Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas

[Vault101]

Fallout 3 has a better "open world" feel...go in any direction where as NV was little more "guided"

except I think NV outshines Fallotu 3 in every other way

 

[octafish]

New Vegas was more "Fallouty" so I preferred that.

I think for me it really came down to the dialogue options for low intelligence characters. I think there were maybe two or three examples in Fallout 3, but in New Vegas it ran all the way through. Basically Bethesda do nice atmospheric worlds and Obsidian do Character. Fallout 3 is still the only Bethesda Game since Daggerfall that I've played for any length of time, even finishing the Main Quest. It was probably because with VATS I could bypass the terrible combat.

 

[Waffle_Man]

While I have no doubt that I enjoyed Fallout New Vegas more overall, it still does sort of annoy me that, in spite of clearly having a much more capable crew of writers, New Vegas was somehow awfully plotted compared to Fallout 3. Sure the overall story and premise were better, but introducing and the concluding the driving conflict in the first four hours or fewer and then simply having the player do tenuous side quests (regardless of how well written) for the next ten to twenty hours is not what makes me remember the original fallout as one of the greatest games of all time.

With that said, it's a far more worth successor to the original fallout that Fallout 3 (or even fallout 2 for that matter) ever was.

 

[theonlyblaze2]

New Vegas was superior in nearly every way. But at the same time, I didn't put in close to two thousand hours in New Vegas. I've gotta go with Fallout 3.

 

[Shumiry]

Personally, I enjoyed Fallout 3's atmosphere and openness more than NV's, but I have to agree that the storyline in NV was much more compelling. Ideally, I'd like to see a Fallout 3-ish rendition, (more apocalyptic, less organized) but with more believable factions and NPCs, like in NV.
Lastly, what's all this nonsense about hardcore mode? My guy went about 35 days without sleeping because I could chug nuka-colas and sasparilla. Plus it took me like 5 days to get dehydrated, despite the fact I was getting shot, bit, clawed, burned, and running through one of the most desicating environments in the world. The idea was neat, no doubt, but a little more attention to detail programming those degradation variables would've helped. (Ie, losing water faster, especially if wounded, and getting tired faster if you're popping drugs and caffeine to stay awake instead of sleeping)
Still, I sank probably over 100 hours into each, (much more if you include time spent making mods), and I'll almost definitely be buying the next one.

 

[BrotherRool]

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.

Also on analysis, when an intelligent thinking organisation, finally back free of the mad computer, specifically because they don't want to kill everyone in existence, and then go over to a water purifier without even the ingredient you need to pollute the water, nor the intention to pollute the water and this water source it would unpollute is huge, impossible to guard and would give everyone free water (so there isn't motive to not do it, unless you're said mad computer)

...
why would you need to send a giant robot in to stop them? (And why do we have a moral choice that doesn't involve sending in the radioactive immune assistant? Or swallowing a crud load of RadAway and running out(to be fair, at least the fixed this)? When random robots in hotels can purify water, why do we need to do this again? and wasn't the GECK a device that made land fertile and arable? In which case why didn't we just use do that? People have been living here for 200 years, clearly they aren't lacking liquids to drink)

... I think the one thing we should always do is refrain from analysing FO3's story. (How did the father leaving let in that many radroaches? Considering you weren't born a vault and therefore would die if you added the pollutant to the purifier, why would you ever want to do that? Wasn't your fathers suicide a bit lame considering he didn't even seem to know what his captors wanted? (Indeed what Autumn wanted was not to kill everything) And that device didn't even work yet? And wouldn't work without a GECK? Why didn't he just not tell them that and hope for a rescue? If getting into Vault 87 was impossible except through the backdoor, how did the Enclave ambush you so easily?)

etc...

 

[kingthrall]

vegas was by far superior to fallout 3. Just because they really defined the factions and was much more enjoyable than fighting raiders 24/7

 

[AT God]

Its a tough argument, Fallout New Vegas was an improvement on Fallout 3 so when I play the two of them I prefer Vegas, however I put way more time into Fallout 3 than I did New Vegas, even without DLC. I don't think a distinction can be made as to which is better because the term better is subjective. If I had the money to buy one of them, New Vegas is better, but historically Fallout 3 will be more likely remembered for its innovation. I think Counter-Strike Source is better from a fun standpoint than 1.6 but if a list of the Top ___ Video games of all time contained both, 1.6 should be ranked better than Source.

 

[Killspre]

I never could get into Fallout NV like I did with Fallout 3. NV was riddled with bugs and I didn't like the story as much as I did with Fallout 3. So fallout 3 for me, was more immerisive and I felt more invested in the story than I did with NV.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

A hard one for sure.

Fallout Vegas was my favorite I think. It felt less lonely and desolate (which annoyed me slightly) but it also seemed a bit more interesting too. The DLC's were far better quality as well.

The only thing that bothers me is the difficulty. It's far too easy even on very hard and hardcore mode. Hardcore mode would have probably been horrible in Fallout 3 but in Vegas there is food and clean water everywhere making it a bit silly.

I am playing it with JE Sawyers mod which is great fun, it's still too easy though.

 

[lobster1077]

I found New Vegas' plot to be wholly incoherent and difficult to follow. The initial premise of being left for dead wasn't a bad one by any means but the progression therein was shoddily paced and arranged.

 

[Agayek]

I vastly prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3. The story was better, the characters were more engaging, and the overall "feel" of the game was far more satisfying (and truer to the original games). The only thing 3 gets over NV is the radio IMO. 3-Dog is much more entertaining than Mr. New Vegas.

 

[silver wolf009]

Shields up! We've been quoted!

So I'm not the only one who acts like that. Good to know.

OT: Fo3. Fo3 all the way. Why? New Vegas was just so... Unrealistic, in why it expects me to do the main quest. That man just shot me in the head after beating upon me with a splinter shovel for a few hours. I want to go after him why again? Live and let live brother. In Fallout Three, I could understand a, quite honestly shelter, person going out into hell to try and get the only family he has back after being told all his life about his mother's death. It made more sense than, "Walk back into the ironsights of the guy who capped you in the head."

Other than that, I just felt restricted in Fallout New Vegas. Yes, I know it's supposed to get better as you go on, but it just took the life out of me at the start, and I couldn't keep going. As for interesting characters, I guess New Vegas had some, but I found a lot of the characters in Fallout 3 compelling to. Like the apparent mafia business dedicating god knows how much resources into the acquisition of lingerie. The obvious use of Mr. Tenpenny by Mr. Burke that goes unnoticed. The three ghouls in the metro near Tenpenny tower. Colonel Autumn, and the developing mutiny he had planned just in case. Ashur, and his little fiefdom of slavery, as well as his reasoning for it and his goals. Paul the Cowboy, and his undying hate of the aliens. Fawkes and Uncle Leo, and their unique conditions of surviving the process of the F.E.V. Maybe I just haven't played enough New Vegas, which in all honesty is a problem with the game itself as far as I can see it, but the only interesting characters I remember were Boone, the glowing ghoul bent on going into space, and that one crippled ranger in Novac.

I also felt the presence of a gated city in the middle of the NV map was just a black hole that I felt wasn't worth traversing. Granted, D.C. is walled off, but that's in the corner, so it didn't feel quite so in the way. That and it was just so much smaller in general, with nothing really worth going out into the wastes to find worth finding other than a static nuke on the ground, and a crashed helicopter.

I never felt any of the factions in NV were worth fighting for; the NCR is the Early American government, brutalizing those in their paths and declaring themselves rulers of all, Mr. House turns out to be alright, but too self centered for my tastes, and the Legion is just moving in the wrong direction.

To this day I've never managed to beat New Vegas. I just couldn't make myself on three different attempts, playing myself, NCR and Legion. The first time I got to recruiting the Great Khans, and quit. The second, I couldn't muster up the will power to go watch the president, and the third time I didn't even make it to New Vegas before walking off back to DC.

Edit: Oh, and Tobias the Ferryman for interesting Fallout Three characters.

Spoiler: Point Lookout Spoilers

Sick fuck that he is, with his surgery.

 

[Major_Tom]

New Vegas was superior in every way and it was a true Fallout game. Don't get me wrong F3 was a great game, but it didn't fell very uh... Fallout-y. Also, "bad" choice in the end of main game made no fucking sense, and the ending itself was stupid until they fixed it (wink wink, Bioware).

 

[OpticalJunction]

Fallout new vegas. I can't get 3 to play properly on windows 7, it crashes all the time. Vegas has a better storyline too.

 

[solemnwar]

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

See, I enjoyed Point Lookout more than the other two. Probably because I was allowed to come and go as I pleased and I got to keep all my shit...


OT: I've ony recently purchased New Vegas and I'm still waiting for it to finish installing. But I really, really enjoyed Fallout 3...

 

[Jaeke]

Again already?

Alright time for me and my other few supporters to fight the hopeless fight again.

Fallout 3

 

[Easton Dark]

Again so soon?

Fallout 3 has the better setting. And I suppose I got used to how it played after awhile, so New Vegas' additions felt strange.

Yeah, Fallout 3 wins.

 

[DustyDrB]

I hated Fallout 3. New Vegas is probably one of my top ten favorites.

New Vegas was more "Fallouty" so I preferred that.

I think for me it really came down to the dialogue options for low intelligence characters. I think there were maybe two or three examples in Fallout 3, but in New Vegas it ran all the way through. Basically Bethesda do nice atmospheric worlds and Obsidian do Character. Fallout 3 is still the only Bethesda Game since Daggerfall that I've played for any length of time, even finishing the Main Quest. It was probably because with VATS I could bypass the terrible combat.

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.

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.

New Vegas had a story that revolved not just around politics, but about the kind of civilisation that you the player wanted to see rise up to reclaim the Mojave. It was a far more intricate affair that had stronger characterisation, a far more realistic moral quandary (choosing one of several factions is infinitely more interesting than choosing whether to be a dick or not), and the setting actually made sense. 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.

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?

Fallout 3 never offered me anything like that to ponder.

These two mentlegen pretty much cover my reasons why. I would type it out myself, but I've already done that in identical threads (not a thinly-veiled "use the search bar". It's been a few months since I've seen one I think, so you're OK).

 

[Syzygy23]

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.

Depends on how you approach FO3. Take me for instance, I hadn't even HEARD of the Fallout franchise until FO3 was announced. The "previous installments" can go fuck themselves for all I care.

New Vegas had a story that revolved not just around politics, but about the kind of civilisation that you the player wanted to see rise up to reclaim the Mojave. It was a far more intricate affair that had stronger characterisation, a far more realistic moral quandary (choosing one of several factions is infinitely more interesting than choosing whether to be a dick or not), and the setting actually made sense. 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.

Ten years after the nukes hit? There would still be lethal amounts of radiation, so there would be no game, unless you played as a super mutant. Fallout 3 was about finally giving a slim ray of hope to a landscape that had been stuck in "Godless hellhole" mode due to slavers, unchecked predators, and scarcity of untainted resources, as well as Fantastic Racism between ghouls and normal humans.

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?
Fallout 3 never offered me anything like that to ponder.

Except Caesar was a fucking retard and failed to note that his entire empire was based on conquest. What would he do once he ran out of things to conquer? Everything would fall apart and we'd be back at square one. Took me five seconds to see that. House is obviously the good guy choice, assuming you can hold him to his word that despite being an autocrat of the new society, he wouldn't interfere with people personal lives, beliefs, or freedoms as long as they didn't directly oppose his plan of advancing technology far enough to A) Develop his life extension tech to the point where everyone could have it and B) develop feasible space travel so humans could go out into space and find a new, hopefully unspoiled home.

Assuming you can trust him, that is.

Honestly, the politics concerning the wasteland didn't concern me. My only motivation from the get-go was to find Benny and get my revenge on him for trying to kill me. Then he DIES less than halfway through, so I lose my motivation. Just because some NRA people and House suddenly walk up to me and say "OMG GUY WE NEEDS TO TAKE OVER DIS PLACE BECAUSE OUR PHILOSOPHY IS DA RIGHT ONE FA REALS BRO COME HELP US LOL" doesn't give me ANY personal motive. I already killed Benny, gave house his platinum chip back, so now what? Retire I guess, I did my job and got my revenge, that's all I set out to do.

I don't give two shits about these assholes fighting over a god forsaken desert.

They gave me no reason to.