Hi everyone,

I am pretty much done with NV and I will admit that Fallout 3 was way better in almost every way imaginable. That doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy NV, because I did it was really good. We need to remember that NV is a stand alone game and was not in anyway meant to out-do Fallout 3. The next titles will be the ones we need to judge. Think of Fallout NV as a large add on to Fallout 3 to keep us Fallout fans going for a few more years until the big number 4 comes out. The one thing I will complain about Fallout NV is it didn't have the same kind of waste-land effect on me that Fallout 3 had. It doesnt feel much like a wasteland in places because Mojave is pretty empty anyway in real life. Yeah Las Vegas is huge and there were vast elements of it that were destroyed but the blue sky, the vegetation in and around the surrounding city just didn't make it seem as dark or as desolate as the Capital Wasteland. But that is fine, because all of the Fallout elements were in there and it did feel like a Fallout game - but if I was Obsidian I would not have chosen Las Vegas for this title. It would have been better to have used another large vast city in the Fallout universe. But Fallout NV was a stand alone product and was never intended in my opinion to compete with Fallout 3. Obsidian were aware that Fallout 3 was game of the year and widely considered one of the greatest games of all time. I actually don't think that Fallout 3 will ever be out-done by a 4th or even 5th title in terms of the effect it had on everyone that enjoyed it. That game was unique for the time and was so huge and detailed that we were amazed from start to finish. A lot more time was invested in F3 too and that in the gaming industry means a better game. For those who were disappointed by FNV, just remember it wasnt intended to compete with F3 it was a stop-gap for us to keep us enjoying the franchise and I really do believe that the 4th title will blow us away like F3 did.

Cheers

Whiskey-Rose - When I said F3 was better than F NV in every way - it is just my personal opinion but I do respect what your saying - there are elements of F NV that are better such as combat, some of the quests were better than some of F3's but overall I still think that F3 was an all rounder, in that I didn't dislike anything about it. I guess as you have noticed my point really was focused more towards the location, the general feel of a post apocalyptic setting that I felt F NV lacked and the exploration aspect of things which to be honest is probably the main thing I really enjoy about Fallout games, exploring the huge open worlds. But I do respect also that in the Fallout world Las Vegas and the Mojave wasteland is what it is and that is fine. Future titles will be varied too I am sure.

I like your point on comparing it to F 1 and F 2 also. Based on this so far - what do you think should genuinely happen with F4 - should it be similar to F1, 2, NV or similar to F3. (I know I am changing the subject a little here)

Thanks

I think your right but given what you want to see from Fallout 4 - how can that be done, where would be the best place to set the game?. If it was closer to the war, which side - before, during or right after. You have to think that if before it wont be post apocalyptic, during it would be impossible to survive and then how long would it take for the dust to settle? A few years to be able to walk around and survive. A game encompassing all of those elements might be worth a try but I don't feel it could work.

I am going to be honest - I don't know a great deal about F1 and F2, only brief readings of the games so you obviously know it better than I do. If you grouped all of the 4 titles together and compared them - what exactly is Fallout 3 doing - what is its contribution to the Fallout story? Why did the game jump hundreds of years after the war, what happened during the years up to the end of the war? Hope that makes sense

Okay now you reminded me of the annexing of Canada bit and the resource wars you have my mind thinking of possibilities. I think that before the Nukes fell the story could be set maybe a few months before in a destroyed city somewhere. During the war before the Nukes fell was the US damaged in anyway or was it purely the Nukes that destroyed it? There is a good possibility that a story could be set before the war - your right. It must in my opinion still have a waste-land theme to it.

Your right F3 200 years after is a little odd - obviously waring factions are slowing the process of re-development but 200 years is a long time. A story based on the events 10 - 20 years later would be a good idea your right - bleakness is better for me I would very much enjoy seeing what happened then. Do you think this is what they have tried to do - to jump forward in time and then make us all speculate and debate what happened before then - rather than starting just after the war and slowly building up to 200 years later. Because right now I really want to know what happened just before the war - as long as it has a waste-land theme - and I want to know what happened a few years after the war too - that would be great.

Paragraphs, mate. Paragraphs. And you do realize that you stated one thing in your title, and then the first line of your post states the exact opposite, right?

New Vegas didn't do the 'wasteland' effect the same way Fallout 3 did, but that doesn't mean it's worse. It's much more believable that the New Vegas setting can actually support life. Fallout 3 seemed like a cartoon, meant for people who aren't going to actually notice simple problems like the fact that the land couldn't sustain any life at all, let alone the population of humans and animals present. No vegetation means no life, and the only plants in the Capital Wasteland are in the Oasis.

I was far more 'amazed' from start to finish my third time through New Vegas than my first time through Fallout 3. Why do people keep calling this game an add-on? It has far, far more (and better) quests. It has locations that actually have things within that make them worth exploring (Festus!!), and not just more ghouls, super mutants and raiders in every room. Oh, and the dialogue was actually intelligent. Fallout 3 had dialogue reminiscent of a middle schooler's first draft of a creative writing assignment.

Yes, and that kind of brilliance is completely missing in Fallout 3. Though the Nuka-Cola Quantum tried, it just wasn't the same.

/Much agreement

The dialogue is actually mature, take for example Cass
And the Supermutants were far, far, far too overdone in FO3, I very much appreciated their limited presence in New Vegas.

And the NCR... just wow. Everything about the NCR is just so very well done.
The Bear Symbol is smartly chosen, their standard trooper armor says so much about the entire faction, and the Rangers... They're actually believable as a potent force.

Both games have their strengths, there's no reason to be constantly arguing over which one is better. NV has a stronger story and a more developed main questline, while FO3's exploration aspect (a very important part of the game for me) was far stronger than NV's is. It's silly to try and tear down one or the other when they each do different things extremely well.

We need to stop trying to put down FO3 or FONV and just focus on what makes them both great games, in my opinion.

We shouldn't compare them, it's not fair. FO:NV is closer to true Fallout, and that's not the fault of Bethesda. It's just that NV had more of the original devs of Fallout than Fallout 3. New Vegas in my opinion is closer to being Fallout game than Fallout 3 is. It just feels more like 1/2. Sorry if I disagree, but FO:NV is better in every way in my opinion, save for graphics. The dialogue, the realism, the gameplay...sorry, bud, but my vote is for NV.

You're basically comparing a gecko (modern-day lizard/Fallout 3) to a crocodile (FO1/FO2/FO:NV), too different to compare. Now why do I make this comparison? Geckos aren't nearly as old and their so drastically different to crocodiles that it's almost like comparing apples and oranges.

I think we should be judging NV to 3, 2, and 1. Mainly because NV is the latest game to be released, and therefore, should be the most improved.

I don't know about anyone else, but this constant comparison to the games of the series just make it seem-if not prove-that the truth is that any developer of a Fallout game will have no chance of satisfying both new players and old players at their extremities. Everyone who loved Fallout 3, and probably started playing Fallout 3 first, to the most extreme has often been finding New Vegas as "worse" while the opposite reaction has suited many on the opposing end.

And in my opinion, anyone who calls New Vegas a DLC is probably basing it on graphics and the fact that some of the gameplay is so similar. And are totally ignoring the story and such-and I haven't played Fallout: New Vegas yet, but I know a lot about some of the basis. And from what I know, there's nothing really "DLC" about it-especially for a Fallout game, in which case the DLCs have so far occurred in locations near the expanded game. Since, you know, Las Vegas is on a completely different side of the U.S. The whole DLC argument gets a bit old.

In my opinion, the general comparison of games is tiresome and overdone-it's typically used by people to suggest which one is better. Couldn't we all agree they're at least decent? Ignoring Tactics and Brotherhood of Steel-I have no idea what the quality for those two games is.

@Tickchtock Fallout Tactics was good, but BoS was terribly bad. I was a "new-player" because Fallout 3 got me to a fan in the Fallout world, but I like New Vegas better mainly because I hate getting a depressing feeling from games, and FO3 gave me that tremendous feeling from Beginning to End, but New Vegas I actually was actually happy throughout the Playthrough. And Iron sights helped my morale of it, as well. =)

I played Fallout 3 first. Then I played 1/2 so my vote isn't biased, heh.

Both of the games are good but if we look from perspective of Fallout lore or an roleplaying perspective I would have to agree with Kalarn

We shouldn't compare Fallout 3 and New Vegas because NV is more Fallouty?

:facepalm:

That's right, Kyle. One's a true Fallout, one's a Bethesda Adaptation. Take your guess which is which. You hear so many references to 1/2 in NV. You almost break down into tears when you see Marcus again. When you guys talk about the Master and the Tribal...AKA THE CHOSEN ONE! NV>FO3 in terms of lore and story. Sorry, but it's a true Fallout.

FO3 wrecked lore. It was a wrecking ball to BoS and enforced cliches (BoS=Saints! Enclave=EVILDEMONZ!!!!!!!Eleven!!!!!!One!!!!). I disagree with you OP, you won't change my views at all no matter how much you try. By the way, you said FO3 was better in every way. It may be that way for you, but for Fallout fans it's worse. Fallout-Fans, not Fallout 3 Fans.

Sorry, friend.

Opinions. I'm not a mileage player and I tend to be more attracted to quality and depth over quantity. Also, the more believable the setting is and the more deeply it and the people living in it are portrayed the more immersed I feel in it. FO3 has a lot of stuff to explore/find. This is fine, but outside of that the game felt very shallow to me compared to NV. I didn't believe it as a place. The characters and factions felt like set-pieces placed to serve a very narrow purpose rather than real people. Their motives and details of their existence felt really contrived. I liked FO3, but for my money NV is better in pretty much every way I care about. Like I said, though, I do enjoy the random exploration stuff, but I wouldn't trade all of the depth that NV has for it. Not in a million years. :shrug:

People who say you shouldn't compare Fallout 3 to New Vegas, or Fallout 3 to Fallout 1 annoy me, Fallout 3 is supposed to be a Fallout game, its only natural to compare it to other Fallout games.

Iron Sights Mode is the main reason why New Vegas is better in certain areas then Fallout 3. I played FO3 earlier today clicked the left trigger and I'm like huh this svcks. Played New Vegas later used Iron Sights it felt much better.