Well, atmosphere and aesthetics are subjective (though I actually agree). Story structure, however? You realize that the story of Fallout 3 had more holes than a target dummy at a shooting range made of Swiss cheese, right?espressojet said:
Poll: Which do you prefer: Fallout 3 or New Vegas?
- Thread starter Pierce Graham
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I liked Fallout 3 a bit more, though that might be nostalgia. New Vegas, while fun, just doesn't... mesh. The storyline and tone doesn't seem to fit together at parts (you start out tracking people down and making them pay, but end up as a key soldier and diplomat in a war between two factions, Old World Blues is basically everything the main game wasn't in terms of tone and story, this is post apocalyptic, but almost everything is intact, ect.), the weapons don't seem to match (starter weapons are low-tech weapons like lever-action rifles and revolver pistols, but late and even mid game weapons are high-tech plasma cannons and M16s), and the characters just don't really fit (are they supposed to be survivalists holding on after the end, cowboys forming a new life, gangsters, or pioneers on virgin soil of new land for an empire?).
Meanwhile, despite some hick-ups with the BoS, Fallout 3 fits most of the time. Tech-level stays high throughout, the entire storyline is still revenge (this can be an interpretation of why you went looking for your father), and the characters, spare a few, are all survivalists. The only exceptions would be Rivet City (who are still only barely beyond survival, nowhere near like Caesar's Legion or the NCR), the Brotherhood of Steel (who are like this everywhere), and a few scattered towns (most of which you have to save from some threat). Plus, you can believe this was the end of the world. Skeletons everywhere, places where large firefights were, destroyed cars, ruined cities, common pockets of radiation, everything made it seem like things had actually ended. I just didn't really... get that with New Vegas. I still love both, and I can't wait for Lonesome Road, but I think Fallout 3 just achieved more of what it was trying to be.
Meanwhile, despite some hick-ups with the BoS, Fallout 3 fits most of the time. Tech-level stays high throughout, the entire storyline is still revenge (this can be an interpretation of why you went looking for your father), and the characters, spare a few, are all survivalists. The only exceptions would be Rivet City (who are still only barely beyond survival, nowhere near like Caesar's Legion or the NCR), the Brotherhood of Steel (who are like this everywhere), and a few scattered towns (most of which you have to save from some threat). Plus, you can believe this was the end of the world. Skeletons everywhere, places where large firefights were, destroyed cars, ruined cities, common pockets of radiation, everything made it seem like things had actually ended. I just didn't really... get that with New Vegas. I still love both, and I can't wait for Lonesome Road, but I think Fallout 3 just achieved more of what it was trying to be.
On the outside, Fallout New Vegas is better because it has more weapons, gameplay elements, etc. But once u dig into both games, all of Fallout 3's gameplay mechanics, weapons, story etc. is polished to a totally different level than F:NV. The story in Fallout 3 is better, there are fewer glitches, and the gameplay is varied enough in the right points that you never really lose interest in the world. Personally, I don't think the world is nearly as depressing either. One walk down Caesars legions camp will tell you that.
I like Fallout 3 because the environments are a lot more detailed and fun to explore. While most of New Vegas just feels like empty desert, even named locations are either small one or two room buildings or giant f*cking mazes and the bugs are even worse than it's predecessor. Though I'll admit that New Vegas seems more like an original fallout game.
I find myself getting more pulled in by Fallout 3. It feels much more apocalyptic and hopeless, whereas New Vegas is in a more "civilized" area. Nothing wrong with that, I just get more immersed in 3. That said, I do enjoy the flexibility and replayability of New Vegas more than Fallout 3. I really cant say I like either more than the other, they both have their merits and are both phenomenal games. 
put in after game free roam and fallout new vegas wins. until that which they said wont happen then fallout 3 is better because i can continue playing after the main storyline.
I guess I can admit that new vegas is technically better in almost every way. But my biggest gripe with the game is the story. your ultimate goal pales in comparison to fallout 3. In fallout 3 you fight to establish a clean source of water for the world and in new vegas you fight to decide which asshole is going to rule the mojave. Sure it's an important step but not as big as the world saving antics shown in fallout 3.
I enjoyed Fallout 3 for bringing me into the Fallout Universe
-Go ahead...let your blood boil-
I enjoyed the lore and the fact it felt really nice
-If you are having shooting pain in your left arm thats a sign of a heart attack-
I loved the characters...the landscape....the seeing how people held up in a world destroyed as I continued my trip.
New Vegas had its issues....I enjoyed it after I had used the Fallout wikia many times I began to understand very much about the universe of Fallout and the lore ya know the sad fact the BoS are all jackoff shutins
Also,
Wait for it,
I did like the original Fallout 1 and 2 (the way they played is...off I guess)
-ill call an ambulance now-
-Go ahead...let your blood boil-
I enjoyed the lore and the fact it felt really nice
-If you are having shooting pain in your left arm thats a sign of a heart attack-
I loved the characters...the landscape....the seeing how people held up in a world destroyed as I continued my trip.
New Vegas had its issues....I enjoyed it after I had used the Fallout wikia many times I began to understand very much about the universe of Fallout and the lore ya know the sad fact the BoS are all jackoff shutins
Also,
Wait for it,
I did like the original Fallout 1 and 2 (the way they played is...off I guess)
-ill call an ambulance now-
New Vegas for actually being Fallout and not turning the BoS into a bunch of crusading do-gooders who care about the down trodden.
I like them both equally depending on what i feel like playing.
New Vegas offered an expierience I would almost say is like the Old West, people beginning to set up new lives and everyone has adjusted to pre-war life. I enjoyed exploring more and while Hardcore mode wasn't that much of a survivalist expierience it was still a nice tweak to gameplay. I enjoyed exploring more, meeting with the different factions, and the fact a sniper rifle could now fit a silencer on it.
Fallout 3 was the pure post-apacolyptic game for me, since it was set in a urban area you were given more oppurtunities to see the effects of the bombs, destroyed highways, collapsed buildings blocking roads, which caused you to use the subway tunnels. Oh lord the tunnels, comparable to I Am Legend when he walks into a dark building these treks gave you a hopeless feel which in hindsight I loved (at the time me and my hunting rifle with 10 bullets were freaking out). Enjoyed the atmosphere and actually enjoyed the selection of weapons, felt NV might have had too many.
I'm not sure if this means anything but I that as I didn't enter either game with a character in mind, and adapted to my expierience. While both are stealth experts my NV character uses a silenced sniper rifle and shoots hostiles from a mile away, while my F3 character is more of a commando with his unique chinese rifle.
New Vegas offered an expierience I would almost say is like the Old West, people beginning to set up new lives and everyone has adjusted to pre-war life. I enjoyed exploring more and while Hardcore mode wasn't that much of a survivalist expierience it was still a nice tweak to gameplay. I enjoyed exploring more, meeting with the different factions, and the fact a sniper rifle could now fit a silencer on it.
Fallout 3 was the pure post-apacolyptic game for me, since it was set in a urban area you were given more oppurtunities to see the effects of the bombs, destroyed highways, collapsed buildings blocking roads, which caused you to use the subway tunnels. Oh lord the tunnels, comparable to I Am Legend when he walks into a dark building these treks gave you a hopeless feel which in hindsight I loved (at the time me and my hunting rifle with 10 bullets were freaking out). Enjoyed the atmosphere and actually enjoyed the selection of weapons, felt NV might have had too many.
I'm not sure if this means anything but I that as I didn't enter either game with a character in mind, and adapted to my expierience. While both are stealth experts my NV character uses a silenced sniper rifle and shoots hostiles from a mile away, while my F3 character is more of a commando with his unique chinese rifle.
Um... then you bought it when they released the patches, or you were extremely lucky. After only 2 days of the game's release, Bethesda released a patch for OVER 250 BUGS. After 2 days. There were so many bugs in NV, so many patches, it was shameful the first few months of release. It okay now though, most are fixed.
While i enjoyed the setting of fallout 3 much more and loved the stealth suit to pieces, i did end up having more fun in new vegas for some reason so im gonna have to go with that.
I put over 200 hours into New Vegas, and I just started playing Fallout 3 recently (with 40hours), and I gotta say, from the very beginning, i loved Fallout 3 much more. it seems so much more immersive, bigger, and just generally more fun. New Vegas was good, but, ehh, it wasn't fantastic