I've been playing on Fallout NV for a number of hours now (up to level 18 currently) and I have to say, coming from Fallout 3, I'm quite disappointed.
The game doesnt seem as atmospheric compared to Fallout 3 to me.

I also find the radio/music disappointing. There only ever seems to be about 3 or 4 different tracks playing, whereas Fallout 3 had much more.

I also expected more differences in the game itself. Hardly any changes at all, and just seems like its a new map.

Still, I still really like the game though, and up to now, I've not had a crash! (I was one of the thousands of upset Fallout 3 gamers who could never complete the game due to the awful Waters of Life glitch)

Just wondering how all you out there compare the 2?

You're definitely not alone in your opinion, and most people such as us who were disappointed with NV seem to have similar complaints. I too preferred the atmosphere of Fallout 3, and the music selection, but what I preferred most is the quality open world Bethesda gave to us. I think I would have preferred New Vegas much more if it was in a linear world or a hub-based world, instead of a sandbox layout similar to Fallout 3's which it fails at.

Most people seem to agree that New Vegas was a much better RPG, and a much worse sandbox game, than Fallout 3. But just because they agree, doesn't mean they like the same game. If you prefer exploring in your games, chances are you'll get very bored with New Vegas, but if RPG elements are more important to you, then you'll like it much more than Fallout 3. The people who think New Vegas is a great sandbox game probably haven't played many good sandbox games before, such as Bethesda's previous games, as well as Deus Ex, which, while not open world, rewards exploration as much as FO3 and MW do.

While I enjoyed NV, and played for 270 hours, it was the same sunshine and monsters in the location areas, no real random encounters, nothing that made me think"Oh nuts, should i go this way?" I liked it, do not get me wrong, it was a good game, i liked the music, the story was all right, but it did not grab me the same as this one did, as this one your fighting to survive, this one is a true wasteland, where Radiation and Danger are a common place, survival hangs by a thread, and you hope that you do not wake up dead or being kidnapped by super mutants. But i will admit i will not pass real judgement on NV until i get a chance to play all the DLC's when they are made available for the PC.

I agree with this. I really like the new features of New Vegas- hardcoe mode, damage threshold, more weapons, companion quests, joinable factions and open-ended story. When I go back to F3 I really miss these things a lot. However the open world and urban DC atmosphere makes up for it. It seems more like a true wasteland, New Vegas seems too safe, providing you stick to the main paths.

Just think how great a combination of the best of both would be...hopefully Fallout 4 will be that game.

I agree, a game that takes the best elements from NV and combines it with what we have already in FO3 would be absolutely amazing.

Yep New Vegas just lacked the amazing, almost poetic, atmosphere that Fallout 3 had. The metros in Fallout 3 are also sadly missed in New Vegas as is the complex and beautiful DC ruins. In some ways I think that the DC ruins holds more interest in terms of exploration than the New Vegas map in its entirety.

Im going to be honest here... i didnt even finish NV. I tried, really did, but i just lost interest. The world just seemed smaller to me somehow, and not much to explore.
I also hated the invisible walls that meant i couldnt climb over that cliff, i had to go around.

I still really liked it, dont get me wrong, it was a good game. And if i had never played Fallout before, i think i may have loved it. But having something to compare it to meant i didnt receive it as well as i couldve done.

I'm enjoying NV although ultimately I prefer FO3.
The only thing I'll really miss going back to FO3 is ED-E!

Yeah

I think that FNV kicked FO3 in every single category except for exploration. FNV had a MUCH better story.

Summed it up perfectly. But hey, we're back home now. Let's party! Race you to Moira! *sticks foot out in front of you*

Yah i think the Biggest problem with NV was that there was no Glitches or bugs fixed, Not much combat, Not many lootable locations, NOT many dungeons what so ever, and no patrols either. They should have added these simple characteristics to the game and it would have been alot better and would have surpassed or equaled up to F3

I'm I the only person who thought new Vegas story was no better than fallout 3 z)

I dont know in NV you got to at least choose whos side you got to fight on i liked that.

I never really could get into F3's "atmosphere". I personally get immersed by talking to people, finding out about the world, and seeing how I can change people's lives.

Fallout 3 really just doesn't have that. It's full of comic book character with comic book problems, and nothing I did really changed the face of the wasteland other than a few pimples. Ultimately, there's just nothing really interesting.

Fallout: New Vegas did this so much better. I liked talking to President Kimball, Mr. House, and even the [censored]ish Caesar. People had problems that I expected to find in NV's setting, and remedying or festering the problems greatly change how the Mojave looks in the end.

I also prefer Fallout 3.

There is a lot of things I like about New Vegas...Companions and their quests, more crafting, foraging, the dialog options are way better. I'm making a distinction between dialog options and storyline, because I do not think the New Vegas storyline is any better than FO3. Sure the dialog is better, you can factions, etc., but I really don't care about Benny or what happens to Hoover Dam. I also think the location of FONV is terrible.

The DC Wasteland in FO3 is so rich and well thought out and detailed. Even on my third game new stuff pops up. Surprising moments of random everywhere on the map. With New Vegas it's the same thing every game and nothing new, random or interesting happens.

I could go on, but I think other people have mentioned all the positives of FO3.

I'm pretty much bored with New Vegas. The only thing that keeps me playing it is the companions.

I really hope Bethesda does Fallout 4 with the same atmosphere as Fallout 3. And I hope they combine the great stuff from both games. That would be the ultimate Fallout game.

You're not the only one. What made the New Vegas storyline better, in my opinion, was not the story. It was the dialog and dialog options. And the fact that you could change things and join a faction. The main story about being shot in the head and then fighting for the dam doesn't interest me at all. And being a person that could care less about gambling...all that is wasted on me. I've played each of the gambling games once just to see what it's like and never again.

To me the most interesting stories in New Vegas are the companion quests.

New Vegas beats FO3 hands down.

Only thing FO3 "does better" is the exploration.

The setting is wrong. War was 200 years ago not last week. The games story is full of plot holes and is just FO1 and FO2 mashed together and set in DC. There is no reputation system, no damage threshold. Can't join or even talk to most of the factions. The game forces you to deal with the BoS even if your character hates bos. Game is Black and White (good vs evil) and there are no multiple endings to give my actions meaning. Optimus Prime does all the work for you in the end and its one of the plot holes in FO3. There is zero balance in the game and my characters become gods and masters of all so I am forced to make characters with low special to have any sense of balance.

+1.

I agree that NV was a better RPG and a better FPS with iron sights and the guns, but not nearly as fun to explore as Fallout 3 was. I liked the Fo3 Music selection far more in Fo3 than NV as well.

NV was a fun game to play, but I won't be going back to it nearly as much as I will/am Fallout 3 for a host of reasons, and ultimately decided to keep modding for Fo3 instead of NV.

I don't think it's that much better an RPG. It just has better written dialogue. Otherwise, it's good but nothing remarkable when compared to Fallout 3. Both games have similar plots: You have no past, and by some excuse you have to find person X, and during that adventure you get involved in Awesome Battle Y between "good guys R" and "evil guys P" but towards the end you discover the factions are not so one sided at all*. Featuring a bunch of Colorful Companions and towns full of problems. If Bethesda had put more effort in dialogue, Fallout 3's story would be well on par with that of NV's.


*In NV, you discover that NCR despite its democracy does little to help those most in need, and the Legion despite its brutality would bring total stability in the region.
In Fallout 3, you discover that the Brotherhood is barely able to live up to its promises and that not everyone in the Enclave support total genocide (or, rather, the guy who is really in charge).

I think that FNV is definitely a better RPG - you have to choose between skills and prioritise. In F3 you can eventually be a master of everything. Also in FNV the ending is open ended, you can join any faction you like and shape the story as you wish. In F3 this is not possible.

However, even though the FNV story is open ended, I still prefer the linear F3 story. Its much more exciting.

Don't get me wrong, I've just started another F3 character (an energy weapons specialist) and am loving it already, and I've still not completed FNV. For all of New Vegas' plus points (and there are many), F3 is basically more fun and I keep coming back to it.

Eh, you guys can continue being disappointed in NV, I'll continue being disappointed in F3. At least one doesn't try to pose itself as something it isn't.

I'm kind of more disappointed in the "red & blue" attitude in F3/NV discussions. It seems to be that one simply cannot like both the games despite their lacks and flaws Why has one to be absolutely better than the another?

Ah well, we can always *pretend* it's called Wasteland 3: A post Nuclear Oblivion. Surely, it has some remedying factors like the exploration. Sorta.

:rock:

Totally agree with you.