Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[R4V3NSFAN1976]

I feel alone when I say that Fallout 3 was much better compared to new vegas. From the discussions I've seen, Almost everyone thinks that new vegas is better. I completely disagree. Seriously, Play new vegas for a few days, then play fallout 3. Fallout 3's graphics are better than new vegas'! Plus when you start out in new vegas, Its secretly linear. Because if you go anyway but south toward Primm, you get either eaten by cazadors or mauled my deathclaws. I'll admit it opens up once you finally start heading north, but still. Plus the story of revenge just doesn't resonate with me as much as finding my father does. Oh, and if you say that new vegas is better because of the new weapons and mods, well listen to this. Almost EVERY new addition to game play(i.e. new weapons, weapon mods, special ammo etc.) all of that had already been done by the modders of fallout 3. Everything that makes New vegas unique from fallout 3 was already done before obsidian began development on next game. There were new weapon mods, weapon mod... mods,special ammo mods and even desert mods for fallout 3.

But I digress...

So which do you think is better and why?

 

[Brotherofwill]

NV is better than F3 in like every way, especially when it comes to linearity.

Most importantly the characters are actually interesting and you feel like you're in an apocalyptic world, which F3 failed at spectacularly.

Man, even with all the bugs I still think NV is miles better. I mean it's not even close for me. NV is still a long shot from F1 and especially my beloved F2, but atleast it feels like a Fallout game.

 

[JokerCrowe]

I'm not really sure... I really liked Fallout 3, I especially loved the schematics for making home made weapons, like the Railway Rifle. But then I also really like New Vegas, once I "got" what it was about. And i like the ironsight of New Vegas, but I get the feeling that there's a little TOO much to do.

I know that sounds like a stupid complaint, but Fallout 3 was a little "tighter" in my opinion.
What I really hope for is a sequel that brings in the good parts of both games, but for now, I think I like New Vegas a Little more.

EDIT; Not sure if this counts as a "VS-thread", but those are generally frowned upon in these forums, so you might want to change the name of the thread.

 

[orangebandguy]

FO3 was so much better, but I still love NV.

FO3 is my first Fallout game though, I liked the lonely isolated feeling you got when you explored around places. NV is very cluttered with CAZADORS.

Oh the horror.

 

[Twitchy Racoon]

Both are great but 3 was going for a much darker and grittier world with its vibrant grey and brown colors (sarcasm). New Vegas was much more colorful and alot funnier.
Dosent make one better than the other though...

 

[Agayek]

I definitely liked New Vegas more. The game was much less super-cereal than Fallout 3, and the lightness of tone combined with the fun characters made me enjoy it a lot more.

I liked both of them, don't get me wrong. I've put a hundred hours or so into each, but New Vegas was just much more engaging to me than 3.

 

[Outright Villainy]

New Vegas, because the plot was far better, the characters were far far better, and the voice acting was far far far better.

Plus it was all round more colourful and interesting.

 

[SteinFaust]

FO3 was so much better, but I still love NV.

FO3 is my first Fallout game though, I liked the lonely isolated feeling you got when you explored around places. NV is very cluttered with CAZADORS.

Oh the horror.

QFT.
my list of pros/cons?
pro:
actual iron sights aiming, hardcore mode, new weapons (oh, MERCY, you dirty girl!)
con:
buggy as hell (that's saying a lot, comparing to F3), lack of diversity in radio stations (2 stations have the same, or similar, playlists!)

 

[sarge1942]

i liked both but i spent about 10 times longer playing 3, and i didn't even bother finding every place in new vegas so i guess Fallout 3 would be better. If new vegas wasn't so linear at the beginning and wasn't littered with caza-whatevers i would have playn through alot more of it, that and it needed more places, in Fallout 3 there was literally a place on every square, and nearly all of them had something unique to offer... looking at my post it appears that i actually found alot of ways that Fallout 3 is better (in my opinion) although i think new vegas had more potential.

 

[FalloutJack]

To be honest, it's a six-in-one and half-a-dozen-in-the-other debate.

They both have things that I like and very likely some downsides, but I feel that they are both good and entertaining, which is why I own them both.

 

[darth.pixie]

Both main stories were bad but it's Bethesda so...I honestly wasn't expecting much.

Fallout 3 one actually had a bit more personal implications rather than "Hey, let's go after the dude that shot me" but still not all that interesting as far as personal stories go. Fallout 3 had a grittier wasteland feel to it. NV was just a regular desert with some radiation. NPCs were better in NV and you actually could talk to them. Some quests were very interesting and I like the companion quests. Lore-wise, NV is slightly better.

Basically it just depends what you're interested in.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

...at least to me.

I recently explained why on another forum:

I've been playing New Vegas a lot and now have 2 and a half playthroughs done, about 100 hours in total. After this short amount of time, I feel like I've seen everything the game has to offer. Most map markers are hugely disappointing, consisting of shacks with nothing but an empty bottle, a campfire on a hill, an airport terminal with nothing but two cases of caps and some radscorpions, a few caves with not a single piece of loot or backstory in them... it feel so empty compared to the Capital Wasteland which had something new, unique and interesting over every hill.
There are sweet fuck all large, dungeon like areas to explore.

There are no huge, detailed interiors like Nuka Cola Plant, Capital Building, Red Racer Factory, Springvale Elementary, Roosevelt Academy, The museums of History and Tech, National Archives, LOB Industries, Hubris comics... this was my favorite part of fallout 3 and all we have in New Vegas are a few vaults, 4 Casinos, Repcomm and an empty sewer. Very disappointing.

The dialogue and writing are much better in NV and sure, there are more quests but most of them just involve 'travel to point A talk to 'x', watch long loading screen, travel back'. F3 had less quests but the ones it had were amazing and much longer... Reily's Rangers, Tranquility Lane, Oasis, Take It Back, The Superhuman Gambit, Wasteland Survival Guide, Stealing Independance, Trouble On The Homefont... all great. New Vegas had the Vault quests which were fantastic but none of the others were (to me) as memorable.

Doing the Camp McCarran and Freeside quests is horrible because of the excruciating load times. So much going in and out of areas and they don't even give us travel points inside the Strip and McCarran which is just bizarre. The load times are twice as long as they were in F3 too.

And then there's the atmosphere... Fallout 3 was haunting, beautiful and soulful. Standing on a ruined flyover watching the sun set over the burnt out forests and ruined Washington monument was just sublime. Nothing in Vegas gave me that same feeling or immersed me in its atmosphere like f3 did at any given moment. Just sand, sand, red rocks and more sand.

Now don't get me wrong... I still love New Vegas more than 99% of games and there are areas it improves over F3. Better combat, better dialogue, better sound, better characters and story. But to me it falls short of its big brother in many areas. I went back to the Capital Wasteland this week and was surprised how much better it looked, felt and played.

 

[googleit6]

Fallout 3 will always be better in my eyes. The atmosphere is something that will always resonate with me. I just fell into the Capital Wasteland. (After about 12 hours, actually... I hated the game at first.)

New Vegas had too many bugs, too many loading screens, and not enough areas to explore. While that may sound crazy, Fallout 3 had many buildings in the middle of nowhere that had stories behind them, be it a recording, a letter, or even a teddy bear left behind. It really gave you that "futuristic nostalgia" that I came to love about 3. The soundtrack (and DJ) was also much better.

Also, the Capital Wasteland was hardly rebuilding, while New Vegas was on the mend. Don't ask me why, but in that respect the Capital Wasteland was more compelling to me as well. It made you sad in a way that was amazingly compelling and beautiful, and all those arty words. New Vegas just never had that for me.

 

[70R4N]

New Vegas had better dialog. The Fallout 3 dialog was sometimes just embarrassing. That alone makes the game superior. And a lot of gameplay improvements as well. For example, the junk in the world was useful.

 

[Altorin]

FO3 was so much better, but I still love NV.

FO3 is my first Fallout game though, I liked the lonely isolated feeling you got when you explored around places. NV is very cluttered with CAZADORS.

Oh the horror.

QFT.
my list of pros/cons?
pro:
actual iron sights aiming, hardcore mode, new weapons (oh, MERCY, you dirty girl!)
con:
buggy as hell (that's saying a lot, comparing to F3), lack of diversity in radio stations (2 stations have the same, or similar, playlists!)

lack of diversity in radio stations is a con of NV over FO3? What does that even mean? Fallout 3 had 3 radio stations. One of them was just propaganda from President Eden, and another was about 4 violin pieces repeated over and over and that required the completion of a quest to unlock. New Vegas has 3 radio stations. It has Radio New Vegas, which is NV's GNR complete with a news commentator nowhere near as grating as Three Dog (Sorry, but as old fogey as he is, Neil Diamond is much better then whoever they cast as Three Dog), a music channel which is basically the News channel without the News, and a hilarious Talk Radio show with a crazy Super Mutant talking to herself about how awesome she is.

In Fallout 3, if I wanted to enjoy the radio at all, I had to kill Three Dog when I was done his quests - that way he wouldn't keep interrupting the music to tell the same stupid joke every 5 minutes.

i liked both but i spent about 10 times longer playing 3, and i didn't even bother finding every place in new vegas so i guess Fallout 3 would be better. If new vegas wasn't so linear at the beginning and wasn't littered with caza-whatevers i would have playn through alot more of it, that and it needed more places, in Fallout 3 there was literally a place on every square, and nearly all of them had something unique to offer... looking at my post it appears that i actually found alot of ways that Fallout 3 is better (in my opinion) although i think new vegas had more potential.

You DO realize the west coast is low density areas right? "The lack of places" IS the real West coast. Did you honestly expect a huge metropolis in a fucking desert? Where states continually fight over the legal right to water?

Also, the idea that New Vegas somehow has less "stuff" for its surface area is just wrong,. Get the Explorer Perk if anyone doesn't believe me. It's filled to the brim with locations.

 

[Irridium]

Depends if you want a proper Fallout game, or a Wasteland Explorer game.

Guess you can tell which I prefer, New Vegas

I like my games to have a good story to them. I found Fallout 3's story to be crappy as hell. New Vegas' wasn't much better, but New Vegas wasn't trying to be super-serious like Fallout 3 was, so I didn't mind as much. Not to mention you have quite a bit of control when it comes to the story, which is something Fallout 3 didn't have. Not to mention at the end it actually describes the consequences of your choices, instead of just telling you stuff that you already did.

New Vegas also improved the gameplay through many little tweaks. No longer did I have to rely on VATS most of the time, and now third person was a viable gameplay choice.

The NPC's were more interesting, companions were a hell of a lot more interesting(never used or cared for the companions in Fallout 3. All were pretty "meh").

Both were glitchy as hell though. But so were Fallout 1/2, so there's that.

Again, depends what kind of game you want. If you want a wasteland explorer game(a damn good one at that), Fallout 3 is for you.

If you want a proper Fallout game, New Vegas is for you.

 

[Zaik]

Leaning towards Fallout 3.

I'm not typically huge on exploring, but I did it all the damn time in fallout 3. Fallout NV has better aiming and more guns and whatnot, but you could mod all that shit in.

Yeah, New Vegas has a story that actually felt a little tiny bit important, but it was completely tied to it. Everything is flat and it's extremely, extremely rare to even see a two story building outside the casinos and vaults. You played NV for 40 or so hours and you were done, nothing left to do, start over and do 90% of the same quests with a few being different depending on which ending you were playing. You play fallout 3 for 200+ hours, then start over and run into a bunch of new shit you didn't even see the last time.