What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas

[minimacker]

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.

 

[Connor2224]

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)

 

[Simonoly]

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.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

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.

 

[Isshiresshi]

Fallout 3 is a lot more "humanity is suffering from nuclear war and everything has gone to hell"-atmosphere and the story too is more focused on it as well, where New Vegas has a "did not get hit near as hard with nukes like everywhere else"-background. The story makes a lot more sense from the start to finish then New Vegas does.

They both play like each other. No different in the graphic or mechanics from the two games.

Fallout 3 has some interesting things as well as New Vegas so I think you should try and make it work so you can try it out!

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
Wait.
How does Fallout 3 make more sense than New Vegas? The bombs were dropped over 200 years ago, shit would have been rebuilt way fucking past a sheet metal shanty town. Speaking of Megaton, in Fallout 3 people built a town around A FUCKING NUCLEAR BOMB. Not only does that not make sense, but the inhabitants in Fallout 1 and 2 were characterized of all being REALLY FUFKING AFRAID OF NUCLEAR BOMBS, and therefor breaks the lore.
Honeslty, man. You can't say Fallout 3 makes more sens than New Vegas, you just can't.

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.

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.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Fallout 3 does "feeling like a game instead of an expansion packs" better.

But it pretty much rapes Fallout lore, world, factions, etc., in so many ways it isn't funny.

If you want a plot that actually has anything to do with Fallout, go play New Vegas.

If you just want to run around shooting shit in a game that is actually playable, play Fallout 3.

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.

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.

 

[Westaway]

Fallout 3 is a lot more "humanity is suffering from nuclear war and everything has gone to hell"-atmosphere and the story too is more focused on it as well, where New Vegas has a "did not get hit near as hard with nukes like everywhere else"-background. The story makes a lot more sense from the start to finish then New Vegas does.

They both play like each other. No different in the graphic or mechanics from the two games.

Fallout 3 has some interesting things as well as New Vegas so I think you should try and make it work so you can try it out!

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
Wait.
How does Fallout 3 make more sense than New Vegas? The bombs were dropped over 200 years ago, shit would have been rebuilt way fucking past a sheet metal shanty town. Speaking of Megaton, in Fallout 3 people built a town around A FUCKING NUCLEAR BOMB. Not only does that not make sense, but the inhabitants in Fallout 1 and 2 were characterized of all being REALLY FUFKING AFRAID OF NUCLEAR BOMBS, and therefor breaks the lore.
Honeslty, man. You can't say Fallout 3 makes more sens than New Vegas, you just can't.

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.

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.

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.
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.

 

[cobalt358]

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 FalloutC 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.

 

[Freaky Lou]

I don't remember new Vegas having vaults that had nothing to do with quests, or many underground subways.

Size has nothing to do with quests, size means that it takes a long time to walk from one area to the next. Also, a desert didn't feel post apocalyptic IMO. The capital wasteland felt more tied to fallout "feel" IMO. New Vegas was not bad, it just had a little less than Fallout 3

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.

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.

Looks like someone has a grudge on Fallout 3 for not being Fallout 1 and 2...

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?

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.

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.

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".

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.

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.

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

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.

 

[Freaky Lou]

As for bugs, they can be fixed, bad writing, boring atmosphere, illogical plot, black and white morality, and boring characters can not.

To bad Obsidian never fixes their bugs... leaving their games with constant CTDs, and broken quests to such an extent that Bethesda's games look stable.

Writing the best book ever means nothing if you can't get it printed on a book that doesn't dissolve after 3 minutes.

And sure bugs CAN be fixed, but a lot of things CAN happen, but that doesn't mean they actually will happen.

It really seems like the people who use the argument you just made don't actually think it through, because if they actually did, they would realize how idiotic and broken of an argument it is, especially in Obsidian's case.

*captcha*
Face the music

What people need to do when it comes to Obsidian.

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.

 

[FalloutJack]

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.

 

[Stomperchomper]

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.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

A lot of people are going to say that F3 doesn't fallow cannon as much as they'd liked. They have some valid points, but I'd ignore most of them and just enjoy the game.

Well, F3 has a lot better story than FNV vanilla, but with all the DLC the hunt for Ulysses makes up for the gap in the main game.
I also think F3 does a better job at atmosphere. The dark blues, greys, and green make the Wasteland heavy, but the heaviness doesn't extend to movement. From the get-go the whole map is open, but there are some areas where you'll find some difficulty. There's also a lot better passing in the begining.

FO3 has a better story than New Vegas?

Spoiler

You can make arguments for things that FO3 did better than NV, but the writing is not one of them.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

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.

 

[uhddh]

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.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

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.