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.
Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3
- Thread starter R4V3NSFAN1976
- Start date
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.
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
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
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 said:
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 said:
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.MiracleOfSound said:
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.
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.
New Vegas had the better story, weapons, and difficulty
Fallout 3 had the better space, atmosphere, and DLC (So far)
Fallout 3 had the better space, atmosphere, and DLC (So far)
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).
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).
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.
So, yes, I think New Vegas is a better game, but I had a better time with Fallout 3.
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.
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.RAKtheUndead said:
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.