I have been playing New Vegas now since October and am now on my 3rd character. I must say I love the game, but I bought a copy of Fallout 3 GOY edition and it was like I had never played the game when I popped it in and began a new character. I thoroughly enjoy both games, but the feeling I got tonight playing Fallout 3 is unmatched since that is the game that started me on Fallout. I am enjoying right now playing both New Vegas and Fallout 3 looking at the nuances in both games that make them masterpieces and literally the best gaming experience I have ever had. These games never get old.

Just thought I would share.

Welcome to the club of 'people who can enjoy both without having to constantly compare them and say one is better than the other'

if you love the modern ones i'd suggest trying the originals (if you haven't already that is) yet more fallout goodness.

This. :fallout:

Also Tactics :happy:

PC Gamer gave Fallout 3 2nd place on its '100 Best PC games of all time' list, praising its user-modifications, deep gameplay and overall polish.

(Didn't say what came 1st though)

I would suggest Fallout Tactics as a great must-play sometime, but you already have a year of game-play.

I have looked at them but I need to be the force that moves the gun that does the job. I just play shooters and if Fallout had never come to that state I never would have played it. I like the world but 2D role-playing is not for me.

It's true that the game-play experience have moved forward in leaps an bounds from the days of the originals. The experience will not be comparable really, that's why I suggested Fallout Tactics. It's of the old generation but you do it all for real and the game has superb tactical play, the normal setting is plenty hard enough. A real hard-core game.

I tried to play through New Vegas a second time, but couldnt do it, wasnt that interested/interesting.

I played through Fallout 3 twice, only because I forgot about the main story. When I beat the game the second time, well when I got to the end, I remembered that I've been here/done that already.

I pref. NV of the 2

I played New Vegas to death, then went back (after a looong break) to Fallout 3. Wow, I love Fallout 3. You can have New Vegas back, but you're never forcing me to give up FO3. GOTY edition, just blows New Vegas out of the water. Sorry, it does. By the time you get to Vegas, New Vegas gets boring... however, even all these years later, there is nothing like the thrill of exploring the DC ruins. Nothing.

(I'm not a big gamer, but I've seen/played a lot of modern games, and most of them leave me cold. More storytelling! although, not as much as NV, because that's overkill )

+1

I agree. I've recently started up a new character in (vanilla) FO3, and I'm enjoying it much more than New Vegas. I feel like once I've seen something in New Vegas, I'm done. I haven't felt the need to keep playing after my first character. But I'm still finding new things to do in FO3 after all this time.

I'm in the half-way club on this one. Without comparing it, I really didn't enjoy the game mechanics in NV. Wasn't a bad game, but personally for me alot of it was a game breaker.



And to OP. If you don't mind some challenge, I suggest installing FWE. I tweaked my options for a semi-hardcoe realistic gameplay and i'm loving it. First 10 minutes in one of the dozens of alternate start stories, I was killed by a super mutant cause I went the wrong way

And for anyone completely lost by the use of an unexplained acronym, it's Fallout Wanderer's Edition - a mod for fallout 3.

It's very good. I was dead within 2 minutes after stepping out the door. I did try to take on some fairly tough people though. Respawned and took down three then ran away.

Better guns and generally better shooter mechanics help a lot. It's still limited by the crappy engine but definitely much better for a shooter guy.

Ah, thank you, I sometimes wonder "what the acronym" it means.

Never played any other Fallout's apart from 3 and NV, and out of the 2 I prefer Fallout 3. Don't get me wrong New Vegas is a great game but the post-apocolyptic atmosphere of Fallout 3 is just to die for. I just couldn't see any atmosphere in NV

Played Fallout 3 to death when it came out. Gotta say I prefer what Obsidian did with New Vegas. The gameplay, the story, the dialogue. They even integrated some of the best mods from Fallout 3 into the game. Kind of a no-brainer for me.

yeah i hadnt played FO3 since last september til today and i started a new character and its been a blast! forgot how great it was to blow up the nuke.

I've always preferred Fallout 3 but, I played it again for the first time since New Vegas and it was like falling in love with it all over again! I'd even forgot some of the streets and map layouts in certain areas. It felt new!
I thought it would be hard to play after the things added in NV like iron sights, better trading and stuff but they barely make any difference really. To think they made NV more glitchy and added small features that most modders on these forums have managed to beat is pretty bad considering the game was there just to be modified.

I didn't liek alot of things about New Vegas, The NCR, Ceasors Legion etc but the map, it's terrible, there's no two ways about it. When you play Fallout 3 every street looks like it's been crafted with love and passion. They tell a story. Also it was nice to be back in a game that felt like what it was meant to be - post-apocalytpic!

I want ruins! I don't want country music and sand dunes that can't be crossed!

I also don't think the dialogue is THAT much better in NV, neither is the voice acting. I just can't tell the difference. I think it's mainly the lack of expression on the characters that spoils the delivery of the dialogue. Didn't like the story of NV either. Fallout 3 was and is the ultimate post-apocalytpic game!

I'm loving it all over again and like many people have said already on here I'm still finding things to do whereas I don't have the desire to replay NV again and I've done F3 loads now.
When I see a new area or house on NV I could easily walk past it and not care or be even slightly interested because you now there will be nothing there but a little 'ching' noise to remind you that yet, this is actually meant to be somewhere.

It sounds like I hate New Vegas, I don't. If Fallout 3 didn't exist I'd think it was the best game ever but, Fallout 3 does exist and New Vegas just can't stand up to it.

It's posts like these that keep me away from FNV. Like the TC, why should I risk buying a game I won't like because it is not like Fallout 3 or the original Fallout when I can get Fallout 3 GOTY with all the expansions?

I hate country music! Does FNV have Native American factions and music? Why not? Perhaps there a similar game for PC, other than S.T.A.L.K.E.R.?

I'll play Fallout 2 while I'm trying to decide.

I don't hate New Vegas either, I DID play it to death. But even though it has (arguably) better controls, better plot, better dialogue, better storytelling... it just has no b____y atmosphere. OK, I know the desert is a bit lifeless, but... I dunno.

Even from the start... FO3 your get your first gun from your Dad, learn to shoot. In NV you walk out of the Docs and some semi-random woman just GIVES you an "expensive" gun... why would she do that? Does she give out free guns to everyone who comes through town? And it goes on and on...

I dunno. Maybe the final NV+5dlc will be good. But I played FO3 for years and still not got bored of it, I've played NV for a few months and it's ... meh...

Bethesda: can FO4 be a bit more Mad Max and a little less Bonanza? pleeeeeeeeeeeease? *bats eyelashes*

I completely agree with you. I think the atmosphere in Fallout 3 is greatly under-appreciated. This sounds a bit stupid or possibley even psychotic but, if I haven't been on Fallout 3 in a while I breathe a sigh of relief when I'm back in that ruined old DC!
Can't say I'm at all excited or have any desire to replay New Vegas. I think the fans of Fallout 1 and 2 have gotten a bit too precious of the old stuff and what THEY think Fallout should be. They were shouting fromt he rooftops before New Vegas came out about how it's got the original developers and it's going to be the true sequel etc and yeah maybe it's a bit more like the old games but, that doesn't make it better. Too much rose tinted glasses and nostalgia I think.

I want a direct sequel to Fallout 3 next time please!

I'm almost finishing my current playthrough, this character has lasted me 110 hours so far.

No, it's a matter of taste. Fallout 3 was an extreme departure from the originals, not only in the more obvious ways (camera, combat system), but also in more subtle ways. A lot more focus on combat, a lot less focus on interaction with characters and organizations, a very black and white setting despite the series' history of being morally gray, a glaring lack of quests that allow for multiple solutions depending on the player's skill proficiencies, etc. Fallout 3 more or less followed the same single player MMORPG approach that The Elder Scrolls does, complete with its emphasis on grinding against filler enemies and dungeon crawling for loot. I don't favor this approach because I find it boring and monotonous; don't get me wrong, I don't hate it, but between the two approaches it's not the one that I personally prefer.

You're free to favor whatever approach fits your preferences, but don't play the nostalgia card if someone disagrees with you. More often than not "nostalgia" and "rose tinted glasses" have absolutely nothing to do with it.

As for atmosphere, the series has never had a consistent atmosphere, and I doubt it ever will. The atmosphere changes depending on the location and the circumstances in that location. I doubt that Fallout 4 will have the same atmosphere as any of the previous Fallout games.

Why can't I use the 'nostalgia' or 'rose tinted glases' card? More often than not it's true. I find it hard to play the originals for a long time at once now. I found the levelling up, grinding against filler enemies even worse on the originals and the locations are more often than not filled with a whole lot of nothing. More so than New Vegas even.
I think some of the characters and plots in the originals are even more far-fetched then the new ones and just a bit stupid. That's not to say the new ones don't have their fair share of this too though.
I agree with the grey area choices etc, although if someone wants to do good they should be allowed to because more often than not in life we all know what the right and wrong thing to do is so why disguise it in dialogue or 'trick' the player. It works once or twice but then the gags done. We've all been frustrated with all of the games at somepoint when you're given a few rubbish choices of dialogue to choose from and the choice you really want to make isn't even there at all.
I don't think the originals are the masterclass of dialogue and storytelling people on these forums make them out to be but, like the point I was trying to make about nostalgia and rose tinted glasses, anything old seems to be instantly better and anything new 'isn't as good as the original' no matter how good it is.

I agree unique skills and quest outcomes should be possible and I think it's been a missed oppertunity but, I also think they've done great things with the game. Yeah they re-skinned Oblivion and made a few tweaks but lets face it there's worse games to re-skin and if it's the difference between us having a new Fallout series or not I think everyone would take it. Fallout was a dead franchise in a dead format, we were lucky Bethesda took interest and saw potential. They could have re-made Fallout 1 and people would still have something negative to say.

Some of the happiest days of my teenage years were playing Zelda: Ocarina Of Time for the N64, I think it's the best in the series, alot of people do who played it back then, it had great atmosphere and a great story. I've played more recent version of it and been disappointed even though they are better games my fond memories don't allow me to like any other Zelda game as much as OOT. I don't think there's as much magic there for people to enjoy those games if they didn't play them first time round.
This is why I can't take most people seriously who think the originals are better because our memories lie, and yes, even if you still play them now, you're just re-living a happy memory not a Triple-A game.

Again, it's not... most of the people who prefer the original approach have legitimate reasons for doing so which are not rooted in nostalgia. Nostalgia is looking back on something wistfully, only remembering the good parts; it's a bit hard to do that when you still play the game because you're still actively seeing it's bad parts as well (of which Fallout 1/2 had their fair share). To make matters more complicated, what is good or bad is subjective; just because you don't like something doesn't mean someone else doesn't.



I wouldn't say that, Fallout 3's story in particular was little more than a rehash of the plots of Fallout 1/2; therefore I don't see how it could be any less "far-fetched" or "stupid" than the stories of its predecessors. Regardless, whether or not you like a particular story or character is subjective.



I've never grinded in the older games... in fact grinding was one of the worst ways to level in Fallout 1/2. Most of your experience was gained doing quests since you received very little by killing enemies.



Well, neither do I... I've played better written RPGs (Planescape: Torment for example), but I never said anything about the quality of writing and storytelling in the older games. I do think that the overall quality of FO 1/2's writing is superior to that of Fallout 3's, but I don't consider Fallout 1/2 to be the epitome of masterful cRPG writing.



Worse games to reskin? Sure no argument there, but again - the single player MMORPG philosophy that Bethesda follows isn't my preferred format for a Fallout game because it's not my favorite format, nor is it the format that the series was built off of.



Depends, NMA found New Vegas acceptable despite NV still not being quite like Fallout 1/2.



Older doesn't automatically equal better no, but neither does newer. Some might prefer OOT, some might prefer the newer stuff. It ultimately comes down to your personal preferences, I haven't played any Zelda game post A Link to the Past for SNES so my knowledge on this subjective is limited. I would imagine that OOT probably did some things better than the new Zelda games while the new Zelda games did other things better. What is more important to you is, I think, what matters, and what will ultimately determine what you prefer.

Maybe nostalgia is the primary reason that you consider OOT the best Zelda game, you would know better than I would. However, just because this is the truth for you doesn't make it the truth for everyone else.



I'm sorry, but I can't agree with this. When I'm playing a game, I'm focusing on the game, not my memories of playing it, nor how I felt while originally playing it - these things aren't on my mind at all. I don't even recall any memories or feelings from the time I initially played the older Fallout games. I'm judging the earlier games, and the newer games, based on what I like to see in cRPGs, saying that it's simply nostalgia or rose tinted glasses is an assumption on your part, nothing more, and you're doing an extreme disservice to myself and those like myself by passing such assumptions off as truth.

All of the Fallout games have their own strengths and weaknesses (except perhaps BoS). FO 1/2/NV are closer to what I prefer to see in an RPG, whether it has "Fallout" in the title or not. Nostalgia is irrelevant.