not hard for me at all.

 

[Zhukov]

Eh, same difference.

New Vagas just felt like an expansion pack to Fallout 3 to me.

Although the writing was slightly better in NV, so there's that. However, it didn't help with the hideously repetitive combat, butt ugly visuals, uncanny-tastic character models and animation straight from 2002. Also, bugs. Because only the best games continually corrupt your save files.

I got bored long before finishing either game.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I didn't like Fallout 3. It had one of the stupidest main stories that I've ever had the displeasure of playing through. New Vegas is in my top 20 games of all time. Dead Money is also arguably by favorite DLC of all time. So....not hard for me at all.

Lies! It's all about Old World Blues!

-_-' Honest Hearts and lonesome road were pretty crap though.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I can see being into New Vegas more if the story is the only thing which matters to you. However, I have to say that Fallout 3 had a more realistic feeling world that was compelling to explore. New Vegas felt like a Hollywood backlot with shallow locations all cluttered on a map that felt contrived.

 

[Chromatic Aberration]

For me New Vegas is the game Fallout 3 should have been.

Why?

Fallout 3 never offered me anything like that to ponder.

Well, first of all, this.

And also don't let us forget:


[ul][li] Much better characters, which actually added a lot to the games atmosphere[/li]
[li] Much tighter story integration - think about it: almost every site in New Vegas had some story tied to a quest. I did not see this in F3. There, a lot of the actual sites were just recycled explorable dungeons. They were just there for the loot. Nothing more.[/li]
[li] What you are doing during the story feels as it actually matters: from changing the desolate state of the NCR, over calming down freeside and finding a sheriff from Primm directly up to the final battle. Granted, it could have been much better, but it was still leagues ahead of F3.[/li]
[li]The DLCs were really good - despite being DLCs. Granted, I did not play the DLCs of F3 but from everything I've heard they can't possibly compare to the humour of Old World Blues or the atmosphere of Dead Money and Lonesome Road. Besides, the simple fact that all three have an overarching storyline connecting all of them is worth even more praise.[/li][/ul]

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I've played through both a couple of times but I haven't played all of the DLC stuff for New Vegas. I also didn't care about the Hardcore mode honestly. I love both games but, don't know which one I like over the other. They're both excellent games after all...I would probably lean more towards 3 than NV...but I haven't played NV with a level 50 cap...granted the lower caps still leave me feeling like a walking God.

 

[Lev The Red]

i'm from the DC area (i grew up right near where Mama Dolce's is supposed to be ), so Fallout 3 will always be my favorite. i love the clustered city environment, the metro crawling, and the general feeling of "wow, this place is really fucked up."
the New Vegas environment is great, but it just looks like it's fallen into disrepair (as opposed to being destroyed). i know that's part of the plot; New Vegas, being one of the only mostly intact regions in the US, is extremely desirable for many parties. it's very cool, but it's just not... fucked up enough for me.

that said, i absolutely LOVE the New Vegas engine. it is superior to the F3 one in every way i can think of. i love the addition of reputation and the lifted stress on karma, and the real faction choices (what real incentive did you have to side with the Enclave in F3?).

Fallout 3 is the only game i've ever hoped for a remake of.

 

[evilneko]

Shields up! We've been quoted!

This is going to be interesting. What did you prefer about FO3's story? Because my experience was that it was an atmospheric piece of fluff that ultimately was undone by crippling plot holes, terrible characterisation, and generally dodgy connections to the previous games.

Huh, well that's a bit more civil than I was expecting...

I didn't and still don't care about the previous games. The new ones are set long after their time and don't really need a connection other than being in the same 'verse, as far as I'm concerned. Heck, I hadn't even played them when I started FO3.

The main quest felt more compelling because it felt personal, especially to my young character. And on analysis, the pure water thing makes a lot of sense. It would enable pure agriculture, which would form the foundation on which civilization could be rebuilt. Small purifiers like that in Megaton were insufficient to the task, barely providing enough for the residents and prone to breakdown and leakage.

Fallout 3 would have made sense if it took place ten years or so after the nukes hit. The fact that it took place two hundred years is laughable. New Vegas actually made the effort to show humanity starting to regroup and rebuild, and offered you the choice to fundamentally decide which way it would go.

There are a number of reasons why the Capital Wasteland is the way it is, a number of crippling disadvantages that kept the humans there from rebuilding even a fraction of what the inhabitants of the Mojave had accomplished. Chief among them is that while the Mojave emerged from the war virtually unscathed, the DC area was absolutely devastated.

It even forces you at points to really sit down and think about what sort of philosophy you feel is best for such a desolate world as Fallout. As obviously 'evil' as the Legion were, Caesar did have a point. When civilisation has crumbled to the level it did in Fallout, then normal perceptions of 'right' and 'wrong' go out the window without the authority to support them. By basing his legion on the teachings and actions of the original Roman empire, Caesar was able to create a fighting force that was more effective than just about any other in the Mojave. When humanity is on the brink of extinction, are such extreme measures really that unjustifiable if they ensure that humanity will survive?

The Legion were comically evil and Caesar himself an idiot. I didn't spare them a second thought when considering which side my character would choose. Ashur presented a more difficult choice to my character--and a better case for his actions.

Fallout 3 never offered me anything like that to ponder.

NV never offered me a reason to care. I will give it credit for having several and at least somewhat more interesting factions, but in the end the only added choice was the third option--yourself, made possible by obtaining your own private army, something you couldn't do in FO3.

Keep those shields raised, Space Cadet Sally.