New Vegas is bigger than FO3. More quests at release than FO3 had with every expansion, and way more enemies, weapons and mods to play with.Terminate421 said:
What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas
- Thread starter Reincarnatedwolfgod
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I wouldn't say that the music is better, but you did have some variety in in Fallout 3. Fallout 3 gives you two different stations (three if you do Agatha's quest for the violin) with completely different songs while New Vegas gives you basically the same radio station twice but with different DJs.OpticalJunction said:
Personally lked FNV better because it made the decision had more impact trought personally, yeah FO3 had the whole blow up megaton thing but that was it... NV with all the factions thing left much more choices, and it was closer in athmosphere with 1&2 being made by the same guys
New Vegas has more items, crafting, more perks and so on.
Fallout 3 has a game world that actually feels like a post-apocalyptic wasteland instead of a slightly run-down plot in Texas.
Seriously, I just can't bring myself to play New Vegas beyond the first playthrough. The whole game world is just silly, the western theme sticks out like a sore thumb, everything is too civilized and populated. The whole NCR/Legion thing never fit into the whole game for me, and so on.
In Fallout 3, the main spot on the game map was Washington, where the rules changed. You were hiding from mutants in run down old monuments and landmarks, using ghoul-infested subways to get around. In New Vegas, you get to visit a bunch of crummy casinos and meet a gang of Elvis impersonators.
In Fallout 3, the towns were all well protected, walled off, one was an acutal aircraft carrier. This made sense in the context, with human communities defending themselves from the mutants and the raiders. In New Vegas, the towns are just a bunch of houses by the road. That's it. One town hardly any different than the next one.
New Vegas has slightly better mechanics and such, but Fallout 3 has a VASTLY better world with more interesting locations, and in an open world RPG that's what counts.
I did an experiment a few months ago. Having played through Fallout 3 some 3-4 times and New Vegas only once, I tried playing New Vegas. I got past Novac (the town with the the big dinosaur statue :-/ ) before I got bored out of my skull. Then I installed Fallout 3 (which I've played to death already) and got sucked into the game yet again.
Fallout 3 > New Vegas in every way that counts, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Fallout 3 has a game world that actually feels like a post-apocalyptic wasteland instead of a slightly run-down plot in Texas.
Seriously, I just can't bring myself to play New Vegas beyond the first playthrough. The whole game world is just silly, the western theme sticks out like a sore thumb, everything is too civilized and populated. The whole NCR/Legion thing never fit into the whole game for me, and so on.
In Fallout 3, the main spot on the game map was Washington, where the rules changed. You were hiding from mutants in run down old monuments and landmarks, using ghoul-infested subways to get around. In New Vegas, you get to visit a bunch of crummy casinos and meet a gang of Elvis impersonators.
In Fallout 3, the towns were all well protected, walled off, one was an acutal aircraft carrier. This made sense in the context, with human communities defending themselves from the mutants and the raiders. In New Vegas, the towns are just a bunch of houses by the road. That's it. One town hardly any different than the next one.
New Vegas has slightly better mechanics and such, but Fallout 3 has a VASTLY better world with more interesting locations, and in an open world RPG that's what counts.
I did an experiment a few months ago. Having played through Fallout 3 some 3-4 times and New Vegas only once, I tried playing New Vegas. I got past Novac (the town with the the big dinosaur statue :-/ ) before I got bored out of my skull. Then I installed Fallout 3 (which I've played to death already) and got sucked into the game yet again.
Fallout 3 > New Vegas in every way that counts, at least as far as I'm concerned.
Admit the hyperbole! It'll take you longer than that to beat it.Denamic said:
And I thought it was better. Looking for your run-away Dad after leaving your life behind, working to bring water to the wasteland and protect it from those who would abuse the power that would grant them. Better than "Delivering a package to a guy who wants to control a dump of a city, like 2 other factions, and got stopped. Choose which one you'd like to win".
New Vegas adds a bunch of fun stuff to Fallout 3. The only thign that ruins New Vegas (for me anyway) is the terrible story. I didn't like it. I didn't care much for Fallout 3's story either.
BUT
Fallout 3 has Liam Neeson voicing your father
And if you've seen "Heroes" then you might recognize Malcolm McDowell (Daniel Linderman) voicing the President in Fallout 3
BUT
Fallout 3 has Liam Neeson voicing your father
And if you've seen "Heroes" then you might recognize Malcolm McDowell (Daniel Linderman) voicing the President in Fallout 3
nikki191 said:
/thread
really, if fallout 3 wasnt named fallout, it would be flawless haha
tbh New Vegas has better story and companions (boone, raul especially) but it's kinda dull for the most part it's a snore imo.
fo3 is a better game imo. though nv has special ammo and crafting worth sth
Fallout 3 had a really great atmosphere, it combined the tunes from the various radio stations with the destroyed ruins of a once great civilization to present either a depressing or uppity feel. that, combined with the occasional silliness of the game (which could only be found if one searched for it) lead to a very enjoyable experience for me, one that no game to this very day has been able to achieve.
Fallout: New Vegas seems like it grabbed all of these aspects, but put it together wrong. just placing the things that made 3 great, thinking "WHAT made 3 great?" over "WHY did that make 3 great?"
the world honestly doesn't seem that destroyed when the Las Vegas strip still has power and staffed casinos! also the wasteland itself was just boring. brown desert all day. no "downtown DC" area to loot at lower levels despite the danger. and the invisible walls, my god, they're everywhere! I once tried sneaking past the deathclaw infested mine area as a shortcut to new vegas, only to discover that there was an invisible wall at the very end of it which prevented me from actually getting there! because heaven forbid I remember where to go and can shave off a few hours of the main story like I could in 3! If I know where the villain is, LET ME GO THERE WITHOUT MAKING ME HAVE TO FIND OUT AGAIN!
I also hold a terrible grudge against that game for being poorly optimized as fuck on release and bugging out constantly, such as the time on my very first character when I walked outside of the Doc's office and was instantly murdered by a deathclaw! Talk about bad first impressions!
why was that there??
why won't it leave, despite constant checkpoint reloads? ITS THE FIRST LEVEL DAMN IT!
all that fallout NV taught me was to save every 10 seconds because the game hates me
I could honestly go all day about why I feel that it is an inferior game to Fallout 3, but I'm just tired of being flamed because I think that.
Fallout: New Vegas seems like it grabbed all of these aspects, but put it together wrong. just placing the things that made 3 great, thinking "WHAT made 3 great?" over "WHY did that make 3 great?"
the world honestly doesn't seem that destroyed when the Las Vegas strip still has power and staffed casinos! also the wasteland itself was just boring. brown desert all day. no "downtown DC" area to loot at lower levels despite the danger. and the invisible walls, my god, they're everywhere! I once tried sneaking past the deathclaw infested mine area as a shortcut to new vegas, only to discover that there was an invisible wall at the very end of it which prevented me from actually getting there! because heaven forbid I remember where to go and can shave off a few hours of the main story like I could in 3! If I know where the villain is, LET ME GO THERE WITHOUT MAKING ME HAVE TO FIND OUT AGAIN!
I also hold a terrible grudge against that game for being poorly optimized as fuck on release and bugging out constantly, such as the time on my very first character when I walked outside of the Doc's office and was instantly murdered by a deathclaw! Talk about bad first impressions!
why was that there??
why won't it leave, despite constant checkpoint reloads? ITS THE FIRST LEVEL DAMN IT!
all that fallout NV taught me was to save every 10 seconds because the game hates me
I could honestly go all day about why I feel that it is an inferior game to Fallout 3, but I'm just tired of being flamed because I think that.
I'm not going to get into Fallout lore here, but it still has no bearing on what I stated - New Vegas has worse atmosphere and a far less interesting game world, at least to me.Ultratwinkie said:
As for changing a series, sure, but not all change is for the better, and I'd say that many of the changes to the overall world design in New Vegas were for the worse (the linear game world being one of the most irritating).
Must have skipped through all of the dialogue, huh. Here's something fun, sneak past the death claws and New Vegas wouldn't take much longer than that.Denamic said:
And I shouldn't have started to argue about the story since you didn't have an example to begin with at all. Only criticism. Hmph.
As others have said, I much prefer the environment itself in FO3 over New Vegas'. While NV did, technically, have more colors; with bluer skies, green trees, etc., the only big thing i can remember about the environments after a long time of not playing is a metric ton of tan-colored hills. Also, with FO3 having more destroyed environments, I felt it lent itself very well to the tone of the game.
It's hard to say, I loved Fallout 3 but I remember Vegas being way better. I can't tell you if that's because by that time I'd played Fallout 3 into the ground and Vegas was completely fresh though. Maybe just report the bug to steam and see if it gets patched by the time you finish Vegas.
The settlements are better in 3, most other things are better in Vegas.
The subway system is not fun a fun way to get around though. That's one of the main drawbacks of 3.
The subway system is not fun a fun way to get around though. That's one of the main drawbacks of 3.
Im basicly going to say what most people on this side of the fence say
To me, at least, Fallout 3 had a better world, atmosphere, better music, and more secrets
Fallout NV was kind of reverse Fallout 3, in that all the meh parts of 3 were great and vice Versa. It had a better story, great characters/ followers, tied in to 1 and 2 more (even though to its credit bethesda did a good job tying in the lore of the first 2 into 3, 10+ years later.) and a higher inital level cap. The world and music, however, could have used some work, but each dev what it does best, and to both games credit, FO 3 and NV were very good
To me, at least, Fallout 3 had a better world, atmosphere, better music, and more secrets
Fallout NV was kind of reverse Fallout 3, in that all the meh parts of 3 were great and vice Versa. It had a better story, great characters/ followers, tied in to 1 and 2 more (even though to its credit bethesda did a good job tying in the lore of the first 2 into 3, 10+ years later.) and a higher inital level cap. The world and music, however, could have used some work, but each dev what it does best, and to both games credit, FO 3 and NV were very good
Well I must say that New Vegas still felt a bit like that. Your embassy still looks like dilapidated shithole? They didn't even find the time in those two centuries to give the windows a wash? To move the rusted nuclear-powered car wrecks out of the streets? While not as bad as Fallout 3 in that regard there's still plenty of silliness in that department.Freaky Lou said:
But what mattered to me the most, and what I surprisingly haven't read yet in these two pages, is that New Vegas is a better roleplaying game. You get a lot more freedom in how you want to solve your quests and you get a lot more use out of non-combat skills. In that regard it felt a lot closer to the original Fallout games.
But New Vegas and the surrounding area felt very underwhelming. The truly good locations came with the excellent DLC packs but before that nothing really sticks out. Damn shame to hear that NV being rushed is partly to blame for that. Obsidian just can't seem to catch a break, can they? They make such promising games only to be forced to shove them out of the door way too quickly.
Denamic said:
Looks like someone has a grudge on Fallout 3 for not being Fallout 1 and 2...Freaky Lou said:
The pre-war food in New Vegas is somehow better then pre-war food in Fallout 3?
How does people survive in the dessert with nothing to transport water in / with? Or any water tanks at all to have water supplies in?
Not to mention that "it does not make sense" that a nobody of a mailman in this barren dessert of a war zone has the luxury to think of revenge when everyone else is fighting to survive.Easton Dark said:
If you want to sit and cherry-pick things that do not make sense...in a game... there will always be a million things you can pick and show as "this game does not make any sense therefore it is bad!".
Oddly I think Fallout NV's hardcore system would have been much better in Fallout 3. There were just too many resources in Fallout NV to ever be concerned about your health/water/food while the capitol wasteland existed mainly on 200 year old snacky cakes and dodgy water sources.
Fallout 3 made you much more attached to your character through it's story. New Vegas was just like 'You are some random guy, have fun' If they had actually combined the attachment factor of F3 with the story of NV that would have been amazing. Especially if they had incorporated the story of Lonesome Road into your origin story. (Like if your character grew up in Lonesome Road and then you blacked out the rest of the events through trauma leaving a gap in your characters memory and the players experience) It would have been really dramatic that way.
I personally was like, okay Chandler shot me in the head and I lived *shrug* :| while my character was apparently thirsting for bloody revenge. I didn't feel the same way my character did because I had no attachment to her or her life.
I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3 but those are the things I think it does better.
(For those discussing it the earlier Fallout games had their own silliness too. in Fallout Tactics for example there was a guy who was tasked with refilling the Nuka Cola machines. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Phil,_the_Nuka-Cola_dude. The setting of all the games makes no sense at all. Doesn't make it any less fun.)
Fallout 3 made you much more attached to your character through it's story. New Vegas was just like 'You are some random guy, have fun' If they had actually combined the attachment factor of F3 with the story of NV that would have been amazing. Especially if they had incorporated the story of Lonesome Road into your origin story. (Like if your character grew up in Lonesome Road and then you blacked out the rest of the events through trauma leaving a gap in your characters memory and the players experience) It would have been really dramatic that way.
I personally was like, okay Chandler shot me in the head and I lived *shrug* :| while my character was apparently thirsting for bloody revenge. I didn't feel the same way my character did because I had no attachment to her or her life.
I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3 but those are the things I think it does better.
(For those discussing it the earlier Fallout games had their own silliness too. in Fallout Tactics for example there was a guy who was tasked with refilling the Nuka Cola machines. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Phil,_the_Nuka-Cola_dude. The setting of all the games makes no sense at all. Doesn't make it any less fun.)