I personally like New Vegas better just because it's more like a first person shooter. Aim down sights, customize weapons, etc. I don't like using VATS all the time sometimes I just want to shoot.

I like Fallout 3 more for exploration.

Fallout 3 is THE best game I've ever played.

Fallout 3 has my soul. It was SO immersive I had dreams about the Wasteland.

FO:NV - Beth and Obsidian have my money and I'd like it back!

What do you mean by "better"? Story, plot, character development; or gameplay mechanics?

I prefer FNV to FO3 on all of those aspects, however both are a little too easy on the very hard hardcoe mode in terms of gameplay mechanics. It took FWE for FO3 to make the gameplay more intense and interesting so I'm hoping there will be one for FNV. Also, FO3 is fully patched w/ only a few minor bugs remaining. FNV is still lacking full functionality w/ some of the guns being pretty much unusable and playing caravan against an opponent lacking in strategy (that and many people can barely get their game running for any length of time to begin with.)

So, basically both have their good points and bad points in terms of gamplay mechanics. But for me in terms of storyline, plot, and character development FNV wins hands down.

Fallout 3....

The flying monkeys were great.....

Both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas have their good and bad things.
However, I like most of the changes Bethesda has given us.
The limited amount of perks and skill points you can choose is really interesting to me.
The story of Fallout 3 is slightly better IMO.

New Vegas is better, but that's not saying much. Fallout 3 was embarrasingly bad. It has stupid locations, [censored] dialogues, no RPG mechanics, bad combat, a completely linear main quest,...

Wow you have a terrible opinion of games. Some people consider Fallout 3 to be the best game ever created not to mention all the awards it got.

Fallout 3 is a million and one times better. Don't ask me why, it just is.

Really? Then please add me to your list too!

Fallout 3 was not bad, but from my RPG point of view it was terrible. The only redeeming aspects were exploration and boatload of kick-ass mods.
And even that wont erase the terrible writing.

FNV wins for me in terms of story, dialogue, interactive enviroment(many of my actions impact the world around me), fleshed out characters and immersion overall.
The only weak spots I see are the bugs(which can be patched), and lack of exploration. And even that is debatable.

Fallout New Vegas is the sequel i've been waiting for ever since Fallout 2. I found fallout 3 to be massive disappointment mainly because of its butchered story and how easy the game was.

@No0bz:

Not that NV is exactly very difficult either.

I like NV for having much more choices during the MQ, for offering more quests (good ones, too) and for presenting a mostly plausible setting.

FO3 in retrospect seems a bit better in terms of exploring and if you are looking for a "wilder", less civilized wasteland (or more fighting).

For me, both have their strengths and weaknesses, I certainly don't regret buying either one.

Fallout New Vegas because its more like the originals which makes New Vegas more of a Fallout game then FO3. FO3 was not made for Fallout fans it was made for Bethesda fans. New Vegas is the middle ground. To make bothsides happy. To bad some people can't get over FO3. For them FO3 is the only fallout game. "New Vegas is to much like FO3" or "New Vegas is nothing like FO3" are very annoying. As I have already said FO3 is not the only Fallout game in which you can judge New Vegas by.

This

Fallout 3 just rocks all over New Vegas. And my Sis thinks Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas (Shes completed both as well).

New Vegas is better in every aspect, it makes Fallout 3 look like a joke.

Fallout New Vegas is a better RPG, a better Fallout game (the two main things that I expect from the games in this series) and thus a better overall experience.

Look at the average comments FO3 fans leave on these forums. What TRULY scare me though is that there are people with a seemingly normal IQ making the claim that FO3 had better dialogue :blink:, better characters :blink:, a better story :blink:, a larger map :blink:, more interesting quests :blink:, the list goes on.

If you got off on what they did well in FO3, i can understand how FNV doesn't provide the same experience for you. If Obsidian does another, maybe they'll have the time and resources to keep both sets of fans happy.

Bethesda Game Studios is the only Bethesda Game Studios. Obsidian will never make a sandbox good enough for me, and yes, I do consider Fallout 3's quests to be better.

What TRULY pisses me off is the narrow-minded intolerance to opposing opinions coming from SOME New Vegas and/or Fallout 1/2 fans.

What pisses me off is that some people assume that fans of FO1 & 2 just like being fans of original games, instead of being fans of GOOD games.



Blind brand loyalty to Bethesda, and saying Obsidian can't make a game that you would like?

Open minded FO3 fan :foodndrink:

I've made no such assumption, although there are some people that are like that. There are people like that for many games. My problem is I just walk into a thread and see disbelief, disregard for the thoughts of others, and general negative thoughts of those who would dare to prefer a different game, or even a single feature from a different game. It comes from both sides, but definitely moreso from the side that's been this way ever since Fallout 3 was released. It's the same way with so many different internet populations, and I hope the attitude rots and withers away.

For anyone looking at me thinking "go plai teh call of dooty" (I just love how people always try to mispell the sayings of gamers they consider mentally inferior, so I thought I'd put it the other way around), know that I've never played a first-person shooter in my entire life and I don't intend to.

I said Obsidian can't make a sandbox good enough for me. They just can't. They haven't in the past and it's not what they do. Note the "for me", as well. I most certainly am open-minded. I'm not screaming "Obsidian can't do anything right ever", as you seemed to have taken it, I'm saying I prefer Bethesda's sandbox style of games. If I was limited to only Bethesda's style of sandbox game for my entire life, however, I would have only liked three games in my history of gaming, which wouldn't make me much of a gamer, would it? I never turn a blind eye and pretend Bethesda can do everything better. They can't. Obsidian specializes in different things and I do like many things in Fallout: New Vegas. The only time I respond negatively to someone for preferring a different game is when they treat me in a similar fashion first, and I'm not saying Fallout 3 is the end-all better game, indisuputably and regardless of anyone else's thoughts. I'm saying "Yeah, I like this better, so what?" If you don't, fine, but leave me be and get the thought of someone else thinking differently being impossible out of your mind, please.

Only thing Fallout 3 did better with was the exploration aspect. (Which was pretty bad itself)
New Vegas is superior for me in every single way, but it falls short on exploration because it becomes so incredibly predictable.
First time around it rocked, but I'm on my 4th playthrough and because of fixed NPC/animal spawn I just don't bother with exploring anymore.

Last I checked in FO3 everything beside random spawns was statically placed too. AKA dunwich building was always in the same place, all the uniques where always in the same place and so forth.

Yeah I know that uniques and some creatures and NPC's have fixed spawns but the game also had encounters which could change depending on what level you were.
So yeah it becomes predictable after a while too, but New Vegas becomes predictable faster than FO3 did.

Maybe what's missing in NV are a few more random encounters and/or random enemy spawns.