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

[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.

 

[spartxn]

I like 3 Better. But New Vegas is quite good. I'll admit I'm alittle buyist since Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time. Plus I think u can find it for cheaper then New Vegas. Its up to u dude. Both games are awesome and if u liked Skyrim, u Should(might not) luv either of these games.

 

[Kaymish]

i liked fallout3 waaaaayyyyy more than NV
NV has good points and is a good game but i thought that 3 was better as well as being substantially less buggy

 

[sb666]

Get Fallout New Vegas don't bother with 3 I would also recomend you get 1 and 2. Fallout New Vegas is made by Obsidian and they were formed by members of Black Isle Studios the people that made Fallout 1 and 2.

 

[Wintermoot]

New Vegas feels more complete.

 

[wintercoat]

From the choice of either I would choose New Vegas. Fallout 3 is good but no where near as immersive as New Vegas and is so empty. From what I've seen, the DLC for New Vegas is far superior and not as game breaking *coughAnchoragecough*.

Hehe, stealth? I'm invisible, *****! Combined with the Perforator from The Pitt, perma-stealth field from the Chinese Stealth Suit just gets really silly.

Though not game breaking, the Shoulder Mounted Machine Gun from The Longest Road was a bit overpowered. It chewed through just about everything. Red Glare was fun, but always bugged for me and did no damage.

Oh, and special mention to the Medicine Stick doing more damage with Hollow Points than Armor Piercing Rounds on heavily armored targets.

OT: I voted New Vegas. It just felt better overall. The story was intriguing, the companions were fun to have around, and the variety of guns made things more interesting. The DLC was a bit hit or miss for me. I wasn't a fan of Dead Money, but I really enjoyed The Longest Road. Also, Black Mountain Radio. Also also, Boone is the shit.

 

[Kimarous]

What's with all the people touting that New Vegas has an interesting story? I found it boring as shit and full of your standard-ass Obsidian pretentiousness. I'm not saying Fallout 3's plot was any great work of literature - far from it - but I really feel that most of these statements stem from butthurt Fallout fanboys who found Fallout 3's setting too far removed from what they experienced in the previous games. I entered the series at 3 and it's nowhere near as horrendous as these people make it out to be.

I'll freely admit, however, that I myself am biased against New Vegas because its setting is so different from Fallout 3 and I found it difficult to immerse in as a result. I tried the earlier titles via the Trilogy collection, but what held me back there was a distaste for the gameplay, and it's hard to grow attached to a story if you hate the means to proceed. I have no connection to the original setting, is all I'm saying.

All I really want to tell the OP is to take the "oh X is better, hands down" statements with a grain of salt. Choose the game based on the more informative ones... the ones going "This has this, that has that; pick the one that appeals more based on said criteria".

 

[Astoria]

It basically comes down to what atmosphere do you prefer, wild west or post apocalyptic. I prefered 3's atmosphere and spent over 300 hours on it but New Vegas' atmosphere got a bit boring after 50 or so hours and I still haven't finished it.

 

[Kapol]

I'd say go with New Vegas. I liked the story better, the characters better, the gameplay better (especially factions... dear lord I LOVE the factions), and it seemed to be generally more fun to me. The only problem was being horribly buggy even for a Bethesda game on release.

It also had better DLC the Fallout 3 in my opinion. I absolutely adored Dead Money. The way it revamped the system and made it different and unique compared to the rest of the game was nice. And then there was Old World Blues which was funny and added a good new area with funny story to the mix. But the biggest thing is that the DLC has an overarching plot to it. All of it focuses on a strange courier who seems to know you.

Fallout 3 had The Pitt, which I liked. It also had Point Lookout, which a lot of people loved but I didn't care for. Other then that... buggy out of place space mission (I say out of place because it seemed to be going for silly like Gangsters In Space in a more serious game), Buggy linear army simulator (Think Call of Fallout in a way) which seemed fairly pointless, and furthering of the main story in a way that I frankly can't remember much about beyond letting you play beyond the end.

Of course those are just my preferences. You can get both for $60 on steam.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I remembered a bit of the main story extending one. It wasn't bad, though it was a bit buggy for me.

I'd also like to add another thing I liked about New Vegas; Hardcore mode added an interesting challenge that made the game a bit more fun on the second playthrough. I also found the companions much more interesting in New Vegas. That doesn't sound important, but when you have them following you and begin caring for them and you're playing on Hardcore, then they stay dead when killed. It was enough to make me feel bad... well, when they weren't running directly into enemy fire. But that's just one of both game's problems.

 

[Eddie the head]

Maybe Fallout 3 has a better plot and that is a huge maybe but Fallout NV has much much better weighting and characters. I think Arcade and Veronica where so so much better then any charter in Fallout 3. Maybe I am bias because I played NV first but I never played a Fallout game before hand.

 

[Kimarous]

Of course those are just my preferences. You can get both for $60 on steam.

Just to clarify this point for the OP, he means $60 total: $20 for Fallout 3 GOTY, $40 for New Vegas Ultimate.

Captcha: "1789-1801 IteRuss" ...sounds like a vintage drink.

 

[Gottesstrafe]

Fallout 3 GOTY edition with all DLC included is $20. By the time you've beaten it (and if you really liked it) you would have probably easily saved up the $40 for the Fallout New Vegas Ultimate edition (all DLC included), pending further price reduction from sales or age.

 

[arnoldthebird]

The atmosphere of 3 kept me enthralled for much longer than I expected...NV was good, but didn't have the same effect.
As for the DLC, I prefer 3's assortment. Favourite being 'The Pitt', such a dark area, with brilliant rewards too!