Poll: Should I get Fallout 3 or fallout new vegas?
- Thread starter stringtheory
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Fallout 3 GOTY edition would be my suggestion. While it is true that the story is clearly not up to par with the original two Fallout 2-D pixel titles, and there is a severe lack of darker-than black humour, it's still pretty much a good game, an enjoyable ride and it has its moments of some much-welcome freedom and WTF-is-happening silliness. The add-ons, which will be all contained in the GOTY edition, are also fun expansions to be played at your own discretion.
I also enjoyed playing through some parts of FO: New Vegas, but since I really oppose gambling, the Post-Nuclear Blackhole Sunset Strip setting really didn't work for me. I also got fed up with about three quarters of the available factions and ended up killing them all accordingly, which made me wish I could lug around full-size nuclear warheads so I could just nuke the whole area instead of amassing a four-digit kill count by hand and small arms. New Vegas isn't bad, I just think Fallout 3 offers a more varied and more fun selection of 'episodes' or sub-plots. I also found the whole main story plot to be quite a bit more coherent and, in the end, more rewarding. Writing that really hurts, but I can't change the way I feel about it.
I take it you're on PC... if you were on PS3, I'd warn you about the constant crashes. Some folks bought new PS3 units because they thought their hardware was faulty, when in fact both FO3 trips kept tripping and acting up.
I also enjoyed playing through some parts of FO: New Vegas, but since I really oppose gambling, the Post-Nuclear Blackhole Sunset Strip setting really didn't work for me. I also got fed up with about three quarters of the available factions and ended up killing them all accordingly, which made me wish I could lug around full-size nuclear warheads so I could just nuke the whole area instead of amassing a four-digit kill count by hand and small arms. New Vegas isn't bad, I just think Fallout 3 offers a more varied and more fun selection of 'episodes' or sub-plots. I also found the whole main story plot to be quite a bit more coherent and, in the end, more rewarding. Writing that really hurts, but I can't change the way I feel about it.
I take it you're on PC... if you were on PS3, I'd warn you about the constant crashes. Some folks bought new PS3 units because they thought their hardware was faulty, when in fact both FO3 trips kept tripping and acting up.
Depends on what you want.
If you want a sight-seeing shooter with stats, with a mind-numbingly terrible quests, and a gameworld that completely breaks down logically if you think about it for more than a femtosecond, go Fallout 3.
If you want a First-person RPG that actually deserves to be called Fallout, with internal consistency and themes, with a game world that actually withstands the slightest logical thought, go New Vegas.
If you want a sight-seeing shooter with stats, with a mind-numbingly terrible quests, and a gameworld that completely breaks down logically if you think about it for more than a femtosecond, go Fallout 3.
If you want a First-person RPG that actually deserves to be called Fallout, with internal consistency and themes, with a game world that actually withstands the slightest logical thought, go New Vegas.
New Vegas, their both great games but NV has improved on pretty much every aspect from character build actually mattering, the much improved story and characters the writing is amazing, the game play is a lot more balanced. 3 was good but the plot especially the "ending" was ridiculous and your really never given any major choices your stuck with 1 faction which really bugged me given the previous games huge emphasis on choice.
New Vegas is arguably the better of the two, but I fell in love so hard with Fallout 3 that I suggest it no matter what.
You know what? Just get both. And all the DLC. Minus Dead Money and Mothership Zeta.
You know what? Just get both. And all the DLC. Minus Dead Money and Mothership Zeta.
I'd start with Fallout 3
It's also a better game imo, but NV comes close
But if you'll eventually get both, get Fallout 3
If not... Get Fallout 3
It's also a better game imo, but NV comes close
But if you'll eventually get both, get Fallout 3
If not... Get Fallout 3
Actually, you can.Headdrivehardscrew said:
At the end of Lonesome Road DLC, you have the option of nuking anyone you don't like. You can destroy access to the Mojave for both the NCR and the Legion, crushing their hopes for a new civilization.
Personally, I have always favoured Fo3 over NV.
The atmosphere is far more to my liking and I am a fan of the emptier world.
It just felt more... open? I guess.
I just found NV too straightforward. I ended up having more money than I knew what to do with and found the main story to be interesting but unfulfilling.
And Megaton is one of my favourite fictional towns ever.
The atmosphere is far more to my liking and I am a fan of the emptier world.
It just felt more... open? I guess.
I just found NV too straightforward. I ended up having more money than I knew what to do with and found the main story to be interesting but unfulfilling.
And Megaton is one of my favourite fictional towns ever.
It depends really. They both are pretty much the same game more or less (the features added in New Vegas can be modded in with a little work), but the real difference is the setting.
If you want to wander around in a truly atmospheric wasteland where you constantly feel it is you against the world and other human settlements are few and far between, go with Fallout 3.
If you are more interested in seeing a society rebuilding itself from the ashes, spreading, and all the political strife that comes with it, go with Fallout New Vegas.
If you want to wander around in a truly atmospheric wasteland where you constantly feel it is you against the world and other human settlements are few and far between, go with Fallout 3.
If you are more interested in seeing a society rebuilding itself from the ashes, spreading, and all the political strife that comes with it, go with Fallout New Vegas.
If you can, get both, although in my personal opinion, if you can only get one, make sure it's New Vegas, it's main story, coupled with it's amazing DLC campaigns, is much, much better than Fallout 3, even almost as good as the previous Fallouts (excluding Tactics of course).stringtheory said:
Granted, I still enjoyed the heck out of Fallout 3, again, if you can, get both, if not, definitively get New Vegas.
I'd love to promote this notion, but I can't.Vkmies said:
To be able to play the first two (rather brilliant) Fallout offerings in 2012 A.D., some tinkering needs to be done. It's easy to just download them, but making them a little less offensive to the eyes on today's big screens, the out-of-the-imaginary-box experience needs som tweaking.
I keep both around, but I wouldn't want to play them in, say, a 640x480 resolution, as it looks absolutely ludicrous and gives me instant claustrophobia. It also has to be noted that when I first played Fallout, severe lack of the I in AI had me (and others) figure out rather elaborate and silly workarounds to keeping that darn dog alive, preventing my followers from accidentally turning each other into mincemeat or otherwise trying to shoot through each other when faced with a deadly threat. When replaying Fallout (1) before the release of Fallout 3, I came pretty close to some game-induced raging-vomiting-epileptic fits.
If so inclined, you're bound to find just about everything (patches/tweaks/mods) in the Steam forums and/or teh interwebs.
Both are pretty close in terms of gameplay, but I'd advise New Vegas. It's got better DLC than 3.
And Fallout 3's story can go die in a fire for all I care, because you know what? It could all have been avoided if James wasn't an impulsive jackass and most other people weren't idiots.
And Fallout 3's story can go die in a fire for all I care, because you know what? It could all have been avoided if James wasn't an impulsive jackass and most other people weren't idiots.
I am sorry, but I lol'd. I have never touched any Fallout games other than 3 and NV, and 3 bored me after 50 hours, New Vegas I have 200 hours racked up and still enjoy it.Leximodicon said:
[HEADING=3]WHY NEW VEGAS IS SUPERIOR[/HEADING]
-It isn't so bloody empty, The Capitol Wasteland was a little bit TOO much of a wasteland, it is not like the Apoc happened yesterday in Fallout 3, it really doesn't fit that it is so dead.
-More standard guns and energy weapons. The game gives a nice variety of energy weapons, so you can play as any type of character (except stealth) majoring in energy weapons. But Plasma Casters don't need stealthing anyway. Also, a nice variety of conventional weapons, New Vegas goes all out giving weapons with a varied feel, and there is little more satisfying than putting a .50 MG armour-piercing round into a death-claw from 100 feet away...
-MUCH more freedom. The choices in Fallout 3 regarding the main plot were basically "Superman's saintly protege" or "cartoon-villain evil" and a lot of choices were unavailable to you simply because that is the way the game was made and not for any other reason.
In New Vegas you can side with 1 of 4 factions (1 of them being YOURSELF
) and actually influence those factions quite significantly. You can work for all of them up to a point, and once you have played them all for XP and lulz, pull out a final decision and decide to go on a nice little killing spree > You really get involved with the politics and personal side of the factions you work for, in FO3... good luck with that ^.^-You cannot kill a death-claw at level 9, or break into Fort Knox at said level (as easily anyway, you can always break a game this big). Some things you are just not supposed to mess with, and that abandoned robotics factory with an army of robots and enough expensive crap to fund a whole new faction... you ain't getting anywhere without insane science and lock-picking skills. You feel like your character really moves up in the world.
In Fallout 3 though, Death-claws are not so scary and plasma rifle = 1 stop murder shop. And you don't have to wait all that long for them either...
-The whole companion system is handled so much better, and you get a lot more involved with them too.
-The ending of New Vegas sent a chill down my spine with its final sentence, after a hundred hours of the game, that quote (you will have to wait and see ;P) so expertly hammered the nail into the coffin that I sat in my place for quite some time just recalling that whole awesome adventure. Fallout 3 never gave that feeling, and after playing NV, I cannot go back to 3. Not possible...
Was just checking out the voice acting cast for the two games on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073664/fullcredits#cast
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706601/fullcredits#cast
and I noticed that it ranks Fallout 3 more highly (9.4 vs. 8.9) based on user votes.
I have to think this is because of the buggy nature of the latter game.
I have personally found that F:NV has more replay value, which is what I look for generally as a tie-breaker.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073664/fullcredits#cast
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1706601/fullcredits#cast
and I noticed that it ranks Fallout 3 more highly (9.4 vs. 8.9) based on user votes.
I have to think this is because of the buggy nature of the latter game.
I have personally found that F:NV has more replay value, which is what I look for generally as a tie-breaker.
There is no DLC for Fo3 that is just guns and challenges, no. But picking on NV because ONE DLC pack is game breaking...stringtheory said:
EVERY DLC pack in Fo3 had something gamebreaking in it. Anchorage? Gauss Rifle, Infinite use invisibility armor, nigh-indestructable suit of power armor. The Pitt? The Ripper. Mothership Zeta? Unlimited supply of Alien Blaster ammo.
OP: I personally enjoyed New Vegas more than 3. 3 is fun, but if you're a "story-first" kind of guy like I am, you'll never make it through 3. New Vegas is a classic Obsidian product: they got the license to a good, but straightforward game, and ran with it. It's got a whole bunch of little tweaks that ruin the previous game when you go back and expect them. Armor actually matters, for one thing. Guns are viable all the way through the game, even on difficulties above normal, you can craft stuff other than a few oddball weapons (that they strangely removed) and the story and world are much more multifaceted than the previous game.
That said, it is very much a game in the Fallout series, which means that a lot of the story is full of references you won't get, although it does stand on its own even if you don't know what a super mutant is.
tl;dr: NV is better than 3 in just about every way, but also harder and more grounded than 3. If you just want to screw around in a (painfully-green-tinted) wasteland, go with 3. If you want a good story, better gunplay, more verisimilitude, and the chance to have a little robot follow you around playing battle music, go with NV.
It's hard to say.
Actually kind of funny.
I remember when FNV came out everyone said F3 was better, then after the DLC everyone said FNV was better and that F3 sucked.
You really can't go wrong with either. F3 only really has the story and the initially shock-and-awe of exiting the vault with the only direction "Find Dad". It's akin to the opening sequence of Bioshock in amazingness.
Actually kind of funny.
I remember when FNV came out everyone said F3 was better, then after the DLC everyone said FNV was better and that F3 sucked.
You really can't go wrong with either. F3 only really has the story and the initially shock-and-awe of exiting the vault with the only direction "Find Dad". It's akin to the opening sequence of Bioshock in amazingness.