Poll: Should I get Fallout 3 or fallout new vegas?

[stonethered]

I preferred Fallout 3. For starters, not dealing with the silly gray-scale political crap. Yaay, we've got the corrupt but less brutal group of Californians from the two games I didn't play. On the other hand we've got the chauvinist, slave trading, themed horde (who's leader clearly missed a few history lessons). Or, if you're just a greedy sumovabitch, you can just take it all for yourself. Yeah, realistic choices I'll give you that (Be greedy, be greedy and selfish, or hope the system works). Sorry, I'd rather have the choice between 'kill all' and 'give everyone a chance'

Secondly, gameplay worked out about the same way. I feel like VATS was more useful in FO3, just because of the AP costs. Melee was definitely more fun in NV, and the iron sights did help me compensate for having to actually aim. But I didn't like having to meet certain levels just to use certain weapons, that part of NV was a pain, realistic, but a pain. Hardcore mode was a nice touch too on the realism bit. Overall, NV was more realistic, but part of the fun of FO3 was that I didn't have to actually worry about that kind of stuff.
The crafting in both of them was..well in all fairness I can't be fussed with crafting, so I'll just shush.

And for the depth of the world. I could wander FO3 without ever seeing anyone but maybe a raider or a scavenger. In NV, there's a gajillion towns, most with their own faction, and you're more or less required to talk to all of them at some point. If you want to admire the ruined scenery, FO3. If you want to run from town to town, talking to people, go NV.

In the end, They've both got their share of problems. Neither has the best writing I've ever seen, and they've both got some unsettled bugs (NV also has some radioactive bugs, or more of them anyways). I think that what you really ought to do is just save your money for Mass Effect 3; then get used copy of the game of the year edition of FO3 after you beat that.

 

[King of Wei]

Fallout New Vegas.

-The overall storyline continues from the original Fallouts but all relevant information is explained within the first 2 minuets of the game so you're not missing anything plot wise.

-The story is not only better, but feels more connected. You're actions impact the world in general, not just the small location they tool place in.

-I've never played the PC version of either of these games, but NV has a wider selection of useful weapons. In Fallout 3, most guns become ineffective in the later stages of the game and you're generally stuck using either an assault rifle or one of the DLC weapons, but in NV you can go through the whole game with a 9mm pistol if you want to and still have it be relatively effective.

There's only two real downsides with the game, the first of which I guarantee has been fixed with a mod.

-Unlike Fallout 3, you can not continue playing after you finish the main quest. So make sure you save when it tells you to if you want to keep using that character.

-The map is considerably more linear than that of Fallout 3's. The game guides you along a suggested route by high level monsters along the other possible paths. Once you're strong enough to kill/bypass these monsters the map become much more open, but not until that point.

 

[stringtheory]

Well I've never played a Fallout game before

this is not to say that I've no exposure to the universe, I had have some through the longer-then-War-and-Peace My Little Pony crossover fan-fic Fallout: Equestria, which I think is a crossover of Fallout 3 (not sure though)
*braces self for possible anti-brony hate*

 

[Fijiman]

I love both, but I would say get New Vegas, for me it was more immersive and had a lot more to do, but in terms of DLC Fallout 3 was superior, plus the main story line was more in keeping with its predecessors' than New Vegas. Nonetheless I would suggest New Vegas.

I find it kind of funny that what you just said here is the exact opposite of what people who are against the new Fallout say.

I really liked both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but like Philol I'd have to suggest New Vegas. The Hardcore mode adds another way to play the game and you don't have to worry about the somewhat bullshit moral system.

 

[violinist1129]

In NV, there's a gajillion towns, most with their own faction, and you're more or less required to talk to all of them at some point.

New Vegas is WAY better, it is perfectly viable to kill everything you meet on sight and beat the game by talking to 4 characters.

Spoiler: Spoilers for the spoiler king

Doc, House, Victor, and the Yes man. And you can kill 3 of them.

In New Vegas, there is a robot named "Fisto"

Spoiler: Also, the plot of FO3 is godawful

You use a magical machine which is known to be able to create massive amounts of viable farming land to instead purify a harbor when 1. There shouldn't be that much radiation 200 years after the fact 2. There is already purified water EVERYWHERE 3. In one of the houses, there is a robot which provides you with an infinite amount of purified water. Along the way you sacrifice everyone you love and a large number of other innocent people. The plot is one giant railroad with a single outcome along which you have to do quests for a town of horribly annoying, bossy, unkillable, unskippable (with the exception of one otherwise useless perk) children

On the other hand, NV provides you with a short (about 5 hour) railroadish opening plot which can be done at any point while also offering a huge world with a ridiculous number of ending possibilities for the real plot and hundreds of hours of content.

I've replayed NV 4 times now and only about a quarter of numbers 2-4 were repeated content mostly because a few of the quests are absolutely amazing. It has a map twice the size of FO3s with twice as many locations.

TL;DR New Vegas is one of the best games of the last couple years. FO3's numerous flaws made it a little meh.

 

[Redryhno]

Fallout 3 I think is much easier to find the fun things in. But New Vegas is infinitely more expansive and time-consuming, which I find to be a good quality in any game I shill out $40 for.

While F3's story is short,and a bit of a letdown, the side quests are much more fun than in F:NV, but the story is more or less the opposite in F3, while I love Liam Neason, I really think his voice talent seriously cut down on the writing dept. budget.

Both are good games, with F3 being a better game if you don't have as much time to find things, everything is much closer, and F:NV is better for long hours into the night and the next, and the next, and the next, until it consumes your life.

But seriously, they're both good games, both with different faults and strengths. F3 is better for when you want power armor,super mutants, and shorter distances between interesting locations. F:NV is fun, but it takes a while to get between places and much more deadly, though the Nightclaws(right?I haven't played in a while) being everywhere is fun.

Actually I guess it all boils down to Fallout 3 is smaller, but worth the money put into it, while New Vegas is more immersive, but takes more time to work through the beginning stages, and the Faction meter seriously needs to be tweaked a bit, because it's too easy for people to hate you, but not worth getting people to like you beyond the Strip.

 

[artanis_neravar]

Well I've never played a Fallout game before

this is not to say that I've no exposure to the universe, I had have some through the longer-then-War-and-Peace My Little Pony crossover fan-fic Fallout: Equestria, which I think is a crossover of Fallout 3 (not sure though)
*braces self for possible anti-brony hate*

I'm gonna chime in again and say that you (unwittingly?) stumbled into the greatest debate with Fallout Fans. I prefer New Vegas, as I said, and I wanted to add this to my earlier comment,

in New Vegas it's more about your character, you get to decide the fate of the Mohave and the west half of America for years to come, whereas in F3 you are just following others and trying to complete what they have already started.

New Vegas puts you into the middle of a war, and F3 puts you into a largely wild wasteland.

The New Vegas DLC continues your story, and each one is slowly building up to the final DLC, if you do it right (and follow the right order) you should be excited and eager to play the final DLC and through-out the main game there are references to the DLC, and mysteries left to be solved in the DLC's

F3's DLC is a lot more random, there's no really reason for you to go on these adventures other than getting a radio signal and none of them are really linked, they are more like side stories.

 

[BabyRaptor]

Frankly, I thought 3 was mountains above New Vegas.

Point Lookout was disturbing, though. >.>

 

[Zydrate]

Both?

New Vegas is superior, easily. FO3 is fun in it's own right, but once you play NV you'll never be able to play FO3. I recommend playing FO3 for the experience, however. At least once or twice before you do New Vegas. It won't take long.

NV has more replayability as well. With ~4 factions you can support and destroy, and even play double agent for a while, for a couple of them.

There's a bunch more stuff, but just read some of the replies that support NV. I've read several; they're not wrong.

 

[natster43]

If you plan on getting the other one sometime in the future, get 3 first. It is really good and I cannot go back to 3 after New Vegas as New Vegas is practically all around better (Better characters, gameplay elements, DLC... Really the only things I like more in 3 is the backstory for the protagonist and the story depending on the day, I still don't get why people dislike the story.) But if you just want one and won't ever get the other get New Vegas.

 

[Funkysandwich]

New Vegas is much better if you played Fallout 1 & 2. Hell, I'd even go as far to say get Fallout 1 & 2 over 3 and New Vegas, they are much cheaper and less buggy then the new ones.

 

[Avatar Roku]

I don't get why people call NV a "revenge plot"? You don't have to take revenge. You're chasing after Benny because he has the platinum chip (not a large spoiler - that's explained pretty early on) and you can kill if you feel like it. Heck, you can tell him you forgive him or even offer to help him. You can play a large portion of the game without ever bumping into him.

I personally like both, DLC and all. But I do prefer New Vegas a little bit more. The story and the characters are quite a bit more involving and more interesting than 3. If I had to pick I'd say I enjoy the DLC for NV more than 3. The only major difference is that Fallout 3 feels very post-apocalyptic where NV just feels like a future western(<- nothing wrong with that). So if you're going for the post-apocalyptic feel pick up 3. The ending for 3 does sucks but the DLC sorta makes up for that. But I would play NV any day over 3.

Edit:

depends, really
Fallout 3 is pretty solid, marionette-styled characters aside, and I really like the world overall
however Fallout New Vegas has better writing, is more colorful and not so desaturated, and is more lore-consistent

so yeah, I think there's your choice
both are pretty damn fine, it's just New Vegas is more in line with the set lore from Fallout and Fallout 2
that and it has the Dead Money DLC, which is in my opinion the best damn DLC I've ever played

Pretty much this^ 100%
Also +1 to Dead Money for best DLC

Dead Money was great, but I'd have to say that Honest Hearts and Lonesome Road were better.

I preferred Fallout 3. For starters, not dealing with the silly gray-scale political crap. Yaay, we've got the corrupt but less brutal group of Californians from the two games I didn't play. On the other hand we've got the chauvinist, slave trading, themed horde (who's leader clearly missed a few history lessons).

Surprisingly, not as much as you'd think, they did their research. For example, in-game Caesar's elite group is the Frumentarii, which is a real group in real Rome that very few people know existed. Plus, the entire Legion used Latin pronunciations that we have only just begun to realize recently were probably how they were actually pronounced in ancient Rome (for example, "ave" being pronounced "a-way").

 

[artanis_neravar]

I preferred Fallout 3. For starters, not dealing with the silly gray-scale political crap. Yaay, we've got the corrupt but less brutal group of Californians from the two games I didn't play. On the other hand we've got the chauvinist, slave trading, themed horde (who's leader clearly missed a few history lessons).

What dd he get wrong?

 

[dyre]

Fallout 3 has exactly one important thing superior to NV; a vast urban warzone, complete with close quarters fighting and trenches full of supermutants.

NV has one mod (A World of Pain) that adds that sort of indoor combat, but it's not really the same as exploring a vast, ruined city. Most of NV takes place in the open outdoors.

So, Fallout 3 is a lot more fun to explore. Other things going for FO3 are the excellent storyline quest mods that easily beat any of the vanilla quests in both games (though NV has a few great ones), and imo more interesting firearms (NV's guns are more realistic, but FO3 wins on charm). If you're into player made quest mods, check out the modders "puce moose" and "firelady"

NV, however, has a vastly superior story, better characters (mostly because FO3's characters are pretty lousy), better sidequests, and much, much better DLC. The quest mods are inferior (less selection too, IIRC), but vanilla NV should have plenty for you to do anyway.

There's also this interesting mod that, if you own both games, supposedly allows you to travel back and forth between FO3's Capital Wasteland and NV's Mojave Desert, but I've heard some complaints that it doesn't work / causes crashes.

PS: whatever you choose, make sure you mod the hell out of it. Vanilla NV has several gameplay improvements over vanilla FO3, but many (most?) of these were ripped off of existing FO3 mods. And there are many more improvements for both games in the nexus sites. So mod away before you play!

 

[Rabid Toilet]

Well I've never played a Fallout game before

this is not to say that I've no exposure to the universe, I had have some through the longer-then-War-and-Peace My Little Pony crossover fan-fic Fallout: Equestria, which I think is a crossover of Fallout 3 (not sure though)
*braces self for possible anti-brony hate*

God, that was an amazing story. It actually had elements from all of the Fallout games. You had things like Tenpenny Tower from Fallout 3, and alicorns were basically the Super Mutants from the first game.

As far as Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas, it depends on what sounds more interesting to you.

If wandering a barren wasteland, killing raiders and mutants, scavenging "dungeons", and climbing mountains just to see what's on the other side appeals to you, then go with Fallout 3. Think Oblivion with guns.

On the other hand, if you want a game with a more solid story, interesting characters, good writing, and plenty of grey morality, check out New Vegas. It still has the exploration and scavenging from Fallout 3, but it isn't really the main focus like it is in that game.

If you're planning on playing both eventually, get Fallout 3. New Vegas has a few quality-of-life improvements that will make going back to the third game difficult.

 

[Mbellosg]

I finished Fallout 3 and all 5 expansions 100% and am halfway through New Vegas but would recommend playing Fallout 3 first as i think it sets the stage for New Vegas.

 

[SoranMBane]

If you could ONLY ever get one of them in your lifetime, I'd say New Vegas, but that being an unlikely scenario, I'll say say Fallout 3 for the exact same reason Soviet Heavy gave on the first page; if you play New Vegas first and then go back to 3 later, it'll pale in comparison because New Vegas simply has a lot more going for it. Definitely get them both when and if you can, because they're both really good games, just get 3 first so the transition between the two is easier.

That is, unless you're dead-set on just getting the better one, then by all means, get New Vegas. It's got the more polished gameplay (when the game's not devolving into a PowerPoint presentation, anyway), more actual roleplaying opportunities, a more intelligent (if less personal) plot than 3, more nuanced moral choices, better characters (especially your companions), and I can't speak from comparison since I haven't actually played Fallout 3's DLC, but New Vegas's DLC is pretty amazing (even Dead Money on a story-telling level, despite the bomb collar being annoying as shit). I will give Fallout 3 the more interesting locations (places like Andale or the Republic of Dave simply don't show up in New Vegas, which is a shame), the better opening/tutorial, the fact that it's more technically stable, and the fact that Liam Neeson is in it, but that's about all it does better.

 

[Pandabearparade]

If you have to pick just one, New Vegas.

That said, get both. Seriously, it's a purchase you'll never regret. They're both games of astounding quality.

 

[Tanakh]

Fallout 3/New Vegas is kinda mediocre, unless you're already familiar with, and like, the setting.
Mods go some way to fix this, but only to some degree.

I hear Kingdom of Amalur is a pretty solid choice, though.

Agree with the first part, but i wouln't go for Amalur; if you can stand old graphics go for Fallout 2, if not I would definetly go for Witcher 2 over KoA.

 

[Eggbert]

I'd say hold off for a bit. I think they're going to soon release a super gold edition that includes GOTY editions of both games.

If I'm mistaken, I'd go with Fallout 3 if you want a much stronger post-apocalyptic atmosphere. New Vegas is more political-based and feels less "this world was bombed to shit" and more "when society rebuilds afterwards, shit goes down".

Very nicely put. Sidenote: New Vegas: Ultimate Edition Or Whatever came out recently.

That said, Fallout 3's main questline is offensively bad. I mean nonsensical and tragic on an epic scale. Factions change from their original incarnations into basic good vs. bad in a conflict which makes essentially no sense. Further, the DLC's exist only to break the game (a suit of armour which makes you invisible on command, etc). However, it has excellent side quests, some great environmental story telling, well done interior areas, the vaults are excellent, and so on.

By way of contrast, New Vegas has an excellent main quest. Further, the main quest ties into your actions with regards to each faction, so it doesn't feel like an isolated questline. There's plenty of interesting characters, most of whom you can kill if you don't like (see Little Lamplight for where 3 famously inspired murderous rage). Weapons are slightly more balanced, perks aren't handed out like candy, and so on. BUT: The interiors are often crap. You'll get lost, confused, and angry. Bugs can still abound. The environmental story telling is mostly gone. Exploration is more likely to yield some sort of camp, as opposed to the ruins of society. Enemies are less varied (mostly humans from factions you don't like, as opposed to humans, FEV creatures, and ghouls which show up frequently in 3).

All in all, I prefer New Vegas of the two, although someone will no doubt have typed up a post full of bile and hatred for me and my mother by the time you're done reading this.