Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:54 am

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game no wonder FO1 and 2 weren't nearly as popular as FO3, and even new vegas is only rated at 7.5 at gamespot and FO3 is rated at 9, that speaks for itself as far as i'm concerned, bethesda will be making FO4 and they're far better at this type of game than obsidian is, bethesda brought the franchise back to life with FO3, obsidian dind't bring the franchise back to life, they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards by not making the game good for exploration or combat. the sotry is good and the weapons are cool, the dialogue was nice, voice acting, but in exploration and combat, the two most important aspects of the game, yeah they ignored those area far too much.

Wow are you really going to use reviews to say that FO3 is superior to Fallout? FALLOUT? THE ORIGINAL [censored] GAME!? YOU CANT SAY THAT A FEATURE OF FALLOUT 3 IS A KEY ASPECT OF FALLOUT WHEN IN THE NEXT PART OF THE SENTENCE YOU POINT TO THE LACK OF IT IN ALL OF THE OTHER GAMES!

» Fri May 13, 2011 8:43 pm

yah the same with me. But i kinda actually dreaded going into the Metros they scared the [censored] out of me sometimes and i always wanted a companion along. I have been always scared of vaults they creep me out. Everytime i see a vault i hope there is people in there that are friendly and dont want to kill me -hahah not. the Lob enterprises done ring a bell to me would you please elaborate on that so i may know what it is. I proabably forgot what it is.

lob enterprises was near the cemetary and mama dulces, you needed to take metro tunnels to get there, but it was easy to miss, it was like a 4 or 5 story building, it was pretty big, it had tons of sentry bots in it, it was as big as the capitol building inside, a lot of people prob never went in it.

» Fri May 13, 2011 2:47 pm

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game no wonder FO1 and 2 weren't nearly as popular as FO3, and even new vegas is only rated at 7.5 at gamespot and FO3 is rated at 9, that speaks for itself as far as i'm concerned, bethesda will be making FO4 and they're far better at this type of game than obsidian is, bethesda brought the franchise back to life with FO3, obsidian didn't bring the franchise back to life, they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards by not making the game good for exploration or combat.

Cool story bro

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:30 pm

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game

That is a lie, it is the most important thing in FO3, which was a very bad Fallout game.

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:15 pm

Broken hills, Gecko, and Vault city have nuke power plants that you can visit in the towns. San Fran is also supplied with power and has lots of advanced tech but you don't see the power plants.

» Sat May 14, 2011 12:08 am

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game no wonder FO1 and 2 weren't nearly as popular as FO3, and even new vegas is only rated at 7.5 at gamespot and FO3 is rated at 9, that speaks for itself as far as i'm concerned, bethesda will be making FO4 and they're far better at this type of game than obsidian is, bethesda brought the franchise back to life with FO3, obsidian didn't bring the franchise back to life, they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards by not making the game good for exploration or combat.

That's literally the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

» Fri May 13, 2011 4:30 pm

Have you ever heard the term "All men are created equal?"
I do not agree with this, every person is an individual with certain aspects that make it special. You cannot simply compare them so black and white as 'which one is better'
As far the game goes I liked New Vegas better because the gaming mechanics appealed to me more, Fallout 3 really seemed like Bethesda was just testing the waters with how a game like that would sell.

» Fri May 13, 2011 10:46 pm

That is a lie, it is the most important thing in FO3, which was a very bad Fallout game.

most people liked the exploration aspect of fallout, thats why FO3 was rated at 9.0 from gamespot and was a smashing success and voted game of the year, and if not for bethesda there would be no fallout franchise, obsidian made an ok game but its not anywhere near as good as FO3 was or as good as FO4 will be. bethesdas games are top notch, the think about the player when they make games, they aren't out to frustrate the player every step of the way, IE "dead money" this is easy to see, most of the enemies in new vegas are using pool ques, varmit rifles and other weak weapons, they're so worried the player will get a good weapon they don't even arm human enemies properly, they also didn't even implement ceasers legion right, they're nowhere to be found in the game except for a few spots, they never patrol anywhere, they never show up on 99% of the map, you have to go out of your way to even find em, not only that, half of em are using macheties, thats a total joke, macheties? lol anyway i'll wait for ESV to fight melee enemies, in a fallout game, i'm expecting humans enemies firing at me with guns, not running at me with a hatchet or pool que.

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:40 pm

That's literally the stupidest thing I've heard all day.

oh that FO3 is more popular than FO1 and 2 combined? it is, it sold like 8 millions copies, thats easily more than all the previous fallout games combined. so not sure whats so stupid about that, thats just the facts. and if not for bethesda there would be no fallout franchise.

» Sat May 14, 2011 12:56 am

oh that FO3 is more popular than FO1 and 2 combined? it is, it sold like 8 millions copies, thats easily more than all the previous fallout games combined. so not sure whats so stupid about that, thats just the facts. and if not for bethesda there would be no fallout franchise.

Popularity =/= quality

You obviously don't know anything about Fallout..

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:57 pm

oh that FO3 is more popular than FO1 and 2 combined? it is, it sold like 8 millions copies, thats easily more than all the previous fallout games combined. so not sure whats so stupid about that, thats just the facts. and if not for bethesda there would be no fallout franchise.

Not that part.

And you're wrong once again - Troika would have won the rights to Fallout if it wasn't for Bethesda (A team I'd have more faith in when it comes to making a Fallout game).

» Sat May 14, 2011 2:27 am

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game no wonder FO1 and 2 weren't nearly as popular as FO3, and even new vegas is only rated at 7.5 at gamespot and FO3 is rated at 9, that speaks for itself as far as i'm concerned, bethesda will be making FO4 and they're far better at this type of game than obsidian is, bethesda brought the franchise back to life with FO3, obsidian didn't bring the franchise back to life, they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards by not making the game good for exploration or combat.

Well I didn't buy Grindfest: Post Apocalypse version, I bought Fallout.
Exploration has never been a huge part of Fallout, you "could" explore the other towns in the old games but it was more meant for players to follow the storyline between them.
Only Fallout 3 did that change.
And Fallout 3 is not the be all end all Fallout game.
It's not what set the foundation for the Fallout series.
It might be the best game in the series "for you".
But it's not the best Fallout game.

» Fri May 13, 2011 1:09 pm

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game no wonder FO1 and 2 weren't nearly as popular as FO3

Fallout 3 was more popular because it got released on more than a single platform. That and the fact that there are far, far more gamers than there were 12 years ago. The original Fallout was released only for the PC when there were fewer PCs and fewer gamers.

, and even new vegas is only rated at 7.5 at gamespot and FO3 is rated at 9, that speaks for itself as far as i'm concerned,

Argument from authority. Your logic fails. Try again. (Hint: Google "argumentum ad verecundiam")

bethesda will be making FO4 and they're far better at this type of game than obsidian is,

Bethesda bought the franchise, they didn't revive it. There were other major companies that were in the bidding as well (like Bioware), so Fallout 3 was going to happen with or without Bethesda.

they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards by not making the game good for exploration or combat.

New Vegas has plenty of both of those, just like Fallout 3. More importantly, unlike Fallout 3, the writing in New Vegas doesn't svck. Contrary to the popular opinion of sixth graders (Bethesda's target market), writing is the most important aspect of a role-playing game. The quality of the story and dialogue determine how immersed in the world the viewer can become, and how well the viewer can connect to the characters.

Fallout is a franchise of RPGs, not action-shooters. Even though Fallout 3 was a very good game in terms of exploring and shooting at things, it completely failed as an RPG. If all you want is to explore and shoot things, Fallout isn't the series for you. Try Halo, or Call of Duty, or paying attention in English class so you can appreciate how much better the story in New Vegas is compared to the train wreck that was the main quest in Fallout 3.

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:08 pm

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

» Fri May 13, 2011 8:27 pm

well exploration is the most important thing in a fallout game no wonder FO1 and 2 weren't nearly as popular as FO3, and even new vegas is only rated at 7.5 at gamespot and FO3 is rated at 9, that speaks for itself as far as i'm concerned, bethesda will be making FO4 and they're far better at this type of game than obsidian is, bethesda brought the franchise back to life with FO3, obsidian didn't bring the franchise back to life, they went 2 steps forward and 3 steps backwards by not making the game good for exploration or combat.

You can't compare the current market with that of more than 10 years ago. That said, 1 & 2 are still held in a very high place by many gamers, game journalist and developers.
I don't know what you mean with having bad combat, I honestly don't think it was worse than Fallout 3. The only fault I can see is that the equipment of enemies is too static in NV.

most people liked the exploration aspect of fallout, thats why FO3 was rated at 9.0 from gamespot and was a smashing success and voted game of the year, and if not for bethesda there would be no fallout franchise, obsidian made an ok game but its not anywhere near as good as FO3 was or as good as FO4 will be.

Try not to make you opinions look that much like facts. Also I have seen few gaming review sites that I found objective. I've seen enough games get top ratings, while they ignored issues, while bashing others for those very same issues.

bethesdas games are top notch, the think about the player when they make games, they aren't out to frustrate the player every step of the way, IE "dead money" this is easy to see, most of the enemies in new vegas are using pool ques, varmit rifles and other weak weapons, they're so worried the player will get a good weapon they don't even arm human enemies properly, they also didn't even implement ceasers legion right, they're nowhere to be found in the game except for a few spots, they never patrol anywhere, they never show up on 99% of the map, you have to go out of your way to even find em, not only that, half of em are using macheties, thats a total joke, macheties? lol anyway i'll wait for ESV to fight melee enemies, in a fallout game, i'm expecting humans enemies firing at me with guns, not running at me with a hatchet or pool que.

Though I agree that leveled equipment would have been nice, melee and unarmed is and should be just as much a viable option for the both you and your enemies.
Might I inquire as to what frustrated you about New Vegas (besides enemies not leveling their equipment).

And if not for bethesda there would be no fallout franchise.

Don't be daft. If Bethesda hadn't bought it someone else probably would have and if no one ever used the IP again there would still be a Fallout series. There just wouldn't be any new games.

» Fri May 13, 2011 10:50 am

I prefer new vegas. The atmosphere of the world and location has more flavor.

» Sat May 14, 2011 1:01 am

I prefer Fallout 3; while both games are amazing I preferred the atmosphere of the Capital Wasteland. It captivated me in a way that the Mojave Wasteland did not quite replicate.

As a huge BoS fan I also greatly enjoyed the Brotherhood and Outcasts' widespread presence in Fallout 3.

» Fri May 13, 2011 6:44 pm

I prefer New Vegas because i actually get to choose how i want to handle things, who i help, who i hurt, who i join, and who i burn. Fallout 3 only let me help the BoS, whom i hated, and wouldnt even let me talk to the Talon Company.

» Fri May 13, 2011 10:42 pm

I prefer New Vegas because i actually get to choose how i want to handle things, who i help, who i hurt, who i join, and who i burn. Fallout 3 only let me help the BoS, whom i hated, and wouldnt even let me talk to the Talon Company.

Not everygame is going to let you do to what YOU want all the time. So learn to deal with it. F3 you get to choose who you hurt and who you burn.

» Sat May 14, 2011 1:58 am

Not every game is going to let you do to what YOU want all the time.

But wouldn't it be wonderful if it did?

» Sat May 14, 2011 1:58 am

F3 you get to choose who you hurt and who you burn.

Not really. Essential NPCs invalidate your argument. :biggrin:

» Fri May 13, 2011 11:43 am

Not everygame is going to let you do to what YOU want all the time. So learn to deal with it. F3 you get to choose who you hurt and who you burn.

Except that they force you to hurt the Enclave and help the Brotherhood. :whistling:

» Fri May 13, 2011 2:00 pm

Not everygame is going to let you do to what YOU want all the time.

No, but New Vegas sure gives the player a lot of options, and Fallout 3 gives... none. The FEV "ending" is not an option, because no sane character would actually use it. Even if evil, the character isn't going to poison himself for some computer leading an organization that he's aligned against.

So learn to deal with it. F3 you get to choose who you hurt and who you burn.

No it didn't. Fallout 3 let you shoot at whoever you wanted (though some would just fall down and not die), but that isn't really "choosing who you burn". The story railroads you into helping the Brotherhood and working against the Enclave. Fallout 3 has no real substantive choices, and that wouldn't even bother me if the story-on-rails was actually good. Sadly, it isn't. Fallout 3 has a narrative reminiscent of a middle schooler in remedial creative writing.

Fallout 3 has its strengths, but it fails as an RPG. Learn to deal with it.

» Fri May 13, 2011 9:50 pm

That was my biggest beef about FO3. Me, I love America, so I love the Enclave. Do you know how much I pulled my hair out when I had to kill my Enclave buddies?

I then went on a killing spree in the citadel, and by golly, everyone was essential! Arrg!

» Fri May 13, 2011 3:58 pm

I agree with the whole essential thing but we're forgetting something very importan. Nay, THE most important. The Lone Wanderer CANNOT handle a lever action weapon properly and the courier can.

There, it's settled.