Fair enough. That's a reasonable subjective opinion.Gilhelmi said:3 was better. Sure they did not have some of the game play that made NV good, like the faction standings and a slightly better barter system. But they lost ground on the storytelling, and your character just seemed not to have any back-story (just the base game, I do not know if Lonesome Road added or not).
3 felt like you were changing the political landscape of the Capital wastes, helping the Brotherhood establish their nation, Or helping no one but yourself.
In NV, all the towns looked and felt the same. But in 3, Each one had a different life to it. From Megaton, a town in a crater that was formed by an unexploded nuke (some people worshiped the bomb). To Underworld, a town in the US Natural History Museum made up of goules.
While NV didn't have character backstory I really didn't feel that it was detrimental.
But I couldn't stand the story and world in Fallout 3. When I'm playing an RPG I expect the quests to make some sort of logical sense. New Vegas did this well. Fallout 3 has a city built around an unexploded nuclear bomb for no discernible reason, gives you the option to explode said nuclear bomb for an absurd reason.
The less said about Little Lamplight the better. There are a myriad of other gripes with characters and locations that made me roll my eyes. Little retconns that Bethesda indulged in that made the Fallout universe fall apart.
I will admit that the Fallout 3 map was perhaps more fun to get around than New Vegas but I'll take verisimilitude and narrative over "fun".