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

[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!

 

[370999]

Despite the name and the mechanics there is an almost phillosphically difference between the two.

3 is about survival, it's very similar in tone to the Road, where one guy just survives the bleak world (shut up I know there was a father and son in the movie). You really get the sense that the nuclear war was a tragedy, it was horrible and that you still feel the legacy of it today. Most groups are hostile and shoot on site and the few friendly groups are scavengers, eking out survival in the ruins of past glory i.e one of the lragest town is in a battleship. There is a far greater emphasis on exploration and well scavenging.

some people say the plot is moronic but honestly, I liked it. It's kind of biblical in whatever you will be an agent of good or bad. The morality is clear. Now occasionlly it does suffer from the problem of making the bad choice stupid but it's alright.

New Vegas is different in that the game is much more centered around civilisations that are going to battle to control an area. Yeah the apocalypse wiped the slate clean but the same animating vigous of making from the basest desires to the most noble are still present and still inform societies. The game has much more on a focus of working with people and often choosing which people to work with.

The plot is better but there is somewhat of a clumsy transition from your personnal quest into deciding the wider political cicrumstances of the Mojave. You know it is coming but it could of done better IMHO.

I prefer New Vegas but would shadow everyone else in reccomending 3 first. They are both really good games so it shouldn't really go that wrong,

 

[Bvenged]

F3 by a long shot. while New Vegas offered a mildly longer story, F3's world seemed to have more substance and its story was more influential.

I came across 10x the bugs in New Vegas, and I played F3 for nearly 3 times as long.

I kept coming across dead end conversation options in NV's branched missions, making them feel more linear.

Voice acting was better in F3, but more voice actors in NV.

F3 has quicker loading screens, and less of them even though both games were roughly the same size.

F3 never crashed on me, FNV did - several times.

Music, NV.

Graphics - identical other than facials, where NV wins again (just).

Companions? NV

Perks and levelling? F3

Exploration and misc. stuff with a more believable feel? F3. Exploration and misc. stuff that's just crazily unlikely with a less-believable feel? NV. So basically get F3 if you want a more believable post-apocalyptic game, and NV if you want a significantly less believable post-apoc. game (on this front).



F3 was just overall more immersive and engaging. I like to side with "graphics are not too important" but with NV I could see clearly the markings on the side of mountains distinguishing floor mesh edges because of dramatic texture changes, and floating details on surfaces that should've been on them; and invisible wall and floors were EVERYWHERE. I rarely saw any of that in F3.

Overall, get both - they're pretty piss-cheap these days but get the DLC packs with then. But if you HAVE to chose between them, F3 is a much cleaner, open, influential, immersive, enjoyable experience.

(Xbox 360)

 

[silver wolf009]

Go for three. I don't know why, but I HATED New Vegas. There was no reason, but it was just so terrible! I couldn't force myself to finish it. It was too cramped, and New Vegas the city, because of only having certain entrances, felt like there was this giant blank spot in the middle of the map that I couldn't traverse. Plus, the world felt so much smaller than 3, and I had no reason to go out into the wastes. Why check at the edge of the map? The only cool things I found were The One, and a downed Vertibird.

I don't know, but that's how I would go.

 

[Astro]

Wow, I'm really surprised New Vegas was the winner in this. New Vegas is absolutely the better game, it's possibly even the best RPG there is. I mean, they're generally not exactly classics in the first place, so don't expect too much, but it's really a good game.

 

[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*

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

I knew the debate probably existed (it's the internet of course it exists) and even said in my OP that I was sorry if this topic devolved into a flame war

 

[Forst1999]

Fallout 3. Both are great games and i think you should play both. The thing is, while i prefer F3's atmosphere, world and overall structure, NV makes some really good gameplay changes. If you played NV first and later played F3, you'd miss some of these in F3, which might hurt your enjoyment of the game. Play F3 first, and you can enjoy them both fully.

 

[Kyber]

i found fallout 3 a bit too..grey

so NV is my answer

 

[Versuvius]

They are both bloody awesome. Buy both, ignore the souless husks who don't like it because it's popular. Bloody hipsters.