Poll: Which do you prefer: Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

[teh_Canape]

none of them
Fallout all the way

problem?

now seriously, I like both equally, with no preference of one over the other

but the original one is still god tier for me

 

[VanillaBean]

WHY the fuck does someone make this thread anew every single fucking day. I swear ive seen this thread so many damn times on this forum.

USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.283531-Your-opinion-on-Fallout-New-Vegas-VS-Fallout-3#11144167

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.273059-Poll-Fallout-3-or-Fallout-New-Vegas#10539619

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.273059-Poll-Fallout-3-or-Fallout-New-Vegas#10539619

QUICK!! SOMEBODY CALL THE WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULAAAAANCE!!

Don't like this thread? Don't fucking post in it. Is it really that hard, or are you forced to be some kind of vanguard of forum integrity?

OP: I enjoyed Fallout 3 10x more than New Vegas. For a post-apocalyptic wasteland, NV seemed... too civilized for my tastes. The desolation and true "on-your-own" feel of F3 really made it one of my all-time favorites.

I think Fawxy wins here.

While I havent played New Vegas all the way through, I really felt like Fallout 3 had the higher value of entertainment. Plus the whole Matrix style 50s suburban world was freaking awesome.

 

[WanderingFool]

Okay, this has very little to do with the actual topic, but I hate, and I mean HATE, when people say "Immersion". I dont know why, but it annoys the hell out of me, maybe its because I can never get past the fact that its a videogame, thus not real, so I am never able to get fully into it. Anyways, on topic now...

I played FO3, and baught the GOTY edition for $20 US for my laptop (love mods...) Ill probably wait until FO:NV has all its DLC out or a GOTY edition for it is released. But I loved FO3, played through it almost 4 times, each time as a different character, but there were things that really killed it, mainly the fact that I could be lamost all around awesome by level 30, hell, I was a beast at 20 in most games. And while I only played New Vegas for a small amount of time, and just felt it was "better"... So I have to say New Vegas.

 

[Pierce Graham]

Do you honestly expect me to search all the forums before I post something? Seriously? If you don't like this thread, don't post. You're just looking for something to whine about.

 

[4173]

Oh, another point in favor of NV. They removed the 1,000 perks that were give +5 to this skill and +5 to this skill.

 

[Malcharion]

Of the two, I certainly enjoyed Fallout 3 more, but I can understand liking New Vegas. Unfortunately, I feel a lot of the criticism leveled at Fallout 3 is done so on the basis of it being a poor Fallout game, usually based on the Main Quest line and the much more bleak and hopeless atmosphere. That's a shame, because I feel that Fallout 3 did Fallout much better than Fallout did, if that makes sense.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Okay, this has very little to do with the actual topic, but I hate, and I mean HATE, when people say "Immersion". I dont know why, but it annoys the hell out of me, maybe its because I can never get past the fact that its a videogame, thus not real, so I am never able to get fully into it. Anyways, on topic now...

Well, not everyone sees it that way. A lot of people do get very immersed into certain games. It's a huge part of why I play them - getting lost in fiction and experiencing another world, that's what's fun to me.

Maybe you lack imagination, that's no reason to hate on those who don't.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

umm you forgot to put neither on your poll,honestly i haven't been able to get into either of them.

Then I'd suggest voting by not posting.

Of the two, I certainly enjoyed Fallout 3 more, but I can understand liking New Vegas. Unfortunately, I feel a lot of the criticism leveled at Fallout 3 is done so on the basis of it being a poor Fallout game, usually based on the Main Quest line and the much more bleak and hopeless atmosphere. That's a shame, because I feel that Fallout 3 did Fallout much better than Fallout did, if that makes sense.

Yes it makes sense. I've always thought F3 should have been the one with a sub-title, and New Vegas should have been numbered '3'. Fallout 3, despite being my favourite game, is not a good sequel to the originals.

 

[AlternatePFG]

All I want to say about Fallout 3 is that most of the plot holes and issues I'd have with it would be fixed if it was set right after the war, instead of 200+ years afterwards. Just didn't make sense. If it was a prequel or hell, a reboot, to the originals I think it would have been received better by fans of the original. Some of it anyway.

 

[USSR]

Its in the fucking forum rules.

Not really.

Repeat threads are fine, given you wait a month or two.
The threads you posted were from May. I'm sure there are others, but if you wanted to make a point you should've found one from a week ago. (I wouldn't doubt there is one.)
But assuming there isn't, peoples' opinion change. Much easier to post a new opinion in a new thread than to go find the old thread.

Vs. Threads however are frowned upon by and will be locked if flaming occurs.

None of which are actually against in the rules.
Which are <link=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/codeofconduct>here.

EDIT:
OT- After finally beating New Vegas and all of it's content, I believe Fallout 3 had the better main story and New Vegas had the better DLC. I liked them both equally and a lot o:

 

[MiracleOfSound]

so your basically saying if my opinion is different the yours it has no place on this thread,just wonderful.

I'm suggesting that it is probably a waste of your own time posting 'I don't like either of them' in a thread where the question was 'which of the two do you like more and why?'. It contributes nothing to the discussion.

 

[Lamppenkeyboard]

I found them both rather mediocre. The characters and events always seemed boil down to you staring directly at someone as they spit out exposition after exposition at you, then you half the time killing the person and/ or their minions. The parts in which you were placed in the position of an observer had a habit of falling apart due to a distinct lack of cinematic flair. Case in point, a moment where you need to assassinate/ protect a certain high ranking faction member who is supposed to be making a speech in New Vegas. He then stands on a several inch tall platform and talks to a group of roughly ten of the same person. Any interest I had in this event proved to be leading me into disappointment, because after the events you got a pat on the back, and barely even heard this event mentioned in casual conversation.

The faction system was flawed in the both I felt. The first had a Brotherhood vs. Enclave feeling. If you are friendly to the Enclave in certain parts of the plot, they still shoot at you, and if you side with them at the game's conclusion, you get a slightly varied MS Powerpoint presentation. If you boot up Broken Steel after this, you see no difference in whether or not you sided with them or not. The game is built around you going with the Brotherhood.

New Vegas had a much more graduated faction system. You had plenty of Factions you could work with, although the only two factions presented as having any real ppresence are the NCR and the Legion. Again, two main sides you can take for the conclusion. The interactions with the other faction did have some interesting effects, although by the climax, you need to go either NCR or Legion, or you can side with a computer, which tells you to go NCR till the game's last half hour or so. If you side with Legion, you become effectively ostracized from the rest of the world, with no benefits other than a slightly different powerpoint. You are shoehorned into helping the NCR, or helping the NCR then pretty much just screaming "HA!" and tearing the rug out from under them right before the game ends. You yet again have very little impact.

New Vegas had some more interesting characters, yet they all still look the same. Even key characters blended together with one another, and their predecessors from the first game. It became too similar to an MMO experience for me.

Fallout 3 I felt did manage to be a bit more kinetic for the reason that (if I recall correctly) you received more points per level, as well as a "perk" each level.

New Vegas' biggest contribution to the formula I could see was the removal of chance based dialouge, which instead became based around simply meeting certain speech/ science/ whatever level. I was relieved at this, although having to take a certain direction in the story due to a difference of like two speech points was aggravating.

 

[Dr McShootbombs]

Personally, I'd choose Fallout 3. I prefer my post-apocalypses to be rather bleak and depressing, and Fallout 3 had that. It makes the black humor all the more twistedly hilarious.

Also, no Cazadores.

F--king, f--king Cazadores.

 

[TimeLord75]

Fallout 3, without a doubt. I got seriously engrossed in the story of FO3. Exploring meant something, and I really got curious about every little dot on my compass. I cared about what happened to people, and to my character. When my father was killed at the Jefferson Memorial (oh yeah--spoiler alert, sorry), I was stunned. I actually agonized over the decision over what to do about what's-his-name at Oasis.

Fallout: New Vegas, on the other hand...didn't exactly thrill me. The story failed to grab me at any point. Sure, early on, there's the "go get the sonuvabitch who tried to kill you & get your widget back", but after that? Meh. I didn't care what happened to Vegas or its people, and nothing in the game encouraged me to care. I couldn't even motivate myself to take over myowndamnself. I tried running through under Mr. House, but...eh. I just didn't care.

Oh, and the bugs. Dear god, the bugs. When F:NV was announced, I was totally onboard. Then I heard that Obsidian was involved, and I wept. I knew they'd totally f**k it up one way or another, and I was right. Those assholes haven't produced a quality product since...ever, actually. I tried it anyway, and just...eww.

So yeah, I still play FO3. Pop it in the 360 from time to time and go scooting around the Wasteland. Me & Fawkes, bopping around the DC ruins--especially the Mall. It's still fun. F:NV, on the other hand, got traded in awhile ago.

 

[Aprilgold]

Fallout 3-
-Immersive.
-Got a gameplay style that worked
-New comers were introduced to the game.
Cons:
-Was a GIANT departure from the universe.
-WAS WAY TOO MUCH GRIND!
-PLOT HOLES, MOTHER FUCKER!

Fallout New Vegas.
-Gun play improved.
-Silly and felt more in touch with the Fallout universe.
-Definitively was more wastelandy with the addition of survival [hardcore] and managing weight actually needed to occur, instead of every blue moon like in Fallout 3.
-More survival oriented with health and ammo being rare.
-Factions made it feel like you could have your guy have personality.
Cons:
-Music started to feel like a chore.
-WAY too much grind, but less then its predescor.

Now, I love Fallout 3's immersion, but if I want to restart, I have to go through that tutorial, then I know better and just focus on speech because most of the game can be skipped if you have great speech skill or know to go to River Boat city [whatever its called, its a giant boat.] first and skip the quest for the radio man. But with New Vegas, being in the world was way less of a chore, and actually made characters interesting, each one with different styles, it felt more like a whole game, instead of a chore. New Vegas is superior for bringing the wasteland to life, instead of trying to craft a completely generic one that I really didn't like because, honestly, 200+ YEARS after the war, and there isn't more tribes, really fallout 3?
Fallout New Vegas. A unique, alive wasteland.
Fallout 3. A generic wasteland but with great immersion.

I found them both rather mediocre. -snipped bullshit rest-

Basically, this is all your point had to be. But since you don't like either, you really have nothing to talk about on a thread thats about which one you like better.

 

[Pandabearparade]

New Vegas, by far. Aside from the bugs, which were unforgivably bad at launch, but are mostly gone now, New Vegas did everything a good sequel should. It took all of the problems of the prior installment and fixed them.

Fallout 3 had, in my view, a much better soundtrack and I liked having more ruins to explore, but New Vegas actually felt like a world that could exist. Fallout 3 did not, the entire world was a facepalm-worthy joke.

I mean, Little Lamplight? Really? And how exactly do these people survive? They have no renewable food sources. There is no plant life (outside of one closed area), and that means there is no basis for a food chain. This isn't a minor problem, no plant life means everyone should have been dead a century ago.

And they break a G.E.C.K. to purify -WATER-!? Needing a chip to purify water worked in the first game only because the water was in a closed system, the entire crux of the plot of Fallout 3 falls apart because.. well, water isn't hard to purify in an open system.

 

[Supertegwyn]

Hmmm, I found FNV to be more fun, but F3 to have a better story.

Gotta go with FNV, I really thought the capital wasteland was dreary and un-imaginative.