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,
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,