Each one has their ups and downs. Though I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3 sometimes I do wipe the dust off Fallout 3 and play it.

Oh boy, oh boy, oh boy! These threads I swear will make my dark brown hair into shiny grays. In all seriousness I believe New Vegas is better. Fallout 3 was a great game just a a horrible Fallout game, whereas New Vegas was both a superb normal game and Fallout game. Both great, only one true to the series.

I'll add this bit for protection: The above is my opinion, I don't demand everyone agree and my opinion is not fact. :spotted owl:

And skip having the same old argument for the thirty thousandth time ???

Surely you jest ?

New Vegas is better....as it was fallout 3 with more features to it.

It is so good in fact that i cant go back to Fallout 3....I havent played it since New Vegas.

They're both okay games I guess, if you for some reason can't play Brotherhood of Steel, the obvious better game in the series.

*trollface.jpg*

I prefer the capital wasteland setting and stability of F3, but F:NV has better mechanics, perks, and gameplay. Also, I was dissapointed that the Rock-It Launcher did not appear in New Vegas, perhaps with a Unique variant called the "Crap Cannon." The lack of craftable weapons (besides explosives) in general disappointed me a bit in NV. But in general, NV is like F3 with more stuff added on.

This. Both games have high points and both games have drawbacks. but we still need to have these threads just so we can confirm that people still don't agree.

i prefer new vegas

I was going to troll, but I've been warned already and I should really behave myself.
I will not imply that anybody's face or anybody's mother is sub-par.
Instead I will just say that that this is a wonderfully original topic and I'm sure it will give us all a chance to share thoughts that have never been posted in this forum before.

One important difference between the two that isn't often brought up is that FO3's setting is post-apocalyptic, but FNV's setting is more like post-post-apocalyptic. So if you like your Fallout to be properly post-apocalyptic the Capital Wasteland is where it's at.

The problem is the great war was 200 years ago at the time of Fallout 3, so it should have been "post-post apocalyptic." So you're statement about Fallout's setting being "properly post-apocalyptic" is dead wrong. It has been 200 years, people should have been rebuilding, farming and have a working economic system. There should have been way less radiation and living trees and plants everywhere other then Oasis. There should have been farms/crops and so on.

Fallout takes place 84 years after the great war and they have, farms, working economic system, trees and people building new towns out of stuff other then wasteland junk. Fallout 3 again 200 years after the great war and everyone was sitting around with their thumbs up their butt, living in a radioactive crap hole.

The biggest problem with the setting of Fallout 3 is that it takes place around the city of DC. DC is the capital of the United States, and therefore would have been the most important target during the great war. It should have been nothing but a radioactive crater and yet it's in better shape then Las Vegas which wasn't even it that bad. Every land mark but the white house still stands and is in damn good shape. Every city in the west has been nuked off the map, any building still standing has been gutted by fire and looted, long ago.

If you want a "properly post-apocalyptic" setting go and play Fallout and see what a true "properly post-apocalyptic" Fallout is, and then play Fallout 2 and Tactics if you haven't already.

To the people that talk about how Fallout 3 has too much of a "right after the war" feel to it I'd say think about this, it was Bethesda's first entry into the series and the first Fallout game in over a decade, which meant they were targeting a whole new group of fans than the ones that they would have if Fallout 3 had been released in say 2000 or 2001. They had to really sell the devestation that the war caused and if they had used a setting like New Vegas had then it would have felt more like a third world country instead of a place thats recovering from a nuclear war, it wouldn't have had the same impact and it wouldn't have drawn people in the way it did.

both are terrific games. new vegas seems harder , FO3 DC wasteland setting is better. i love the enclave more than any faction in new vegas, but vegas has much more too do. both are different both are fun.

They could have set the game closer the Great War. The only problem then is that they couldn't have Brotherhood or Enclave there.

From my understanding, the early ideas for Fallout 3 by Bethesda was it was to be alot closer to the date October 23rd 2077 then 2277. There wasn't supposed to be Brotherhood or Enclave. We weren't even supposed to have followers, hence the title "Lone Wanderer."

I understand Bethesda needed to make their fans happy and bring in a new generation, hence the wrong setting and so on, but for people to say it's "the right setting for a Fallout Game." That's just wrong in so many ways. It's why Fallout 3 was more like a TES game made to look like Fallout, but missed mark completely.

But wouldn't that have made the original fans even madder though? There wouldn't have been anything there to link Fallout 3 to the first two if they'd done that, which might have been better, I don't really know, but to me it seems like the way they did it is for the best.

And I'd agree with you on the setting being wrong for a Fallout game if it'd been set on the west coast where the series had already been before, but its kind of hard to say its wrong now since its a whole new area we've never been to before with its on history and lore. I guess we could argue about it all night and never agree on it though, so I say we just agree to disagree since we haven't come together on anything else tonight anyway. :foodndrink:

I do understand why Bethesda did what they did. It's clear they tired to make old fans happy. As an old fan, it didn't make me happy, best example is what they did to Harold. They also didn't want to end up like the new guys that bought interplay, and make a game like "The Burned Game." They also already have a huge fan base used to their style of games. Last Fallout was in 2001 not counting "The Burned Game" so they were not sure how many original fans were still around. Still I think that Fallout 3 is a fun game and I played the hell out of it. I pre-ordered it and played the hell out of it and bought all the DLC and played the hell out of it some more. I enjoyed Fallout 3 but as a fan of the series, I feel it is the odd game out.

So it bugs me when people say Fallout 3 has the right setting for a Fallout game. Bugs me even more when the only Fallout's most people know about is Fallout 3 and New Vegas. That's why I encourage more people to play the originals, including Tactics. I am not saying people should not love Fallout 3, but they shouldn't ignore the other 4 canon Fallout games. To say New Vegas got it wrong.. well that's just wrong :grad:

Personally I don't think I would have been upset that there would not have been BoS, because there's only a couple in Fallout 2 and in Fallout you can go the whole game without dealing with them. I would have loved it if Fallout 3 had no Enclave. Fallout 3 also didn't have to be in DC. It shoudn't have been in DC, because DC should have been destroyed completely.

No. I couldn't agree more with the rest of your post, but that was not at all what I was saying.

Perhaps 'properly' was a poor choice of word. What I meant by this was simply that Fallout 3 had a more post-apocalyptic feel than a post-post-apocalyptic one, with no sort of value judgement attached. For myself I agree, it was extremely unrealistic that much of the DC ruins was still stuck in the post-apocalyptic phase two centuries after the fact (edible pre-war food, plentiful loot etc), and it was an impediment to my completely buying into the game world. This is partly why I think New Vegas is a superior game. BUT the fact remains that the world presented in New Vegas was not actually post-apocalyptic, so if you like post-apocalyptic settings, New Vegas will not deliver that.

This is my first post and I want to say that my opinion is that the atmosphere in New Vegas is post-apocalyptic to a certain degree, but not all the way as the atmosphere in Fallout 3. In my opinion the signs of "post-apocalypticness" of New Vegas are car wreckages, radioactive mud pools, raiders, millions of people "missing" in NV, Mr House saying only a small part of the Strip remains, etc.

Can we all agree however, regardless of whether you prefer post-apocalyptic or post-post style, that it'd get very old, dull and boring if every game was post-apocalyptic? I like the direction the west is going right now, with civilization advancing and the world being dynamic.

One thing I know I'll miss if-and-when I play Skyrim is the dynamic story, lore and world. Like from FO1 to FO2, we found out what happened to the Master's army, and not only did we simply find out what happened, but we saw a realistic portrayal of what would happen AFTER the army was destroyed. It wasn't just "poof, all super mutants are gone;" no, of course many survived, some still fight and others struggle to be integrated into society. From FO2 to FO:NV we found out what happened to the Enclave and again; we see a realistic portrayal of the aftermath of it all, and after FO:NV going into the next FO on the west coast, we'll find out what happened to the NCR, Caesar's Legion, the nukes and New Vegas. The Elder Scrolls, we already know what happens to the Nerevarine in Morrowind and we don't learn anything further about him in Oblivion. The location is so far off that it doesn't even matter in regards to ANYTHING in Oblivion. In Oblivion, we already know what happened at the end and I doubt we learn much more in Skyrim because the time period in which Skyrim takes place is SOOO long after Oblivion. And Skyrim? Skyrim presents an entirely new conflict that was never present in Morrowind or Oblivion; it's just "SURPRISE!! New conflict!" and then the new conflict will probably end and never be mentioned again by the time the game is over.

So let people whine about the games not being this non-stop struggle for survival with radiation and explosions and monsters literally EVERYWHERE in the wastes; I wanna know what happens to civilization.

Post-post? What the heck? Have we collectively forgotten the meaning of 'post'?
I always thought that FO3 felt apocalyptic and New Vegas felt the most post-apocalyptic.
FO3 is very much still in the mire. Humanity is still on the brink and could be wiped out at any time, there is nothing post about it. The nukes may have triggered the apocalypse, but the apocalypse is ongoing.

I was under the impression that the 'apocalypse' in the term 'post-apocalyptic' is commonly understood to mean the nuclear holocaust.

But we're quibbling over word definitions. In any case, while the Mojave is still a wasteland, it's more of a desert wasteland rather than an irradiated wasteland.

And I for one am glad it's like that.

Post-apocalyptic (directly after the bombs hit. The 12 minute Great War itself would be referred to as the actual apocalypse) is but a setting. You can't build a franchise on a setting alone. So which would we prefer: a dynamic story that covers society's advancement after the apocalypse or a static series where every game is nothing but a post-apocalyptic wasteland with practically no advancement or survival?

Seems like a lot to sacrifice just for a freaking setting...

People seem to be reading all kinds of things into my posts today. :confused: You're preaching to the choir, dude. I completely agree.

No I know you do, but I'm asking everyone.

There was a mandate from Bethesda that each new game could only advance the timeline (no prequels). So Obsidian was limited in what they could do. Even if they'd wanted to, they couldn't (for example) set the game right after the great war.

Personally I'm fine with it.