Your opinion on Fallout: New Vegas VS. Fallout 3

[Walter Sobchak]

Fallout 3 had the dreamy voice of Liam Neeson so unless I missed someone cooler than Neeson in New Vegas fallout 3 wins by default. Maybe Robert Downey Jr.

 

[Flukyjoker]

I feel Fallout 3 had a much better world. New Vegas had much less of the random moments that may occur in Fallout 3. The lip synching is also an issue in New Vegas, more so that I actually got pissed when I kept seeing it; I can't remember the same for Fallout 3.

Although, I use an Xbox so I didn't get any updates or added features such as the weapon mods. The iron sights mode was something (for an FPS junky such as myself) that made it really hard to return to Fallout 3.

I could go on for both sides. Point is that each game, when you think about it, are much different. These are games made by two different companies and it shows in the final product.

 

[OakTable]

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.

Raiders had no personality whatsoever and served as cannon fodder. Unlike in Fallout 1 and 2, raiders could not be reasoned or dealt with outside of bullets to the face, limiting roleplaying. Also, I found this "grimdark atmosphere' in Fallout 3 nonsensical and not true to the first 2 games' atmosphere. Fallout 1 and 2 were about exploring how people could rebuild society after the apocalypse. Fallout 3, on the other hand, had everyone in the Capital build crappy tin shacks and dwell in the barely-fixed up wreckage of a aircraft carrier despite having 200 years to rebuild.

 

[Steppin Razor]

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.

Don't say that, the Fallout fanboys will get on your case about how it's a giant desert and deserts are empty. The appropriate response being that maybe they should have set it somewhere that is actually fucking interesting instead.

On topic
I like both, but I lean towards Fallout 3 as it doesn't restrict you from doing what you want right from the start. New Vegas may say you can do whatever you want, but the sheer amount of giant radscorpions whenever you try to go anywhere enforces you to do what you're told until you get a bit more equipment. Seriously, within my first 5 hours of playing New Vegas I'd come across more giant radscorpions in the middle of nowhere than I saw on my entire hundreds of hours in F3.

 

[Benny Blanco]

Some of these comments make me wonder how much people hate Cazadores, seeing as people are willing to say Fallout 3 is better just because it doesn't have them, even when they say in the same sentence that New Vegas had a better story/gameplay/hats/etc. Recent patch just nerfed their aggro range, so they're not AS bad.

Oh yeah, I'll go for the Fallout New Vegas>Fallout 3 side, mainly because Fallout 3 had a pretty boring story. It could've been good, had Bethesda put more than a minimal effort towards implementing good RPG elements (Choices and Consequences, good dialog, characters that stand out from one another) and not just reusing old factions and plot elements from the first 2 games and adding just plain dumb stuff to the game. A city that willingly built itself around a nuke? A Peter Pan-esque settlement of annoying brats? Brotherhood of Steel isn't full of giant techno-loving douchebags? I ALWAYS have to work with the bratty kids and the BoS? Excuse me while I run uninstall.exe.

Pretty much this.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely loved Fallout 3, but it was my first exposure to the mythology and upon seeing how the others worked, I came to relish New Vegas more. Almost every criticism someone has leveled against it (with the exception of buggyness) can be refuted in comparison with the sheer linearity of Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 had one major quest with a tone of side-quests built around it, and the moral choice (Karma) system was screwed up. Think about it- the major moral decision which makes you good or evil is the defusing or detonation of the nuke in Megaton.

Ignoring for a moment that no-one takes you to task for this until waaaay later in the game (your Dad mentions something about it I think) it also kills the best (and most conveniently located) evil companion in the game.

From there on out it's either sneaky and insanely evil or boy-scout-in-power-armour, but the BoS and the kids are such royal pains in the arse that I tried killing both until I realised the stupid game wouldn't let me.

Another thing- how come no-one knows you detonated the nuke, but everyone knows your alignment? That's what I like about F:NV- you have to actually ROLEPLAY befriending/rebuilding/winning the companions, not just flash your halo/horns and watch them fall into line.

Also the guns are better. They actually look like real guns, which is a real improvement after the 10mm Pistol or Combat Shotgun in F3. The Barrett is a fearsome ranged murder machine, the shotguns rack properly, the 9mm Pistol looks authentic and the revolvers and repeaters give it that cool "New West" look. Also, I love being able to make the coin shot rounds for shotguns- reminds me of that scene in Young Guns II - "Best Dollar-Eighty I ever spent!"

 

[Walter Sobchak]

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.

100% agreed tby the end of the elder scrolls games you feel really attached to your character

 

[OakTable]

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.

Don't say that, the Fallout fanboys will get on your case about how it's a giant desert and deserts are empty. The appropriate response being that maybe they should have set it somewhere that is actually fucking interesting instead.

On topic
I like both, but I lean towards Fallout 3 as it doesn't restrict you from doing what you want right from the start. New Vegas may say you can do whatever you want, but the sheer amount of giant radscorpions whenever you try to go anywhere enforces you to do what you're told until you get a bit more equipment. Seriously, within my first 5 hours of playing New Vegas I'd come across more giant radscorpions in the middle of nowhere than I saw on my entire hundreds of hours in F3.

Dunno. Western post-apocalyptic Las Vegas is kind of more interesting than the grimderp ruins of D.C. Never really cared for exploring ruins filled with nothing but computer logs; rather'd be talking to some interesting characters. Well, except maybe the Dunwhich Building. That was pretty neat.

 

[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.

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.

The problem was there was no challenge, you didn't have any areas you had to train to be good enough to get into. In FO3 everything was easy, no towns, no special leveling tricks, hardest mode, the game is still too easy. In NV where there IS no level scaling or scaling enemy levels to the noob player walking around on hard I'm having difficulty because no matter how hard I try, a group of deathclaws will destroy me.

It's not about realism, it's that everything is open to you from the get-go. I can go run in and get the lincon repeater, one of the best early guns in the game and...there's no problem, there's nothing serious guarding it.

However if you want any kind of gun like that in NV it's a bit harder. There's challenge and that's what makes it interesting. I don't want to be able to access the whole game, you should have to work to become strong enough to. Otherwise everyplace is no challenge and there's genuinely no worry of running into something scary.

 

[CRAVE CASE 55]

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

But I digress...

So which do you think is better and why?

First of all welcome to the Escapist. Dont feed the Trolls. Now Vs. threads are usualy fround upon. Dont make a habit of it, or the long arm of the mods might swoop in.

OT: I love both but F3 is my favorite. I dont know, Theres just something in it that grabbed me and I couldent put it down. 20 characters later, I was still playing.

 

[Steppin Razor]

Dunno. Western post-apocalyptic Las Vegas is kind of more interesting than the grimderp ruins of D.C. Never really cared for exploring ruins filled with nothing but computer logs; rather'd be talking to some interesting characters. Well, except maybe the Dunwhich Building. That was pretty neat.

The characters are more interesting in New Vegas, but to me the exploration side of the gameplay is not. Fallout 3 and New Vegas both promised a huge area to explore with lots of interesting locations. I enter a cave in Fallout 3 and I am greeted with a sprawling cave complex that intersects with the rail system. I enter a cave in New Vegas and I get a couple tunnels and a small hollow. I enter buildings in Fallout 3 and can lose myself for hours. I enter buildings, sorry I mean shacks, in New Vegas and get, well, a shack.

New Vegas is a huge improvement over Fallout 3 in pretty much every way, but with the upgrades it lost part of what made exploration in F3 so special and fun.

As for grimderp, I am a huge fan of 40k, so that sorta appeals to me as well.

Edit
Also, I'm nicking the term grimderp off you because it is awesome.

 

[Firehound]

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

But I digress...

So which do you think is better and why?

Your argument is bad.

Linearity: Keyword secretly. Fallout 3 is just as bad. You try going to fight Mercs with Assault rifles with your pistol at long range.

Weapon mods and modded content: Modders are shit. Almost all mods are hack jobs that cause more crashes then FalloutNV base ever did. A mod is a lot like aftermarket parts from companies, sometimes it's hard to tell shit from not shit. Also, just because a game Has been altered by a third party does not make it better then a company that does the same thing, but actually as part of the game.

Story: Fallout New vegas' story is superior. Rather then shitty flashback scenes that fail to make you belong in the vault, mostly due to wooden characters and Bethesda trying to out think itself, you get told- Your a courier, get the stolen stuff back. It's not necessarily about revenge. You can believe your character's motivation is getting back the chip so he can go back home with lots of money.
In addition, F3 throws away the core of the fallout series reinventing the BoS to be static good guys to play against the enclave. You aren't given any choice about which side you support other then Eden's demand and if you follow it. This reimagining is tried to be explained away with the 'outcasts' and in the Pitt DLC, but it still feels like it's tacked onto the game. New Vegas is more a third Fallout then F3 was. Instead of throwing away the stories built upon-yet seperate, Fallout NV utilizes the long history of the fallout series to add in history and references to the second fallout.

Bugs: Say what you will about obsidian, but Head straight to the vault your father is in, and you have bypassed most (read: The boring parts) of the story. Many of the bugs are avoidable or able to circumvented.

 

[nicebuffalo]

i personally couldn't get into NV as much as i could with FO3. there was better motivation to proceed with the plot in fallout 3.

 

[OakTable]

Dunno. Western post-apocalyptic Las Vegas is kind of more interesting than the grimderp ruins of D.C. Never really cared for exploring ruins filled with nothing but computer logs; rather'd be talking to some interesting characters. Well, except maybe the Dunwhich Building. That was pretty neat.

The characters are more interesting in New Vegas, but to me the exploration side of the gameplay is not. Fallout 3 and New Vegas both promised a huge area to explore with lots of interesting locations. I enter a cave in Fallout 3 and I am greeted with a sprawling cave complex that intersects with the rail system. I enter a cave in New Vegas and I get a couple tunnels and a small hollow. I enter buildings in Fallout 3 and can lose myself for hours. I enter buildings, sorry I mean shacks, in New Vegas and get, well, a shack.

New Vegas is a huge improvement over Fallout 3 in pretty much every way, but with the upgrades it lost part of what made exploration in F3 so special and fun.

As for grimderp, I am a huge fan of 40k, so that sorta appeals to me as well.

Edit
Also, I'm nicking the term grimderp off you because it is awesome.

Grimderp comes from the tabletop games board on a certain imageboard that won't be named. Used mostly to talk about 40K in an insulting way (mainly whenever someone goes too far in making something GRIMDARK and instead sounds dumb), so feel free to use it.

Anyway, I'd like to see Fallout 4 written by Obsidian and most of it's gameplay made by them, while Bethesda is left free to add interesting shit to the world. Everyone wins. But Bethesda would never do it. They turned down a lot of the old designers of Fallout 1 and 2 when they were working on Fallout 3 for some reason.

 

[JammasterJG]

I definitely preferred New Vegas... mainly because Fallout 3 was doing the whole "Gritty everything is bad" parade that most games do, and granted that would be how life would be like REALISTICALLY in a post-apoclyptic world, but c'mon, this is a game with Laser rifles and giant supermutants clawing at your face!

Also, Fallout 3 felt really empty. There were few marked quests and only like 4 city area settlements... it felt like there was no-one else left in the world, which is why New Vegas was awesome because there was so much to do and see and explore...

...and i have to admit Wild Wasteland does kindof seal the deal for me

 

[Mr spank]

New Vegas for sure.

i love the series as a whole and loved every minute of my 258 hours of time in Fallout 3. but when i first started New Vegas, it felt almost like i was picking back up in Fallout 2. maybe its because its back on the west coast where Fallout 1&2 are based, i don't know, but i definitely like NV so much more.

the story, characters, companions, and weapons, all of these got a deserved upgrade in New Vegas which made it a better experience for me.

263 hours in the Mojave and counting!

 

[Merkavar]

too me NV and 3 were so similiar it seems pointless to be comparing them. if ihad to pick i would say NV was better but not by much and a half decent mod to 3 would bring it up to the same level as NV.

the main difference i noticed between them was 3 was more free roam, you could go in any direction and you would find something. NV seems to force you to move around the map in an anticlockwise motion.

 

[Chelsea O'shea]

NV no doubt,nothing like the fear of a deathclaw again,by 15 i could kill a group of deathclaw in FO3 but in NV not a chance even with a companion like veronica,i can kill all but one then that last one always gets me,and that's just normal deathclaws,not alphas or the black one in the salt mines

 

[Lim3]

I thought Fallout 3 was much cooler. New Vegas was to buggy (i was aiming for high completion but then one of the Khan's women despawned and I couldn't complete the quest). Also the main quest in Fallout 3 is damn awesome, as is the Brother Hood of Steel and Optimus i mean Liberty Prime.

Also I think the surprise factor of how good Fallout 3 was meant that it got a big WOW from audiences. New Vegas was expected to live up to Fallout 3 and when it didn't, it seemed worse then what it actually is.

 

[pieguy259]

The Capital Wasteland felt more like... well... a wasteland, and New Vegas has more bugs than the Marigold tunnels.

On the other hand, Rose of Sharon Cassidy.

 

[David Hebda]

I didn't bother to read all 150+ responses to this post, and I doubt many people will read mine, but from what I have observed people who played Fallout 1 and 2 like NV much much better, while those who only played 3 and NV prefer 3. I think it is because NV goes back to the roots of the series much better than 3 did and, for gun owners like myself we enjoy the amount of work they did making the guns as true to life as they did in NV (it was not so in 3)