Yes NV has more endings and better dialogue but the overall game play and atmosphere is crap! its a half assed attempt at a game. I hope they're nowhere near fallout in the future

Game play does svck, but the atmosphere is perfect for Fallout, but not fallout.

the new vegas gameworld is very static and predictable and lacks game immersion, its not dynamic, no factions patrol anywhere, the same exact thing happens in a given area the entire game, no random events or encounters happen, exploration is very minimal in new vegas, none of the buildings are complex or large, as far as rpg's bethesda makes their own style of rpg, obsidian obviously has a more traditional style of gamemaking, bethesda is cutting edge, they give the player lots of freedom to explore and interact with the gameworld to great degree with an huge amount of stuff to do to keep you busy for hundreds and hundreds of hours on just one game, new vegas is a good game but it is lacking many of the hallmarks of a bethesda game, but its still a good game and it deserves the 7.5 rating it gets...bethesda games are always rated at like 9 or 10, not many game makers rival bethesda when it comes to open world sandbox rpg's. its their own brand of rpg, they're outside the box. and the fact their games are so highly rated speaks for itself.

They got a 7.5 because they used the same graphics and they're not Bethesda. They don't get natural 9.5s, because they're not a big company.

Or maybe you cant stand the old style of gameplay, have you ever played or at least watched the older Fallouts?

The Fallout 3 green tint is wrong, the MINDLESS AND PLAINLY shooter is wrong

Fallout 3 fails as a RPG, so does in the story too

For the red marked prhase

Thats only your opinion




So, Bethesda is now the great company of the RPG in the world an wohever who doesnt make something like them is wrong???

Yeah, Biowara and Obsidian are pretty much doomed by that logic

And rating doesnt means nothing, get over with it, reviewers can simply go to the heck for me. Fallout 3 can have 9999/10 for them but for me is pure garbage, is not what the reviews says, its what you thinks about it

This a Obsidian game

If you expected something like TES

You are wrong

well fallout 3 was like oblivion and since i like bethesda made games i liked FO3, its how bethesda makes their games, they make open worlds, sandbox/free roaming, lots of things and places to explore and interact with, most games are pretty linear and very confining, bethesda pays more attention to the player, and don't try to frustrate the player with nonsense in their games, lets take new vegas for example, look at dead money, its only rated like 6.5, its like a rubiks cube, collars that make your head explore, poison gas all over the place you can't get away from, hardly anyone liked that dlc, or all the invisible walls in new vegas, i can see along the borders but in the middle of the map, all over the place, or the fact they don't arm enemies with good weapons cause the player might get em, what kind of logic is that? oy vey, talk about frustrating people, so yeah i totally prefer bethesdas games becuase they aren't so ridiculous when it comes to gamemaking, a game doesn't have to be some huge puzzlesolving and frustrating experience, and lets talk about how static the game world is in new vegas, its beyond static, bethesdas games have a good amount of random events and encounters so each playthrough is different and not as predictable.

No more or less static than Fallout 3. The game lacking immersion is just a matter of taste, though the Fallout 3 setting collapses quickly when looked critically for even a moment. New Vegas has a setting that can actually stand up realistically.



Not true. Seen legion and NCR skirmishing randomly all over the southeastern map.



Not remotely true, but even if it were true (which it isn't), there are plenty of mods to add big buildings full of stuff to kill. Big cut and paste dungeons full of monsters are not something the audience should be praising a massive game developer for, because they're trivially easy to put in via mods. Quality writing and voice acting (both absent in Fallout 3) are not something a lone modder can do in his off time, so when those are the lacking aspects of a game it's not something a mod can fix, whereas a lack of explorable locations IS something easily remedied.



No. Fallout 3 was a shooter and exploration game with minimal RPG influence. The RPG aspects of the game all fell completely flat.



Yes. In Fallout 3 you're free to explore huge, grey buildings full of the same three enemies and the same mass of empty Nuka-Cola bottles and 'interact' with the world by looting everything and shooting things. That isn't cutting edge, that's a shooter with an inventory system and a green tint.



Kid, seriously, take a debate class next year in school. Appealing to high ratings is not an argument, it's a logical fallacy. If the reviews in question have valid -arguments- for Fallout 3 being superior, use those. Merely mentioning that others agree with you doesn't lend any weight to your position. Also, I notice you completely ignore the fact that almost everything you've posted has been (easily) refuted, and you just repeat yourself. Fail.

Justin Bieber was praised with some critics

Guess what we think about it

Or maybe you just aren't very good at the game? It's possible to get a high end weapon within the first hour of playing. Two quick examples:

-From Goodsprings head north, you'll find a trail carbine and combat armor in Bonnie Springs. It's easy to kill your way there with a few stimpaks and enough ammo, even at level 3.
-There are two super mutant masters east of the patrol station, south of Primm. They have random, high end weapons. I've seen miniguns, light machine guns, heavy incinerators, and super sledges there.

Once again you're wrong.

Because every level 3 can kill Super Mutant Masters? Honestly, at level 20 they were still pretty strong

Not every level 3, but they're available to a competent player who comes prepared for it. Invest heavily in your weapon skill of choice and bring lots of chems and meds. I was merely dismissing the claim that they are being stingy with the best weapons until late game. That isn't true, but they aren't handed to you either. It's a high end weapon near the start of the game, of course it will be challenging.

actually i am totally right, the new vegas map is static to great extent, FO3 had lots of changing enemies in areas, lots of factions patrolling all over the map, enclave were all over the place and so were the outcasts and mercs etc, the new vegas factions don't move around, they rarely patrol the map, only in a 2 or 3 spots, like near camp searchlight, thats about it, so the new vegas map is static and no random events/encounters happen either. so thats just how it is, i never said i had trouble getting good weapons early, i go to the boomers base and get a marksman rifle and kill the merc and get his gauss rifle and head to mcarren airbase to get a sniper rifle, and thats all early on, so that wasn't my point..this is another fact, most of the human enemies in new vegas are not well armed and about half of em are using hatchets, pool ques, macheties and other very weak weapons like varmit rifles, 9mms etc, thats just a fact. only the fiends use energy weapons, ceasers legion uses mostly melee weapons except for the end of the game at the dam, so this isn't really arguable, its just the way the game was made, only a few ncr ever carry sniper rifles, most of them are armed with service rifles, and not only all that, most of the enemies in the game don't use any tactics at all, its just mostly rushing straight at you, FO3 the enclave and even supermutants and other enemies maneuvered a lot more, flanking, or taking cover, not in new vegas, they just charge at you mostly, so you can try to convince yourself this isn't all true but i think most people know it is.

and as far as exploring, its no big secret new vegas isn't so great for exploration, FO3 had so many large buildings to explore and they were not all the same, the capitol building? only one of those, national archives?, roosovelt academy? chryslus building was pretty extensive with several floors, lob enterprises was huge also with about 4 or 5 floors, i can on and on, the red racer factory, nuka cola factory, none of these places were the same, the library? hubris comics, all these places were different, each were unique and apart from the buildings, there were large cave systems, loads of metro tunnels, which i liked so new vegas just doesn't have any comparison at all with FO3 in this area.

I'm sort of torn between the two games, actually. Fallout 3 had a better setting, not to mention better exploration and locations. The game world felt much more evenly developed as well, so that you could always set off in any direction and be sure you'd find something interesting, or maybe just something to kill. The "meat and bones" of the game was pretty good. On the other hand, the writing was often atrocious, and the main plot didn't do a very good job of making you care about the characters, even though you could tell that it was trying really hard. It also just felt really *weird* at parts. Who the hell greets you with a friendly "hi there!" in the middle of a deadly wasteland, especially when there's a pack of supermutants in a nearby valley? Don't even get me started about the idyllic cannibal community, the battling super heroes, or the ditzy chick at Arefu babbling about cookies and crap. I mean, wtf Bethesda, wtf?


New Vegas was a lot better in this regard, a lot of the characters were a bit staler than the ones in Fallout 3, but at least I don't remember rolling my eyes as much whenever they opened their mouths, and there were some well written characters like Cassidy, Boyd, No-bark etc. While the wasteland wasn't as interesting as in Fallout 3, the characters felt more like the sort of people one would expect to populate a post nuclear wasteland. It also had some moments that surpassed anything in Fallout 3, (I'm thinking Nipton and Vault 11) and the world just felt generally more realistic and believable than Fallout 3. The ending fight also felt better, since the conflict between the NCR and the Legion was built up essentially from the beginning of the game, whereas in Fallout 3 the Enclave and the Brotherhood didn't show up until near the end of the game, making the final conflict between the two seem pretty rushed and undramatic. On the other hand, the main plot of NV didn't even *try* to get the player emotionally involved, since there was no one in either faction that I really cared about, and the ending slideshow was fairly meh. Also, the world design was pretty uneven, with long stretches of finding nothing in the wasteland except abandoned shacks and trailers. Obsidian seemingly tried to compensate for this by making the quests more involving, but a lot of the quests are pretty lame, like the ones where you gotta run back and forth talking to the Kings, NCR, Great Khans, Omertas, and NCR radio operators.


So yeah, both have their strengths and weaknesses. I'd probably give the edge to New Vegas, and if it came down to it I'd rather see Obsidian develop future Fallout titles instead of Bethesda, but I do think there's a lot that Obsidian could learn for F3. I just hope they'll ignore the anachronistic 50's moms and the president babbling about baseball :foodndrink:

Quoted for truth, mainly. Though if I may nitpick a couple things:



The first part of that quest was annoying (though going to Ranger Station Charlie was a shock for me), but it did serve the purpose of introducing you to new locations and characters. What bothers me isn't the quest itself, but that you have to do it to get to some excellent dialogue with Chief Hanlon.

While on the subject of Chief Hanlon, his dialogue alone was better than the entire script of Fallout 3. The whole thing. Well written, well acted, It's annoying there wasn't more of him. You should be able to kill General Oliver and push Hanlon into that office.



Well, no, not really. If you want an ounce of believability in your setting New Vegas wins hands down. Though if you're just referring to the ambiance and art, I'd have to agree.

That and the Fallout 3 music wins, hands down. There isn't a contest on the music frost, I often leave the Fallout 3 soundtrack playing in the background when in New Vegas.

I hated F3's soundtrack. ESPECIALLY the combat music. Why they took Inon Zur over Mark Morgan is beyond me, because Tactics's music was boring as hell. I think Inon Zur ultimately redeemed himself in NV. They still should've gotten Mark Morgan.

Like I keep freaking saying, Obsidian didn't care about exploring.

Which is better? Better than what? I don't understand. They're both better than a lot of other games I've played. Is one better than the other? Should they really be compared that way? Why?

:sigh: [censored] it.

I love Fallout 3 because of the environment and the story and becoming a god and exploration. And slavery. I really, really like the slavery in Fallout 3.

I love New Vegas because of the environment and the story and exploration. And the guns. I really, really like the weaponry in New Vegas.

For me, they are equally awesome. Appears the only thing missing (for me) in New Vegas is the ability to be a Wasteland God, but you know what? That doesn't decrease the excellence of the game at all.

well said :foodndrink:

NO! Non-fanatic people get out! :nono:

i totally agree, i'm not saying new vegas is a bad game, obsidian did improve lots of aspects of the game that were missing in FO3, i think the combat mechanics were better, npcs were better, the quests were very good and complex, although some of the FO3 were pretty good too like reilys rangers, also obsidian did imporve the skill/perk/special system, they brough back traits, nightkin, they did a lot of stuff right, but they do make games different, for some reason the left map a little more static and none of the factions really move around much, i like how in FO3 the enclave would show up almost anywhere, and they patrolled all over the place, and so did the outcasts and other groups, you would find hunters or slavers cruising around parts of the map, new vegas doesn't have any factions moving around that much, early in the game new vegas is probably harder cause you might run into some deathclaws or cazedores, but at about level 20 our character is like a terminator still just like in FO3 even worse kinda i think, cause in FO3 there were high level enemies that could inflict more damage on you using much better weapons, heavy incinerators, gatling lasers, tri beam lasers and of course most of the enclave was well armed and they used sentry bots which shot missles at you etc so new vegas is lacking enemy firepower.

i agree with you granite, however in new vegas i am a wasteland god also by level 20, aren't you? i am like a walking terminator in new vegas, so both of the games have the same problem as far as being a wasteland god, i can get in every locked door and hack every pc and my energy weapon and firearms skill are around 100 and i can kill all the deathclaws at deathclaw promintory pretty quick from up on a rock and with great efficiency so both games you can easliy become a wasteland god but i do agree with you on your other points.

And you weren't in Fallout 3 at level 5? God your arguments svck.

I'm not a wasteland god with my fav character and I'm level 26 now I think. Maybe it's because I don't focus at all on combative skills and perks.

Fetch Quest

Obsidian got many people who worked in the olds fallouts

those kind of quest are pretty normal in the games, to a mayor extend, Fallout 2, you have a lot of these

Until Fallout 3

Where we got "Shoot to kill" quest, bleh

Then again

I dont ALWAYS want to use my guns, but also others skill

Someone here remember the Gecko Reactor quest in Fallout 2

Best Quest EVER