Poll: What Fallout game is the best? and Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas

[Kevz]

Fallout 3 and New Vegas are pretty good but 3 is better because it doesnt have as many glitches and bugs as NV.If the glitches were removed NV would be better then 3.

 

[ExaltedK9]

Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.

I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,

OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.

You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.

OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.

Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...

Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.

Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>

Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.

Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?

Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.

Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.

1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.

And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.

And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Fallout 2 is my favorite Fallout game.

Fallout: New Vegas is the runner up, so my topic answer would be that.

 

[FalloutJack]

These two are equal, so instead I will pick Fallout 9: Lord Jack's Revenge On The World!

 

[ExaltedK9]

Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.

I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,

OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.

You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.

OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.

Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...

Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.

Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>

Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.

Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?

Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.

Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.

1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.

And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.

And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.

No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.

Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Merriam Webster disagrees with you.

English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?

My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.

As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.

Not being a prick - learn it.

 

[ExaltedK9]

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

I have one very strong argument against Fallout 3 - Little Lamplight.

As it happens, I have an especially strong misgiving about this particular section of the game. I had decided somewhere in the course of the game that I wasn't going to go anywhere near Little Lamplight, having heard some very bad things about the children in the game. Having played Fallout 2, and experienced how annoying the children were in The Den, I wasn't about to subject myself to the annoyance of video game children again in a hurry. So, I play the game until I hear that I'm supposed to get into Vault 87. "OK", I think, "they want me to go through Little Lamplight, but I'll try getting in through the front entrance. Through all of the radiation, if I have to."

So, I head up to Vault 87, and in what I consider one of my finest moments in computer gaming, I manage to make it to the entrance of Vault 87. Imagine my disgust when I find out that the door is locked and unpickable. I reload my save, and head towards Little Lamplight with serious misgivings about the game at this time, knowing that this was a Dethroning Moment of Suck for the entire game.

Hello, Mayor MacCready, you little bastard.

What made it even worse was that the children in Fallout 3 are invulnerable, unlike the ones in Fallout and Fallout 2. So, the game rubs my face in some of the most smug, irritating little bastards ever to disgrace the digital screen, and doesn't let me do anything about it. I wasn't even looking for a third option to take - I was just looking for a single alternative to having to go through the very worst portion of the game.

Fallout and Fallout 2 gave me the opportunity to break sequence. Fallout 3 forced me through a linear storyline in what was supposed to be a sandbox game, then had the audacity to make part of that linear sequence one of the most detestable experiences I've ever seen in a game. At least I could blow Lynette in Vault City to bits with a bundle of dynamite.

So you're saying that you didn't like a part of FO3? Well I didn't like any part of the first 2 Fallouts.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

What made it even worse was that the children in Fallout 3 are invulnerable, unlike the ones in Fallout and Fallout 2. So, the game rubs my face in some of the most smug, irritating little bastards ever to disgrace the digital screen, and doesn't let me do anything about it.

If it makes you feel a bit better, you can bully Princess and make her cry with a high enough Speech. Not much I know, but it always cheers me up a bit.

And here's a little something to cheer you up....




Man, vids like this make me want a gaming PC so much.

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

Loved both games, but love new vegas the most. Better story, more quests and best of all no spending hours walking through subways to get anywhere.

 

[nicholaxxx]

out of the 2 options given to us, I'd say vegas, because it's F3 with the issues fixed (I'm one of the lulcky people who haven't had either of the games glitch on me)

 

[InGrindWeTrust]

New Vegas has better mechanics since they had a chance to tighten things up (slew of bugs notwithstanding), ie slightly changed skill sets, reduced perk rates, companion wheel, etc, etc, etc, but it just didn't measure up to Fallout 3 for me. They're both good games in their own right, but I prefer the focussed main questline framed by lots of small skirmishes that F3 delivered to the moral compass based political shitstorm that ensues with every New Vegas playthrough. I played New Vegas for about 4 days before I saw a single super mutant. Clearly, that isn't right.

 

[GrimTuesday]

I prefer New Vegas but that could partially be because of the fact that I couldn't really get in to Fallout 3. The damn game was just too fucking depressing and gray, it made me sad...

Fallout NV however had a certain humor that was lacking in 3.

 

[Necromancer1991]

I actually did like New Vegas more than 3, it just seems more rooted in the Fallout lore than 3, not only that but the Mojave wasteland and all the new tweaks made the game much more interesting, I could Marathon through Fallout 3 in a day or two, New Vegas took me a whole week of marathon play, Also this:

Most badass armor ever.....

 

[ExaltedK9]

Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.

In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.

I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,

OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.

You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.

OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.

Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...

Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.

Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>

Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.

Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?

Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?

And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.

Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.

Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.

1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.

And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.

And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.

No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.

Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.

Merriam Webster disagrees with you.

English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?

My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.

As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.

Not being a prick - learn it.

I already learned it, the question is did you? Judging by your probation i'd say not. Since you seem to insult everything to get a rise out of people. Perpetuating speculation doesn't help your point at all, nor are your attempts to insult anyone who argues with you and even use points you can't even back up. Next gen graphics? Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, requiring the green tint to hide the texture and model defects. If your graphics are so bad you need to HIDE IT WITH EDITING, it isn't next gen graphics. Look at downtown DC with fellout installed (removes green tint that textures rely on), it looks like utter crap. Physics? It uses the outdated gamebryo engine, another laughing stock that is more outdated than valve's source engine. The game play is downgraded from morrowind, a step backward. Nowhere in fallout 3 is there "next gen". Not from a technical, storyline, or game play perspective.

Graphics don't matter in a game. Only in shallow games do they matter, look up crysis. Its old and generic but still looks better than anyhing you've seen now. By the way you trying to compare a CRPG with an FPSRPG is just embarrassing. Next you'll say Dragon age was bad because it didn't have russians and guns.

In a word, yes (good comeback though). And as for my probation, you know that Pixar thread thats so popular right now? Well I posted that I thought up was boring, and had the bad luck of that beingthe first post. And I caught alot of flak from pissed off manchildren who agressively rushed to its defense.

But thanks for bringing up something thats completely irrelevant, because it just demonstrates how you have nothing substantial to say.

You say that Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, when FO1 looked like it had been rendered in Microsoft Paint. But you're right, FO3 looks so much worse. And even if the physics aren't top notch, they still a hell of a lot better than Fallout's 1 and 2. And I don't remember any assault rifles in Morrowind, so your little theory there is bullshit as well.

I'm sure Fallout 3 won game of the year when it was realeased for being inferior to it's, what, 6 year old(?) predecessors. Really, if you seriously believe that, then you're just not seeing things logically. But that seem perfectly in charcter for you.

Comparing games from different genres isn't embarrassing, it makes perfect fucking sense. Whats embarrassing is your determination to ignore facts and common sense, because you're ferociously nostalgic for the "good" old (incredibly OLD) days of Fallout. Before it was good and all.

And Bioware is my favorite developer, and I liked Dragon Age. Also, I'm half Russian, and don't like games where they're depicted as evil. I'm just patriotic that way.