http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/ContactSheet-003.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/ContactSheet-002.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/ContactSheet-001.jpg

So they used the same floor texture they used in every building other. There arent the piles of trash that are typical every where else and im not talking about the random piles of papers. The desk, beds, equipmet, ect... are all in order, junk isnt just piled up all over the place like every where else in the wasteland. All I'm say is that on the whole the Citadel looks a hell of alot better then almost every other settlement in the game and is hardly the trash heap you discribed it as.

You say Fallout 3 is great and that New Vegas is similar but with more stuff, but you still consider it a "sad disappointment"? Methinks you need to lower your expectations a bit.

Anyway, as people have said Fo3 is very different in mood, setting and story to the originals, to the point where some people don't really consider it a true Fallout game. I'd say it's still a decent game in its own right though. Not great, but enjoyable enough. And yeah, I'd say it's a bit easier than New Vegas (though I didn't find NV all that difficult either).

Actually no... The floor texture is beneath the decals ~those were hand placed.
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/trash.gif
The problem is (and was stated above by others), that it is impossible to believe that the BOS would carry out their daily routine in that warren.

A lot of us think that (myself included).

I will admit that the BoS not at least picking up the random scraps of paper on the floor is a llittle silly.

my opinion:
i played both "f3" and new vegas(also both with "harder core" mods and whatnot...)

fallout 3 has the poorest, worst written story EVER. the game itself is waaayyyyy too easy.
theres a lot of stuff that is too clean, and does not at all feel like fallout.
never needed any caps(money), only "hard" scenes were the first mutants/ first deathclaws.
not to mention the levelscaling.....booooooooooo!
good thing is: it looks surprisingly good and has some good moments... like the beginning/prologue.
if you are a more "casual" type of player youll still love it

NV was too easy... well, at least the story was much better!!
but still less a fallout-like feeling compared to f3, but that is ok i guess, something "fresh".
you will need money, and "skillchecks" are much more common.
many sidequests, factions and REPUTATION!

New Vegas>>>"fallout" 3

oh and that fps-style suxxxxxxxx

A couple things...

-VATS in Fallout 3 means that you only take like 15% of normal damage. In New Vegas, VATS would reduce the damage you take by... I think 30-50%, but you would still feel VERY vulnerable in VATS. Fallout 3 on the other hand, you can literally see a mini nuke flying towards you and solve the problem by entering VATS mode to only take 15% of the mini nuke's damage. Manual aiming on the other hand is completely gimped. The weapons you'll find in FO3 are all in disrepair, meaning you sort of rely on crits for any real damage. Again, VATS in FO3 increases your crit rate by 10%, so unless if you're using it, you can't really hope to crit.

Long story short, if you aim at enemies manually, the game will be very hard. If you use VATS as much as possible, you should be fine.

-Cars. Stay the HELL away from them. Yknow those cars in FO:NV that explode? That's every car in FO3, and they're EVERYWHERE. One of these explodes near you and it's an automatic death.

-Difficulty in FO3 has more to do with random explosions than anything else. Watch out for the idiot with the rocket launcher or the location with dozens of cars. Other than that? It's pretty simple, usually.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Cept' yours sounded smarter and more well put.

New Vegas has far more of the "Fallout feeling" then Fallout 3 ever did, it was even made by some of the people who worked on the originals.

The level scale makes it easier than NV.

I started NV and got ripped apart by a pack of 6 deathclaws. Those guys were insane!

The offset is the Gun Runner's Arsenal. It does make the early trips quite easy. Unless you run into the above said deathclaws of course.

On its own merits it is a very good game. It is a series outlier in terms of it's tone and writing and it has it's fair share of flaws (poor writing and absolute morality in terms of narrative choices) but it is a great sandbox action rpg full of atmosphere and brilliant world building.

As for it's difficulty, that is debatable. I thought FO:NV was definitely harder, because of the scaling difference as well as more unforgiving enemies. That said, it is far from the "easiest game ever". It's not hard by any stretch, but I could rattle off TONS of games that I thought were easier. As was discussed in a thread in the general Fallout series thread, what people find challenging varies. I don't think any of the Fallout games were what I would call hard, but I think FO:NV was the hardest of the lot, so FO3 is a step down from that. It coddles you early and it's much more difficult to wander into a situation where you're in over your head (though it can happen). That said if you play on PC, you can mod it to make it much less forgiving and much more dynamic. The combat is a little clumsier than n FO:NV, though that was hardly smooth and precise itself.

The best way to sum up Fallout 3 is to call it light on narrative, heavy on independent exploration. If the TC is using NV as a reference, and it seems he/she is, this is the biggest difference. FO3 won't give you much direction other than the main quest, and there's nothing you can call a main "quest hub" where you'll be peppered with quest options (like New Vegas). It's very much free form and player driven. If you are a player who likes being led around by the narrative, FO3 is definitely not for you. If you are a player who wants the narrative to stay out of the way so you can play as you will, you'll love it. The downside is that the narrative aspects are very uninspiring (thought it definitely has its moments, flashes of brilliance here and there that are nice but ultimately serve to illustrate by contrast how severely lacking the writing is overall). Your decisions will almost exclusively be black/white, good vs. evil, which is a shame.

The aesthetic of Fallout 3 is much more dark, haunted, gritty and melancholy. Visually, it's washed out and bleak by design. While some people don't like that, I absolutely loved it. In my opinion, the environment is the star of the show in Fallout 3. That said it definitely has some blemishes and questionable choices (as has been stated, some of the towns/settlements/bases should really have been cleaned up better). The ruined, desolate aesthetic of the Capitol Wasteland is extended to virtually all of its inhabited interiors, which is a tad unrealistic. But by no means is that a major knock, imo.

If you only played FO:NV and loved it, there's a decent chance you won't like FO3. There's also a decent chance you'll like it better and a pretty good chance you'll find it to be a "six of one, half a dozen of the other" situation. But it is definitely worth the $20 risk to find out, imo.

Well, I haven't played New Vegas yet, but I can give you my opinion on Fallout 3. It's one of the best shooter/post apocalyptic games I've played in a long time. I can't believe I never checked it out before now! It's very addictive and it sparks my imagination like no other post apocalyptic game. I am so happy that I finally decided to get it. I'm mainly a TES player (Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim), but then I saw a lot of discussions about Fallout and thought to give it a 2nd look.

The best part is that it's an open world. You can explore to your heart's content and don't follow some laid out singular path. I love the setting! The ruins of DC are amazing and the music... to listen to 40's/50's tunes while climbing over rubble and shooting mutants is priceless! I've always been drawn to more urban settings, so FO 3 totally fits my bill!

I highly recommend the game. I think I'm a bit obsessed with it LOL

Well Said...

@TheLobotomite:
welllll... hard to tell really, but for me f3 felt more like fallout because of the (great) prologue in the vault(thats it really...the rest,...not)

but you are not mistaken: in NV the original devs (or some of them) made a much better story and picked up a lot of that fallout background-story(like the NCR, Khans, BOS,Crimson Caravan, Gunrunners...Mutants!!) you meet many of the old chars(Marcus! with the original voice of Micheal Dorn)/ or references(like cassidys daughter)

so maybe it(f3) felt "more like it" to me because i waited so long for a sequel XD

I think I played through the prologue about ... 2.5 times before I downloaded some mod/hack/save-game that allowed me to skip through to the real game. Haven't been back since then. Vaults in FO3 looks like some cargo ship from the same time as Titanic or maybe Andrea Doria. In FO 1/2 vaults looked a lot more futuristic like a mixture between the insides of some Star Trek space ship and some James Bond villain hide-out.
I think I'll have to dig through the mod sites for a mod like that.


Fallout 3 does a better job of introducing you to the world and then lets you explore it without getting in the way.