Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas

[Demongeneral109]

it collapsed 200 years ago during the war. plus fallout 1 is set like 100 years after the war and they have started farming(fallout 1 is also set in a desert) and rebuilding societies and factions, oh and they had an even bigger problem with super mutants(you know with the Master and his super mutant army who was going to conquer the world with them).

It doesn't really matter how long ago the war was, as long as society isn't built yet, it's about survival, and the world being against the people.

And, on the Super Mutants, my point exactly.

Did you not read my post. In fallout 1 they are trying to rebuild society and they have it worse than in fallout 3 yet they are still doing a better job. My point with the super mutants was to show that in fallout 3 they are trying to rebuild even though there are supermutants(which are even more dangerous tha fo3's super mutants) both of the original fallouts focus around picking up society Which they are doing. Fallout 3 deviates from this by making it center around surviving. And yes it does matter how long it has been. In 200 years if you haven't adapted to living in this wasteland than you are dead. You also didn't respond to my point of them still scavenging. By all rights the food should be either gone or spoiled(no food can survive 200 years). Maybe I'm just not good at putting my point across in words.

You have to remember this is 1950's science, so its not that out there in this setting to have irradiated food last for 200 years. And you have to realize that they have adapted to living in the wasteland... but thats it, they adapted, never thrived. The world in both games makes sense, in 3 scavaging, and establishing a base, then being killed by a new group of raiders or whatever, only for the cycle to continue explains some of the resource oddities in fallout 3. Also, i assume you never tried to grow food in a city in the middle of MAD MAX, that would be almost impossible. The raiders survive off of looting cities and other raiders. Since they were never stamped out, communication between communities was difficult at best.

As for the super mutants, its explained that these are different than the normal fallout type in some way, it has something to do with the FEV but i dont remember the details. Most of the lore inconsistencies are at least explained or handwaved in a believable manner, so I dont see too much issue in FE3 lore wise.

That said, i do prefer fallout 3, while the villains were almost cartoonishly evil, it was just the basis of a personal story, not like the uninteresting NV storyline, where i honestly didn't see the benefit of joining anyone, none of them felt like long-term solutions no matter what i did, in the end, my interest died with benny.

 

[fabrimuch]

Fallout 3 is better from an exploration a combat point of view. It had various different environments to explore and more variety of enemies of different species.

New Vegas is better from a story point of view, because the character were much more fleshed out and the quests were less about "choosing the good or the evil option" and more about "choosing the option that better reflects my political point of view". It´s also better in roleplaying because to get less perks and points to spend on abilities, so you don´t become an all-powerful god, and more options to solve quests depending on how you built your character.


Personally, I enjoyed New Vegas more, because I enjoy playing games for the story, but in the end, it all comes down to personal preference.

 

[FalloutJack]

*Buzzer Sound*

I'm sorry, but the poll doesn't have my choice: BOTH.

 

[the27thvoice]

I have to give the nod to FO3.
As intended, NV would win hands down. It has the better characters, the better environment, better skill tree, better weight system etc.
But for all its unpolished flaws, Fallout 3 had far fewer and less destructive bugs. Hell, upon re-playing New Vegas to side with House I am now stuck because I cannot get out of a conversation with an NPC I cannot avoid having a conversation with. That's a game-ending bug. At least FO3 had less such annoyances.

If both worked as they should, I'd go New Vegas any day, but they are both overflowing with bugs and New Vegas has the worst of them.

 

[rangerman351]

I really enjoyed hardcore mode, and liked the wider variety/ more diverse color pallet of fallout nv. FO3 seemed to borrow the COD:MW color pallet of every shade of gray imaginable. Plus FNV was closer to the structure of FO1 and FO2, which hooked me on the series. And the FNV dlc didn't feel as pressed. But don't get me wrong, FO3 was fun. And the ideas for the dlc were awesome, but FNV was a little better.

 

[rangerman351]

Plus there is less of that "metro to travel around" shenanigans. I got lost every single damn time.

 

[Thatrocketeer]

It's not like deciding who controls the are where the character lives is important or anything. Not like taking control over New Vegas would be something they'do. NO SIREE IT'S TERRIBLY WRITTEN DUUUUH.

Also, I'd rather have a game where there's differences between factions, quest choices and difficulty between places than a game that makes every place filled with random loot and enemies always exactly your level. And just because you can go anywhere doesn't mean the game is nonlinear. Almost every single quest, of which there are 3 times more than in F3, have multiple outcomes. Meanwhile F3 has Vampires and a boo hoo vampires nonsensical save the place inhabited by hobos plot.

It is actually terribly written in my eyes. I had literally NO motivation to participate in that battle, hell, the motivation to kill Benny at the start was already questionable since I had to chase a guy that had the ability to tie me up, shoot me in the head, and leave without a scratch. And by the time you catch up to him, He's in his own Casino with guards and shit like that and you had to surrender your most of your guns at the front desk. Who's to say he couldn't do that again?

I don't know if you're talking out of your own ass when you said that 3 had enemies exactly at your level and random loot. The difficulty of Fallout 3's enemies weren't the same everywhere. It wasn't as prevalent as New Vegas given the railroad-y nature of New Vegas, but it wasn't the same everywhere. Also random loot is present as well in New vegas, hell it was worse than Fallout 3 since it had more random dungeons than 3.

 

[Araksardet]

I'm not exactly sure why, but after sinking 70 hours or so into Fallout 3, I started Fallout: New Vegas and got bored within about 3 hours. Perhaps I had become jaded to the whole post-apocalyptic wasteland, or perhaps I had other things to play, but it just didn't grab my attention in the same way Fallout 3 did.

 

[Drizzitdude]

It was fallout 3's urban setting that made the game for me. The capital wasteland is amazing.

I did like the gun mods in NV though

 

[putowtin]

Simple answer for me,

Could never complete FO3, I just couldn't get into it.

FO:NV I've complete over a dozen times, good, bad, New Republic, Caesar, it's all good fun!

 

[Ashendarei]

I actually hated New Vegas. I bought it, enjoyed the heck out of it for the first few hours, but the longer I played it the less I liked the main story.

 

[Bvenged]

Fallout 3
Pros: Immersive, enjoyable, more believable story, ripe for its time, fun DLC, expansive world, great voice acting, fluid mechanics, fewer but stronger quests.
Cons: No companions, limited weapons, glitches, too few actors.

New Vegas
Pros: Better start, more voice actors, bigger world, whole new environment, many more quests, many more quest-paths, half-decent companion system.
Cons: Crashes, bugs, dodgy voice acting, choppy animations, obvious breaks in environments meshes & textures, empty world, bugs, crashes, outdated engine, boring expansion packs, borderline lame storyline, more loading than playing, crashes, bugs, crashes, bugs, despite being made by the makers of F1&"2, fits into the cannon worse than F3.

I'm vote goes to F3 being better. I actually had fun and got immersed in it. all I saw in NV was bugs, glitches, broken quests, breaks in floor textures on the desert floor...

If you gave F3 way more diversity in its main quest, it would have been the best game ever. Fallout New Vegas just got dull for me quickly, plus the fact that every time I started to get immersed, something would happen to drag me back into reality. that never happened in F3.

 

[The Last Nomad]

I agree with the OP almost exactly. Fallout 3 was a better game but New Vegas has some better aspects, like Hardcore mode. But I didn't find it different enough to Fallout 3 to warrant actually buying for myself.(a Housemate I had last year brought it up but the housemate who owned the PS3 moved out after about 2 months so I didn't have it that long). I think I'll just wait for Fallout 4.

 

[Bucky01]

after having played both for a reasonable amount of time with all available DLC's both have their merits but for me its NV hands down. mostly how the missions led you all over the map instead of FO3 with the bottom right hand corner of the map for 90% of non DLC missions. the companions are much MUCH more detailed with their own back stories and missions just made the world all the more immersive. how there were more possible endings than good/bad/neutral actually made my decisions have more weight to them then just some karma point. NV difficulty was better with more things that could actually kill you as opposed to FO3 where the only thing that i couldn't take right off the bat would be a deathclaw (although both kinda sucked with rad and other effect poisonings i never got higher than the 1st penalty [excluding Moria's rad quest]).

now that i think about it NV is probably my #1 non valve favourite game, also #3 in my most time spent playing on that steam data webpage.....

 

[Odysseous2]

I played New Vegas for a much shorter time than I played Fallout 3 for... But I think that's because, by the time I got NV, I had already played FO3 for hundreds of hours. The gameplay in each was more or less the same, so when I started playing NV, I got bored of it much quicker because it felt like more FO3. And there's nothing wrong with that. The same thing happened when I got Skyrim; I played it for a much shorter time than Oblivion because Skyrim just felt like more Oblivion, not necessarily because it was a worse game.

From a purely objective standpoint, I think the NV mechanics were much improved from FO3. I like aiming down the sights. And the persuasion system is much better, considering that you can't just reset the game until you succeed, and that there are different dialogues for success and failure. I like the main story of NV MUCH better. Now you're not forced to fight for the stupid Brotherhood of Steel. Instead, you're given three factions (four, if you include yourself) and told to side with the one that makes most sense. You're also given the option to blow the Brotherhood sky-high and loot their cool shit, which is the best that dumb group deserves. Also, Mr. House is a boss.

Honestly, the only thing FO3 had that was better than NV was Liam Neeson.

 

[Ticonderoga117]

I only picked New Vegas because of the better mechanics in the game.
Both had good stories.
Both had goo characters.
Both had good settings.
Both had great DLC.

Love playing both games.

 

[Lenderian]

if you want the game with the better storyline go with fallout 3 if you want the game with the better gameplay and some weapon mods (read:not customization) then go newvagas personally i remember fallout 3 a lot more then newvagas

 

[Imbechile]

This is a quite easy decision because I need to choose between a shit game(Fallout 3) and a good game(New Vegas).
How can anyone think Fallout 3 is good, or atleast above average, or anything other than garbage is something I will never understand.

snip

I see you are still trying to reason with the escapist community. That's a lost battle and a complete waste of time, but keep fighting the good fight.

 

[Imbechile]

I hope the next Fallout has the world designed by Bethesda and the characters written by Obsidian.

If it was pre-Oblivion Bethesda then I would have agreed. Now even Bethesda's famous "open world" selling point is declining.

 

[Pick|Choose]

I personally believe Fallout 3 is the better game, overall. Yeah sure, New Vegas was an upgrade in terms of mechanics. But I feel like the atmosphere, and the storyline, and overall immersion of F3 outweighs most of what NV has to offer.

Also, I prefer the "green theme" over the orange. It's just a better color ;P