What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas

Recommended Videos

The Harkinator

Did something happen?
Jun 2, 2010
742
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Actually if you look deeper.... He is a bloody hypocrite.

Everything he preaches, he does the opposite of.

Not knowing one's own history? Worshiping symbols instead of the message?

All of it, he has done and continues to do.

America wasn't some utopia lost. America was a fucking starving ghetto in 2077. It was starving, it was hopeless, it was full of unrest and riots. Gas was over thousands of dollars to a single gallon. They NEVER explained if it was inflation from debt or actual scarcity. Police officers required actual power armor from federal armories because the riots got so violent regular riot gear didn't do the job.

Either way the economy crumbled, America was fucked. And this is the nation that had the MOST money in the world. It was a failed nation from a failed world.

Yet he still thinks America is something worth rebuilding. To step back into the same old mistakes. A man who doesn't know his own history.

And the kicker... the DLC passes him off as a the poster boy of humanity. A race that does stupid things and should have known better.
Ulysses doesn't seem to realise that the major factions vying for New Vegas all carry elements of old America, which he despises them for.

Ulysses thinks NCR is not suitable for power, yet he fails to understand it has morphed into old America, bureaucratic, imperialistic and deeply flawed. He thinks Mr House is not the right man for Vegas yet their ideologies are so similar. Full steam ahead with eyes fixed on the past. Find a place of the old world and make it into its former glory.

Ulysses' hypocrisy doesn't end there. He was a scout for the Legion, the one culture that is so alien in America. Yet created to be intentionally different. True, he looks for something other than the Legion but fails.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,430
0
0
Mimsofthedawg said:
see I don't understand why people think Fallout 3 ruined the original Fallout lore. Yes I was a gamer who started off with Fallout 3 and then played the older RPGs, but nothing I read was incompatible. Anything that was strongly different (the Brotherhood of Steel, for example) was very neatly explained WHY it was different. Other than that, and perhaps this is the sub-concious reason why people think it's so different, it's pretty obvious Fallout 3 has a different tone from the original Fallouts, but I don't consider this a fault.
1. There is literally ZERO reason for Vault-tek to have the FEV virus, the entity of FEV research was done at West-Tek, the ENTIRETY of Vault 87 and its super mutants was idiotic because there is no explanation as to why Vault-Tek would have it.

2. The Capital wasteland is still highly irradiated despite the fact it had been 200 years since the great war. By 200 years time the river should have already cleaned itself, and plant life should have grown back. even if it had gotten nuked more then on ther places, it makes little sense for it to be in as bad of a shape as it is.

3. The enclave was a small highly armored faction that got mostly destroyed in fallout 2. Yet in Fallout 3 they somehow manage to regrow their numbers into the thousands and deploy vast armies worth of veritbirds and other shit that they logically shouldn't.

-The enclave
-The super mutants and Vault 87
-The entire state of the capital wasteland

go against lore.

I mean, I still love Fallout 3 and everything, but it really does break lore, a lot.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,430
0
0
I suggest you play Fallout 3 again, they specifically say the Enclave went to the east coast after they got destroyed in the west coast because Eden contacted them. There is only one Enclave, and there is no explanation as to how they rebuilt their numbers into the thousands considering they were a very small, xenophobic faction that hated everyone that wasn't them.

Also if you played Fallout 2, you would know the president gets killed at the end, so OFC they have a different president in Fallout 3.

Umm no, it isn't reasonable at all, there is literally no reason, or explanation, for them to move the virus, let alone give it to Vault-tek of all people, because West-Tek already had their own giant research facility dedicated to its study.
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,081
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
SajuukKhar said:
I actually think Ulysses was a terrible character.

they built him up to some some uber badass with a deep past, and then in Lonesome Road they turn him into yet another "WAA YOU BROKE MY HOME I HATE YOU" crybabby.

Ulysses is badass, until you find out his motivation.
Actually if you look deeper.... He is a bloody hypocrite.

Everything he preaches, he does the opposite of.

Not knowing one's own history? Worshiping symbols instead of the message?

All of it, he has done and continues to do.

America wasn't some utopia lost. America was a fucking starving ghetto in 2077. It was starving, it was hopeless, it was full of unrest and riots. Gas was over thousands of dollars to a single gallon. They NEVER explained if it was inflation from debt or actual scarcity. Police officers required actual power armor from federal armories because the riots got so violent regular riot gear didn't do the job.

Either way the economy crumbled, America was fucked. And this is the nation that had the MOST money in the world. It was a failed nation from a failed world.

Yet he still thinks America is something worth rebuilding. To step back into the same old mistakes. A man who doesn't know his own history.

And the kicker... the DLC passes him off as a the poster boy of humanity. A race that does stupid things and should have known better.
My bad, ignore this
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,081
0
0
Isshiresshi said:
Westaway said:
Isshiresshi said:
Westaway said:
Isshiresshi said:
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.
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.

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...
Here is a picture of Hiroshima today:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/7221678692_945597524b_z.jpg

Here is a picture of Nagasaki today:
http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/images/japan/nagasaki/nagasaki-0001.jpg

And here is Chernobyl:
http://finchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chernobyl-2012-1200.png

...What were you saying?
Right, that people would still be living in their own shit after a nuclear disaster that happened 200 years ago.
 

Isshiresshi

New member
May 7, 2008
25
0
0
Westaway said:
Here is a picture of Hiroshima today:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/7221678692_945597524b_z.jpg

Here is a picture of Nagasaki today:
http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/images/japan/nagasaki/nagasaki-0001.jpg

And here is Chernobyl:
http://finchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chernobyl-2012-1200.png

...What were you saying?
Right, that people would still be living in their own shit after a nuclear disaster that happened 200 years ago.
So you've chosen to compare 2 cities that were hit by one atomic bomb each, that could get help from the rest of the country / government and outside world as well, to a story that says nuclear holocaust on global scale... about being rebuild? And Chernobly was not on an atomic bomb scale of a disaster.
 

BernardoOne

New member
Jun 7, 2012
283
0
0
The only thing Fallout 3 has better its atmosphere. Loved all the vaults, exploring them and discovering what happened in each one :)
Also the Radio. New Vegas has very few songs. But that is easily fixed with mods.

But New Vegas its better in everything else.
 

Westaway

New member
Nov 9, 2009
1,081
0
0
Isshiresshi said:
Westaway said:
Here is a picture of Hiroshima today:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5454/7221678692_945597524b_z.jpg

Here is a picture of Nagasaki today:
http://www.travel-pictures-gallery.com/images/japan/nagasaki/nagasaki-0001.jpg

And here is Chernobyl:
http://finchin.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/chernobyl-2012-1200.png

...What were you saying?
Right, that people would still be living in their own shit after a nuclear disaster that happened 200 years ago.
So you've chosen to compare 2 cities that were hit by one atomic bomb each, that could get help from the rest of the country / government and outside world as well, to a story that says nuclear holocaust on global scale... about being rebuild? And Chernobly was not on an atomic bomb scale of a disaster.
That's true, but you were the one who brought them up first. I wasn't going to mention them until you said "That's what a REAL wasteland looks like!"
Look at that shit.
IT'S GREEN.
After like 50 years, THERE ARE TRESS.
Where are the trees in Fallout 3?
Look, your position is simply not defensible. Fallout 3's setting is hundreds of times more unrealistic than the New Vegas'.
Robot won't keep working for 200 years.
Food won't be edible after 200 years.
Rivers will not be irradiated after 200 years.
And people will have fixed up their home past sheet metal and a mattress after 200 years.

Also, for the record, I'm pretty sure the radiation released in Chernobyl was the equivalent of 12 some nuclear bombs.
 

Syzygy23

New member
Sep 20, 2010
824
0
0
SajuukKhar said:
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.
Nobody cares about Fallout pre-Bethesdafication, so raping the lore doesn't matter.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,994
0
0
ccdohl said:
Aprilgold said:
The love for Fallout 3 are from people who didn't enjoy the original series. Fallout 3, if anything, was a cash-grab more then a actual attempt to jump-start the series.
I loved both. Fallout 3 was a good game, even if it didn't have as much to offer as the original games.
I think my issue is that it isn't a Fallout game, it was a oblivion-with-guns-in-a-destroyed-50th-century-Washington-state game. Everyone can argue, night and day the differences between the two, but at the end of it the main difference is that New Vegas is a Fallout game and that Fallout 3 is a post-apocalyptic game.

Also, people are saying Fallout 3 had a better story? Both were shit and at least Fallout New Vegas gave you the option to be a dickweed scum.

Syzygy23 said:
SajuukKhar said:
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.
Nobody cares about Fallout pre-Bethesdafication, so raping the lore doesn't matter.
I believe that No Mutants Allowed wants to have a talk with this statement.

http://nma-fallout.com/

No mutants around is a dedicated Fallout series fansite that has been around forever. It has been, and continue to be, the lovers of everything fifties and apocalyptic even before Bethesda pretty much ruined the series.
 

evilneko

Fall in line!
Jun 16, 2011
2,218
49
53
Fr said:
anc[is]I personally liked the environments in FO3 better. Yes there were lots of subway tunnels, but to me NV seems... empty. There is just so much wasted space in NV. Compare Freeside to Megaton. Megaton is visually distinct and there is a lot there. Freeside is dull and boring and it really feels like they just went down the checklist and put the minimum requisite buildings in random places.
Very much this. Fallout 3 really feels post-apocalyptic and I love it for that. New Vegas.. not so much. 3 spreads the encounters and interesting things around more as well, while NV has them clustered together, leaving vast tracts of empty, uninteresting land.
 

Mr Cwtchy

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,044
0
0
Aprilgold said:
I believe that No Mutants Allowed wants to have a talk with this statement.

http://nma-fallout.com/

No mutants around is a dedicated Fallout series fansite that has been around forever. It has been, and continue to be, the lovers of everything fifties and apocalyptic even before Bethesda pretty much ruined the series.
Lawl, referring to NMA doesn't really make Classic Fallout fans look very good. That site is a bastion of hatred and bile, with very little rationality.

And as for F3 'ruining the series', unless I'm much mistaken Bethesda did not break into people's houses and burn their copies of F1 & 2. In short, that part is typical internet hyperbolic bullshit.
 

orangeban

New member
Nov 27, 2009
1,442
0
0
Well, Fallout 3 did interior spaces better than New Vegas, but on the other hand, New Vegas has a story that makes sense and writing that is more pleasant than eating fire ants.
 

RADIALTHRONE1

New member
Feb 6, 2011
231
0
0
Baron von Blitztank said:
SajuukKhar said:
Baron von Blitztank said:
and there's a giant fucking robot that throws nuclear weapons like footballs.
LIBERTY PRIME IS ONLINE!!!
EMBRACE DEMOCRACY OR YOU WILL BE ERADICATED!!!
TACTICAL ASSESSMENT, RED CHINESE VICTORY... IMPOSSIBLE.

Reincarnatedwolfgod said:
i got both games 75% off(for $15) with all dlc during the
but i can't get fallout 3 on my computer(windows 7 64bit) to even start a new game with crashing. i tried fixes and it did nothing so i gave up on the game. i uninstalled it and when back to playing new veags

What does fallout 3 do better then fallout new vegas?
and is even worth getting fallout 3 to work?

i already kinda given up and accepted that i wasted my money on fallout 3.

if you want to try and help me get it working here are fixes i tried so far
if got any ideas other then these then i will try them

this one
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1328904
it does not stop my game from crashing when i click new game

deleting part of the intro movie lines in the a fallout 3 ini file
to make it look like this
SMainMenuMovieIntro=
SIntroSequence=
sIntroMovie=
still crashing when i try to start a new game

capablity mode + and run on administator + adding a D3D9.dll file in the directory that contains Fallout3.exe
still crashing when i try to start a new game

playing in windowed mode
some people there game did not work on full screen but it did work in windowed mode
i am still having the same problem while i am in windowed mode
I remember that when i tried the D3D9.dll fix, it required a lot of switching between starting it with the fallout3_launcher.exe and using FOMM. I would open then close the launcher then use FOMM, or something like that, I don't remember exactly.
I DO know how you can check if it will work though-
Open FOMM, click and open Game Settings at the top, and in the general tab it should have a line the says Graphics Adapter. If it has a NVIDIA GeForce instead of whatever adapter you have, you should be able to play it by (in the main FOMM window) clicking File then Run fallout.

OT:
Atmoshpere- For the overall atmosphere F3 was "Survive in a post-apocalyptic wasteland" and NV was just "Survive in the desert with lots of friendly settlements"

Weapons- F3 had a generic assortment of weapons that were varied enough to notice. NV seemed like it developed a hatred for Energy Weapons because they were few and far between; and they overpriced a lot of the generic weapons; the different ammo types seemed unnecessary; and the new DAM/DPS system was just plain confusing.

Armor- F3 had enough armor for everyone and then some, and it was easily usable. NV lacked that generic sea of armor choices, and the only good ones were either Medium/Heavy or too rare to keep in good condition; and once again they over-complicated thing with the DR/DT system.

Perks/Skills/Etc- F3 had good perks, and only made better with Broken Steel; and had enough skill points to get what you wanted. NV Made a mistake with only 1 perk every 2 levels; it added/removed some good perks (Looking at you Rad Absorption and Jury Rigging); and still had enough skill points to go around.

Enemies- F3 had enemies everywhere, but they were to break the monotony of walking around and were easily kill-able. NV seemed to lack enemies (Looking at you Raiders and Super Mutants) and the ones it did have were usually just animals/creatures.

General Changes (F3 to NV)- NV added more companions, companion perks, and they dont die when they're with you (except on hardcore); added the option to use true iron sights; added option to play in hardcore mode; multiple endings; overhauled the workbench/reloading bench; removed bobble heads for SPECIAL implants; Main DLC had inter-connected sidestory (Honest Hearts (Zion) was odd man out); Map seemed smaller (half was inaccessible); and it didnt have a giant f****** robot.

Overall, i would take F3 over NV 6 days of the week.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,846
0
0
Fallout 3 crashed a lot less on me than Fallout New Vegas. Does that count?
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,873
0
0
Ultratwinkie said:
Fr said:
anc[is]I personally liked the environments in FO3 better. Yes there were lots of subway tunnels, but to me NV seems... empty. There is just so much wasted space in NV. Compare Freeside to Megaton. Megaton is visually distinct and there is a lot there. Freeside is dull and boring and it really feels like they just went down the checklist and put the minimum requisite buildings in random places.
Actually freeside was meant to be bigger and better, but canned it because of time constraints and Bethesda's slow response to authorizations.

Originally:
- You could help the beggar ghoul become rich.

- There are more drunks and junkies.

- There was more NCR in freeside, and street wars.

- There were no walls, but had to add them since consoles couldn't handle it.

- Gamblers would actually hire bodyguards to go to the strip.

- You could team up with the NCR and gun down the kings.

- In the silver rush, the opening cut scene was longer, and humorous.

- ACTUAL PICKPOCKETS roamed the streets.

- The mormon fort was to be open, no loading screen between it and freeside.

- There was ambient sound effects of robberies, gunshots, and explosions to give the feel of an anarchistic ghetto.

All of this was still in the files too. There was just as much cut content in the strip.
That tends to happen a lot in nearly all of Obsidian's games, where half the content that would make the game all the more interesting gets cut due to them aiming much larger than they can handle. They gotta learn their limits and keep the experiences short, sweet, and memorable.

OT: Yes, like everyone has been saying, the Capitol Wasteland is much better than the Mojave. The DC warzone was all kinds of awesome, and I missed the metro systems of tunnels to skulk around in.

One thing the Capitol Wasteland had that the Mojave didn't have is explorability. As soon as Vault 101 opened up, the whole of the Wasteland was open to you. Every location is carefully positioned equidistant to you at that point. The sky is the limit. I would find myself always going to Megaton first since it's right there and I need new items, but after that I'm completely free to do what I want. No constraints. No invisible walls. No angry mutant butterflies or deathclaws to ruin your day if you didn't want to go on the plot railroad.

I found every time I created a new character in New Vegas that I would do the same quests in the same order every time. Once I left Doc Mitchel's place, the only direction I could go was south to Primm, and since the only way I could go coincided with the main quest, I might as well do it as I go. So I would stop in Primm, which had escaped convicts which I always helped kill because I'm already there, so why not; I get good gear, reputation, and experience (all of which you need if you want to survive beyond the low-level areas I'm constrained to); and I get to complete a quest, so might as well get it over with. Then you get to Nipton which you just can't fucking ignore. Next comes Novac. Then Boulder City since you've done all the main quest plot hooks at this point, so why stop now? I don't even feel the ingame constraints finally come off until you're near Freeside, and at that point, you might as well fucking go through to New Vegas!

It becomes the same thing every damn time I make a new character. Going straight to New Vegas is impossible without bypassing every goddamn town, outpost, quest, and dungeon you come across while running on a cross-country trip. And New Vegas wasn't even all that interesting to me, but it was the same for anything that was interesting. Red Rock Canyon, Jacobstown, Nellis Airforce Base--all of them are on the otherside of the fucking map, blocked off by massive natural and invisible barriers and the threat of overpowered mutants. I wasn't allowed to just explore the Mojave without feeling like I gave the game the middle finger and that I severely crippled my lowlevel character by not doing those beginning quests.

Ultimately, all this left me with one character that I actually gave a shit about, the rest being just throw aways since I would get bored doing the beginning area over again and was never able to make my way to the more interesting areas. This game was not for me. It was fun for a lark, but after I completed everything with my one character, it had nothing left to offer me. Fallout 3 had me coming back all the time, because if I wanted to redo an interesting part of the game that my main had already done, I could create a new character, maybe try a different playstyle with different skills or something and just head straight there. No constraints. No plot railroad. My dad wasn't goin' anywhere! With the map laid out before me, I could do whatever I wanted.

Also, I hated how... civilized the Mojave was. It didn't seem like people trying desperately to survive in an oppressive and cruel world. Everything was about survival in Fallout 3. That's another thing I loved. The people were desperate. There wasn't any need for a looming political war with different sides in conflict! Surviving was the conflict. The Enclave only ever became a threat if you completed almost two-thirds of the main quest. They weren't the main focus of the game like the NCR and Legion were. Everything about the Mojave came down to them. That's why I felt so compelled to just do the main quest every time I made a new character in New Vegas, since the entire fucking game revolved around them! Everything I did came back to them and the war, there was no escaping it.

The Capitol Wasteland was it's own entity, separate from the main quest with the Enclave and the Brotherhood, and because of that, the possibilities of what I could become in this cruel, barren land were endless.

All these things are what makes Fallout 3 a much more enjoyable experience to me. I don't get my panties in a twist over "lore inconsistencies", I latch onto whatever gives me a better experience overall, and Fallout 3 wins over that every time.
 

TheDrunkNinja

New member
Jun 12, 2009
1,873
0
0
Aprilgold said:
Also, people are saying Fallout 3 had a better story? Both were shit and at least Fallout New Vegas gave you the option to be a dickweed scum.
This. Explain. Because as far as I read it, it's 1000% incorrect. You can be an evil-as-fuck scumbag in that game. Even the multiple endings allow you to be the biggest dickweed of the Wasteland even if the evil option did seem irrational.

If you were to say "New Vegas gave you the option to be neutral", I would still argue that it would be a very difficult task to do with the karma system being what it is but I would understand the point you're getting across a little better.
 

lukey94

New member
Sep 2, 2008
403
0
0
TopazFusion said:
Well, I hated the damage threshold system in Fallout NV, and Fallout 3 doesn't have it, so there's a plus in my book.

I also agree with many people here and say that FO3 had a better 'ruined city' feel to it.
Well seeings as Fallout New Vegas is about how Vegas was spared from the worst, it would be a little bit weird to have it all as destroyed as DC.

I found New Vegas a lot more interesting to play than FO3, because FO3 was too dark and enclosed most of the time, I felt like I spent most of my time in the Metro system, lost in the grey. And when you're above ground it is still very grim (I know that's the style of Post-apocalyptic wastelands), but New Vegas had the Wasteland look with out making me feel queasy to look at.

Also, as has been said, New Vegas had much better DLC and story.
 

luke10123

New member
Jan 9, 2010
260
0
0
nikki191 said:
new vegas is a better fallout game.. fallout 3 is a better devastated city game
I preferred the 'devastated city'. In F:NV, the city of New Vegas is built up as this (albeit slightly morally corrupt) oasis of civilisation in the wasteland but when I FINALLY reach it, the strip is two small environments and half a dozen buildings. Totally broke my immersion and killed the fallout feeling for me. Just my 2 pence though, I preffered F3 but liked the new gameplay elements of F:NV