I'm on 27:34 right now

how can you only last seventeen seconds? That song is awesome

I have a headache.

Could probably last twenty at most if I didn't.

I had to shut down Opera.
Only got to 11 minutes... have to start over.

[edit]

On a completely unrelated topic: http://zeknox.deviantart.com/art/Louring-Jests-with-Mithia-210511147
Feel free to laugh your face off.

And here is two DnD comics: http://zeknox.deviantart.com/art/It-always-hits-its-target-280004229?q=gallery%3Azeknox%2F544584&qo=2
http://zeknox.deviantart.com/art/A-Narrow-Victory-286312038?q=gallery%3Azeknox%2F28469877&qo=0

(Read the description of the first one to get it)

[edit2]

And they'd most likely have damage sponges with player-scaled enemies.

40 something minutes, I'm going to go play New Vegas. Will update my time when I'm done

And lol @ that comic thing by gabriel

It would depend in my opinion. FO3 was their first try at the game, basically a training grounds for the future of the series. It had its pros, & cons. But Obsidian had past experience, that shaped their mind differently in a sense. So in my opinion, yes. It would be different.

Were will you be when the Nuclear Holocaust comes? Basemant, with a pile of sugar bombs & nuka cola.

4:13:54

then I exited out.

Interesting world to explore- F3

Story, setting, characters, items, pretty much everything else- NV

If Bethesda made the map and locations and Obsidion filled it in I think NV would have been amazing.

Fallout 3 is not the real fallout. And new Vegas is closer to the originals.

Of course it could have.

We have a http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Psykerin the house!

OOOPS

I would say the majority of fallout fans have never played 1 or 2.
So all they can judge the series on, is 3 and NV. If he thinks 3 feels more like a fallout world than NV then whats wrong with that

There's no need to. Unless this is all in jest, you're quite clearly a Bethesda fan and not a Fallout fan.

Because its not true. He can think it all he likes, but there are three other games that are going to prove him wrong whether he has played them or not.

As much as I find the rampant fanboyism in this thread amusing, it's also quite annoying.

As someone who has played FO:3, FO: NV AND the origional Fallouts 1 & 2, I quite honestly find FO:3 to be a more enjoyable experience than New Vegas. Rampant glitches and problems disrupted cohesion and caused me to loose much of the immersion of NV, and hence it played like a mediocer game instead of a good story. I still haven't been able to play a few DLCs; it does not make me happy when I blow money on something and get [censored] in return. Sure, it was a bit more true to the cannon established by the previous games, but I hardly care about cannon these days. If you want to play to cannon, go with NV. But if you want a better game, FO:3 is it.

So yes, I would have liked to have seen NV developed by Bethesda instead of Obsidian. Maybe then it might have had better replay value/I would have cared about the story/I could have actually played parts of it/ect...

Well said

But it isn't a better game by fact, it's subjective.
And not everyone got a load of glitches and bugs with New Vegas, for me it has run smoothly.
You know when a texture for some reason stretches to the horizon if you look at a certain direction? That has never happened for me in New Vegas and happened all the time in Fallout 3. Could become really annoying.
In Fallout 3 we also had the bugs for the perks in Point Lookout and the bug that causes the Steelyard roof to become... "Not there", the texture is there but if you walk on top of the roof then you fall through it, thanks to Point Lookout.
I also remember flying charred corpses spazzing out in the sky and the game freezing up on me when entering Point Lookout of finishing the Vanilla game.

So Fallout 3 being a better game simply cause New Vegas has glitches and bugs? Nope.
Fallout 3 is not a better game by fact.
Both games have a severe amount of bugs in them, some are just lucky enough to never experience one, while others get the slap-in-the-face package.

Fallout 3 is a themepark, a lulz game, a sightseeing tour, a splatter simulator for dumb fun.
And there's nothing wrong with that, I can enjoy such games too, I enjoyed that for 800 hours in Fallout 3.
But New Vegas is more along my lines, it's coherent, consistent, has good writing, has lots of RPG choices and tons of AnC.

Doesn't make either of the two games "better".
Though New Vegas is the better "Fallout" game.

I don't see why you would have liked Bethesda to do New Vegas though.
If they had then Powder Gangers, Great Khans, House and Caesar's Legion would not have been joinable and had to be killed on sight. Ala Fallout 3 Raiders.
And you'd be railroaded down the NCR goody goody two shoes quest line without being able to break free apart from at the end.
Oh and 30% of all charactes would have been set to Essential so that they can never und I mean NEVER be killed.

Just saying. Bethesda would do better? Fat chance.

Which did you play first?

Also: FO3 is irredeemable crap.

The OP has every right to like Fallout 3 better than New Vegas. What pissed me off was his comment "A True Fallout Game." If he hasn't played Fallout and Fallout 2, then he really shouldn't say crap like that. IMO Fallout 3 is not even close to being a Fallout game. It was a very enjoyable game to play, and I played the hell out of it. I bought the game guide and the the game the day it came out, all the DLC on the days they came out and I played it till about a month before New Vegas. But it wasn't enjoyable in the sense that I though it was a awesome Fallout Game.


A classic example of "The pot calling the kettle black" right there ^

Well ive played FO1 & 2 and think FO3 is a fantastic fallout game. We could disagree about it all day but that would be pointless..
The f a nboys on here jump down people's throats just because they have a different opinion on the series. Which i find pretty pathetic

Yeah and the "I love Bethesda to death" people are just peachy

Playing the FB card to support your case is the same as playing the race card IMO.

Edit: Talking in general, not directed at anyone inputicular.

My observations from my time on this forum, over two years now. As many may know, I am on here pretty much every day, I am a "Forum Dweller."

Now this is my observation and my opinions (So I am not saying its a Fact). I don't like to label things but I am going to have in order to be as clear as possible.

There are Veteran Fallout Fans. They started with Fallout and Fallout 2 way back in the late 1990s. Then they played Fallout 3 and were let down by much of it but still found it very enjoyable to play.

Then there are Original Fans. They were introduced to the Fallout Universe by playing Fallout 3 and some with New Vegas. They really enjoyed Fallout 3, but wanted to learn more of the Fallout Universe. So they read the wiki and read what Veterans had to say, or just jumped right into the older games. They were able to set aside any prejudice they had towards the older Fallouts. They came to see what Vets were saying about the flaws with Fallout 3. They still like Fallout 3 but they see it in a different light.

Then there are those New fans that will not touch Fallout and Fallout 2 with a ten foot poll. Love Fallout 3 to death, say its the best Fallout ever. Yet they don't want anything to do with Fallout and Fallout 2.

Now when New Vegas came out, the Vets and fans of the Originals loved New Vegas. Equal to or better than Fallout and Fallout 2. New fans seemed to hate New Vegas. Complain about the bugs and some even complain about the number of options.

Now my observation is, most of the Vets and Original fans enjoy Fallout 3. They have good things to say about Fallout 3. They don't think its a very good Fallout game, but they liked it for what it was. They see it as canon. Now the New fans rarely have anything good to say about New Vegas or the Orginals for that matter. They often have the nerve to call themselves Fallout fans. IMO no they aren't Fallout fans, they are fans of Fallout 3.

I know there are expectations to these groups. But the norm is, New Fans are often the most annoying. They don't even want to play the originals and hate New Vegas, yet they call themselves fans and hate any criticism of Fallout 3 or Bethesda. And often bash those that dare have any criticism. Vets and Originals are often called FBs

This goes back to my comparing the FB card like the Race Card. Its often played when someone runs out of intelligent, educated things to say.

Better replay value? What?

So if you don't like the originals or want to play an outdated relic of a game like FO1 & 2 then you cant call yourself a true fallout fan??? haha
What does it mean 'being a true fallout fan'?? NOTHING
If you like a any fallout game your a fallout fan
@styles, You seem to be on this forum an awful lot arguing about the same old things time and time again. I think you need to get out more

No. It's because you/they don't have fully-formed opinions on the series. If you either:

1) Were not there from the beginning

or

2) Are not familiar with the originals

Then how could somebody possibly take the opinion seriously that either:

1) Fallout 3 is better than Fallout NV

or

2) Fallout 3 is more "Fallouty" than Fallout NV

Does not compute.


Yeah, not really. You're either a Fallout fan or a Bethesda fan (or in some cases, both). Bethesda changed and reinterpreted what Fallout was. Obsidian steered it back to where it should be. Pretty simple. But you'd know this if you played those outdated relics. Good news for you, though! The market is simply CHOCKED FULL of empty and meaningless pop-a-mole games like Mass Effect or hiking simulators like Bethesda makes! Yay!


Oh, cool. But you judging how people spend their time on a forum is totes great use of time.