I said both because New Vegas would be nothing without the effort put into Fallout 3. I love them both like they were my own. What?

2 day into New Vegas and already I find it better than 3 in term of story, outpost, skill and perk distributions, reputation, humor, character, decision, threhold, foes that are actually foes, etc. Namely, many thing from Fallout 1/2 that were missing in 3 back into New Vegas.

definitely Fallout 3, I'm kinda disappointed with New Vegas, buggy, no epic, I feel sometimes this a new expansion for fallout 3, where is the new Fallout?
How hard can it be to create epic and nice storyline, strong characters and specially a new experience? the game definitely have lack of new Idea and anything new at all!
Ok someone tell me can you find anything new in New Vegas which can separate it from Fallout 3?

Just wondering, how is some 19 year old kid looking for daddy epic?

Indeed. This is Fallout, not an epic story of dragonslaying Oblivion with guns and hoez. Srsly!

Yeah, and if it wasn't for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasteland_(video_game) there wouldn't be any Fallout today.

Silly that I've missed this one in the past on the C64. Today I find it too much of an hassle with emulators.

Some games had more spirit back then, than all the games combined, I see in the stores of today.

FO:NV vs FO3 = Tsar Bomba vs Little Boy or AMOS (Advanced MOrtar System, two barrel auto-loading 120mm mortar with 14 round multiple simultaneous impact capability) vs 50mm commando mortar (feet long tube firing grenade that has less explosive force than most hand grenades).

Epic?

Big battles against foes with massive delusions of grandeur doesn't mean epic. It only about how tell the story, with proper story telling even story about hobo going to liquor store across the street, buying bottle of cheapest wine available can be made epic. Fallout 3 had few cool story telling hooks, introduction was very immersive, but FO3 lacked possibility to actually affect the world, there were basically yes/no kind of selection are you good or evil, after that it was very straight forward. Besides introduction part, only thing that was better in FO3 was radio stations, Malcolm McDowell was awesome as radio host. Outside of that FO3 was just rehash of previous two games, where lots of things just happened without any even nearly logical explanation (super-mutants and Talon Company for example).

What? I think the point was that Fallout's stories are supposed to be "epic", and just so you know, slaying dragons is a stereotype not used in Oblivion, at all. To even dare to slay a dragon in the Imperial province of Cyrodiil, which considers dragons sacred patrons, would be considered a foul crime. My inner Elder Scrolls nerd had to say that.

Epic in what sense?
Definetly not the big-robots-transformers-orbital-strike-mission-impossible-american-happy-end style of F3.

Slaying the Master didn't felt that way.
Slaying Frank Horrigan didn't felt that way.
Even slaying the Calculator in F:T didn't felt that way.



Good, I'll just grab a bunch of Holy Hand Grenades and blow that lizard into a Bioware realm, where slaying dragons isn't that much of an issue. :flamethrower:

Sorry, my inner Wasteland nerd had to say something too. :whisper:

New Vegas. Without a doubt. I'm happy we financially have a true successor to Fallout 2.

I see you prefer the Cyrus approach to dealing with Dragons. Poor poor Nafaalilargus...

I like New Vegas, but for me Fallout 3's the better game by miles. I like my sandboxes.

FO3 = physically exploring a post-apocalyptic wasteland

FO NV = meta-physically exploring a post-apocalyptic wasteland

sorta...

Fallout: New Vegas in my opinion is the better game and a superior RPG.
Better overall writing, mostly good dialogue, skill and stat checks that open new paths or even new quests, multiple factions with unique endings depending on what you do and reputation system.
Ability to side with "bad guys" or even take the third option, or become the Wild Card.
Better balanced skill system forcing you to specialize, and somewhat improved combat with iron sights, multiple ammunition types and damage treshold.
Plausible settlements with farming and water sources explained and visible. And hardcoe mode.
It's better than Fallout 3 if you ask me. I wouldn't call it perfect though.

Awesome!

The answer for me is easy - Fallout 3 is the better game and it's not even close.

Better characters, better world / environment, so far a better story.

New Vegas does make a few improvements over New Vegas, but the small improvements it does make aren't enough to make up for what it lacks, and Fallout 3 is absolutely, hands down the better of the 2 games.

Yes. Just like that.

Take your "true Fallout tone" and go play Fallout and Fallout 2. I'll stick with my superior game in Fallout 3.

Nevermind. This isn't worth getting warned over.

Let's just say I 100% agree with Whiskey Rose. He/she is probably the most objective critic that ever touched these forums.

What this man said.
Also having a blast with NV. F3 compared to it is downright bland and feels like a unfinished tech demo.

Not afraid to say that NV should be the RPG of year. YEEEHAAAAA :celebration:

Someone must have slipped a Fallout 3 disc in your New Vegas box.

And Killian, what's so objective about being so bias and bitter regarding Fallout / Fallout 2 vs. Fallout 3 that your argument is nothing more than "back in my day, we had to walk uphill in the snow BOTH WAYS" and "get off my lawn you crazy kids!", while throwing the word "objective" around to give your argument a false sense of credibility.

You're just reading those things into arguments that come from old-school fans. It's all a product of your own thought process.

Whiskey Rose is objectively correct in that Fallout 3 is a poor "Fallout" game. It may be a good game, but it doesn't fit in with the rest of the Fallout series, because everything about it is a superficial imitation, while the meat of the game is so at odds with the series history.

And who is Whiskey Rose to determine what is and isn't a good Fallout game?

I don't think that CastleVania: Symphony of the Night is a good CastleVania game because it turned the franchise into a Japanese anime JRPG and turned the franchise into something completely different. I've been playing CastleVania games since the original for the NES, so does that mean I have the right to go around to everyone who loves Symphony of the Night and any following CastleVania games and lecture them about how what they are playing isn't CastleVania? Or should I just acknowledge the fact that the franchise has now become something different, and what is has become is just as worthy of being called "CastleVania" as what I grew up with, even if it's not a vision that I prefer?

Who would I be to say that current X-Men comics aren't "X-Men" because the vision that was originally created by Stan Lee has been drastically altered, and even ret-conned since then? Or is it just best to acknowledge that the canon has become something completely different, and that it's no less "X-Men" just because the vision has taken a turn?

A person who is obviously far more well-versed in the history of the Fallout series than you.

Thanks for responding to just one line of my post and ignoring the rest.

I intentionally avoided responding to those because they're just regurgitated arguments.

If you really want my answer though, then yes, you have every right to critique current Castlevania or X-Men as not being true to the original vision, assuming the new vision is completely at odds with the history of the series.