Yes, Dario, that is one of the major reasons. Also, the setting is way better. A desert full of warring tribes or a ruined city full of random dudes, not a tough choice for me.
Also, Longknife, I felt both games were rather easy. Both games started out where my character was fairly weak and I had to struggle to defeat certain encounters, but they both also ended up with my character being a demigod that could take on anything without breaking a sweat. Both, by about halfway, I was loaded with tons of weapons and armor and so much ammo and so many stimpacks that I could never conceivably use them all.
If anything, the only aspect of NV that would make it easier than FO3 is companions. I feel they are a bit OP. When I replay NV, hardcoe very hard mode, I will not use a single companion the entire game.
Yeah both can be made easy, but the difference is the prevelance of the tough fights. If you play New Vegas and you chose not to confront Caesar in his tent, befriend the Boomers, never visit any Deathclaw nests, talk your way out of your problems with the BoS and avoid Camp Golf when you have bad NCR rep, then you've avoided all the tough fights. In FO3, you can be as passive as you like, but the moment you hit level 26, you're gonna have to fight 4 deathclaws every 5 minutes, and each of them take at least one clip of ammo to take down.
FO3 is easy mode though the moment you realize how overpowered VATS is. You take like 0 damage in VATS but you deal a ton to others. VATS in New Vegas is a joke by comparison; I did horrible the first time I replayed FO3 simply because I was so used to free range shooting in NV. I was wondering why my damage svcked and why my shots kept missing, then I rediscovered VATS and things got so much easier. :biggrin: