I would, but I uninstalled Fallout 3 months ago, and I don't plan on installing it any time soon, if ever again, waste of space if you ask me.

Ahem, I wouldn't call it insanely easy. Still if you try to compare the standard NV Deathclaw(250HP) and the F3 counterpart(500HP), you still get a bigger challenge in NV thanks to the damage threshold.

Which doesn't change the fact that you get your ass easily [censored] in NV unlike in F3. But perhaps those enemies are so piss-poor so they wouldn't disturb us in the glorious exploration part? :biggrin:

Pity, I was looking forward to watching that :goodjob:

He just made it up or exagerated.

Agreed :tongue: , no proof is bit of a let down I wanna see him/her in action, walk the walk

Don't get too cocky, how about we make a video of low-level radscorpion killing with 10mm SMG in both F3 and NV? :hubbahubba:

Ok Han

I did do the Deathclaws at Old Olney with a 10 mil pistol many moons ago, didn't video tho, combat was more rampant in FO3 than NV

I really don't care if you don't believe me, I'm just talking from my own personal experiences playing Vanilla Fallout 3.

Question douse fallout nv work w/ Linux???????

No, neither does pretty much any other good games. Linux has less than 1 percent of the market. There's not enough demand for Bethesda to want to have a copy of NV on Linux.

At the risk of pissing off both sides of the argument, I'd say that many of the New Vegas fans are being a bit elitist, while many Fallout 3 fans are willfully not understanding what it is that made the Fallout brand name worth being bought by Bethesda when Black Isle Studios went down.

I played the hell out of FO3 and most of its DLC. Bethesda got the look of post-apocalyptic alternate-universe D.C. down perfectly (I have some quibbles about why there'd still be so little civilization after 200 years, but that's beside the point). They do atmospheric 3D enviroments like a champ (The Dunwich Building still gives me the creeps). They changed their RP system to more closely match the originals, while keeping the sandbox aspect that they've become so good at.

That said, it was still a compelling failure as a Fallout game (NOT a failure as a game. It was a great exploration shooter with RPG elements) because the choices were black and white. You basically chose good or evil each time, and black & white morality was never what the original Fallouts were about. New Vegas gives multiple ways of completing each task, and there are simply more tasks to do (there are more side quests in the first four quest hubs than there were in the entire un-modded Fallout 3). The storyline in New Vegas is tons more compelling, too (the original ending for FO3 made me bang my head against the wall until I could watch the TV in the neighbor's apartment).

THAT said, however, New Vegas would never exist without Bethesda appropriating the property and giving it an immersive 3D look. Black Isle/Obsidian would have never have gone to this level of 3D immersion had they not been forced to; modelling environments was never their strong suit.

While I am an old-school Fallout fan and believe that New Vegas is the better game because it gives me more of what I, personally, like, I'm not going to say that FO3 was a waste of space or imagine that the game I like would have been nearly as immersive if FO3 hadn't come before. I'm grateful for Bethesda for saving and reviving the licence, and allowing Obsidian to do what they do best.

Whilst that's true when talking about the main quest, there was more shades of grey to the sidequests than you're suggesting, for instance Tenpenny Tower, The Replicated Man, Oasis.

I wouldn't hold Tenpenny Tower up as a good example of a FO3 quest with shades of gray, considering the game basically tricks you into choosing a murderous sociopath over a genocidal isolationist without giving you any idea of what the result of your actions will be. Replicated Man was portrayed as a straight-up good vs. evil choice; the Commonwealth guy was practically twirling his moustache with evil-itude and we don't know enough about the Commonwealth yet for there to be mitigating factors.

Oasis I'll give you, though I'm kinda pissed that they did that to Harold in the first place.

These don't really change the fact that the majority of the game was straightforward good vs. evil choices, or that there were all of eight or nine side-quests in the original FO 3, and some of them were very corny (leading slaves to the Lincon monument? Vampires?).

I don't really see the grey in Tenpenny tower's quests, it's pretty much help one side kill the other same with the Replicated man quest. Oasis has some details to it but it too is a kill or let live style of quest I thought too.

It's not though, I tried to take a "can't we all get along" approach, naively hoping to educate the Tenpenny residents out of their bigotry. Playing a cheery diplomat had a sting in the tail for that particular quest, trying to do the right thing still leads to a less-than-ideal resolution. The fact there were unforseen consequences and it didn't necessarily pan out as you imagined was a good thing in my book.

Replicated Man isn't as binary as you're making it out to be: having discovered the android's identity, is reminding him of who he really is really the right thing to do? All that effort to acquire a new identity goes to naught if you do. Or do you just keep the knowldege secret and fob off Zimmer like the railroad agent suggets? Or do you scoff at the very notion of an android being anything other than someone's private property and turn him in to Zimmer? Doing the "right" thing isn't as clear cut as is being suggested.

Another FO3 example: reporting Mr. Burke to Simms. My law-abiding character thought he was doing the right thing, only to wind up leaving a little boy oprhaned. I felt truly awful after that.

I'm not saying that FO3 isn't predominantly black-and-white in its morality, just that there is the odd shade of grey in the Capital Wasteland.

The only parts that i can think of off the bat that were really black and white were Megaton's bomb, Andale, the entire second half of the main quest, and actually that all i can think of right now. Technically though you can view everything as black and white because good and evil are differently defined by everyone so the good choice for one person could be the evil of another.

Fallout New Vegas just doesnt have the right feel to it. The atmosphere is inferior and the bugs make it worse. I love FNV and these things certainly dont turn me away from it but they do make me like FO3 better.

I think one of the things that's bothering people who fall on the FNV side of the equation is that a lot of people who side with FO3 are listing very subjective reasons behind liking the game more. "The atmosphere is inferior..." okay, but HOW is it inferior? I mean, if you like washed-out gray colors and post-apocalyptic rubble, then, yes, FO3 is definitely superior. FNV is more colorful and looks like people have been trying to fix things up a bit in the 200 years since the War. The bugs issue is, frankly, neither here nor there, because FO3 suffered from the same sorts of problems before it was patched a zillion times.

In contrast, the FNV-fans are listing off a bunch of improvements (which are natural when going to later installments of a series, of course) in why they like the game more, and are a little frustrated that their objective arguments are being thwarted with subjective opinions.

Of course, you can't apply logic to what you like sometimes. It's practically the definition of the http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NostalgiaFilter.

New Vegas is just better in the opinions of some. Story/Lore>Exploration=New Vegas. Exploration>Story/Lore=Fallout 3.

I could make a long and detailed post here explaining why the atmosphere's inferior, but a lot of that would just be listing immersion-breaking bugs and technical issues and it wouldn't be much fun to read. Instead, I'll skip to the end and say: it's the lack of polish.

(This offline 360 player had FO3 at launch and experienced a handful of issues over hundreds of never-patched of hours, whereas in NV I'm never more than five minutes away from bug or glitch of some description. Maybe it's different for other formats, I dunno.)



Funnily enough, in a post-apocalyptic rpg I do! Seeing the world destroyed is surely part of the appeal of the setting.



Damn those no-goodnik subjective opinions, they have to ruin everything!

*goes off to compile an objective assessment on whether daddy or chips is best*

We are not being elitist at all. We know Fallout better, thats all.

Lets say Bethesda sold Elder Scrolls to Activision. Then, Activison made the Elder Scrolls into a Modern Warfare esque shooter. The old Elder Scrolls people would be pissed and cry foul, while the new fans would call them elitsts.

You have to understand our context. We like Fallout the way it was.

Says the guy who hasn't even played the first two games. :rolleyes:

Sheesh....

Funny, I seem to remember not being able to run FO3 on my comp when I first got it. The game went as far as giving me blue screens. FO:NV doesn't.

+1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Oh wow...I have spent HOURS UPON HOURS UPON HOURS researching lore, so I know more about Fallout than you do.