Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas

[DanielBrown]

I thought they were fairly equal. Probably had much more fun with NV though, so it gets my vote.

 

[Freaky Lou]

New Vegas is superior to Fallout 3 in every single way except polish.

The problems with New Vegas are all things that look like they weren't given enough time to do everything they wanted, like the fact that most of the old houses and sheds you find out in the wilderness are boarded and inaccessible. One of the nice things about FO3 is that if you saw something, it was generally explorable. In NV there's a lot of things that'll draw your intrigue but turn out to be nothing.

Or they're limitations of Bethesda's cut-rate engine, like the fact that the casinos and streets of supposedly bustling New Vegas are disturbingly vacant despite the ambient chatter.

But as far as story goes, FO3's is undone by grade-school level science. DIRT will clear the radiation from water. After 200 years, all the freshwater in the basin would be quite clean.

There's also the fact that the plot is cobbled together from bits and pieces of Fallout 1 and 2. Also the fact that the Enclave were destroyed in FO2, and definitely shouldn't have a massive army with helicopters and legions of soldiers all equipped in power armor.

Then there is the fact that despite being inhabited by super mutants for 20 years, the Project Purity site was still mostly okay and just needed some touching up before becoming operational.

There's also the fact that a G.E.C.K. alone would make the land fertile again. No need for this water nonsense.

As for side quests we have questions like how does Little Lamplight still exist when they kick everyone capable of reproduction out. I guess the kids just pop out of holes in the ground---and then proceed to hold back hordes of mutants, slavers and raiders with some old boards and a single prepubescent rifleman.

Then we have the merely idiotic like groups dedicated to robot emancipation, Dukov managing to live a life of pure consumption even though his house is in the middle of the Super Mutant-infested Capitol area and should have been razed long ago (where's he getting all the booze and food from, anyway), thick Irish accents retained after centuries of living with only Americans, and vampire cults who rehabilitate cannibals.

With all this severe retardation going on it's difficult for me to see how FO3 could be at all "immersive" or "atmospheric". There's also the obnoxious intro sequence that, while interesting the first time, is just a tedious ordeal on repeat playthroughs.

Then we have the fact that all of the factions are ruined in FO3; BoS turned into white knights of the wasteland and Super Mutants reduced to grunting orcs. There's also a mere good/evil ending, decided by a single choice at the very end of the story. The only other major decision is whether or not to blow up Megaton---which is a whole 'nother can of idiotic worms.

Basically, NV's flaws look like the result of limitations, whereas FO3's are all bad design. Yeah, I've done so many posts about this that instead of pointing out all the the clear advantages NV holds over FO3, I decided I'd just point out some flaws of both games.

 

[Hargrimm]

Which makes sense, since it has been over 200 years since the end of the war and people generally don't sit on their asses and do nothing for such a long time (especially when survival is at stake). They actually build communities, farm the land and produce what they want and need.

DC in Fallout 3 appears to still be undergoing primary ecological succession. The only plant life around appears to be nothing but grass, lichen, and some glowing mushrooms. I doubt soil so heavily irradiated and arid to even support bushes or small herbs would be able to support any kind of farming operation, no matter how small. This is why Three Dog would act so incredulous when discussing the trees and greenery found at Oasis on the radio, even after supposedly being there himself.

Which brings up the question of why people are still living in this area if there is nothing to support them.
Also, Radiation is not really a problem for plantlife (see chernobyl), so if the radiation is prevalent enough to prevent plants growing, it would be inhospitable for humans.
This also contradicts the established lore. In the old Fallouts, the land was perfectly arable.(it was arid yes, but they managed)

Yes. It has been 200 years since the war. That the people in Fallout 3 haven't manged to get ANYWHERE in all that time just makes them look retarded.

Keep in mind, 200 years since the war does not mean that DC and its outlying areas were inhabited for 200 years. The vaults (the only source of people outside of ghouls and the Enclave) were set to open at different times. Although I can't say when they opened around the DC area, there seem to be very few communities around and even those are fairly small (outside of the raider population, the Brotherhood and the Outcasts, and Black Talon of course). Given how small and ill equipped they are, I doubt they'd have the resources or numbers necessary to allocate for expansion. On top of that, I'm willing to bet that despite the survival of quite a bit of its infrastructure, the DC area suffered from much worse destruction and fallout than the west coast did too. Its vicinity to the main government buildings and industrial centers alone would've made it a higher priority target than California or Nevada.

Where do I even start?
JediMB mentions the survivors and vaults, so I'll skip that.
On the raiders: What do they raid? You said it yourself, the communities in the CW are very small(less than 10, in some cases less than 5), so where do they get their resources from? Why even risk your life in a raid against an armed and fortified community in the first place? They could just scavenge like everyone else. If lone scavengers(with maybe a dog) can survive like that, why not bands of raiders?
Raiders shouldn't be a problem, because they should hardly exist at all.
The Talon Company: Who the fuck are these people? The only thing we know about them is that they are Mercenaries(who nobody employs) and that they kill do-gooders(for no reason at all).

"I'm willing to bet that despite the survival of quite a bit of its infrastructure, the DC area suffered from much worse destruction and fallout than the west coast did too"
This doesn't make any sense.
So the capital was hit harder, but has alot more of it's infrastructure still standing. wut?

Of all the communities Rivet City seems to be the most well off, but the majority of their resources are centered on water purification tech (not having the luxury of a vault provided water purifier). In the west coast they had the advantage of more communities to tie their resources,

All of which had to be basically built from scratch. This is no excuse for the retards in the CW.

heavily supplemented by vault tech that could generate power and clean water.

Vault 13, Vault City and Necropolis had those.
Vault 13 had to buy water from the water Merchants, because their water chip broke and after they fixed it, they stopped trading.
The Vault City Vault didn't open until well after the Hub, Shady Sands, Adytum etc. had already been established. They were only put on the map once they started trading with the NCR.
Necropolis didn't trade water. In fact, it hardly traded with anybody until it was destroyed. It also had no way of generating power.

[1]In Fallout 3, the only vault that hasn't been host to a self-eradicating social experiment that is still in working condition appears to be Vault 101, and they're all isolationist assholes.
[2] It's what made the Brotherhood such a prominent part of the game despite being relative newcomers to the area: they had the resources and numbers necessary to civilize the post-apocalyptic urban wilderness and even seemed to be in favor of doing that.

[1] Same with Vault 13 and Vault 8(Vault City)
[2] The Brotherhood being there in the first place is also bullshit. America is huge, there was no reason to cross an entire continent ON FOOT, without any knowledge of what survived the war past southern California and what didn't. This is a logistical nighmare to say the least.
They say in game that they wanted to find high tech weapons in the Pentagon. There are no weapon caches in the Pentagon and if there are, only for the security personnell, not something worth crossing an entire continent for.

Which brings up another question. Who backs the currency in Falllout 3?
In Fallout 1 it was backed by the Water Merchants, so people could use caps to trade, safe in the knowledge that they were actually worth something.
Fallout 2 had minted coins, probably made by the NCR.
New Vegas has NCR dollars, Legion denarii and House backing the caps.
Fallout 3 has nothing.

I'd guess Canterbury Commons, which appears to be the main trading outpost in the area and the only link to the rest of the country besides the Brotherhood and the Slavers.

The main trading outpost consisting of like 4 people and a kid. Backing the caps with what exactly? They don't produce anything and don't have any kind of resource that other people don't have.
The Water Merchants obviously had water, the NCR had numerous resources(like gold, power, medicine, food, guns...), as did the Legion.
Vegas had gambling and protection by a robot army(the flimsiest of the bunch).
Canterburry Commons has nothing.

Who also have no means to support themselves, except that little bit of what is in the building, which couldn't last a week for all of them. So there should be nothing to loot anymore and there shouldn't be monsters at all. Since anyone squatting in there would have to move on rather quickly.
It should be empty after 200 years

[1]Why would super mutants need medicine and clean water? They're practically immune to radiation, meaning that they could probably just drink straight from ocean and suffer no ill consequences. [2]Their advanced healing factor and immunity to diseases means that they also wouldn't have a need for medical supplies, short of actually losing a limb they could probably literally sleep off any injury. Ghouls, also immune to radiation, wouldn't have to worry about water too. They might need medical supplies like regular humans, but the majority of the ones you encounter have gone feral and wouldn't have the mental facilities necessary to administer or even think of first aid. The only perishable resource super mutants, feral ghouls, and humans would probably even share would be food, and even then super mutants and ghouls have the advantage of being able to supplement that with[3] human meat without having to moralize over it or worry about cannibalism contracted illnesses.

[1] Because they get shot on sight?
[2] Where is that ever mentioned?
[3] Which would also run out very quickly, since ther isn't enough food around to support a sizable human population. Basically the problem predators have, that I mentioned in the post you quoted.

No matter how you slice it, the economy and logistics of Fallout 3 are a broken mess.
And I didn't even mention the issue of manpower in regards to the Brotherhood, the Super Mutants and the Enclave.

 

[Freaky Lou]

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.

Hey, now. Imagine a series you love. Picture an installment that utterly rapes its established canon, factions and characters. Now picture someone coming in and saying exactly what you just said about the franchise.

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.

You missed the point. The DC wasteland is so infertile that the fact anyone lives there is unbelievable, especially when you consider that none of them do anything but sit on their behinds and cry about the scarcity of supplies (when there are fully stocked supermarkets a stone's throw away).

Caesar was a fucking retard

This statement makes me wonder if you ever talked to him. His empire wasn't based on conquest. The purpose of the relentless conquest campaigns was to rid the wasteland of warring factions, because tons of tribes always killing each other never results in progress. His plan was to steamroll every group into one united nation and culture with enough identity and solidarity to bring about a proper society, and the way he saw it, only a brutal and unforgiving culture was fit to survive in a brutal and unforgiving world.

Caesar's very educated and has an intellect about on a level with House.

 

[Davey Woo]

Yes because it's realistic to always get what you want. I hate it when actual consequences are scoffed at for wimiting pwayer fweedom.

Hardly anything about Fallout is realistic...

My point was that in Fallout 3 you were not punished for focusing on one or two skills, meaning you could take one combat kill and one utility skill and be OK. Whereas in New Vegas you need to be good at just about everything, which isn't how I like to play the game.

 

[Davey Woo]

Yes because it's realistic to always get what you want. I hate it when actual consequences are scoffed at for wimiting pwayer fweedom.

Hardly anything about Fallout is realistic...

My point was that in Fallout 3 you were not punished for focusing on one or two skills, meaning you could take one combat skill and one utility skill and be OK. Whereas in New Vegas you need to be good at just about everything, which isn't how I like to play the game.

 

[The Ubermensch]

Discounting mods (With the exception of FO3 Wanderers Edition and Project Nevada), New Vegas. FO3 was awesome don't get me wrong, and for along time I considered it to be better, but the mechanics were a lot stronger in FONV, and I really do like companions that make you feel invested. Boone and Cass were really cool companions, (as was Willow but as she is a Mod we don't count) where as the companions in FO3, while some had interesting hooks, they didn't really go anywhere. The way they game tracked your allegiance was neat and made you feel like part of the world rather than an outsider.

FO3 shined when it was just you and dog meat roaming the wasteland. FONV did that and when you interacted in the world... I did miss Dog Meat though, Rex just wasn't the same.

Skyrim has the same problems FO3 did, BETHESDA WHY U NO LEARN FROM OBSIDIAN!?!

 

[Freaky Lou]

Yes because it's realistic to always get what you want. I hate it when actual consequences are scoffed at for wimiting pwayer fweedom.

Hardly anything about Fallout is realistic...

My point was that in Fallout 3 you were not punished for focusing on one or two skills, meaning you could take one combat kill and one utility skill and be OK. Whereas in New Vegas you need to be good at just about everything, which isn't how I like to play the game.

No, the idea isn't about being good at everything, the idea is that based on your character build there are going to be some things you can do and other you can't.

It's like in Planescape: Torment where if you didn't raise your wisdom, you'll never know the winding philosophical debates you can have, or in Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, where the class you pick at the beginning as a MASSIVE impact on your gameplay experience. An RPG is about choice, and for choice to be interesting there have to be consequences for your choices. If you didn't raise lockpicking, you can't pick the locks. If you didn't raise speech, your conversations won't be nearly as cool.

Games like Oblivion or FO3 where you can pretty easily raise everything high enough to get through any obstacle in any way you choose are bad RPGs for this reason. They may be fun sandboxes, but they're useless for roleplaying anything other than Superman.

EDIT: This is also why nearly all old-school RPGs had multiple companions with different skills. That way, if there was something you were bad at, you could find a companion who was good at it and thus teamwork through the game.

 

[electronicgoat]

The time I have put into Fallout New Vegas is 40 times the amount I have put into Fallout 3.

Story's better, more elements of the earlier Fallouts are back, the DLC of New Vegas are particularly amazing and really what a mod should be, there are genuinely funny and interesting characters, the locations have more history, depth, and polish to them, the quests are leaps better, and the JSawyer mod is a heap of realism and fun.

 

[ShinobiJedi42]

Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games of all time. I got to a point where it was an addiction, I would get visibly irritable if I didn't get to play it every day. I love the exploration, the story, the characters I ran into in the wastes. I loved the DLC, the random elements, and... did I say exploration? Exploring the wastes was the most engaging aspect of Fallout 3. And I am one of the few people who was saddened by the Broken Steel DLC. I loved the idea of the main character giving his/her life for everyone else and so it made the ending emotionally impactful for me. Broken Steel just reversed all of that.

I played about six hours of New Vegas and quit. It's boring, I had trouble following the story and knowing what to do next. I didn't like the leveling system, the graphics, the changed gameplay mechanics, not to mention the game glitches out on me like mad crazy. And most importantly, the game doesn't lend itself to exploration, which, as I said, was my favorite aspect of FO3. Unless you are a high level, you can hardly go anywhere because the enemies don't level with you. Everywhere I went, it was Deathclaws and those annoying orange winged bastards. I don't understand why everyone likes New Vegas more. I'm sure it's already been explained in this thread so far lol.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

Wow, this is exactly how I felt.

I never cared about "lore inconsistencies". The mechanics in New Vegas are better... but let's be serious here. That's only due to Obsidian looking through the most popular modding list for Fallout 3. All the new stuff I had in New Vegas, I already had in Fallout 3. Though, I appreciate not having to download and install all those mods again. Thanks Obsidian!

Actually, no, you get no thanks from me. Because here's the defining factor for me:

Bugs? I can handle bugs. I can handle a few game crashes. I can handle a dog walking backwards and a supermutant imploding into itself and flying off into the sunset.

What I can't handle? Spending 5 hours playing the game for the first time, and then finding out all that fucking time and effort was wasted because the fucking save system didn't work until a week after launch. All my saves? Gone like it never happened! Obsidian has yet to prove to me they can make a working game. Not a game without bugs, mind you. A working game.

 

[Davey Woo]

No, the idea isn't about being good at everything, the idea is that based on your character build there are going to be some things you can do and other you can't.

I just didn't like the "you must be this tall to ride" attitude of the quests, grinding is never fun, espeically in a single player game. But I was having to just roam about looking for kills because all of the quests I had I needed to level up one thing or another to progress.

In Fallout 3 most quests would have a few different skills required (speech to convince them, sneak to pick their pocket, science to hack the door yourself etc) whereas I felt most of the quests in New Vegas had less different options available, and that it was always a skill that I wasn't high enough in. The very first quest, you need speech, barter, and explosives at about 25 to complete it fully, and unless you had tagged those skills on creating your character, the quest was pretty difficult.

 

[Freaky Lou]

No, the idea isn't about being good at everything, the idea is that based on your character build there are going to be some things you can do and other you can't.

I just didn't like the "you must be this tall to ride" attitude of the quests, grinding is never fun, espeically in a single player game. But I was having to just roam about looking for kills because all of the quests I had I needed to level up one thing or another to progress.

In Fallout 3 most quests would have a few different skills required (speech to convince them, sneak to pick their pocket, science to hack the door yourself etc) whereas I felt most of the quests in New Vegas had less different options available, and that it was always a skill that I wasn't high enough in. The very first quest, you need speech, barter, and explosives at about 25 to complete it fully, and unless you had tagged those skills on creating your character, the quest was pretty difficult.

That's not a failure to fully complete the quest, that's just a particular route you can't go. If you poured all your points into combat stats, you might not have the speech, barter, OR explosives to enlist all the help, but you also probably can handle the Gangers on your own.

It's just a matter of what route you like to take for your quests. I personally always go for a smooth-talking sniper with low endurance, while skimping on things like Medicine, Science and Lockpicking.

 

[Fidelias]

Well, I like New Vegas better, just because it had more characters I actually gave a crap about. That, and the motivation for your character made more sense.

I mean, the motivation in Fallout 3 works if you're playing a good guy, but if you're playing an evil psychopath who likes to kill everyone he/she sees, why do you care about finding your dad?

In New Vegas, you have either revenge, curiosity, or a thirst for power as motivations to continue along the plot, and these work with just about any character you can create.

 

[Davey Woo]

That's not a failure to fully complete the quest, that's just a particular route you can't go. If you poured all your points into combat stats, you might not have the speech, barter, OR explosives to enlist all the help, but you also probably can handle the Gangers on your own.

It's just a matter of what route you like to take for your quests. I personally always go for a smooth-talking sniper with low endurance, while skimping on things like Medicine, Science and Lockpicking.

I suppose that's what I get for being an obsessive completionist. I like to make cowboy types, good at shooting and survivability, not much else. Even that is harder with that damage threshold thing, so many enemies just soak up my bullets.

 

[Freaky Lou]

New Vegas has FISTO! in it.
/thread

This pretty much does conclude all argument; can't believe I've never brought it up before.

Fallout 3 doesn't have anything like the prostitute-recruting quest! It definitely doesn't give your character dialogue options that indicate he gets off on metallic drills in his sphincter!

 

[zehydra]

Story is not terribly important in an open world exploration game, which is precisely what Bethesda games are.

It makes sense that NV is going to be the most popular on this site, because most users on this site are "STORY ABOVE EVERYTHING ELSE!!!1!"

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

Shields up! We've been quoted!


Keep those shields raised, Space Cadet Sally.

just letting you know, that i am going to have to agree to disagree, i couldn't be further in the opposite direction of you on opinion of how much I loved NV compared to FO3's absolute shite setup, the only slight thing it possibly had going for it was it's turd steam rolled atmosphere, which i didn't like anyways, and that's it.

keep those shields raised for the rest of your life, because what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.If you admit NV is better now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.



(I hope people see the sweet irony in me quoting that in defense for NV)

 

[Raddra]

I voted FO3.

However that was for certain reasons.. I feel that F:NV was the better game mechanically. However I feel that FO3 just felt better from an immersion perspective.

 

[ToastiestZombie]

They're both equally good, here's why:

Gameplay: New Vegas hands down, the combat was improved a ton, the hardcore mode was amazing and the fact that it's impossible to become as OP as you would of in 3 makes it better.

The World: FALLOUT 3, NO CONTEST! The Capitol Wasteland was amazing, the Mojave just felt way too civilised and clean for a Fallout game. I can see what they were trying to get at with New Vegas, a post apocalyptic world being remade, but it just makes it seem like a crappier version of another game's open world. Towns didn't feel like safe havens at all, they just felt like boring old towns. Rivet City and Megaton over Freeside and Goodsprings any day in my opinion.

DLC: New Vegas, this is purely opinion based of course. But really, I fucking loved every single minute of New Vegas' DLCs, even Honest Hearts. Dead Money had the best atmosphere in any Fallout game ever. Honest Hearts gave a massive area to explore, and an intriguing plot, along with weather for the first time in either game. Old World Blues was simply amazing, the best writing in a Fallout game ever and the rest was pure bliss. Honest Hearts again, had an amazing feel and the story of the Courier and Uylleses (can't spell it) was awesome. The DLC for Fallout 3, spare Point Lookout all really felt like a mission pack instead of an actual big thing added to the game.

But overall, I loved both games to bits. I've played 150+ hours in both of them, not including DLC. I'm currently playing through them both again but this time modded to high heaven, and it's simply amazing. Some of the graphics mods are simply beautiful, and take away the grimey green look of 3 and the grimey orange look of New Vegas.

So yeah, Fallout's fucking amazing and Bethesda really needs to get started on Fallout 4.