Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[squid5580]

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?

from a post I made 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.

Look up.

Them choosing the wrong location to host a Fallout game is not a very good excuse. It doesn't make the game any better or the complaints less valid because "they went with realism derp".

How is it wrong? Ever? Because they chose to be realistic in their world? Where time ravages the landscape?

Fallout 3, by far, everything was better, dialogue, the radio stations by far, the cities (NV cities were dull empty and consisted of just a bunch of unnamed NPCs), the wasteland is much more interesting, some "locations" in NV consisted simply of an abandoned shack and a never inhabited bed (this made up about 1/3 of the locations), the quests and characters were much more memorable (really pretty much every quest in NV was boring, FO3 had you assassinating people for an old man, blowing up towns, murdering an entire skyscraper worth of people, going back to your vault and solving the problems, etc. I can't even remember a single quest in NV tbh...), the story was more original (you're near death and are on a trail of revenge, sooo original...), a better, grittier atmosphere, reputation is just awful and has many irritating flaws, karma in NV is broken (no karma loss for killing humans but you gain karma for killing ghouls...?), and not to mention the glitches, oh god, the glitches...

I can't really help but think the people who like NV better are just thinking it because of old Fallout and Obsidian nostalgia, as FO3 is really the better game in every respect.

Dialogue

Hahahah, NO.

You tell me straight to my face this is good dialogue. Come on, tell me this is not at all retarded.

EDIT:

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

There's that exploration thing again. I don't remember exploration being the main draw of Fallout 1 and 2. I thought it was talking to interesting characters and doing things in different ways with completely different characters. You know, ROLE-PLAYING? I promise you all of my life savings that if I made a hiking simulator, I would steal away ALL of Bethesda's fans.

cherry-picking one line of dialogue out of thousands does nothing to disprove my dialogue point, yet alone all my others...

Oh really? How about another?

PC: I AM LOOKING FOR MY FATHER, HE IS A MIDDLE AGED MAN.
Peron: Oh! he is at the bar.

Please tell me where the hell any intelligence is in this dialogue? Better radio stations? Fo3 had 3, 2 of which play crap and the other is plain annoying.

Karma doesn't mean shit in fallout. At all. No one cares about your inner soul just like the media doesn't care that a woman has "a good personality."

All the quests fin Fallout 3 were brain dead. Why blow up a town for an old man who wants to view NOTHING? In fact, where the fuck did he get his money? Where? Nothing makes sense in fallout 3.

Those are only a few examples, many of the ones in Fallout New Vegas don't require the skill either... when I said dialogue I really wasn't talking about one or two examples where something required some intelligence when it really wasn't that intelligent.

I found that characters in FO3 had much better personalities, you had the douche bag, the pure evil guy, the quest givers, the weird guys, the people trying to make the best of everything, in New Vegas the characters just felt bland (perhaps it was because 9/10 of the characters were unnamed NPCs, one of the main reasons why the casinos were awful), also the responses in Fallout 3 are much more original, you can respond, politely rudely, somewhere in between, or just get information. In New Vegas I felt the responses lacked any emotion, they were imply vanilla "get more information choices."

I don't know about you, but I (and many others who even liked Fallout New Vegas otherwise better) preferred FO3's stations by far. GNR was one of the best stations in a game; the music was some of the best and the other skits and things were humorous. It's the apocalypse, you think you'd want a sort of relaxed DJ who is humorous to help you take your mind off it. Again, New Vegas' radio stations were bland, I don't remember any of the names, as all they did was just play music, which also was not nearly as good IMO.

Karma might not have much bearing but it still does affect things. Hell, for some choices in New Vegas, I really, really wanted to do them, but they required low karma. I somehow had high karma, though I had killed and robbed tons of people. If they were going to screw karma up so bad, they might as well have just scrapped it all together, rather than make it mandatory for some paths.

I found the quests much more memorable, the only decent quest in NV was beyond the beef, which I didn't like, as there was no way to redo the speech challenge so I had to take a completely different, much worse path. In Fallout 3, your actions determine your path, not your skill in dialogue. I remember it from somewhere but forget where, but I believe Tenpenny found the tower abandoned and sold the rooms out which is how he's wealthy. This is a quote from the wikia page on Tenpenny: "An 80-year-old Englishman[1] turned American entrepreneur, the man who discovered the tower saw it as an opportunity to provide residents with a standard of living enjoyed by the affluent in the days before nuclear Armageddon."

This is not even addressing the terrible rep and bugs of NV.

1. Quests only involved shooting something, or killing.

2. GNR is annoying, playing 4 songs.

3. Karma restrictions are Fallout 3. I had high Karma and could do anything I wanted.

4. Tenpenny has no money, nor do his residence. There is no fucking economy. How did he get the cash to restore a tower? In fact how the hell did he get to America in the first place? Europe has been destroyed far before the Great War.

5. Radios are supposed to play music. One of them was dedicated to that exact function. The humor is from black mountain, and for news you have Mr. New Vegas. The AI.

6. Fallout 3's characters were trying to "styrange" for strange sake. Most of the time they lacked any human qualities such as common fucking sense. You can kill someone's daughter and he would only thank you for it.

7. None of the dialogue made sense. it was horrible.

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?

from a post I made 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.

Look up.

Them choosing the wrong location to host a Fallout game is not a very good excuse. It doesn't make the game any better or the complaints less valid because "they went with realism derp".

How is it wrong? Ever? Because they chose to be realistic in their world? Where time ravages the landscape?

Fallout 3, by far, everything was better, dialogue, the radio stations by far, the cities (NV cities were dull empty and consisted of just a bunch of unnamed NPCs), the wasteland is much more interesting, some "locations" in NV consisted simply of an abandoned shack and a never inhabited bed (this made up about 1/3 of the locations), the quests and characters were much more memorable (really pretty much every quest in NV was boring, FO3 had you assassinating people for an old man, blowing up towns, murdering an entire skyscraper worth of people, going back to your vault and solving the problems, etc. I can't even remember a single quest in NV tbh...), the story was more original (you're near death and are on a trail of revenge, sooo original...), a better, grittier atmosphere, reputation is just awful and has many irritating flaws, karma in NV is broken (no karma loss for killing humans but you gain karma for killing ghouls...?), and not to mention the glitches, oh god, the glitches...

I can't really help but think the people who like NV better are just thinking it because of old Fallout and Obsidian nostalgia, as FO3 is really the better game in every respect.

Dialogue

Hahahah, NO.

You tell me straight to my face this is good dialogue. Come on, tell me this is not at all retarded.

EDIT:

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

There's that exploration thing again. I don't remember exploration being the main draw of Fallout 1 and 2. I thought it was talking to interesting characters and doing things in different ways with completely different characters. You know, ROLE-PLAYING? I promise you all of my life savings that if I made a hiking simulator, I would steal away ALL of Bethesda's fans.

cherry-picking one line of dialogue out of thousands does nothing to disprove my dialogue point, yet alone all my others...

Oh really? How about another?

PC: I AM LOOKING FOR MY FATHER, HE IS A MIDDLE AGED MAN.
Peron: Oh! he is at the bar.

Please tell me where the hell any intelligence is in this dialogue? Better radio stations? Fo3 had 3, 2 of which play crap and the other is plain annoying.

Karma doesn't mean shit in fallout. At all. No one cares about your inner soul just like the media doesn't care that a woman has "a good personality."

All the quests fin Fallout 3 were brain dead. Why blow up a town for an old man who wants to view NOTHING? In fact, where the fuck did he get his money? Where? Nothing makes sense in fallout 3.

It is wrong because his (and my) complaint is that it lacks real worthy locations to explore and mostly consists of empty shacks and caves. Your response was well that is how the area where it is set is. Low Density, not to many notable landmarks/locations. Hence they chose the wrong location when there is plenty of high density areas that could have been used. Or they could have populated the area they chose to use with stuff by using thier imagination. But of course would have had to sacrifice the realism portrayed in the Fallout series.

Again, time. Time ravages many locations. With the Legion, NCR, and prospectors a world with untouched locations doesn't make much sense. Hell, DC doesn't make any sense due to that simple fact.

Who said anything about untouched? I am saying still standing for crying out loud. None of the buildings in Fallout 3 were untouched. They were well used, ravaged by time and interesting + rewarding to explore. The only places really untouched were the vaults. The rest of the buildings were torn apart. You could tell they were used by people. And that gave then a lived in feeling that gave Fallout 3 a more immersive feel over NV which has 3 times as many shacks and dens and few actual OMG epic buildings.

Actually no. Those buildings where frozen in time despite being filled with super mutants (which should be extinct in DC). Skeletons stayed exactly the way they died in 2077. No one moved them, not even a damn radroach. In New Vegas the houses, and every thing was looted by prospectors or for the war effort. The only one left was HTH tools, only due to the fact traps where everywhere. In Fallout 3, even the most "looted" building was untouched with everything still there. DO you really expect a house in the middle of nowhere to have anything of value left? For 200 years? With no guards? That wouldn't last long. A lock rusts, Wood rots, and concrete crumbles. The only places with "loot" are raider camps, places where people live, created safe houses. Everything else is torn upside down for anything of value then creatures moved in.

Oh right we should expect realism in a game filled with super mutants, giant radioactive roaches and big ass flies? the laws of nature are sure gonna apply there. So we won't give the player some interesting places to explore and instead populate it with abandoned 1 room shacks with empty bottles and bottle caps for them to find. Because anything else they would have to suspend thier disbelief. Really??

And this is a shining example of why realism and video games should never mix. Not when having too much of 1 will take away from the other.

So suddenly when a fictional element is introduced all common sense goes out the window? Homefront is fictional, but it couldn't hide behind "its fictional" shield from the scathing reviews that it made no sense, and utterly contrived.

Exploring big buildings looking for interesting loot = fun
Encouraging exploration = fun

moving from 1 one room shack to the next picking up bottlecaps = not fun
discouraging exploration by putting nothing of interest = not fun

realism should not be put in at the expense of fun
any questions?

And homefront had a short garbage campaign that was not fun. Who cares about fiction or not. Not fun is not fun. NV took all the fun out of exploring random areas. Why am I gonna travel all over the map finding old racetracks with checkered flags and old gas stations? Oh I might find a cave with nothing of interest hooray for me. Not to say there wasn't improvements in other areas but what they improved on in one area came from the resources it takes to make exploring an interesting experience. So if you want to call it realism or whatever, you do that. But the end of the day I would rather explore DC because it is fun because it is interesting than explore the mainland that is boring and not fun. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Except your brand of fun isn't the same as others. DC was a bland world. Its rewards were the same, the same guns and the same 300 or so bottle caps. How is there anything interesting in DC? Its the same shit. Hell, DC is more like a cardboard box city than a treal believable world. Once I realized that there were no Police, Ambulances, or Firetrucks it was all over. If Bethesda was so incompetent they couldn't even cover the fucking basics of a city they couldn't do anything else. DC is contrived, still, and unbelievable.

Fallout 3 only led you to believe there is something over the hill, but at the end of the day its another dungeon with a combat shotgun for a reward. A WWII weapon found all over the wasteland, a Russian one no less. How does that make sense? A centuries old communist gun used by the future U.S. military? The leader of arms in the fallout world? It doesn't. Exploration is not all encompassing, there are other factors.

And we have a winner. You are right F3 led you to believe there was something over the next hill. Usually it was more of the same with the odd rare weapon here or there. Maybe you'd get lucky and find something fun like plunger guy. NV on the other hand tells you without a doubt the only thing you will find over the next hill is more sand and more of the same.

Exactly. It doesn't straight up lie to you that something is over the horizon. A game doesn't need to shroud mechanics to be good.

Fallout 3 did have good things though. Just not in terms of items or enemies. It had scenes instead. Things that made you imagine what might have happened like the afore mentioned plunger man. Little scenes that told a story. So far in NV the only thing I have found is journals that straight up tell the story (IE rad man or buddy in the test site). Sure the stories were fine and humorous but they took me out of the game to enjoy them. Instead of keeping the immersion and telling them.

1. Rad man's journal is his story using common sense. You don't need a room or flashback dedicated to his story when reading his journal does the same. You don't need a room to tell a story or to show it in game.

2. Reading a journal of a dumb ass is non immersion? For one, they didn't take you out of the game to tell the fucking story. Its a damn book. The world has journals and books. Are we breaking life's immersions because we read books? Hell no. Reading a book or looking at evidence is not meta-gaming. Its being smart about telling stories that happened in the past. The only evidence of an event happening in the past is written text. Any historian can tell you that because it hasn't happened before our eyes. Just making over the top and strange rooms is not telling a story, its weak level design from someone who can't craft a story worth shit. Placing plungers and blood and the walls is not a story, its a just a damn gimmick.

Pulling the player out of the world to read a bunch of text is breakin the immersion (even moreso when the "journal" comes up as the same text as everything else). Relying on that is lazy since it is easy. A player picking a lock and finding a scene (not a flashback just a scene) of a skeleton and a bunch of plungers placed (not strewn about) everywhere that leaves it up to the imagination of the player to figure out what really went down is the height of immersion. It shows a real sense of creativity that NV is truly lacking.

Oh yes because reading a book, and looking at evidence breaks immersion because your not using your imagination. I guess science broke immersion for everybody huh? Trying to confuse the player with strange rooms is not creative, its lazy. Anyone can be strange with little effort. Just throw common sense out the window.

Oh wow I didn't mean to incite the fanboy rage by saying NV isn't perfect. Take a deep breath try and relax then maybe you won't be sputtering nonesense and we can go back to the discussion at hand instead of your off the wall ramblings.

 

[Johnson294]

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?

from a post I made 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.

Look up.

Them choosing the wrong location to host a Fallout game is not a very good excuse. It doesn't make the game any better or the complaints less valid because "they went with realism derp".

How is it wrong? Ever? Because they chose to be realistic in their world? Where time ravages the landscape?

Fallout 3, by far, everything was better, dialogue, the radio stations by far, the cities (NV cities were dull empty and consisted of just a bunch of unnamed NPCs), the wasteland is much more interesting, some "locations" in NV consisted simply of an abandoned shack and a never inhabited bed (this made up about 1/3 of the locations), the quests and characters were much more memorable (really pretty much every quest in NV was boring, FO3 had you assassinating people for an old man, blowing up towns, murdering an entire skyscraper worth of people, going back to your vault and solving the problems, etc. I can't even remember a single quest in NV tbh...), the story was more original (you're near death and are on a trail of revenge, sooo original...), a better, grittier atmosphere, reputation is just awful and has many irritating flaws, karma in NV is broken (no karma loss for killing humans but you gain karma for killing ghouls...?), and not to mention the glitches, oh god, the glitches...

I can't really help but think the people who like NV better are just thinking it because of old Fallout and Obsidian nostalgia, as FO3 is really the better game in every respect.

Dialogue

Hahahah, NO.

You tell me straight to my face this is good dialogue. Come on, tell me this is not at all retarded.

EDIT:

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

There's that exploration thing again. I don't remember exploration being the main draw of Fallout 1 and 2. I thought it was talking to interesting characters and doing things in different ways with completely different characters. You know, ROLE-PLAYING? I promise you all of my life savings that if I made a hiking simulator, I would steal away ALL of Bethesda's fans.

cherry-picking one line of dialogue out of thousands does nothing to disprove my dialogue point, yet alone all my others...

Oh really? How about another?

PC: I AM LOOKING FOR MY FATHER, HE IS A MIDDLE AGED MAN.
Peron: Oh! he is at the bar.

Please tell me where the hell any intelligence is in this dialogue? Better radio stations? Fo3 had 3, 2 of which play crap and the other is plain annoying.

Karma doesn't mean shit in fallout. At all. No one cares about your inner soul just like the media doesn't care that a woman has "a good personality."

All the quests fin Fallout 3 were brain dead. Why blow up a town for an old man who wants to view NOTHING? In fact, where the fuck did he get his money? Where? Nothing makes sense in fallout 3.

Those are only a few examples, many of the ones in Fallout New Vegas don't require the skill either... when I said dialogue I really wasn't talking about one or two examples where something required some intelligence when it really wasn't that intelligent.

I found that characters in FO3 had much better personalities, you had the douche bag, the pure evil guy, the quest givers, the weird guys, the people trying to make the best of everything, in New Vegas the characters just felt bland (perhaps it was because 9/10 of the characters were unnamed NPCs, one of the main reasons why the casinos were awful), also the responses in Fallout 3 are much more original, you can respond, politely rudely, somewhere in between, or just get information. In New Vegas I felt the responses lacked any emotion, they were imply vanilla "get more information choices."

I don't know about you, but I (and many others who even liked Fallout New Vegas otherwise better) preferred FO3's stations by far. GNR was one of the best stations in a game; the music was some of the best and the other skits and things were humorous. It's the apocalypse, you think you'd want a sort of relaxed DJ who is humorous to help you take your mind off it. Again, New Vegas' radio stations were bland, I don't remember any of the names, as all they did was just play music, which also was not nearly as good IMO.

Karma might not have much bearing but it still does affect things. Hell, for some choices in New Vegas, I really, really wanted to do them, but they required low karma. I somehow had high karma, though I had killed and robbed tons of people. If they were going to screw karma up so bad, they might as well have just scrapped it all together, rather than make it mandatory for some paths.

I found the quests much more memorable, the only decent quest in NV was beyond the beef, which I didn't like, as there was no way to redo the speech challenge so I had to take a completely different, much worse path. In Fallout 3, your actions determine your path, not your skill in dialogue. I remember it from somewhere but forget where, but I believe Tenpenny found the tower abandoned and sold the rooms out which is how he's wealthy. This is a quote from the wikia page on Tenpenny: "An 80-year-old Englishman[1] turned American entrepreneur, the man who discovered the tower saw it as an opportunity to provide residents with a standard of living enjoyed by the affluent in the days before nuclear Armageddon."

This is not even addressing the terrible rep and bugs of NV.

1. Quests only involved shooting something, or killing.

2. GNR is annoying, playing 4 songs.

3. Karma restrictions are Fallout 3. I had high Karma and could do anything I wanted.

4. Tenpenny has no money, nor do his residence. There is no fucking economy. How did he get the cash to restore a tower? In fact how the hell did he get to America in the first place? Europe has been destroyed far before the Great War.

5. Radios are supposed to play music. One of them was dedicated to that exact function. The humor is from black mountain, and for news you have Mr. New Vegas. The AI.

6. Fallout 3's characters were trying to "styrange" for strange sake. Most of the time they lacked any human qualities such as common fucking sense. You can kill someone's daughter and he would only thank you for it.

7. None of the dialogue made sense. it was horrible.

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?

from a post I made 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.

Look up.

Them choosing the wrong location to host a Fallout game is not a very good excuse. It doesn't make the game any better or the complaints less valid because "they went with realism derp".

How is it wrong? Ever? Because they chose to be realistic in their world? Where time ravages the landscape?

Fallout 3, by far, everything was better, dialogue, the radio stations by far, the cities (NV cities were dull empty and consisted of just a bunch of unnamed NPCs), the wasteland is much more interesting, some "locations" in NV consisted simply of an abandoned shack and a never inhabited bed (this made up about 1/3 of the locations), the quests and characters were much more memorable (really pretty much every quest in NV was boring, FO3 had you assassinating people for an old man, blowing up towns, murdering an entire skyscraper worth of people, going back to your vault and solving the problems, etc. I can't even remember a single quest in NV tbh...), the story was more original (you're near death and are on a trail of revenge, sooo original...), a better, grittier atmosphere, reputation is just awful and has many irritating flaws, karma in NV is broken (no karma loss for killing humans but you gain karma for killing ghouls...?), and not to mention the glitches, oh god, the glitches...

I can't really help but think the people who like NV better are just thinking it because of old Fallout and Obsidian nostalgia, as FO3 is really the better game in every respect.

Dialogue

Hahahah, NO.

You tell me straight to my face this is good dialogue. Come on, tell me this is not at all retarded.

EDIT:

See for me its the opposite, fallout new vegas was the shiity fallout game, there was very little atmosphere or the urge to explore like the originals had, plusa exploring was made very difficult by various factors, it had the colour but thats about it and it played more like an action game

There's that exploration thing again. I don't remember exploration being the main draw of Fallout 1 and 2. I thought it was talking to interesting characters and doing things in different ways with completely different characters. You know, ROLE-PLAYING? I promise you all of my life savings that if I made a hiking simulator, I would steal away ALL of Bethesda's fans.

cherry-picking one line of dialogue out of thousands does nothing to disprove my dialogue point, yet alone all my others...

Oh really? How about another?

PC: I AM LOOKING FOR MY FATHER, HE IS A MIDDLE AGED MAN.
Peron: Oh! he is at the bar.

Please tell me where the hell any intelligence is in this dialogue? Better radio stations? Fo3 had 3, 2 of which play crap and the other is plain annoying.

Karma doesn't mean shit in fallout. At all. No one cares about your inner soul just like the media doesn't care that a woman has "a good personality."

All the quests fin Fallout 3 were brain dead. Why blow up a town for an old man who wants to view NOTHING? In fact, where the fuck did he get his money? Where? Nothing makes sense in fallout 3.

It is wrong because his (and my) complaint is that it lacks real worthy locations to explore and mostly consists of empty shacks and caves. Your response was well that is how the area where it is set is. Low Density, not to many notable landmarks/locations. Hence they chose the wrong location when there is plenty of high density areas that could have been used. Or they could have populated the area they chose to use with stuff by using thier imagination. But of course would have had to sacrifice the realism portrayed in the Fallout series.

Again, time. Time ravages many locations. With the Legion, NCR, and prospectors a world with untouched locations doesn't make much sense. Hell, DC doesn't make any sense due to that simple fact.

Who said anything about untouched? I am saying still standing for crying out loud. None of the buildings in Fallout 3 were untouched. They were well used, ravaged by time and interesting + rewarding to explore. The only places really untouched were the vaults. The rest of the buildings were torn apart. You could tell they were used by people. And that gave then a lived in feeling that gave Fallout 3 a more immersive feel over NV which has 3 times as many shacks and dens and few actual OMG epic buildings.

Actually no. Those buildings where frozen in time despite being filled with super mutants (which should be extinct in DC). Skeletons stayed exactly the way they died in 2077. No one moved them, not even a damn radroach. In New Vegas the houses, and every thing was looted by prospectors or for the war effort. The only one left was HTH tools, only due to the fact traps where everywhere. In Fallout 3, even the most "looted" building was untouched with everything still there. DO you really expect a house in the middle of nowhere to have anything of value left? For 200 years? With no guards? That wouldn't last long. A lock rusts, Wood rots, and concrete crumbles. The only places with "loot" are raider camps, places where people live, created safe houses. Everything else is torn upside down for anything of value then creatures moved in.

Oh right we should expect realism in a game filled with super mutants, giant radioactive roaches and big ass flies? the laws of nature are sure gonna apply there. So we won't give the player some interesting places to explore and instead populate it with abandoned 1 room shacks with empty bottles and bottle caps for them to find. Because anything else they would have to suspend thier disbelief. Really??

And this is a shining example of why realism and video games should never mix. Not when having too much of 1 will take away from the other.

So suddenly when a fictional element is introduced all common sense goes out the window? Homefront is fictional, but it couldn't hide behind "its fictional" shield from the scathing reviews that it made no sense, and utterly contrived.

Exploring big buildings looking for interesting loot = fun
Encouraging exploration = fun

moving from 1 one room shack to the next picking up bottlecaps = not fun
discouraging exploration by putting nothing of interest = not fun

realism should not be put in at the expense of fun
any questions?

And homefront had a short garbage campaign that was not fun. Who cares about fiction or not. Not fun is not fun. NV took all the fun out of exploring random areas. Why am I gonna travel all over the map finding old racetracks with checkered flags and old gas stations? Oh I might find a cave with nothing of interest hooray for me. Not to say there wasn't improvements in other areas but what they improved on in one area came from the resources it takes to make exploring an interesting experience. So if you want to call it realism or whatever, you do that. But the end of the day I would rather explore DC because it is fun because it is interesting than explore the mainland that is boring and not fun. I can't make it any clearer than that.

Except your brand of fun isn't the same as others. DC was a bland world. Its rewards were the same, the same guns and the same 300 or so bottle caps. How is there anything interesting in DC? Its the same shit. Hell, DC is more like a cardboard box city than a treal believable world. Once I realized that there were no Police, Ambulances, or Firetrucks it was all over. If Bethesda was so incompetent they couldn't even cover the fucking basics of a city they couldn't do anything else. DC is contrived, still, and unbelievable.

Fallout 3 only led you to believe there is something over the hill, but at the end of the day its another dungeon with a combat shotgun for a reward. A WWII weapon found all over the wasteland, a Russian one no less. How does that make sense? A centuries old communist gun used by the future U.S. military? The leader of arms in the fallout world? It doesn't. Exploration is not all encompassing, there are other factors.

And we have a winner. You are right F3 led you to believe there was something over the next hill. Usually it was more of the same with the odd rare weapon here or there. Maybe you'd get lucky and find something fun like plunger guy. NV on the other hand tells you without a doubt the only thing you will find over the next hill is more sand and more of the same.

Exactly. It doesn't straight up lie to you that something is over the horizon. A game doesn't need to shroud mechanics to be good.

Fallout 3 did have good things though. Just not in terms of items or enemies. It had scenes instead. Things that made you imagine what might have happened like the afore mentioned plunger man. Little scenes that told a story. So far in NV the only thing I have found is journals that straight up tell the story (IE rad man or buddy in the test site). Sure the stories were fine and humorous but they took me out of the game to enjoy them. Instead of keeping the immersion and telling them.

1. Rad man's journal is his story using common sense. You don't need a room or flashback dedicated to his story when reading his journal does the same. You don't need a room to tell a story or to show it in game.

2. Reading a journal of a dumb ass is non immersion? For one, they didn't take you out of the game to tell the fucking story. Its a damn book. The world has journals and books. Are we breaking life's immersions because we read books? Hell no. Reading a book or looking at evidence is not meta-gaming. Its being smart about telling stories that happened in the past. The only evidence of an event happening in the past is written text. Any historian can tell you that because it hasn't happened before our eyes. Just making over the top and strange rooms is not telling a story, its weak level design from someone who can't craft a story worth shit. Placing plungers and blood and the walls is not a story, its a just a damn gimmick.

1. No, they don't, not anymore than New Vegas. I guess you've also never played Agatha's Song, the Nuka COla Challenge, The Replicated Man, or Blood Ties. Most of the quests aren't just shootouts, other quests in addition to these have minimal violence (not that I even understand your point, pretty much all RPGs have quests in which violence is involved) the quests are still more memorable.

2. GNR is not annyoing, and they play around 20....

3. I know, that's how it should be.

4. He was an entrepreneur before the war and in addition sold out Tenpenny Tower.

5. The New Vegas radio stations lacked the humor, good music, and overall weren't nearly as memorable as Fallout 3.

6. Very few characters are like that that I've seen. At least they have a personality unlike the emotionless robotic characters of NV.

7. It actually did make sense, you could respond with emotion, the characters actually seemed like real people with real problems...

 

[Echo136]

Fallout 3 is more open and allows for more exploration. Fallout New Vegas was linear but with a better story. I was fast traveling back and forth to New Vegas every 5 seconds so I could complete a quest, where in Fallout 3 I would just wander out into the wasteland and hardly find the need to fast travel unless its to the opposite side of the map. The only reason I started a second playthrough of New Vegas was so I could get the hardcore trophy, which was the last one I needed.

 

[Andrew_Mac]

I bought new vegas yesterday. Been playing it last night and most of today. Its a fun game. Having not played fallout 3, i can't say if thats any good. But New Vegas is pretty good. I've heard its very buggy, but the only thing thats happened to me so far is i got stuck in a tree once. thats it. I'm not very far through it of course, but seems alright so far. It's got me interested in the genre.

 

[SuperCombustion]

Fallout 3 has alot of items, alot of depth, story, enemies, overall it has better feel, a better map and more immersion.
Fallout NV has better weapons, better items, better quests, skills, tougher enemies but the map is a little too bland, instead of the broken buildings and shattered towers you get a couple of gas stations.

They are both equally good if you compare the pros and cons, but I'd say new vegas is better because it dosent freeze up on me T_T

 

[Catchy Slogan]

*snip*

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, but one thing I want to add is that the strip (onces I found out how to get into the damn thing) was dissapointing. The kept hyping up the Vegas strip and it even looked much better in the opening cinematic, but all it was was about 5 houses, split up into two seperate areas, and barely even long.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

*snip*

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, but one thing I want to add is that the strip (onces I found out how to get into the damn thing) was dissapointing. The kept hyping up the Vegas strip and it even looked much better in the opening cinematic, but all it was was about 5 houses, split up into two seperate areas, and barely even long.

Not to mention the lack of a fast travel point, necessitating 3 or 4 load screens per 20 seconds of play in many cases.

 

[Catchy Slogan]

*snip*

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, but one thing I want to add is that the strip (onces I found out how to get into the damn thing) was dissapointing. The kept hyping up the Vegas strip and it even looked much better in the opening cinematic, but all it was was about 5 houses, split up into two seperate areas, and barely even long.

Not to mention the lack of a fast travel point, necessitating 3 or 4 load screens per 20 seconds of play in many cases.

And the gambling in game. It assumes I know how bets work in Casinos. And it goes through all the trouble of inventing a new card game and can't be bothered to explain it properly to me? That one may just be me, but I still don't know how to play Caravan. And for a game that's supposed to have a pretty heavy emphasis in the gambling part, it felt like they hardly tried.

 

[squid5580]

*snip*

Pretty much my thoughts exactly, but one thing I want to add is that the strip (onces I found out how to get into the damn thing) was dissapointing. The kept hyping up the Vegas strip and it even looked much better in the opening cinematic, but all it was was about 5 houses, split up into two seperate areas, and barely even long.

Not to mention the lack of a fast travel point, necessitating 3 or 4 load screens per 20 seconds of play in many cases.

And the gambling in game. It assumes I know how bets work in Casinos. And it goes through all the trouble of inventing a new card game and can't be bothered to explain it properly to me? That one may just be me, but I still don't know how to play Caravan. And for a game that's supposed to have a pretty heavy emphasis in the gambling part, it felt like they hardly tried.

You gotta read the instruction book to get all the rules of Caravan. They did a poor job of tryin to explain it in game

 

[Vkmies]

What, this discussion again? Well...

New Vegas is better for me, because the story is actually satisfying and interesting. The touch of the developers felt. It was clearly designed by people who made the first two games. No killing off Harold and most importantly, Incredible amounts of references to the Master, New Reno etc. Iron sights were a welcome add, even if it didn't change the game gameplay-wise. It's harder. The faction-system works better. The Karma-system isn't annoying, or even relevant.

 

[Terminate421]

New Vegas had the better story, weapons, and difficulty

Fallout 3 had the better space, atmosphere, and DLC (So far)

 

[DropHouse]

I really felt that Fallout 3 really had a much better atmosphere of constant struggle for survival within the communities (such as big town/ Arefu) and I know NV had it in its story as to why there was less of a struggle, but I preffered the atmosphere of fear.
I also thought it had a better story line really, but I did find NV's gameplay so much better as well as the side quests (escpecially that one going through vault 11... I thought it was absolutely genius).

 

[badgersprite]

I would say that New Vegas is definitely better - it has a better story, more characters, more to do, more going on generally, and more interesting villains and conflicts - but I personally preferred Fallout 3. I had a better experience with it, and simply liked it more in the sense that, of all the things that there were to do in Fallout 3, I generally liked those quests, characters, or areas better.

So, yes, I think New Vegas is a better game, but I had a better time with Fallout 3.

 

[Commander Jack Rankin]

While I think both games are great, I have to give the edge to FO3. Why? It has Liberty Prime throwing nukes like footballs, and stomping all kinds of Enclave ass. I also liked the more personal, but admittedly kinda cliche, storyline of the main game.

 

[Feylynn]

Little Lamplight may be another example of this though with different merits, I can't recall anywhere in Vegas with that kind of intrigue, especially when you consider the multiplier of the child and adult societies that big town brings to the picture.

I can't recall anything in Fallout: New Vegas that was as irritating, jarring or out of place as Little Lamplight. What made it worse was that it was a mandatory location in the game - making it the first time in a Fallout game where I've actually wanted to kill children, but without being able to do so. Little Lamplight was a complete disgrace and a disgusting piece of design.

Little lamplight was an interesting location with a unique society, a welcome change of pace. The only problems I had with it was that there wasn't much to do there. It also wasn't optimized for the Children of the Wasteland mod which required me to ignore any reference they made to my characters age, though the Child at Heart perk helped.

There is also mods if you played the PC version that would allow you to kill the inhabitants or console commands to virtually skip it outright.

You're under no obligation to have enjoyed it but I hardly think that qualifies it for bad design.
I personally disliked virtually the whole game in comparison to Vegas and Oblivion, design is almost the only thing it had going for it.