fallout 3 or fallout new vegas? : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:29 am

which game is better fallout 3 or fallout new vegas?

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:17 pm

Depends a lot on who you ask, which features are more important to you, and how attached you are the world of Fallout 1 & 2. Generally I think New Vegas is better, if less stable and buggier.

» Fri May 13, 2011 5:17 pm

Depends a lot on who you ask, which features are more important to you, and how attached you are the world of Fallout 1 & 2. Generally I think New Vegas is better, if less stable and buggier.

i like the features on fallout new vegas for example aiming down the sights, wepon mods and hardcoe mode but i think fallout 3 has a better story line.

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:52 am

Fallout 3 definitely has a clearer storyline, but New Vegas' is very much tailored to use the strengths of the video game medium.

» Fri May 13, 2011 5:47 am

Are you asking because you want to decide on which to buy or is it just a debate topic? because there are many New Vegas vs FO3 threads.

New Vegas is the better Fallout Game. Its alot like the originals. Its a great RPG. Story, writing and characters are awesome. hardcoe Mode, Damage Threshold, Reputation System, Iron Sites, More joinable factions and dialogue that lets you talk your way out of having to kill. Game is more advlt (not importaint of everyone but is a big plus for me.) Multiple endings based on your actions, can disguise yourself by wearing faction outfits/armour, and concealable weapons.

» Fri May 13, 2011 1:03 pm

I do agree that the features in New Vegas were pretty cool, but Fallout 3 had more combat which spiced it up a little while exploring. Though I liked New Vegas's atmosphere a lot better.

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:07 am

Fallout: New Vegas because the its more your experience than the in game characters.

» Fri May 13, 2011 3:40 pm

Fallout 3 is way better. Playing NV i just didnt care about the storyline at all. The map is also full of pointless locations. exploring NV map was very dull. Obsidian have managed to take a superb game (game of the year) and make it worse! For all the good things obsidian added they took away all the fun! Running around the mojave desert passing on messages is not my idea of fun gaming.

» Fri May 13, 2011 2:08 pm

Fallout 3 is way better. Playing NV i just didnt care about the storyline at all. The map is also full of pointless locations. exploring NV map was very dull. Obsidian have managed to take a superb game (game of the year) and make it worse! For all the good things obsidian added they took away all the fun! Running around the mojave desert passing on messages is not my idea of fun gaming.

This.

Exploring in NV is pointless. The locations are generic, and there is no visual storytelliing in NV. I've played FO3 well over 600 hours, and i doubt I'll even crack 60 with NV. I started another character yesterday and game up almost immediately. I'm back to playing FO3.

If you like exploring, FO3 is the better game. If you want a story game, with fleshed out characters, or if you want something a bit closer to the originals, then you will probably like NV better.

» Fri May 13, 2011 3:33 pm

You can't really say which one is better, only which one you prefer. Both FO3 and F:NV have svcked countless hours out of my life they are both excellent for different reasons.

(I'll state things that can't be changed by mods, because a lot of the 'new' features in F:NV were influenced by the most popular mods)

If you want a well driven and deep and meaningful story with branching quests then you'll want to try out F:NV

If you want exploration and an excellent atmosphere you'll want to try out FO3

all of this is just my opinion

» Fri May 13, 2011 9:00 am

Personally, I think Fallout 3's atmosphere failed. If it was 50 years after the bombs dropped, they'd've nailed it. 100 years, okay. 150, we're really still a few decades after the bombs dropped? 200, Wow, humanity svcks.

» Fri May 13, 2011 8:32 am

@kalarn who cares that what made fallout 3 so fun and interesting.Fallout new Vegas everything all happy and rebuilt with hardly any interesting locations they even messed up the strip

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:53 pm

My Opinion:

I think Fallout 3 is better, although I have not played many RPG-style games nor any of the previous Fallout games, I have to say after 120+ hours of playing the game I wish I could be dumped in a room for 2 years to still play Fallout 3 on Ultra graphics. I've played New Vegas for about 4-5 hours and immediately got bored, the prologue is pathetic and there are just way too many things to collect, and I think going from Washington D.C. to a desert is the stupidest idea anyone can have (my opinion). The first-person combat is more enjoyable because of the iron-sights, and the weapons are pretty cool too (9mm Pistol... :thumbsup: ).

Here's my ratings:

Graphics: F3 = 8.7 / 10 | F:NV = 9.2 / 10
Combat: F3 = 9.4 / 10 | F:NV = 8.9
Story: F3 = 9.6 / 10 | F:NV = 7.6 / 10 (Up to the Primm part)
Characters: F3 = 9.6 / 10 | F:NV = 8.2 (Goodsprings & Primm characters)
Sound: F3 = 8.8 / 10 | F:NV 6.0 (Mr. New Vegas is boring, plus Mojave Radio has lame music, and I love the 50s vibe in F3)
Weaponry / Armor / Misc: F3 = 8.2 | F:NV = 9.9 / 10 (No gun names (AK-47, M16A2, etc.)
Factions: F3 = 7.9 / 10 | F:NV 6 / 10 (NCR + Legion?)
Extras: (Faction Armor, Custom Weapons, Gun Mods) F3 = 6 / 10 | F:NV = 9 / 10

Critiscm requested

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:07 am

Fallout NV is a great game, took me back to the countless hours I spent playing 1 and 2 but if I'm honest I think FO3 is the better game.

» Fri May 13, 2011 9:17 am

Personally, I think Fallout 3's atmosphere failed. If it was 50 years after the bombs dropped, they'd've nailed it. 100 years, okay. 150, we're really still a few decades after the bombs dropped? 200, Wow, humanity svcks.

Im amazed that this has ruined fallout 3 for people. Its a minor detail which doesn't affect the fun of the game at all! It didnt even enter my mind when i was playing the game lol Would you rather play a fallout game where civilisation has almost returned to normal? or a fallout game where its a hard desolate dangerous wasteland full of old building's unexplored since the war? I know which i prefer!

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:08 am

We have many of these threads in the Fallout Series Discussion... I'm sure it won't be long before a modirator closes this thread, please use one in the Fallout Series Discusion.

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:22 am

My Opinion:

I think Fallout 3 is better, although I have not played many RPG-style games nor any of the previous Fallout games, I have to say after 120+ hours of playing the game I wish I could be dumped in a room for 2 years to still play Fallout 3 on Ultra graphics. I've played New Vegas for about 4-5 hours and immediately got bored, the prologue is pathetic and there are just way too many things to collect, and I think going from Washington D.C. to a desert is the stupidest idea anyone can have (my opinion). The first-person combat is more enjoyable because of the iron-sights, and the weapons are pretty cool too (9mm Pistol... :thumbsup: ).

Here's my ratings:

Graphics: F3 = 8.7 / 10 | F:NV = 9.2 / 10 *****i agree with you here*****
Combat: F3 = 9.4 / 10 | F:NV = 8.9 *****Gotta say I like NV combat better, iron sights win NV - 9.5 FO3 - 8*****
Story: F3 = 9.6 / 10 | F:NV = 7.6 / 10 (Up to the Primm part) *****You really can't rate the story when you aren't even 1/100th through it, I would say NV story is a 9 and FO3 is an 8*****
Characters: F3 = 9.6 / 10 | F:NV = 8.2 (Goodsprings & Primm characters) ***** characters in both games were meh, both an 8 *****
Sound: F3 = 8.8 / 10 | F:NV 6.0 (Mr. New Vegas is boring, plus Mojave Radio has lame music, and I love the 50s vibe in F3) ***** I liked the ambient sounds of NV better tbh, don't listen to the radios NV -8.5 FO3 - 7.5 *****
Weaponry / Armor / Misc: F3 = 8.2 | F:NV = 9.9 / 10 (No gun names (AK-47, M16A2, etc.) ***** Gotta, maybe a bit less NV - 9.5 FO3 - 8.5 *****
Factions: F3 = 7.9 / 10 | F:NV 6 / 10 (NCR + Legion?) ***** NV has no clear good/evil I like that better NV - 9 FO3 - 8.5 *****
Extras: (Faction Armor, Custom Weapons, Gun Mods) F3 = 6 / 10 | F:NV = 9 / 10 ***** yep *****

Critiscm requested

Criticism given

» Fri May 13, 2011 9:04 pm

This might be a better comparison after Fallout NV runs its course with DLCs. As it stands now, I think Fallout 3 offers a much larger sandbox experience with a lot more to do and far more combat. NV has better companion control, more variety in weapons (particularly with mods), and the wonderful jury rigging perk, but Fallout 3 seems to be much larger in scope and with more interesting "stalk and combat" (subway tunnels, lots of buildings with multiple floors and occupying enemies, city street sneaking and sniping).

If you were just looking to buy and play one right now, Fallout 3 (GOTY package) is a far better deal. By the time you come close to completing it, NV will more than likely have all its DLC out and you might have a GOTY offering out at a reduced price compared to buying the game now and buying all the DLC as it comes out.

If you are just talking gaming experience, I liked Fallout 3 quite a bit more. It seemed never-ending in the open-ended exploration and combat. NV, though having some very nice improvements, doesn't yet approach the size and depth of Fallout 3.

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:58 am

Fallout 3 is way better. Playing NV i just didnt care about the storyline at all. The map is also full of pointless locations. exploring NV map was very dull. Obsidian have managed to take a superb game (game of the year) and make it worse! For all the good things obsidian added they took away all the fun! Running around the mojave desert passing on messages is not my idea of fun gaming.

That about sums it up for me too. NV was a smaller and much less interesting place to explore. I found Dead Money to be more interesting than the main game (except for the frustrating end game).

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:27 am

This.

Exploring in NV is pointless. The locations are generic, and there is no visual storytelliing in NV. I've played FO3 well over 600 hours, and i doubt I'll even crack 60 with NV. I started another character yesterday and game up almost immediately. I'm back to playing FO3.

If you like exploring, FO3 is the better game. If you want a story game, with fleshed out characters, or if you want something a bit closer to the originals, then you will probably like NV better.

Exactly as I would have put it.

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:55 am

These threads will bring you no answer. All it does is gather around people who either oppose or support Fallout 3. The former group will pretty much use the original punchline, "Fallout 3 is a great game but not a good Fallout game". It is an unbreakable wall since it inevitably would lead to a debate over opinions, much like any debate over taste. Another "tactic", so to say, is picking on Fallout 3's most obvious flaws. Now, the latter group will try to justify FO3 being better by pointing out matters that are unquestionably better in it than in NV. Exploration, replay value, and so on.

As for myself, IMO they are both great games in general and as Fallout games, although personally I lean more towards Fallout 3.

» Fri May 13, 2011 7:26 am

thanks for the feedback guys and in my opininon fo3 is better because the exploring is more interesting

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:43 pm

I believed that FO3 was much better

pros-
*80 sq miles of playing area
*multiple vaults
* great DLCs
*exploring DC was great
*outside of DC you met plenty of colorful characters (Literally)
*story didnt have difinitive ending

cons-
*you could only side with brotherhood
*regulators were somewhat annoying

FONV-

pros-
*cool weapons
*great companions
*multiple endings

cons-
*story is lacking
*only 25sq miles are playing area
*the only major place is Vegas and its not destroyed so its not like you have to fight for your life to look at monuments
*the western theme is rediculous
*ending is stupid

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:50 am

@kalarn who cares that what made fallout 3 so fun and interesting.Fallout new Vegas everything all happy and rebuilt with hardly any interesting locations they even messed up the strip

Yeah who cares about logic, human nature and canon based on the other fallout game :rolleyes: . You do know there are other Fallout games right? and a very large following of original fans.

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:51 am

As I already commented: I love both games, and they're both so much fun, but given the choice, I like Fallout 3 more. New Vegas feels like a big mod for Fallout 3, and no more than that.

More importantly, there's a stylistical difference... Fallout 3 is melancholic, hopeless, and really post-apocaliptic. New Vegas never feels like that. It doesn't seem like a post-nuclear setting. Although the real chronology of the games isn't like that, to me it seems as if Fallout 3 would be set a few years after the nukes, and the world is in shambles. New Vegas is set many years later instead, and humanity is again organized.
In Fallout 3, you can see the world is suffering. In New Vegas, it's not - it's merely changed.

And I'm also a little disappointed about the companions in New Vegas. They're nice, but no one of them is as cool and charismatic as Butch DeLoria and Charon.