Poll: What Fallout game is the best? and Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas
- Thread starter zarix2311
- Start date
Well, they are dated compared to the new game but they are MILES better than BOS Tactics. Imagine that game but with the exploration, humour and dialogue of New Vegas and you've got Fallout 2.Ramare said:
In fact, the only thing I don't like in Fallout 1 and 2 is the excruciating combat. Everything else is pure gold.
I agree with this. Made a thread about it before.Lost In The Void said:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.182737-The-Fallout-Debate?page=1
New Vegas should have been called Fallout 3. And Fallout 3 should have been Fallout: Capital Wasteland or something. That would have made sense to me, as F3 deviates from the originals far more than NV.
Oh man...vicious internal argument over here! Fallout 3, once they got it patched and playable and fixed the ending and otherwise gave it some extra time to cook, settled in at #2 on my all-time list of favorite games (behind Rome Total War, which may as well be untouchable.)
New Vegas, though...with the latest patch fixing most of the major stability issues (enough so that I don't think "OK, how long will it go before crashing? 10 minutes? 15?" anymore---it's more like 2-3 hours, which I can live with) and with the massively better writing...
And no matter what the fanboys at NMA may have you believe, Fallout 1 and 2 were not the end-all be-all of gaming glory. Fallout 2 was so buggy even after the last patch that a patchmod is required to get the most out of it, and I just can't get into that old school "your dice are showing" PC gameplay style---it bugs me enough in Morrowind, and that game did a great-for-2002 job of hiding it.
I think the advent of games like Oblivion finally made western RPGs reach their true potential, and when you combine that with a lore as rich as Fallout, even the series' own forebears can't hold a candle to it.
I may yet decide New Vegas beats 3. It's already very, VERY close (as in, I've moved NV into #3 on my all-time list, and may pop it in at #2.) Either way, two of the three best games I've ever played.
New Vegas, though...with the latest patch fixing most of the major stability issues (enough so that I don't think "OK, how long will it go before crashing? 10 minutes? 15?" anymore---it's more like 2-3 hours, which I can live with) and with the massively better writing...
And no matter what the fanboys at NMA may have you believe, Fallout 1 and 2 were not the end-all be-all of gaming glory. Fallout 2 was so buggy even after the last patch that a patchmod is required to get the most out of it, and I just can't get into that old school "your dice are showing" PC gameplay style---it bugs me enough in Morrowind, and that game did a great-for-2002 job of hiding it.
I think the advent of games like Oblivion finally made western RPGs reach their true potential, and when you combine that with a lore as rich as Fallout, even the series' own forebears can't hold a candle to it.
I may yet decide New Vegas beats 3. It's already very, VERY close (as in, I've moved NV into #3 on my all-time list, and may pop it in at #2.) Either way, two of the three best games I've ever played.
BoS and Tactics are 2 different games.MiracleOfSound said:
Tactics was... well, I guess the best description would be Squad Tactical Combat game with RPG elements.
BoS (or as I like to call it 'that console thing') was a console Action-RPG that succeeded in making InterPlay look like idiots.
For me it had nothing to do with supporting the Legion and more to do with giving that smug punk a good comeuppance. Then after I sold him as a slave I tracked down the Enclave remnants and did to them what Wiesenthal did to Eichmann.Thedayrecker said:
I'm with you on that one, and having played 1, 2, 3, and a bit of NV, 2 is still the best there is.TheRealCJ said:
But, with only the somewhat disinteresting FPS ones up there, I'd say NV, just for the giant space laser.
I suppose it really boils down to how you interpret the question:
Which is the better game? Line call as FO3 has had longer to for official and mod support to really build the game into something so I'd give NV at least another year before making a decision.
Which is the better Fallout? New Vegas is more in line with the feel and atmosphere of the original fallout games.
I liked both games so I'd like to see both Bethesda and Obsidian keep producing Fallout titles, with Bethesda expanding the East Coast saga and Obsidian continuing to tell the story of the West Coast.
Which is the better game? Line call as FO3 has had longer to for official and mod support to really build the game into something so I'd give NV at least another year before making a decision.
Which is the better Fallout? New Vegas is more in line with the feel and atmosphere of the original fallout games.
I liked both games so I'd like to see both Bethesda and Obsidian keep producing Fallout titles, with Bethesda expanding the East Coast saga and Obsidian continuing to tell the story of the West Coast.
Excruciating combat? Bollocks. Is it really that bad? That's the only reason I didn't like Morrowind, despite EVERYTHING else being better than Oblivion. Less hand-holding, more exploration, bigger map, no cop-out fast travel, instead you have to pay to take the fantasy equivalent of a private jet, BIGGER bloody map, to the extreme; the setting, the feel, the more beast-like and less human-ish beast races, everything. But the fact that in an action RPG, my throat-ripping gut-wrenchingly visceral stab can fade into thin air and do nothing rubbed me up as wrong as Yahtzee rubs me up right. And that's a rather creepy amount, that I don't care to disclose.MiracleOfSound said:
But yes, if killing anything early to mid-game is as hard as trying to kill a raider, using a Chinese pistol, without aiming "down" the "sights", with the least amount of small guns skill you can even have, from roughly the distance from the entrance to Megaton, all the way to the back, straight forward; I may not like those games.
To answer your question, probably F3, I didn't like New Vegas' story much at all, I really didn't like how the whole thing seemed to be constantly encouraging you to choose a path and stick to it. When the choices you make are central to a game but sort of hidden, that's something I can enjoy, when the choices you are able to make are presented so very clearly as decisions that HAVE to be made, I can't get behind that quite as much.
But, off topic, my favourite Fallout game is Fallout 2! And it's my favourite Fallout game, because F3 and New Vegas don't feel much like Fallout games, F3 does much more than NV, so that's probably why I'd choose it given those two options. However, New Vegas is still possibly more fun a game than 3, just not a better FALLOUT game
Oh and, I played Fallout 2 after playing Fallout 3, and I still think it's a better game!
But, off topic, my favourite Fallout game is Fallout 2! And it's my favourite Fallout game, because F3 and New Vegas don't feel much like Fallout games, F3 does much more than NV, so that's probably why I'd choose it given those two options. However, New Vegas is still possibly more fun a game than 3, just not a better FALLOUT game
Oh and, I played Fallout 2 after playing Fallout 3, and I still think it's a better game!
New Vegas. When I played through fallout 3 I didn't seem to experience the same game everyone else did. It didn't strike me as being that fun. I blame it on oblivion which had tons more to do in terms of quests, guilds, arenas, etc. Then NV came out which had the different factions and side quests and more to do than the main questline and exploring the environment.
Quoted for truth. Seriously I picked it up for ten dollars in a bargain bin in 2002, didn't expect much and it blew my mind.Srdjan said:
Fallout 2 is brilliant and has better choices, but it's also buggy and unfinished in many areas.
I've not played New Vegas properly, but out of the two, there was something more exciting in New Vegas than in 3.
But, the best Fallout is the second, obviously...
But, the best Fallout is the second, obviously...
It's a bit like this...Ramare said:
You miss Gecko.
Gecko hits you for 1 damage.
Raider hits you for 4 damage.
Raider leader hits you for 5 damage.
Golden Gecko hits Raider for no damage.
You miss Gecko.
Gecko hits you for 1 damage.
Gecko critically hits you for 4 damage, knocking you off your feet.
Gecko hits you for 1 damage.
..... and so on and so on. It's like a cure for insomnia.
It is painful to endure, even at the highest combat speed settings.
I did, but they wouldn't sell me anything but pistols - I suspect there may have been a glitch or something. One thing I don't like is that instead of there being more ammo types, certain guns just consume more and more ammo - at least you can recycle it though and occasionally I break out the multiplas or the Laser RCW for a laugh. Silver Rush is a pretty handy place for ammo though.
As with any fallout thread. Why can't we all just get along?SimuLord said:
Pity the loading screens still take for-fucking-ever. And it's given me a new problem where I get stuck in VATS every 20-30 minutes and have to reload again.SimuLord said:
Went back and played Fallout 3 this week and was shocked by how much quicker the loading was, even when you travel to the middle of the Wasteland. It is literally half the loading time of New Vegas, despite the environments being much more detailed.
I agree completely. The turn-based combat in F1 and 2 is the most mindless, luck based endurance-fest I've ever forced myself to play. Amazing writing and all, but god that combat is terrible.SimuLord said:
Fallout NV is better then 3 in just about every way imo. As for the "best" fallout... I'm not sure since I haven't played them all (or rather didn't complete them all). So far I'm getting the most enjoyment out of NV but maybe that's just bias because I'm playing through it at the moment.