Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[loc978]

I enjoyed the writing, aesthetic design, and game mechanics of New Vegas far more than Fallout 3. New Vegas also just felt like a better sequel to Fallout 1&2... what with the inclusion of the NCR, the leftovers of Richardson's Enclave, and the Master's army. Add to that the fact that New Vegas actually retained a fair amount of challenge in the late game (seriously, my level 20 unarmored energy weapons specialist was was invincible at the end of Fallout 3. One-shotting deathclaws with a plain ol' plasma rifle is just unsatisfying).

I will admit that there were more interesting locations and back-stories in Fallout 3, though... but that's resulting from a departure from Fallout conventions as well. Urban/suburban areas leave you more to work with... where Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas actually set you in a wasteland, Fallout Tactics and 3 set you in a destroyed city (well, sort of... the maps in 1, 2 and tactics are much, much larger than the new shooter games'). Which is why Fallout 3 feels more like a spinoff game, to me.

**edit** also, my first New Vegas character made it to the strip at level 7 without ever having gone further south than Primm. I managed to sneak past the deathclaws up north just fine... never had to run from anything... or fight anything either. It never occurred to me that the other way might be any easier.

 

[sarge1942]

i never said any of what you found had to be inhabitable, it just because the mojave desert was largely uninhabited in the 50s doesn't mean that in the year 2400 or whatever the year was it was uninhabited, i don't recall there being lasers in the 50s, or the threat of a chinese invasion, and mars is largely uninhabited too but some games put entire cities there.

 

[SeriousIssues]

I felt more attached to Fallout 3, and the feelings of dread as I fought through the Statesman Hotel running low on ammo and functioning weaponry to finding chinese sleeper cells in a pastry factory to discovering Oasis in the middle of the wasteland...well it was pretty great.
New Vegas, while containing argueably more content and varying guns (Despite a lack of automatics apparently), has not managed to reach the sheer level of memorobility as Fallout 3.
Both are very fine games, each with their own pesky, near immortal creatures (F3 Death Claws and NV Cazadors) and each have their own far out environments (F3 Alien crash site, NV ski resort, F3 Oasis, NV Lucky 38

Spoiler

Inner cryo-chamber

)

I enjoyed every second of

Spoiler

Blowing Raven Rock to pieces and slaying Benny in the arena

.

 

[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.

The west coast is a low density area. That means higher than one story buildings are pretty rare outside major cities or apartments. The Mojave is a desert, life on that scale isn't possible in a desert.

That might make more sense if New Vegas wasn't in the map. Given that it's such a tourist hot spot, you would really think there would be more significantly sized buildings nearby. You have the...Elvis impersonator school, casinos, some military stuff, the REPCONN buildings, and that ski lodge. It's excessively barren. Not even any ruins, just completely flattened.

 

[loc978]

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.

The west coast is a low density area. That means higher than one story buildings are pretty rare outside major cities or apartments. The Mojave is a desert, life on that scale isn't possible in a desert.

That might make more sense if New Vegas wasn't in the map. Given that it's such a tourist hot spot, you would really think there would be more significantly sized buildings nearby. You have the...Elvis impersonator school, casinos, some military stuff, the rocketship building, and that ski lodge. It's excessively barren. Not even any ruins, just completely flattened.

Take a look at Las Vegas on Google Earth some time. The places where there are ruins in the game are pretty consistent with what's actually there (even ignoring urban expansion in the past 60 years). The Mojave really is a big ol' dry desert.

 

[Alanj95]

I'd say that they are both good, but rather different.
Though F3 didn't keep the humor as well as NV did.

 

[kane.malakos]

I prefer the mechanics and gameplay of NV, I found the storyline (both the main quest, and sidequests) and environment in FO3 to be much better.

The big thing, The map, is much better in FO3. I mean, in NV it's pretty much a case of:
"You're in this town, follow the road south. Don't go North, you'll get dead-ed by all the nastiest creatures we could come up with" (someone said Cazadors, but there's also Deathclaws there!)
Whereas in FO3, it's more a case of:
You've found this town, and got some clues that suggest you should head to this place in South-East. But there's so many different ways to get there! The first time I played through I found myself fighting supermutants and raiders in the ruined streets, the next time I ended up sneaking past ghouls in the sewers.

sigh.

Again, Its a desert. There are few towns, and straying off the highways is just a way to die pretty damn quick. The east coast doesn't have that problem because it has vegetation. I swear when it comes to geography this thread fails.

You guys are really arguing about two different things. You're talking about geographical accuracy, he's talking about interesting locations. The fact that it's set in a desert may give an excuse for why there are very few settlements, but it makes the game emptier.

 

[Gaiseric]

New Vegas was better in a lot of ways, but at the end of the day I got to give it to Fallout 3 being better.

New Vegas required me to hard reset 30+ times for 40 or so hours of play. Fallout 3 only 15 or so for the same amount of play. New Vegas also froze more, more frame rate issues, and glitches. NV had such terrible tech problems I couldn't enjoy it for any length of time without being afraid it was going to crash again(if I made it over an hour without a crash I saved every 5 min and knew it was just a matter of time), if I saved recently, am I going to lose a tonne of progress, and when it freezes how pissed am I going to be.

 

[shemoanscazrex3]

I prefer 3 the most. I was hooked when I first started playing 3 as for NV I forced myself to play it because I spent 50 bucks on it

 

[R4V3NSFAN1976]

I prefer the mechanics and gameplay of NV, I found the storyline (both the main quest, and sidequests) and environment in FO3 to be much better.

The big thing, The map, is much better in FO3. I mean, in NV it's pretty much a case of:
"You're in this town, follow the road south. Don't go North, you'll get dead-ed by all the nastiest creatures we could come up with" (someone said Cazadors, but there's also Deathclaws there!)
Whereas in FO3, it's more a case of:
You've found this town, and got some clues that suggest you should head to this place in South-East. But there's so many different ways to get there! The first time I played through I found myself fighting supermutants and raiders in the ruined streets, the next time I ended up sneaking past ghouls in the sewers.

sigh.

Again, Its a desert. There are few towns, and straying off the highways is just a way to die pretty damn quick. The east coast doesn't have that problem because it has vegetation. I swear when it comes to geography this thread fails.

You guys are really arguing about two different things. You're talking about geographical accuracy, he's talking about interesting locations. The fact that it's set in a desert may give an excuse for why there are very few settlements, but it makes the game emptier.

Its emptier because its set in a desert. The few locations are as interesting as one could make them considering what little they have to work with.

Then why did they chose to put it in such a local?

 

[Mordwyl]

I thought New Vegas was truer to the original series by the boatloads. The bugs never really were a big issue with me, since my reasons to stop playing the game was because my PC is getting too old.

 

[Marcilla]

So far I like Fallout 3 slightly beter despite New vegas having features it lacked,
This is mainly due to the fact I simply prefer the DC ruins to the mojave.
I also greatly enjoyed most of FO3's DLC, where as the NV DLC wasn't to great imo.

 

[viking97]

fallout 3 is a better game because it was first. if new vegas had been more different, it was obviously the better game. 60 bucks for what amount to a new map and new weapons! a hardcore modding community could have done that for free!

 

[TyphoidEngel]

I prefer the mechanics and gameplay of NV, I found the storyline (both the main quest, and sidequests) and environment in FO3 to be much better.

The big thing, The map, is much better in FO3. I mean, in NV it's pretty much a case of:
"You're in this town, follow the road south. Don't go North, you'll get dead-ed by all the nastiest creatures we could come up with" (someone said Cazadors, but there's also Deathclaws there!)
Whereas in FO3, it's more a case of:
You've found this town, and got some clues that suggest you should head to this place in South-East. But there's so many different ways to get there! The first time I played through I found myself fighting supermutants and raiders in the ruined streets, the next time I ended up sneaking past ghouls in the sewers.

sigh.

Again, Its a desert. There are few towns, and straying off the highways is just a way to die pretty damn quick. The east coast doesn't have that problem because it has vegetation. I swear when it comes to geography this thread fails.

You guys are really arguing about two different things. You're talking about geographical accuracy, he's talking about interesting locations. The fact that it's set in a desert may give an excuse for why there are very few settlements, but it makes the game emptier.

Its emptier because its set in a desert. The few locations are as interesting as one could make them considering what little they have to work with.

Then why did they chose to put it in such a local?

Ever heard of Fallout Van Buren? Think Boulders Gate engine and perceptive, It practically was New Vegas. That's where Caesar and his Legion come from, the burned man. Now the lore and you'd know New Vegas made scene to set the game there

 

[Sebobii]

I want to say New Vegas but the simple truth is that I played Fallout 3 far more and was a lot more interested in it. Perhaps I have simply gone bored of the fallout franchise altogether, just wasn't that psyched for NV.

 

[Ghengis John]

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.

This is the 400th thread I've seen like this:
One: You're obviously not alone
Two: Just because the majority of people prefer the stellar writing of new vegas doesn't mean they aren't both fine games.
Three: No matter how many of these threads you people make you will not hear anything dramatically different than what you've heard before.

Still, I play them a lot more than Fallout 1 or 2 (Which I just picked up) and from my non-nostalgia-blinded point of view the two games do not hold up well as time goes on. The rabid, near-delusional fan-base makes that possible.

I think you're letting your opinion of the rabid, near-delusional fanbase sway your opinion. In any event, that is, just your opinion.

BTW I'm 15, and still think that F2 is the best, so the nostalgia factor doesn't really apply to me.

Tip of the hat to you, sir.

fallout 3 is a better game because it was first. if new vegas had been more different, it was obviously the better game. 60 bucks for what amount to a new map and new weapons! a hardcore modding community could have done that for free!

You... obviously didn't play it. As for being first, New vegas was made by the makers of the first two games. That kind of muddies the waters of primacy.