Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[BeerTent]

Before signoir "ITS A DESERT! I HAVE NOTHING TO CONTRIBUTE!" returns, I have to agree with most of the people here. Yeah, Fallout 3 wasn't a "True fallout game" or whatever shit people say about that, but I feel it fit Fallout's setting pretty well.

I loved FO3, I set through 2 and a half playthroughs of it and Got Broken Steel so I could continue to explore the world after beating the game. It was the first time I actually paid for a DLC and changed my Avatar because of a game. (Welding masks are now the new fashion.)

FONV, on the other hand... While I did love the hardcore mode, and just can't play without it anymore, in addition to the new weapons, I have to say the reloading bench and the camp fire thing is pretty lame, and not enjoyable because of the garbage interface that was also present in FO3. FONV, as someone also stated also had a largely uninteresting and easily forgettable landscape that was a lot more linear. Yeah some people like linear levels, but Fallout is more of a "Here's your quest, find out how to fix it. oh, look. Those guys are having trouble, forget your main quest and help them out for a bit." In that regard, FO3 was far better than NV, and it still had that linearity that NV has with the personal touch of "I need to help Dad, he could be dead! Why is this asshole bartender fucking with me!?"

Good things about FO3:
Better setting.
Better main story.
Better sidequests.
Better maps all around.
Better moral decisions.
No disappointing distractions, Everything I did felt like it improved my character and experience.
Every enemy could be taken down when you met them.
Less game-breaking bugs.
Good things about FONV:
Better, more diverse weapons.
The reloading bench in extremely rare occasions if you weren't melee
Better, more diverse combat.
More interesting enemies.
Better Ambient music.
More decisions to be made in the final quest was interesting, but executed in a sub-par manner.

 

[humpty334]

New Vegas is alot better than fallout 3 because you dont have to rely on V.A.T.S as much and revenge is a good thing for the game because it makes you get more involved with the character and you have the choice of which factions you can help/join or get rid of to your benifit

And hardcore mode was good but if i wanted to eat, drink and sleep periodically I would just live my own life but if that floats your boat go for it

 

[OakTable]

The reputation system is painful....no matter what it leaves you feeling...dirty


Also I dislike NV for the fact it has no memorable characters....

Yeah you can say Veronica....but I prefered the silly things in 3 like Zipp when I loot thru items going "Nuka for Zipp" and cant recall much from NV that would really stick in the goofy things dept


Also I dont know about the bugs in 3 (my brother said everytime he tried to VATS a radscorp on the PS3 GotY version he froze) but I played (dl'd all the DLC) on the 360 and cant think of very many bugs....but yeah New Vegas has bugs...like a bad apt for a cheap price...and I disliked Dead Money...it was like The Pitt + Mothership Zeta but...I dont get to get my stuff...

Saying Fallout 3 had no bugs because you had no problems is like saying there were no mosquitos in a swamp you just crossed because you weren't bitten. They're there, you just lucked out. I personally had to combat CTDs, graphics glitches, and a memory leak on the PC version of Fallout 3. Saying Bethesda is better than Obsidian at bug testing is laughable. They both suck at bug testing.

And, I think John Henry Eden was the ONLY memorable character from Fallout 3 that DIDN'T annoy the Hell out of me (Moira and Liberty Prime can fuck off and die several times in a fire). I enjoyed the companions in Fallout New Vegas immensely because they actually had interesting stories and were not just gimmicky characters like the one you cited from Fallout 3.

 

[Johnson294]

NV is far far better, in gameplay mechanics and the sheer volume of weapons added. Fallout 3 had like 3 in each category.

And the absolute killer to FO3 is the stupid bloody level scaling system, go anywhere you want! There's no enemies that will instakill you here! No there should be tougher enemies in certain areas and not everything should be a damned cakewalk.

Hell I tried a no town run in FO3 (No towns, no shops, only what I found out in the wasteland) and it was STILL too easy on the hardest mode.

New Vegas and Fallout 3 both had little to no level scaling... that's one of the main things Bethesda changed, it has a very minimal enemy scaling and that's it, most RPGs do also... Fallout 3 isn't too hard, but it's certainly not a cakewalk on very hard unless you're level 30 with the best guns and armor attacking unarmored civilians...

 

[artanis_neravar]

Also the whole thing about amnesia, I never thought the character in NV had amnesia, yeah he had some short term memory lose after being shot in the head, but everything beyond that was up to me, I didn't like F3 because I felt that there were really only two ways your character could go, the goody goody route or the sociopathic serial killer, I mean there is nothing in your past that can really push you to be a cynical bastard, you grew up with a loving father, and had one kid who kind of picked on you, big deal.

 

[RedRockRun]

The what: New Vegas

They why: First, I like the idea of picking my age at the beginning of the game. For me, one of the fun parts in the original two Fallout games was the fact that I could make a smartass kid or a grizzled old guy, and in Fallout 3, that choice was yanked right out from under me. Furthermore, I've yet to see any 18 year old with normal thyroids who can grow a gray survivalist beard.

Next, I think the scope of New Vegas is just larger in comparison to 3. Why? Mostly because it finally continues on where Fallout 2 left off. Fallout 3 was just too stand-alone for my tastes. Sure there were a few blurbs about the California Brotherhood and the Oil Rig, but on the whole they were just blurbs, much like how NPC's in Oblivion would casually mention the news from Morrowind. New Vegas is, in my opinion, the true sequel to Fallout 2. Also, I like how the Courier in New Vegas goes from a product of the main story (Platinum Chip/NCR/Caesar's Legion/Hoover Dam), to being a producer of story, given the events of Dead Money and the small previews of what's to come. Sure the next expansions will probably have a "bigger picture" story including more factions that you have to choose between, but the "impending showdown" aspect, touched on at the end of Dead Money and even hinted at in sparse places throughout the Mojave really has me excited.

In terms of gameplay, I also thought New Vegas stepped up a few feet higher than three, mostly on account of the improved interfaces (Crafting and followers). Also I liked the reintroduction of damage threshold. This and the load of new guns, particularly all the great cowboy-style revolvers and lever-action rifles made the game a lot more fun to play.

 

[Snotnarok]

NV is far far better, in gameplay mechanics and the sheer volume of weapons added. Fallout 3 had like 3 in each category.

And the absolute killer to FO3 is the stupid bloody level scaling system, go anywhere you want! There's no enemies that will instakill you here! No there should be tougher enemies in certain areas and not everything should be a damned cakewalk.

Hell I tried a no town run in FO3 (No towns, no shops, only what I found out in the wasteland) and it was STILL too easy on the hardest mode.

New Vegas and Fallout 3 both had little to no level scaling... that's one of the main things Bethesda changed, it has a very minimal enemy scaling and that's it, most RPGs do also... Fallout 3 isn't too hard, but it's certainly not a cakewalk on very hard unless you're level 30 with the best guns and armor attacking unarmored civilians...

Fallout 3 had no level scaling? I think you might be thinking of the wrong game because certain enemies don't appear till you get to certain levels. You'll never run into a unkillable death claw and you'll never see enclave soldiers till later. It works on the same boring Oblivion level scaling, you run into nothing that will wreck you so it's okay to explore rather than work to that point.

NV has no scaling and that's why you can walk north of your starting town and die immediately.

 

[tholomew92]

New Vegas never captured me like Fallout 3. So yeah, Fallout 3 over Fallout NV. But I would chose Elder Scrolls over Fallout any day, always preferred that series.

 

[Dusk17]

I loved Fallout 3, however I think new Vegas is crap. Its hard to explain why but it mostly came down to the details of the game and the changes to gameplay. I also hope to god that they wont screw up the new elder scrolls game like they did with new Vegas. I also think that new Vegas lacked whatever spark fallout 3 had that made it one of my favorites (I think I liked 3 better because it seemed to have a darker tone.) My only other complaint is that new Vegas seems too cluttered.

 

[OakTable]

New Vegas and Fallout 3 both had little to no level scaling... that's one of the main things Bethesda changed, it has a very minimal enemy scaling and that's it, most RPGs do also... Fallout 3 isn't too hard, but it's certainly not a cakewalk on very hard unless you're level 30 with the best guns and armor attacking unarmored civilians...

I think I one-shotted a Deathclaw at level 10 in 3. Fallout 3 funnels so many skill points into your character, you can max out half your stats around 10.

Also, don't know why people say the story in Fallout 3 was better. It felt kind of recycled from the first two. The Enclave from Fallout 2 made a random coast-to-coast trip to fight your dad for a GECK (Also from 2) so they can purify the water for everyone like in Fallout 1 but before you. But luckily the Brotherhood of Steel, despite being at war with the NCR because they're technophilic raiders who kill and rob people for having pre-war tech, from the first two games have changed their mean ways and are here to be your knights in shining armor! Of course, they're busy fighting the evil Supermutants from Fallout 1, who somehow exist on the East Coast despite the company who made them, West-Tek, being a West Coast only kind of thing. And if you search real hard, you'll find Harold, the lovable ghoul from 1 and 2 who randomly made a trip to the East Coast that's never explained at all.

Oh, and that ending was terrible. "Oh I'm sorry, Lone Wanderer. I'm just too busy being Zen/not brainwashed to my contract holder's will/disobying the person with 100 Science to save you and your friend's ass from that radioactive chamber there. Too bad your power armor and radiation suits and Rad-X and RadAway can't repel a measly 15 rads per second."

 

[darksaber64x]

I enjoyed NV much more. The stats were more balanced, the perks were more varied, the guns were more balanced, the skill more useful, melee was practical, companions were excellent, hardcore was fun, the story was more interesting, there was more choice in how to develop the story...

Fallout 3 was fun, for sure. But I found myself enjoying NV a lot more. My only real gripe about NV was the Radio wasn't as interesting to listen to, but I can't quite place my finger on why.

 

[Johnson294]

NV is far far better, in gameplay mechanics and the sheer volume of weapons added. Fallout 3 had like 3 in each category.

And the absolute killer to FO3 is the stupid bloody level scaling system, go anywhere you want! There's no enemies that will instakill you here! No there should be tougher enemies in certain areas and not everything should be a damned cakewalk.

Hell I tried a no town run in FO3 (No towns, no shops, only what I found out in the wasteland) and it was STILL too easy on the hardest mode.

New Vegas and Fallout 3 both had little to no level scaling... that's one of the main things Bethesda changed, it has a very minimal enemy scaling and that's it, most RPGs do also... Fallout 3 isn't too hard, but it's certainly not a cakewalk on very hard unless you're level 30 with the best guns and armor attacking unarmored civilians...

Fallout 3 had no level scaling? I think you might be thinking of the wrong game because certain enemies don't appear till you get to certain levels. You'll never run into a unkillable death claw and you'll never see enclave soldiers till later. It works on the same boring Oblivion level scaling, you run into nothing that will wreck you so it's okay to explore rather than work to that point.

NV has no scaling and that's why you can walk north of your starting town and die immediately.

That's not enemy scaling, the enemies don't get any stronger, they just don't have deathclaws and other power enemies roaming around the wasteland at level 1, it sacrifices slight realism to avoid frustration. I really don't see the big deal unless you just like getting killed by deathclaws at low levels, the enemies are just as strong or about just as strong regardless of your level. In Oblivion, the enemies health and attack scaled to your level, not the same thing.

 

[Dyskresiac]

NV>3

Why? Balance.


Let's face it, in 3 you went guns. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass go.

My first run through in NV I was Explosives/Guns, second run through I was Melee/Unarmed. Now I'm playing Energy weapons. I must say... Melee was a bit overpowered if you played your cards right but even that level of unbalance didn't come close to how overpowered Guns were in 3.

Even outside of weapons, I felt that every skill was useful in its own way. And in 3 you could get 100 in every skill (Yes, I've done that in Oblivion AND FO3. Shame on me.)

All of this gives NV far better replay value, which is dangerous. The only problem is that once you know what everything does, and how to play, the difficulty of NV disappears. I worry that I will be bored with expansions simply because I wreck things so much.

 

[Johnson294]

NV>3

Why? Balance.


Let's face it, in 3 you went guns. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass go.

My first run through in NV I was Explosives/Guns, second run through I was Melee/Unarmed. Now I'm playing Energy weapons. I must say... Melee was a bit overpowered if you played your cards right but even that level of unbalance didn't come close to how overpowered Guns were in 3.

Even outside of weapons, I felt that every skill was useful in its own way. And in 3 you could get 100 in every skill (Yes, I've done that in Oblivion AND FO3. Shame on me.)

All of this gives NV far better replay value, which is dangerous.

I used energy weapons, guns, and explosives in Fallout 3. I found melee just as useful (or useless IMO) in both games.

 

[Zhalath]

I loved 3, but I loved New Vegas more. It felt better built, more balanced, which made getting powerful more worthwhile. The linearity gave it a sense of direction which I appreciated, and then left you to make your own choices. I also appreciated the faction system over karma, so that I could be different people to different groups. There feels like there's more world in New Vegas, to explore and in the background.
My only wish is that NV had more quests...

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

I think FO3 was better aswell, I liked the atmosphere more aswell, also playing with the wierd wasteland perk didnt seem to make a difference which was a shame.

 

[Dyskresiac]

NV>3

Why? Balance.


Let's face it, in 3 you went guns. Period. No exceptions. Do not pass go.

My first run through in NV I was Explosives/Guns, second run through I was Melee/Unarmed. Now I'm playing Energy weapons. I must say... Melee was a bit overpowered if you played your cards right but even that level of unbalance didn't come close to how overpowered Guns were in 3.

Even outside of weapons, I felt that every skill was useful in its own way. And in 3 you could get 100 in every skill (Yes, I've done that in Oblivion AND FO3. Shame on me.)

All of this gives NV far better replay value, which is dangerous.

I used energy weapons, guns, and explosives in Fallout 3. I found melee just as useful (or useless IMO) in both games.

Melee/Unarmed is by far the most powerful choice in New Vegas. Especially, I'd imagine, when you're not playing Hardcore Mode. One-shotting Deathclaws is kinda meh. That's why I'm going Energy now. Melee/Unarmed just got boring.

 

[SoranMBane]

While overall I feel New Vegas is better, I think they both do certain things better. Fallout 3 had a much better opening and tutorial, and the story itself was also better up until the very end, where it decided to take a nose-dive into complete bullshit. I also agree about the linearity thing; up until you finally make it to Vegas, NV has you on a fairly straight path with nothing much to do that isn't related to the main plot, and even then, the places you can explore are generally less interesting than in 3. But other than those things and its technical issues, I think New Vegas did pretty much everything else a lot better. For example, the story, while not quite as interesting, allowed for much more meaningful moral choices (I'll take choosing what kind of government New Vegas is ruled by over that "martyr vs cowardly asshole" crap any day), companions are more engaging and useful, gameplay in general is a lot tighter, and they even managed to make the game less brown by adding a few splashes of colour here and there.

 

[Therumancer]

I liked both games about evenly, they had their pros and cons between them. New Vegas had the advantage of being able to build on what "Fallout 3" established. I do however think that New Vegas wound up feeling a bit smaller in terms of exploration, and as the beginning of the game is pretty linear I think that hurt it. With "Fallout 3" I could pretty much take off anywhere from the beginning of the game, with "New Vegas" if you stray from the beaten path to begin with uber-monsters are positioned to eat you. As a result you kind of have to follow their story from Sunny Springs, through Primm, etc... and really you don't wind up with much of an abillity to wander... for power related reasons if nothing else, until your pretty much right up to New Vegas.

It *IS* possible to find ways around this of course, since there are various ways of breaking the power structure of the game, and getting your hands on an amount of weaponry that the game probably didn't expect you to have fairly early on, but I feel like in doing so I'm "playing" the game rather than playing the game if ou catch my drift.

 

[-Samurai-]

I can't get into Fallout: New Vegas. It's too empty. The atmosphere just isn't right. It feels off and the world feels lacking.

I think that the Raiders were so much better than this gang and faction nonsense. The gangs don't have a variety of weapons, and they seem generally weaker and less vicious than the Raiders.