Fallout 3 did NOT have a bigger map then New Vegas, New Vegas's map was taller, Fallout 3 just felt bigger because you were forced into the metro's to go to cretin places, and the in game map was scaled down a bit for some reason.

And in Fallout 3 you are forced into the BoS, and New Vegas you aren't forced into any faction, you can choose.

Plus the map was mostly radiated craters and rampage robots!

that and random piles of junk and raiders every 5 feet.

Molerats!

Hmm, I think both games have their pros and cons... Although, I really can't think of a lot of cons. Both spark my imagination, like no other game has in a long time.

New Vegas seemed "more colorful" compared to the somber mood of DC. (I'm just talking about the main game, not the DLC's which were definitely heavy and dark, well the 2 I played, Death Money and Lonesome Road). New Vegas also has a lot more factions and choices. I just love how all your actions have some consequence. I think that's the part that really makes this game stand out for me.

Fallout 3, well I really, really enjoyed exploring the destroyed city of DC. To enter museums and see destroyed landmarks was really cool! I also love the music GNR played. I listened to the radio in FO 3 all the time, not so much in New Vegas. Sure, the story was a bit weak, but there were a lot of elements that made it an intriguing and fun game (Raven Rock, Reilly's Rangers, Liberty Prime, Underworld, Moira and her survival guide!LOL) The Wasteland was really a wasteland, while the Mojave is mainly a desert.

Both games have found a spot on my Top 5 best games of all times!

booya, how's that for an argument of destruction

Edit: i've played a little bit of NV and a lot more of FO3. Not for any particular reason. I spend some time on these here forums and I see a lot of people always saying the same thing; that FO3's story is crap. Is this only compared to NV or do these claims come from some people who have played the original Fallouts, because I haven't played the originals and maybe I haven't played enough NV but I only find the story slightly superior so far. nothing to write home about. ( I got to the point where I was about to enter the Tops and meet Mr. House). Anyways I also saw someone say that Fo forced you to join BoS. Isn't there a point where you can join the enclave?

If by inserting an fev virus into water but still getting shot for all the help you did for the enclave by the enclave, then sure, you can "join" them.

New Vegas however, you got four paths to take. Four fully fleshed out paths.

The Legion is probably the less fleshed out faction, I.e. not many quests, but they have a GREAT backstory and motive. Plus whoever wrote Caeser deserves a reward.

True, but did you notice how completely devoid of emotion New Vegas' quest was? The ending is given away in the freaking trailer: you go to big dam, there is a big fight, you win. It's this mundane and boring end goal I was thinking about the whole time I was playing that game. There's no mystery or suspense, just running around finding out who you should talk to next.

In Fallout 3, you start as a baby in Vault 101, and grow up with your dad in there; it allows the player do develop an emotional connection with him, whatever emotion that may be.

So, when you leave the Vault, you will either want to find Dad and save him, find him and punch him in the face, or just go do your own thing since you couldn't give two [censored] less. Then theirs a big shocker towards the middle of the game ( I would post it if I could remember how to get spoiler tags) that either makes or breaks your ties with Dad.

I admit, the story does not offer much choice, but it is much more suspenseful and exciting.


New Vegas? I was struck with indifference the whole time. I changed sides twice because I just didn't really care, and went on which outfit was coolest.

Ok, so either the New Vegas Wasteland will be under control by a bunch of Roman wanna-bee's, people trying to bring America back to it's crappy capitalist society, or... something else with a bunch of robots, gambling and hokers.

Didn't get that. And since the story was of almost no interest to me, I decided to go out and explore a bit, try some side quests, and level up. But since the map is a Highway and a river, I kept ending up either along that river or on that highway, I found no new sights, just that highway, or that damn river.

It didn't help that the maximum number of rooms any dungeon had was two, either. Some dungeons ( like the Vaults) were large and interesting, but the other 90% was a room, some enemies, another room, some more enemies and possibly a boss, and then a loot chest.

A lot of this is a matter of opinion, but I hope I have explained, somewhat, why so many prefer FO3.

I love that you know where the ending of the game is going to be as soon as you hear about the dam, it helps you to realize that a game like New Vegas isn't about the ending. It all depends on how you get there, what I personally loved about New Vegas is that it doesn't get nicely tied up in the ending. The final mission is the second battle of Hoover Dam which will decide who ultimately controls the Mojave, but depending on your preparations before hand that could only be a temporary thing. Simply winning the last battle doesn't wrap everything up nicely.
I really hate this fact about Fallout 3, it' the exact reason why it's not an RPG. You are given your entire back story from birth which eliminates any hope of making your own back story.
I like Liam Neeson as an actor, but I felt very little connection to him after he leaves(because everything will be fine leaving his son/daughter in a vault with a psychotic Overseer) and especially after that shocker you mentioned.
I would personally disagree with this. I feel that the story wasn't good enough to be suspenseful or exciting, but that's my opinion.
I actually found it much easier to care in New Vegas then in Fallout 3 because it never tried to force you to care for someone or thing.
You see, its not that simple. I love learning about the lore of Fallout(the entire series) and when you start really looking deeper at each of the factions in New Vegas then you'll realize that nothing is black and white.
This is because Fallout never was about exploration, it was always a story about humanities never-ending struggle against itself. I personally hope you see that at some point.
I really hate the use of the word dungeons for any non-fantasy game, it really annoys me. The reason why there aren't many of them is covered in my comment above, I also suggest you take a look around the Vegas sewers.
I hope that I have explained why I and nearly all dinosaurs prefer New Vegas, but lets not drag this discussion into a popularity contest. Those usually end with a locked thread and several warnings.

I think it is funny how people enjoy complaining about stuff they don't like opposed to enjoying something they do like

I never really understood this insistence that for a game to be a "true" RPG, the main character must be a completely blank slate. I actually thought the prologue/tutorial part was one of the best parts of the game; it was after you exited the Vault that the story fell apart. IMO having some basic established facts about your character's origins and upbringing can help make the game more immersive, in that the NPCs will react accordingly to your social status & so on. Knowing who your character's parents are does not detract from the role-playing experience; what matters are the choices you make during gameplay, and the ability to customise and develop your character. The blank slate character can work in certain settings of course (NV being an example), but I don't think that games that have main characters with established backstories necessarily lack "RPG-ness".

I personally feel that a blank slate(or at least close to it) is the ideal player character of an RPG and an RPG needs to allow you to shape your own story. The Lone Wanderer is not a blank slate because your entire back story is given, you grew up in a Vault, you are 19, your mother died in child birth, your best friend was Amata and your father was the doctor of the Vault until he ran away which prompted you to go as well.

You have very little choice in Fallout 3 since you are forced to chase after your father, help the Brotherhood and attack the Enclave. Fallout 3 is an action/adventure game and it is a fun one too. It is not an RPG because you cannot role play as anything other then what the game tells you you are.

Besides Fallout Tactics which isn't an RPG cause it wasn't sold as one, it is a squad based tactical game. Fallout 3 is the only Fallout that calls itself an RPG that gives us our character's backstory. The only options we get to pick is our six and name. Role Playing options is seriouly limited. Made worse given that the game forces you to join the Brotherhood (good guys) and destroy the Enclave (bad guys).

Fallout we are the Chosen One, that is it. Fallout 2 we are the Chosen One, that's it. New Vegas we are the Courier, thats it. There are limitations on how old we can make our characters, but other than that the role playing options are pretty much limitless. Even Tactics lets us create our own backstory for our characters.

You've brought up some very good points, but I do see why the Dinosaurs prefer New Vegas; I'm playing through the first Fallout right now. The game is amazing, and much more challenging than any other RPG I've played, and I also see where all the disappointment with Fallout 3 comes from. The series gets (moreso is supposed to) its greatness from the story, which is awesome.

I'm comparing Fallout 3 exclusively to New Vegas. Both have their highs and lows, and I think that Fallout 3 out matches New Vegas.

This is a different story entirely when speaking of the first Fallout, though. I'm certainly no COD fan playing FO3 for teh uber lulz and awesomesauce.
All of the Fallout games are awesome, and I, in fact, do think that FO3 was not a very good Fallout game. But I think New Vegas is just not a very good game in general.

Well here we are in our mutual disagreement. Though I think we can both agree on

Yes, we can certainly agree on that!

For providing a sensible, productive, and fun argument; I give you ice cream.

And for you sir, one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npjOSLCR2hE.

Uhm... I don't really know what do do with that...

*Om nom nom*

Wait, [censored], was I not supposed to eat that?

EDIT: O EHM GEEE

I have a star now!

And our race, and appearance, and our stats and tag skills, and the tutorial sequence gives us multiple opportunities to develop our character's personality (how you deal with bullies, or whether you're a jerk to Amata, etc).

Fallout 3 was an RPG, just not a particularly good one due to lazy writing, plot holes you could drive a truck through, flat and boring characters, breaking continuity with previous games in the series, poorly implemented skill system, unchallenging combat and so on. But I wouldn't consider the Lone Wanderer's backstory a point against the game.

IMO the blank slate character is best suited for tabletop games, or online multiplayer games where you are going to have many player characters that can't all be cut from the same mold, and a more dynamic plot that can successfully integrate different backstories. As I said before, it can work for single player games, but so can a more detailed backstory. It all depends on what kind of story you want to tell, and I think it's an awfully narrow minded view to say that any game where the main character has a defined backstory is not an RPG.

I mean, take for example Baldur's Gate, where you grew up in Candlekeep, you are 20, your father was a god of murder and your mother was a priestess of the aforementioned god, your best friend was Imoen and you had to leave Candlekeep with your adoptive father Gorion.
Or take Planescape: Torment, where you are the Nameless One and the entire game revolves around trying to remember your long and convoluted backstory.
If these games are not RPGs then what are they? Is the Fallout series the only true RPG?

Race and appearance simply aren't enough special and tag skills aren't enough. Fallout 3 was piss poor RPG to the point where it wasn't an RPG. Your character is pretty much made for you, and you are forced to be good and forced to kill the bad guys. You are give very limited options when it comes to quests.

Fallout is meant to be the computer version of a Pen and Paper game. Gerps and D&D and the game Wasteland is what Fallout is based on. A true RPG is where you can be anyone you want to be. If the game goes "you are 19 years old and your dad is so and so" that limits the Role Playing greatly, then worse when the game forces you to be the good guy. No matter how many times you play the game you will always be a 19 year old, you father and your background will always be the same. You can't escape that. The moment the game defines who you are and your background, the game is no longer an RPG.

Fallout is a series where you can be pretty much anyone one you want with any background you want. That is what makes it a true RPG. That is what Fallout has been but for Fallout Tactics and Fallout 3 to some extent.

Having a pre made character isn't role playing. It simply isn't. No matter what you can't change the background of the game's character.

If you want a pre-made character than find some other series. Fallout is rare if not unique in that you can truely role play.

http://gifsoup.com/webroot/animatedgifs/347026_o.gif

Eh, I guess I'm just weird that I don't see it as a big problem if CRPGs don't try to emulate tabletop RPGs perfectly, they're a different medium after all, some differences are to be expected. And at least until we develop an AI advanced enough to act like a human GM, there's always going to some tradeoffs:
Wide-open sandbox game where you can do whatever the [censored] you want, but your choices don't have real consequences vs More plot-oriented game where you can make some relatively limited choices that have a big effect.
Blank slate character that allows more creative freedom vs Character background details that are relevant to the story.
And so on.

I just think that "absolutely undefined main character backstory" is not the only or the most important factor to what makes a good CRPG, but obviously we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

Eh wot? I have played and enjoyed several different RPGs, both computer and tabletop, with various levels of character backstory detail. Or are you implying that I'm not a true Fallout fan if I don't consider it the only decent CRPG series ever made?

I am not saying you aren't a true Fallout Fan. I am not trying to be hostile or offend you.

IMO a true RPG is one where you can make your own character, skills traits, backstory, six ect ect ect. Then putting that character into a world were you have many options in which to play the game, do the quests and role play that character. Different story paths, different out comes to quests and so on.

Fallout 3 lets us make half our character, the other half is pre-made. But what really makes it a none-RPG to me is the game writing which we both agree was poor. The game is good vs evil and we are forced to be good. Can't join the bad guys. It gets compounded because no matter what we are an 19 year old kid from Vault 101 and Daddy is a very important man.

I really didn't enjoy Fallout 3 (as a Fallout game) because it severly limits Role Playing, both the poor writing and the fact our character is already half made.

I don't want Fallout 4 to do that. I don't want them to say "You are a BoS Knight and you're mission is this and you are doing this because this happened." That is way to much. No matter what I will always be a BoS knight.

I want Fallout 4 to be like Fallout, Fallout 2 and New Vegas. Where it only gives us a title "Vault Dweller" "Chosen One" "Courier" and that is it. No damn back story about how old I am, who my parents are. Give me a title and a quest. Then put me in a game world where I can join or at least help every faction in the wasteland. Give me many ways to do the main quest line, give multiple ways to finish the quests. Don't give me "You are the good guy, now go out and kill the bad guy" crap.

My $0.02 I mostly agree with the pro FO:NV sentiment... but there is a small distinction which should be made..
1. Both games are inherently different. FO3 is made by a new studio(for the franchise) and based partly on their succes with TES... but with a different leveling system and other mechanics.. The fact they misunderstood some elements... 1) It is a commercial risk free title (ie no risk taking story wise... risquee elements from previous FO titles are still present but toned down) 2) Non of the original writers were present.
2. FO3 is an open world (!) RPG... with the emphasis on the first.
3. FO NV is more linear..... but also more of an RPG... however which doesn't abandon the open world.. (and in fact the linearity can be avoided as was mentioned by others)
4. However New Vegas should also been seen as an evolution.. People who understood the world ... thaught Bethesda how to use the formula..

As far as the different opinions go....
Let's use movies as a metaphor...
1. The Godfather III: On its own it is a well told mob movie... however compared to parts I and II it pales in comparison... However... from a 90's perspective.. it is faster... has better art design etc..etc.
2. Batman and the Dark knight... both movies are depicting the same hero, the same city but both are nowhere near the same.. Yet one might like Burtons vision while others will like Nolans vision..

In other words... as a new products it was done very well... and on its own it is a brilliant post apocalyptic open world RPG/ FPS hybrid.. however... it, according to fans it pales in comparison to previous titles in the franchise.. New Vegas is seen by many of those fans as a game using the (very well done) design of FO3 and bringing it more in line with previous titles...

That was a good post.