They used the Holy Hand Grenade! Hit the dirt!

Hey - I AM 40!

lol

Don't feel old though, I'm as hungry for the next game as anyone.

Hey, at least they kept the setting alive, right?

*Looks at signs that it's been 200 years after the great war in DC*
They did?

(Enough bashing, no, I could never go back to FO3, not cause I hate it as a Fallout game, not cause of NV's new mechanics, but because I overplayed it so torturously hard that I can't stand the thought of playing it again, maybe in a couple of years when I've forgotten most stuff.)

NO - they comprise a very SMALL, but very LOUD and obnoxious group of over-opinionated thread hijackers.

Then for all that's holy, please go back to your antiquated relic (great choice of words) and quit complaining about the Masterpiece that is FO3.

it is like debating Evolution (FO3) and Creation (early FO games)

I'm coming back as I type this. After a mere 80 hours in NV, I'm coming back once again to FO3. Over 300 hours so far before NV came out. But now, I'm missing the exploration and the atmosphere. I love the industrial graveyard. The ambushes from towering buildings on a rainy evening, Enclave vertibirds running bombing runs before landing behind a group of Super Muntants out for your blood.

God I've missed this.

+1

I feel this way every time I go out - the rain mods make it Incredibly immersive for me now. I like just wandering around the wasteland, not even doing all the places but enjoying the exploration and atmosphere.

I don't care what people say, this game Is historic.

3 months?? Wow, how did you last that long? I stopped playing after the 3rd week of release.

1. Go back? I think most of us dinosaurs are playing the old games simultaneously as we play FO3 and NV, we never "left" the old games so we can't go "back" to them.

2. FO3 is a masterpiece? As an RPG, Oblivion clone, popcorn game or Fallout game?

3. I think you missed the "D" in front of "evolution", FO3 was only "evolution" in graphics and immersion, the rest was all devolution.

:tops:
Amen to that.

Make that radioactive rain and just traveling becomes a whole lot riskier. Once i was in the middle of nowhere and it started raining, after i had used all radaways i had to choose whether to die of radiation or alcohol poisoning :shakehead: (FWE makes alcoholic drinks have slight rad removing effect)

I put NV back on today and just wondered a bit and the boredom was to much, nothing new happens anywhere, you know whats around every single corner.

The lack of encounters has killed NV for me now, only the DLC can save it!.

FO3 on the other hand, epic every minute or or 2 something different

*stares* Quit complaining? I was not aware that discussions were not allowed on these forums. I guess in a month we will settle to backseat moderatin too? :vaultboy:
Oh I remember you, aren't you that "old-geezer"-name slinging guy who was somehow not able to rebut my points in one of the many F3 vs NV thread?

Anyhoo, you are making my signature just more sweeter. I feel warm & fuzzy now, keep it up! :goodjob:

Double Amen.

I'm new to the forum. Just wanted to put in my two cents(Im sure this has been said to death)

FO3 was better than New Vegas if for no other reason than simplicity. Thats not a negative word and it is not the same as 'vanilla'. For the established realm and world of the fallout series FO3 in my opinion is just more believable. FO3 actually felt like a post apocalyptic wasteland. New Vegas just felt like a regular game and the landscapes seemed to be in more proper condition then some areas in reality today. Im sorry, its not believable to have an established faction every 10 feet in a supposed 'wasteland'. NCR has 700,000 citizens which IMO is not realistic by any measure. The feelings of isolation, loneliness and vastness that FO3 made famous ceases to exist in New Vegas because every two steps I take there is a faction that has an entire territory to themsleves and they are at war with ten other factions. Thats not a wasteland. There is no time to just enjoy the emptiness or vastness of the game because there is no time to breathe. Something is literally trying to kill you. FO3 wasnt a stroll in the park but you didnt feel as if the area was thriving. Everything was dead or dying and humanity hung by a thread. Even the established cities like River City or Megaton were having difficulties and hanging on by a thread. The skies were green, you were living in hell and it was also spontaneous. New Vegas as a game cheapens FO3 because FO3's main storyline was trying to get water to the wasteland. After all water is irradiated and not everyone had the luxury of being born in vault. In New Vegas everyone evidently has clean water and there is about 30 lakes that were unradiated. ridiculous. It cheapens the entire plot of FO3. At the end of the game everyone died fighting to bring water to the wasteland and New Vegas has it in tons(exaggerating but you get the point)

Factions are great but you dont need fifty in a game nor do you need one around every corner and damn sure not organized. In a world where survival is everything yet essentials are rare there will be more individuals or small families roaming the waste then giant factions.

FO3 Factions(general term) Not inclusing dlc
Brotherhood of Steel
Outcasts
Ghouls(ghoul city is the only organized group)
Super Mutants(technically not organized)
Enclave
Random Raiders(scattered)
Reilly's Rangers
Talon Company
Paradise Falls slavers(city)
the family
tenpenny tower(city)

New Vegas Factions
NCR
Brotherhood of steel
powder gangers
the kings
the omertas
the chariman
the vangroffs
cesars legion
great khans
followers of the apacalyspe
enclave remnants
white glove society
gun runners
crimson caravan
fiends
jackals
scorpions
jacobstown super mutants
state of utobitha

There is no need for that many factions. There were alot of good missions envolved, though I wish there were more with jacobstown.

quality over quantity. bethesda is amazing at paying attention to details, they dont need 50 factions to a game to make it fun. I felt more envolved with the ten factions of FO3 then i did with the 30 from new vegas. Whatever plans bethesda has for fallout 4 I hope they stay on the east coast far away from the obnoxiously populated west coast. The futher away they stay from the football attired roman soldiers or the NCR territories (whom seem to have forgotten that a thousand nukes went off on california(exaggerating) and have completely skipped over the rebuilding stage) the better. If anyone responds Im sure im gonna be shredded but I just wanted to say that

Are we arguing now wheter NV is a Fallout game or not? :unsure2:

And funny about the quality and quantity argument. In my opinion it looks kinda reverse to me.
Beth offers quantity with its encounters and enviroments, while Obisidan goes with quality of dialogue, writing, backstories and a whole gameworld consistency.

How many of those "simplistic" factions have extensive backstories like the NCR, Khans, The Kings etc.? Heck, even the different raider types(well, not the Scorpions) have their roots back in the original games with logical explanation.
I don't consider bunch of illogicaly placed baddies just for the sake of cannon-foddering or loot-grinding, as "attention to detail". Dangit, Talon Company had some potential but just like the Enclave, they've turned them into Dr. Evil-style of foes.

BUT if we are arguing wheter F3 is postapocalyptic enough, you'll hear no argument from me. It is, and it's dang good at it. It's just not Fallouty enough.

I think it all comes down to which game each person had more fun playing. Each of the Fallout games are good in thir own respect. I personally had more fun in Fallout3 for reasons throughout this thread. I'm not saying NV was bad, not by any means. I think they're the best games i've ever played.

Thats a good point. Touche. Hopefullly bethesda shows consistency with FO4. I did love the follower dialogue and plots

Apparently us 'old geezers' (I'm 15) are clueless, because Fallout 3 isn't as good as the originals in our opinion

1. Ah, first up, have you played FO1 and FO2 extensively?
Cause if you have then you might understand New Vegas more and see why we dinosaurs are irked by FO3.

2. I don't really see how FO3 is more believable, there are so so many arguments for why it's not but I'm not going to drag them all up, I just want an answer to this one and only question: Tenpenny Tower is realistic?

3. New Vegas cheapens FO3?
FO3 bended lore as crazy for Enclave and BOS so I'd say it's a fair trade.

4. Water, I still don't get it, why didn't the people in Capital Wasteland just move if the place was such a hell hole?
If plants can't grow and if most water and food is radiated then just... Yknow... Move... Starting to think that every wastelander in CW is a descendant from a slacker vault.

In a realistic universe, the radiation would be completely gone, save for places like the Glow. BoS and Enclave in Fallout 3 were changed to cliche Good vs. Evil, hell, the BoS didn't really care about the Enclave very much. FO3 cheapens the story of Fallout, so cheapening Fallout 3 is good.

Radiation lasts 1000's of years... never played the 'originals' but am versed in the lore however... can't quite grasp the opinion that FO3 is like the 'bastard' child. Imperfect certainly, but so is just about everything...

I just played FO3 again today, and it's refreshing. I love NV too, but it's just bland. To me, FO3 is just more fun.

Hmm.. Am I the only one who likes Fallout 3 for its setting? To me combat is tedious in both games and I avoid it. I just like the world and the story, far over Vegas. (I know I'm going to get bashed and burned for this, but I feel Fallout 3 was a better Fallout game than New Vegas, while Vegas was a better sequel to Fallout 2.)

I never understood those who imply that liking Fallout 3 for the story makes you a degenerate, inferior and someone who doesn't respect a good story. I don't understand. Do a load of generic, unimportant NPCs with bad voice acting ruin the whole story? Was Fallout 3's story stepping out of V101 and then directly committing suicide in Project Purity? Does New Vegas having better dialogue invalidate what was good in Fallout 3?

Not that I dislike any Fallout game. I've played the originals through dozens of times, and I played them before I played Fallout 3. I like them all equally and play them all. But I must admit that New Vegas died pretty soon for me. After 30 hours of Vegas I found myself walking in the Master's lair again, and solving problems in the Museum of History.

1.) Ive played the originals,I enjoyed them and I know the background and lore of the fallout series. All Im saying is that 700,000 census 2241 is unrealistic, lol. I dont like comparing New Vegas to FO1 and FO2 because New Vegas is vastly inferior to the two originals despite having many of the same designers, IMHO.

2.) A single tower in the vast Capital Wasteland that survived the nuclear destruction pretty much unscaved and a guy decides to move in and fortify its wall? Sure its believable. I may have mispoke. All Fallot games have a number of things that stretch the imagination, but for me probably the biggest issue with the fallout series on the west coast in general is that if I were to imagine a post nuclear apocalyptic setting I wouldn't imagine a thriving civilization with a few worn down buildings, even if it is 200 years later. I like the way the originals play, but New Vegas kills that element because they are 'thriving'. It kills the whole theme of the series. New Vegas doesnt feel like a fallout, it feels like a western game that takes place in the 1890s. personally I think FO3 is closer to a fallot game than New Vegas.

3.) I was specifically talking about the watre issue. FO3= How do get water? New Vegas= everyone has water, we have cable, television, tivo, nascar and fighter jets....im just saying.

4.) Thats actually pretty funny, lol. Probably because they have no idea where to go. Similar in Big town when u ask the people there why dont they go somewhere else if life is so hellish and they respond," because megaton doesnt have the room and rivet city is too far and we will probably be killed before we reach any safety'....so theres your answer I guess.

New Vegas was not a bad game, but personally FO3 felt more like a wasteland and better represented what the theme of fallout is all about. New Vegas designers are great dialog writers though