Keep it civil, I want to the opinions of people on the games.

Better RPG: New Vegas
Better Fallout game: New Vegas
Better sandbox game: Fallout 3

Considering this is the Fallout series, which is first and foremost a RPG series, I'm gonna say New Vegas is the better game. But, many Bethesda fans were expecting the same world that Bethesda can make from Obsidian, so I can see why they would be disappointed. Doesn't change the fact that it's the Fallout series though.

Even though New Vegas is a little glitchy, it has a lot more factions, choices, NPCs, enemies, places, perks, traits and more RPG elements.

Fallout 3 on the other-hand has more of the Post-Apocalyptic feel and has Moira in it, but I'd go with New Vegas, it's more fun.

Couldn't of said it better myself!

Fallout 3 gave me a great impression as to how Bethesda progress from Oblivion in term of mechanics and exploration.

That said, New Vegas trump nearly every feature that Fallout 3 has to offers plus it stays true to it Fallout origins.

New Vegas got my vote.

Fallout 3 had higher peaks, but New Vegas has a better, more consistent experience.

Fallout 3 Didn't really have an "Evil" path, New Vegas does.

NV is more fallouty, and more of a sequel.

I can't give a straight answer to this poll, "This game was better than the other."

It's apples to oranges. They aren't the same sort of game.

They're both great, I immensely enjoy them both, but they don't bear direct comparison.

EDIT: Doublepost, sorry, connection problems.

I voted for Fallout 3 but New Vegas in certain ways was better as I have already stated recently on another thread, but I prefer FO3, it was the game that brought the rest of the world to the Fallout Universe, a gaming gem! and more compelling to play than Vegas but Vegas does have improvements over FO3 which I have already mentioned before, FO3 was WOW factor 10 whereas Vegas was Wow factor 9, Fallout 3 is gaming history, like Doom was back in the day. Vegas was a return to old skool Fallout but FO3 just did it for me, can't really put my finger on why, I just couldn't put it down when I played it but Vegas didn't affect me in the same way as 3. I'm looking forward to FO4 and I'm wondering will they improve the graphics for that game?

New Vegas all the way!


I also like apples a lot better than oranges.

(although comparing these two games is more like comparing apples with... other apples.)


I have absolutely no idea what is so 'old-school' about New Vegas by the way.

New Vegas without a question.

Better story, better quests, better overall writing, better RPG mechanics (though still a bit lacking, imo), more consistent setting. New Vegas is just better, though it does reflect a bit too much Fallout 3 in its basics for my liking but that is forgivable given the circumstances in which the game was made.




Same here.

The storytelling (both MQ and sidestuff) is more in line with the original games, but storytelling isn't "oldschool", and the rest of the game is similiar to Fallout 3 with relatively minor tweaks.

I mean that it was a return to gaming more along the lines of the older Fallouts, its just a phrase and to be honest you're smart enough to know exactly what I mean I meant the essence of the game itself.

Ok, makes sense. My misunderstanding goes to my own account for not reading your post, just seeing how rebet was wondering it while typing my reply, and then remembering that some have used the word "oldschool" a bit too loosely (some even saying NV is too "oldschool" RPG - when there is almost nothing "oldschool" about it, that the "newschool" wouldn't trump). Hard to tell sometimes what people mean with these terms and classificational words (especially, when this language isn't one I speak outside of forums like this).

This. Because I'm more of a fan of the sandbox qualities of Bethesda games than I am of the RPG aspects, despite New Vegas being a superior RPG, I still vastly prefer Fallout 3. I love RPGs as much as the next guy but that isn't my main attraction to Bethesda games. If Obsidian had made New Vegas totally linear in terms of the environment and did not try to make it open world, I would have liked it a lot more. Hell, the game pretty much does funnel you along a linear path for the first few levels. But it has a poorly done open world and that really sours the experience for me.

I would assume that the old Fallouts could be easily considered 'old school'... especially if we talk about a 2008 game - therefore it's pretty much the same thing

But ok... In that case I don't get what in the essence of New Vegas is closer to the old games than F3 was...
As I see it New Vegas is 'Fallout3 2' with vastly improved writing and some other various improvements and additions but overall very similar.

No probs UnDeCafIndeed, over here and in England theres a lot of talk about old skool and new skool especially where music is concerned.


Rebet "But ok... In that case I don't get what in the essence of New Vegas is closer to the old games than F3 was..."

Thats a damn good statement. I haven't the energy at the moment to answer it cause it would take a while but over the forums I think the question itself as to the old skool nature of the game and how generally its accepted as being in essence closer to the original games than FO3 is something that has been addressed or stated by other members on the forums quite recently and how it feels closely akin to the originals than FO3 was, take a gander round and you'll see what I mean. But for a direct assessment and comparsion I can't really be bothered today. Overall Vegas improved upon FO3 but I can't shake my opinion that FO3 was better than New Vegas. When I played FO3 I only put down my controller when I went to sleep, that was for 4 weeks, with Vegas I didn't have the same compulsion to continue playing it or complete it other than a casual blast which I was happy to put the controller down and do something else for a few hours, doesn't say much for a game when I'm happy to go off and do something else for a while, FO3 occuppied my every waking moment Vegas didn't unfortunately, while its a great game it just didn't do it for me like FO3 did, which is a shame because I wanted it to, I've played about 90 hours of Vegas and I'm on the last main quest to complete the game and well I'd rather just [censored] about the house than feel anyway inclined to finish it. Its not as good as FO3! Although it did improve things which I've stated above or in another thread. And as for why it feels like the older games check out the other threads in the forums and I'm sure you'll get an answer.

But, then again, compare New Vegas' development time to Fallout 3's. BGS had a lot more time to develope and craft a better world. I guarantee you that NV's world would be just as good, if not better, if they had more than one year of development time.

As we've already discussed, I really doubt the world would have been much better. It's very clear they did not put the kind of love into the world that Bethesda does with their games, and only made it open world because that's what would attract Bethesda fans. If they had another year, they likely would have improved upon everything but the world.

I'm also tired of hearing people defend Obsidian by saying "Well if they had more time..." No. The game we got is the game we got, and the flaws we got were the flaws we got. If they had more time, they would have improved things, just like every other developer out there will make a better game if they are given more time. But Obsidian did not have more time and it's only fair to judge them on what they did with that time, and it's clear that the world was not one of their main focuses.

Entirely true that we need to judge the game on what it is, and not what it would have been in more time. What is New Vegas? A game with a much better story, much better dialogue, and a more more believable setting than Fallout 3. The 'world' being better in Fallout 3 is arguable. I prefer having locations that are interesting, not just big dungeons to explore. The locations in New Vegas were typically a lot smaller, but with more story to each location, which I think is a good thing. The Sunset Sarsaparilla factory was just full of all kinds of awesome, as were the two Repconn buildings.

[Luck 7]: Ice cream.

There's no sense in arguing with you over this. Having seen plenty of your posts, it's clear you aren't a Bethesda fan in the slightest, and never actually explored Fallout 3 for 300 hours like I and other Fallout 3 fans have. Rather, now that the "Big 3" original fallout purist forums are praising New Vegas, you've taken the time to actually explore New Vegas, and because you never fully explored Fallout 3 with an open mind, think the world has something Fallout 3 didn't, but actually did, and had far more of. Therefore, trying to convince you anything is just a waste of my time.

I did almost nothing but explore Fallout: New Vegas for about 40 hours and got completely bored of exploring around the time I explored 80% of the map. The world simply did not live up to the world of Fallout 3 that kept me playing for 300 hours. Nearly everything else in New Vegas is better, but the world is absolutely not. You can continue thinking that New Vegas is the glittering, slightly buggy gem of a game the Big 3 are praising it as, however the gem has a major flaw that only Bethesda fans seem to care about. And I suppose, if only Bethesda fans care about the flaw, then it's easy to convince yourself it's flawless, if you look at it from the right angle.

I didn't explore the entire Fallout 3 map, but I did explore most of Fallout 3 with an 'open mind'. This was, after all, before I had even heard of New Vegas. There are a couple buildings with some flavor (the Dunwiche building, Fort Constantine), but most were just big buildings or sewer systems filled with raiders/mutants/ghouls. The Nuka-Cola factory was a big letdown, as were all of the satellite relays, the various camp grounds full of super mutants and raiders, the power stations, the diners and gas stations with nothing in them... the list goes on.

I don't 'hate Bethesda'. I think they have a habit of making great games with truckloads of wasted potential, Fallout 3 just needed better writing.

And what the hell are the 'big 3'? Is that supposed to mean something to me?

The "Big 3" is my way of getting around the fact that I can't directly name the three forums out there that are the most orignal fallout purist-centric, as that is against the rules here. But the people who know their names will know what I mean by the Big 3.

Anyway, I've already made my point. Not much else to say...

You need a third choice, for those of us that liked them both equally. They both have their strong points, and I can't bring myself to choose between one or the other.

Heh, I loved the Nuka-Cola Factory. Hacking the computers and reading all the reports from the various radioactive isotopes tested to give Quantum its glow put a smile on my face. Then swimming trough the leaking Quantum and seeing the unique Mirelurks that live there. There were a bunch of dull buildings in Fallout 3, but the Nuka-Cola Factory was not one of them for me.

The whole experience left me expecting more out of the Sunset Sarsaparilla Bottling Company, which did no deliver.

Have you spoken to Festus?

If not, do so. Now. Like, literally right now. Don't reply to this, go talk to Festus.

And say "Silly ol' advisory".