Poll: Fallout3 vs. Fallout:New Vegas

[Sean Hollyman]

New Vegas edges it out, it's more fun to play and has more interesting items and characters

But Fallout 3 had some cool places

 

[backinthepresentfuture]

I feel that New vegas had better more advanced gameplay especially seeing as you could aim down the sights. I didn't really like the tone of new vegas, as it seemed to be a little more focused on the strip and didn't focus much on the post apocalyptic wasteland.

I feel that fallout 3 had a better start, once you left the vault you could go anywhere and survive a large percentage of the time, whereas in new vegas theres only two directions you can go, either through the quarry with the deathclaws or along the highway (there's a third path with cazadors but that technically isn't a choice at all when you're just starting out)

 

[The_Lost_King]

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.

So in the 1950's it was possible for food to last forever? wow we have lost alot of technology in the years what with 1950's food lasting for ever, Renaissance medicine being able to cure sword wounds and such. I preferred New Vegas's story seeing as in fo3 I didn't give 2 shits about my father but I'll be damned if I let someone who tried to put me in the ground get away. Even after I got through with Benny I was intrigued by the choices. While the Ncr to me doesn't seem permanent Caesar has good Ideals and ideas. He knew that his legion would have to change from the sith to something that can seetle down once he conquered. Houuse was an jack ass and Yes man is really only for New Vegas. In the end though we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

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.

In what way? I thought Skyrim's open world was amazing.

 

[Mekado]

The best of both worlds, Fallout NV modded with "Requiem for the capital wasteland" mod, it adds a sewer line between NV and fallout 3 (you need both games and all)

So you get Fallout NV engine and mechanics with the Fallout 3 world, npc's quests etc.... really awesome

http://newvegas.nexusmods.com/mods/41480/

Edit : for whatever reason though the mod is in hidden mode at the moment... sucks for thoses who don't already have it

 

[someguy2300]

I have got countless hours of fun from fallout 3 still today.

 

[Saviordd1]

-snip-

Pretty much this.

NV had some things going for it sure, some of the factions were better thought out.

But there was literally NO connection, and there was no moral dilemma; the whole "Well laws disappear when the world ends" idea is kinda shit because in the end the other two factions wanted to bring that back, so there is no point in the legion, they were just comically evil, sexist and broken.

Fallout 3 actually made me care about what was going on, the tutorial was all a bid to make you CARE (Or hate) the vault, and to be surprised when you left. Meanwhile NV was "You got shot, now go do stuff because bullets to the head are apparently as dangerous as bug bites"

My only complaint about Fallout 3 was the lack of weapons and companion choice.

Whats that? A mod fixes all of that?

Nevermind, Fallout 3 wins.

 

[JaceArveduin]

But there was literally NO connection, and there was no moral dilemma; the whole "Well laws disappear when the world ends" idea is kinda shit because in the end the other two factions wanted to bring that back, so there is no point in the legion, they were just comically evil, sexist and broken.

You didn't notice the Legion had practically no corruption? I'm not saying it was right in it's thinking, but they either followed the law, or died. No jail, no second chances, just death. And since this was all Caesar, he'd pretty well learn of any corruption (that fanaticism helps too) The N.C.R., on the the other hand, was a motley assortment that wanted to bring back the old political system, and had the same flaws.

The choices really seem to boil down to this

NCR: All the freedoms n such that America is known for.

Legion: Uses Rome as an example and follows it to the letter to create a more stable existence for the here and now. You're trading your freedoms for stability for the present.

House: He had long term plans to make everything better, but they are long term, and seeing as he's basically never going to die naturally, who knows how long it'd take? He also stomps on a few freedoms/groups if memory serves

Or you could set yourself up in charge cause fuck everyone!

 

[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.

In what way? I thought Skyrim's open world was amazing.

The only thing amazing in Skyrim's open world is the graphics(not even the art style). Everything else is terrible.

- the quests are numerous, but most of them are boring fed-ex, go kill everything type
- the dungeons are linear as fuck. There is only su much times I can explore the same looking Draugh barrow, infested with the same enemies, with the same puzzles, before I get bored because of repetition.
- most of the locations are repetitive
- level scaling again proves to be the dagger in the heart of the open world explore genre

Those are just for the enviroment. I won't evenn talk about the absolutly horrible UI, the awful story, the broken character progression, the boring,repetitive combat or the weak rpg elements.
All that accounted for I will say that post Morrowind Bethesda game are the only games which I would call pointless time-sinks. Time that could have been spent playing better games, enjoying real life, doing something productive......

Skyrim is still an improvement over Oblivion and Fallout 3.


Mind if I ask you what did you enjoy abot Skyrim?

 

[Delsana]

Vegas was bad in my eyes. It had dreary color issues that were intentional, it wasn't all that enjoyable, the Enclave had such a minimal part in it, and it wasn't all that fun to me. That, and every single DLC was absolute crap and balanced poorly.

Broken Steel was good for FO3.

That being said, BS's majority of content such as the Swamp one and the other stuff was also terrible. They had poor environments too.

 

[Jaythulhu]

Well, since I couldn't get F3 or F:NV to run for longer than an hour or so without random CTDs, lockups and corrupted saves, no matter what ini tweaks or mods I used, I'll have to say Fallout 2 is better than either.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

The only thing amazing in Skyrim's open world is the graphics(not even the art style). Everything else is terrible.

- the quests are numerous, but most of them are boring fed-ex, go kill everything type
- the dungeons are linear as fuck. There is only su much times I can explore the same looking Draugh barrow, infested with the same enemies, with the same puzzles, before I get bored because of repetition.
- most of the locations are repetitive
- level scaling again proves to be the dagger in the heart of the open world explore genre

Mind if I ask you what did you enjoy abot Skyrim?

Sure. First off, it seems we enjoy different things in games.

I don't play Skyrim for the combat or the detailed quests. I like to just lose myself in its world - I find it pretty, atmospheric and relaxing, just as I did Fallout 3 and Oblivion. (I actually couldn't enjoy Morrowind at all due to the utterly horrid stab stab stab stab stab hit stab stab combat)

The joy in Beth games for me is in walking over a hill and seeing some mysterious looking structure in the distance, then having the freedom to go and explore it when and how I like. I enjoy wondering around the towns, talking to the people, admiring the sunsets. Sure, I'd prefer if there weren't so many darn Draugr dungeons and more variety in the quests (I actually felt Oblivion had far more varied, imaginative quests than Skyrim), but you can easily spend 100 hours playing Skyrim and hardly ever have to enter a Draugr crypt - there's just so much to see and do that I just get happily lost in it all.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Idk, for me an RPG has either gotta have good gameplay (mainly combat), be it tactical or action. Or interesting story elements. (writing, characters, dialogs, choices and consequences, quest design, plots..)

Just having a pretty 3-D open world game to wander around in ain't cutting it.

I like both. Witcher 2 or Dragon Age are fun RPGS for combat, story etc... but sometimes I just like to get lost exploring and wander around a big world.

 

[Imbechile]

snip

I do like exploration. Heck, I've explore almost all of Morrowind (that's a lot of hours spent).
I did it because Morrowind actually had an interesting and unique world. First the Silt Striders, then the Redoran Shell-houses, then the Fantastic Dwemer ruins, then the weird Telvanni buildings, then ......

But Fallout 3 and especially Oblivion had none of those.
Fallout 3 was your standard post apocalyptic setting. Dull, colorless world full of uninteresting copy pasted buildings, non-existent atmosphere, lore that is wastly inferior to the older games (Brotherhood of Steel are now fucking white knights????)
Oblivion has even worse porblems. That world is the epitome of standard fantasy "shithole". I can recreate that same experience by flying to England and going to a nearby forest.

NOTHING is interesting in Oblivion. There isn't anything unique about the world, or the dungeons (Ayelaid and fort ruins look almost the same, the cave look the same).
And because of the level-scaling in Oblivion and Fallout 3 exploration is POINTLESS, since the items scale to your level.

So, since the loot is bad and the world is dull what exactly is my incentive to go out and explore? To admire the view or the graphics? Or to admire the nicely crafted landscape?

If that's my incentive then I will have a wastly better experience by going treking in real life.

 

[faefrost]

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.

This

Overall I think Fallout 3 had the much better world. It actually felt post apocalyptic, whereas in the Mojave dessert, who would notice? F3 had more to explore and crawl through and such. FNV had some better stories and characters. F3 was the better "Open World" game. FNV is the better story game. It just depends on what you are looking for.

 

[Fingerprint]

My vote goes to F3. I've played F3 much more extensively, completing it on numerous occasions whereas I've only played Vegas intermitantly. Overall I found the F3 world much more immersive, I prefered 90% of the characters and quests and found the F3 world much more believable. I did prefer the premise of Vegas, i.e being shot in the head and out to get revenge and also I loved the way you could get out of almost every situation if you had a high enough speech skill. And also that Vegas' barter skill was actually worth dedicating points to. However I hated the idea of Ceaser's Legion. I have no problem with a super power dedicated to slavery in the middle of the desert but the fact that they're dressed in suedo-roman outfits ruined it for me along with the way (almost) everyone pronounced it 'Kai-sars' legion, it's just not, it's spelt Ceaser for a reason. I did love some of the weaponry in Vegas though, the 9mm pistol was awesome - it looks heaps better that the 10mm pistol (in my opinion) and the way you can add to and upgrade the weapons is sweet. Overall I feel that if you could upgrade the weapons, talk your way out of situations and barter like in Vegas in Fallout 3 then it would be pretty much a complete game - though I can happily do without the Mothership Zeta DLC. Conversly if Ceasar's Legion were dressed in believable post-apocalyptic outfits - with maybe one defining piece of clothing to show who they are - then Vegas would also be a beautifully rounded game. Honestly I think it boils down to Ceaser's Legion looking wholley out of place and the way 'Ceaser' is pronounced that lets the game down for me - though I did much prefer the city setting of Fallout 3 to that of Vegas.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

I finished F3, and liked it mostly. Got Anchorage and Broken Steel, neither really worth the money. Other than the stealth suit of course.

I got maybe 2/3 through NV and liked it waaaaay more until my weapons started refusing to damage any enemy. That really put a damper on my fun, and ability to finish the game I had spent like 60 hours playing.

I loved Veronica and Edy, and my scoped laser rifle/heavy incinerator/ballistic fist/archimedesII

Until the glitched out POS made them all stop working...

I might start it up again someday if they ever fix everything.

 

[uhddh]

I've not played the DLCs for NV so I'll render that part irrelevant.
I found the Mojave to be much more interesting then the capital wasteland. I think it was the fact that different parts of the map looked completely different to each other. Meanwhile Fallout 3 was rather bland. Also, the Wild West sub-theme was way better than the 1950s sub-theme F3 had going on.
Oddly enough, my version of NV has never crashed. No bugs or anything.
I will admit Vegas was much too easy. Even without Boone playing the game while I just hid behind a rock pounding stimpacks into my eye every 2 minutes. Oh occasionally I talked to someone as well.

 

[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.

So in the 1950's it was possible for food to last forever? wow we have lost alot of technology in the years what with 1950's food lasting for ever, Renaissance medicine being able to cure sword wounds and such. I preferred New Vegas's story seeing as in fo3 I didn't give 2 shits about my father but I'll be damned if I let someone who tried to put me in the ground get away. Even after I got through with Benny I was intrigued by the choices. While the Ncr to me doesn't seem permanent Caesar has good Ideals and ideas. He knew that his legion would have to change from the sith to something that can seetle down once he conquered. Houuse was an jack ass and Yes man is really only for New Vegas. In the end though we will just have to agree to disagree.

Its how the 1950's thought science worked, not how it was! its like if a game worked on 1200's science and the world was flat. and its fine if you dont care about the father in 3, but dont ignore the way the Fallout world functions unreasonably~ and the magic medicine in AC was a result of the animus :/ try to think through the handwaves or everything is unrealistic, its the context that's important... but yes, lets agree to disagree on plot details~