What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas
- Thread starter Reincarnatedwolfgod
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The mood of the story in Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas.
You get to rescue Liam Neeson, blow up a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city, hear how disappointed Liam is of what you did to Megaton, feel regret and start over.
And in the finale, you get to fight alongside Optimus fucking Prime as he tears through the enemy defenses, yelling anti-communist justice. I'm not kidding.
Plus, Point Lookout (DLC) was fantastic. And kind of creepy.
You get to rescue Liam Neeson, blow up a nuclear bomb in the middle of a city, hear how disappointed Liam is of what you did to Megaton, feel regret and start over.
And in the finale, you get to fight alongside Optimus fucking Prime as he tears through the enemy defenses, yelling anti-communist justice. I'm not kidding.
Plus, Point Lookout (DLC) was fantastic. And kind of creepy.
The way the main quest worked. I mean you start in the middle of the map and the main quest sends you in many places across the map not just a big U shape that lets you cut corners (the side quests on the way only interest me the first time round so i was happy to skip them)
Technically Fallout 3 does nothing better than New Vegas. Conceptually, it simply comes down to taste. I really enjoy them both equally. They perfectly complement one another in how they portray a post apocalyptic wasteland. Although I will say the story in New Vegas was a lot more compelling than the slightly plot hole ridden story of FO3.
I am one of the crazy people who liked Fallout 3 more than New Vegas. New Vegas had a lot of nice gameplay improvements. However I generally preferred Fallout 3. I just found the setting and area more interesting. The Capital Wasteland was more my style. New Vegas just...bored me. I beat it once I could and didn't play it further beyond that. The NCR were just everywhere and so boring. The whole wild west thing didn't do it for me at all.
Anyway, most of the stuff that was fixed in gameplay improvements in New Vegas I had already fixed in Fallout 3 via mods, soooo. Fallout 3 > New Vegas.
Anyway, most of the stuff that was fixed in gameplay improvements in New Vegas I had already fixed in Fallout 3 via mods, soooo. Fallout 3 > New Vegas.
Well... rebuild with what? Everything has been pretty much destroyed... salvaging what metal plates one can find find to build a shelter / wall would be quite an obvious choice. Instead of being concerned with re-building civilized houses with windows, bricks, concrete etc. which they would have to re-invent from nothing to very little materials at all. I bet people would have been more concerned about their survival; finding food and water and getting through the average day.Westaway said:
And the whole settling near an unexploded nuclear bomb doesn't make much sense in the first place, but the cult "Children of Atom" makes up a pretty good explanation for why someone would start building a "home" around an unexploded atomic bomb.
One thing I liked in FO3 is when the Enclave starts setting up little outposts everywhere. They had files on the mutated wildlife and on the different settlements. Made previously explored areas more of a challenge again and provided a little window on how the Enclave was trying to expand into the Capital Wasteland. I remember once I was walking towards Oasis and I found a Enclave outpost that was destroyed and the soldiers had been ransacked. In my head I thought "Huh, that's odd. Oh well." and kept going. Then immediately after I went "Oh shit, someone did this." And I was immediately attacked by a bunch of Raiders using plasma weapons and one was wearing an Eyebot helmet. It was one time I felt like the world was TRULY alive, scripted event or not.SajuukKhar said:
Don't get me wrong, I think New Vegas is MUCH more deserving of the title of "Fallout 3". New Vegas is just too fun for me to stop playing. Even after I've done everything, I just want to do it again.
But they had TWO HUNDRED FUCKING YEARS. Not everything was destroyed, you know. There are hundreds of archives and years of knowledge to help with rebuilding. Sure, 20 years after shit drops you're concerned about survival, but after two hundred years shit has been rebuilt.Isshiresshi said:
Children of Atom still make no sense. There are tons of shanty town scattered around the wasteland, I hardly see why they would need the "expertise" of those nut jobs.
But those aren't the only plot holes.
There are more raiders than normal people. Who do they raid?
The rivers are still irradiated, after two hundred years of filtration.
The AWOL military robots wandering around are still functioning after two hundred years.
People still haven't figured out you can filter water using fucking dirt.
Your goddamn robot butler can pull fresh water out of the air- why do they need Project Purity? Why not just make more robots?
Why the fuck would they waste the GECK on Project Purity? That thing can make a paradise out of anything- it could terraform the DC wasteland into a lush forest. Why use it for a big water purifier?
A realistic, believable wasteland would be covered in flora. The people would have rebuilt that shit. They would have a large functioning society.
You know, what New Vegas is like.
Fallout 3 made the mistake of calling itself Fallout 3. it's really more of a reboot of the franchise than a continuation of it. if it was called Fallout
C or something i think some people would have found it easier to deal with.
F3 and FNV are really two very different games that look eerily similar. i made the mistake of trying to play FNV like F3 when i first started it, it's not a sandbox rpg, it looks like one, smells like one, but it's not. it's very much a semi-linear character/story based rpg that takes place in an open world space. there's very little exploration outside of quests, the world is pretty dull, and badly designed compared to F3. i keep hearing that it's the same sized map as F3 but it feels so much smaller. yeah there's more quests, but they felt very repetitive, and the choices between factions didn't amount to much, just handing in the exact same quests to different people. the atmosphere was all over the place too - centurions, elvis impersonators, cowboys, BoS with their uber-tech - it just all got really silly in the end, i guess it didn't have a coherent enough tone for me (i also fucking hate country music too, which didn't help things). say what you want about F3, it absolutely NAILS the post-apocolyptic feel of the world, the devastation, the howling wastes, it got really creepy at times. FNV's world felt like a jumbled mess that didn't really know what it was in comparison. it was just all over the shop.
having said that FNV's writing and characters were vastly superior to F3, i enjoyed the main story more too, i like the idea of being a random nobody instead of the saviour of the world (again). more variety of weapons, factions, a reptuation system (missing from Beth games since Morrowind i think), a lot of it's individual features were argurably better, but they didn't really gel for me. Beth have an uncanny knack for taking a lot of half assed features that don't always work very well, some things half broken or unbalanced, but put them all together and they somehow work, and end up being more than the sum of their parts. FNV was the opposite though, a lot of it's individual components were superior, but they just didn't fit well together. kinda like making a cake with all the best ingredients you can find, then mixing them wrong and undercooking it.
it's real subjective in the end though, F3 is a dungeon crawler, FNV is a crpg, they are both decent at what they do, take your pick.
C or something i think some people would have found it easier to deal with.F3 and FNV are really two very different games that look eerily similar. i made the mistake of trying to play FNV like F3 when i first started it, it's not a sandbox rpg, it looks like one, smells like one, but it's not. it's very much a semi-linear character/story based rpg that takes place in an open world space. there's very little exploration outside of quests, the world is pretty dull, and badly designed compared to F3. i keep hearing that it's the same sized map as F3 but it feels so much smaller. yeah there's more quests, but they felt very repetitive, and the choices between factions didn't amount to much, just handing in the exact same quests to different people. the atmosphere was all over the place too - centurions, elvis impersonators, cowboys, BoS with their uber-tech - it just all got really silly in the end, i guess it didn't have a coherent enough tone for me (i also fucking hate country music too, which didn't help things). say what you want about F3, it absolutely NAILS the post-apocolyptic feel of the world, the devastation, the howling wastes, it got really creepy at times. FNV's world felt like a jumbled mess that didn't really know what it was in comparison. it was just all over the shop.
having said that FNV's writing and characters were vastly superior to F3, i enjoyed the main story more too, i like the idea of being a random nobody instead of the saviour of the world (again). more variety of weapons, factions, a reptuation system (missing from Beth games since Morrowind i think), a lot of it's individual features were argurably better, but they didn't really gel for me. Beth have an uncanny knack for taking a lot of half assed features that don't always work very well, some things half broken or unbalanced, but put them all together and they somehow work, and end up being more than the sum of their parts. FNV was the opposite though, a lot of it's individual components were superior, but they just didn't fit well together. kinda like making a cake with all the best ingredients you can find, then mixing them wrong and undercooking it.
it's real subjective in the end though, F3 is a dungeon crawler, FNV is a crpg, they are both decent at what they do, take your pick.
1. In an RPG, size has everything to do with quests. Fallout is not Elder Scrolls and is not about environmental exploration. A huge physical world populated by hollow idiots and no branching stories is not a big RPG.Terminate421 said:
2. Have you played Fallout 1 or 2? The whole urban thing is a complete disconnect from the Fallout feel, which has always involved barren deserts.
1.Pre-war food in NV is still stupid, but at least no one seems to be actually living on it. There's plenty of crops and fresh meat, and these are much better options for survival in Hardcore mode.Isshiresshi said:
2. There's a dam and sewer system that pumps running water all over the Mojave. There are also caravans who sell bottled water. In FO1 the water caravans were tremendously powerful and central to the plot.
Yes it does, since New Vegas isn't "struggling to survive". It's a functioning society because the war was centuries ago, and, unlike in FO3, people haven't been sitting on their posteriors that entire time.Isshiresshi said:
New Vegas isn't an open world game because...at level one, you can't go wherever you want to and be okay?
Huh.
I guess Morrowind wasn't open world either.
Huh.
I guess Morrowind wasn't open world either.
QA/testing is the publisher's responsibility, not the developer's, fyi. It was Besthesda who didn't test the game properly in the first place, but of course it was Obsidian who actually bothered to release patches later.SajuukKhar said:
I like both Fallout 3 and New Vegas equally. I also enjoyed the other core games, making me rather dynamic in that sense.
Enjoy them both for their flavor.
Enjoy them both for their flavor.
I prefer Fallout 3 honestly, for a few reasons.
Most if not all the new game play features of Fallout: New Vegas were available as mods for Fallout 3 long before New Vegas even came out, so it doesn't get any points from me there.
As other have said, the world was more interesting, not to mention utilized better.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:MojaveMapBW.jpg
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:Wasteland_Map_1.0.png
Look at the Mojave's map, so much empty space around the edges
Also, for a long period of time in the beginning of the game, New Vegas feels linear in comparison to Fallout 3.
I'd say more stuff, but I'm tired.
Most if not all the new game play features of Fallout: New Vegas were available as mods for Fallout 3 long before New Vegas even came out, so it doesn't get any points from me there.
As other have said, the world was more interesting, not to mention utilized better.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:MojaveMapBW.jpg
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/File:Wasteland_Map_1.0.png
Look at the Mojave's map, so much empty space around the edges
Also, for a long period of time in the beginning of the game, New Vegas feels linear in comparison to Fallout 3.
I'd say more stuff, but I'm tired.
FO3 has a better story than New Vegas?triggrhappy94 said:
With respect to the specific question that was asked, there is very little difference between the two games. If your are simply incapable of getting fallout 3 to run, New Vegas will have the same problems since it runs on the same engine, etc. When you further consider that New Vegas didn't fix a single bug within Fallout 3 that I noticed, the argument against the game on a technical level is fairly damning.
I found that NV improved heavily on Fallout 3. I played Fallout 3 constantly when it was released, it was just so good. When NV came out I was amazed at how much better it was. The story and characters were better, the landscape felt nicer, and I liked how it gave you a general idea of what areas were harder than others by direction of story quest alone. I can't play fallout 3 to such a great extent as I used to. I just don't enjoy the Capital wasteland when the Mojave is just a disk swap away.
Fallout 3 is the better of the 2 games for sure. New vegas was more like an add-on with silly game spoiling weapons and poor level design. Don't get me wrong, i enjoyed playing both games, but fallout 3 was far more interesting and rewarding. If you've only managed to play new vegas then at some point your going to get a real shock/treat when fallout 3 gets a hold of you.
To the original guy with computer problems...if you've already paid cash for it and still can't get it to work, pirate it. There is no moral issue since you've parted cash for it and chances are the hacked versions will actually work.
To the original guy with computer problems...if you've already paid cash for it and still can't get it to work, pirate it. There is no moral issue since you've parted cash for it and chances are the hacked versions will actually work.
Children of Atom makes sense, that such a cult popped out. After something as terrible as atomic bombs falling all over the place and destroying pretty much anything it is likely that the human psyche tries to find salvation in the unbeliveable chaos around them.Westaway said:
Whom raiders raid? Hmm... other people. Normal people as you call them. Other groups of raiders. The Steel of Brotherhood. Mutants. Salvaging from pre-war buildings. Ghouls, but that would be more killing them to rid of them to loot whatever they can find.
"A realistic, believable wasteland would be covered in flora." No... that's called a jungle, forest, field or plains. A wasteland has nothing, that's why it's called a wasteland. If you want to speak about a realistic wasteland then take a look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki after getting hit... now that's a wasteland.
And New Vegas has towns and building and lots of things that -did not- get hit by an atomic bombs and therefore is still standing... they have not rebuild anything but merely using what's left...
And I'm guessing you've already made your mind up from the start whether or not you want to listen to any arguements or explanations from the start... So let's just stay at it and say, that you think Fallout 3 doesn't make any more sense then New Vegas, but I do. Beside it's a game...
What does Fallout 3 do better than Fallout: New Vegas? In my opinion?
Not a damn thing.
New Vegas is completely superior and the only reason I would ever play Fallout 3 again is to pay a quick 5 minute visit to the Republic of Dave.
Fallout 3 is simply an adventure game, New Vegas is an actual RPG.
Not a damn thing.
New Vegas is completely superior and the only reason I would ever play Fallout 3 again is to pay a quick 5 minute visit to the Republic of Dave.
Fallout 3 is simply an adventure game, New Vegas is an actual RPG.