Better as in pointless quests to collect Teddy Bears and walking around to towns with only two people then yes.

Better fallout Game? No. It's missing Reputation system, Damage Threshold, Story is poorly done, wrong atmosphere, almost everything is good or evil, can't join many factions, the followers are over powered and svck, there is no multiple endings that let me know what happens and so many questions fall short. FO3 is missing all that and all that is what makes the Originals great, they make fallout, Fallout IMHO.

Still it all comes down to option. FO3 I did enjoy but it grew old for me and I still play the Originals and Tactics. I don't think I'll ever play it again because I see New Vegas and can't help think this is what FO3 should have been.

LOL.

When you think about it, only The Pitt really delivers in this area.......and then unfortunately falls back into Broken Steele style silliness:

" Wanderer, you've saved The Pitt! Uh......er......could you collect teddy bears for Marie?"

Even then it kinda fell flat. You have a really tricky situation that you can solve but in the end, nothing really changes. If you enforce the current order of things and keep Ashur(?) in power, the slaves are pissed at you and things go back to the way things were. If you free the slaves, you're treated to the "My hero!" one-liners and the slaves stay in the Pitt anyway.

The Pitt didn't change no matter what you did.

So then you do agree that Fallout 3 is a better game?

I see what you mean, but don't agree. The reason there is no clearly defined back story to you other than your job is so you can actually develop those motivations yourself. A very specific back story like that of FO3 cements your allegiances and would not fit in NV with it's multiple endings.


It's indeed rare to find something that doesn't start like the person was done a disservice when presenting this opinion.
It's sad though that we think such a thing has to warrant a prize.


You have to find your own motivation and let your decisions and the story guide. With the different endings it would not make sense for your background to conflict with your eventual decision.


Basically you want it to be cut and dry good and evil, then. A fairytale ending, where everything is just a-okay and Broken Steel showed that even activating Project Purity wasn't a happily ever after.

Too be honest there are tons of chances for good, neutral, evil choices throughout F:NV. The quests for the Kings, the family of legion slaves, one of the first ones enables you to save or destroy Goodsprings.
It's just that the factions aren't all that clear cut. And I for one like it.

Though perhaps the problem lies in that in other Fallout games there was always a clear enemy. One faction, which didn't negotiate and out of principal looks to destroy your way of live. Now you can join all three major factions and the enemy isn't that clear as a result.
A clear enemy always makes it easy to see what you are fighting against. I applaud Obsidian, though, for not taking that route and make a game where you aren't fighting some clear evil, but rather make you choose which you (or your character) finds the lesser of evils.

Darn, I was too late with my edit. :brokencomputer:

But yes your point is well taken.

Fact is, that I don't dislike FO3 because of the Bethesda logo on the box, but because to me it feels just like Oblivion with guns. And since it has a FALLOUT name on it, I naively expect that something that made the series for me. Interesting story, witty dialogues and character interaction, and characters themselves. Heck, yes you could say I am dumb for prefering novels over comics. :sadvaultboy:

Not everyone who has an issue with F3 HAS to be a devoted gamesas hater. Just sayin' otherwise, I wouldn't even bother registering here if I hated 'em so much. :whistling:

I thought Fallout 3 was amazing... Then I played Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 was good... Then I played Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 was fair... Then I played Fallout: New Vegas then Fallout 3 was meh.

Edit: Fallout 3 isn't a bad game, it just has a lot of plotholes. Honestly, after 200 years, we'd be at least to Fallout 2 NCR as a general city-state. That's worst-case scenario if every city looked like NCR from Fallout 2. After 200 years, it'd probably look like New Vegas. It owuldn't be doom and gloom.

And then you played Tactics and F3 was semi-meh?

BTW: I liked Tactics.

Play Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel and Fallout 3 will again become amazing

I love tactics, I'm not done with it yet. I can't judge Fallout 3 on it, because it's too different.

Riiiiight. Anyone that prefers NV to FO3 must prefer it because they love Obsidian and hate Bethesda. :rolleyes: Never mind that some of us have been huge Bethesda fans since 1994 and members of this forum since well before Fallout 3 was even announced.

I don't get why people pick on Tactics because to be fair to Tactics it was Sold as a "A pos Nuclear Tactical Combat Game." On the back it says "Tactical Squad-Based Combat comes to the Fallout Universe." There is nothing that said it was an RPG. It was sold being very clear it will be different. Its a great game.

FO3 was sold as "It will be a Fallout RPG" and I thought it would be like the Originals much the same way New Vegas is (I has not joined to forum so I did not know. I didn't know! ) I knew there would be changes other then it being modern.

Ok, stop shoving your opinions down each others throat.

MY OPINION: Fallout 3 has better atmosphere, New Vegas has better everything else. However, the atmosphere alone is what makes Fallout 3 my favourite game of all time and better than New Vegas. I dont feel like im in a post apocalyptic world in New Vegas, i feel like i've backed my bags and moved to Vegas in the present.

NOW SOME OTHER RESEARCH: i've done a bit of research on these forums and ive learnt that older players 20 year + prefer New Vegas. Whereas the younger players prefer Fallout 3.

I think they're both great and just have different play styles. I compare it to FALLOUT 3 being creepy horror movie like while FALLOUT NEW VEGAS is more swashbuckling conan the barbarian adventure like. They both have great stuff to enjoy. I especially like all the blunt dark humour in FALLOUT NEW VEGAS.

Chances are the younger ones have not played the originals, if they did they would know that FO3s atmospher that many love so much was the wrong one. FO3 was going for "The great war happened 10 years ago" look. There should have been some improvements and very least a blue sky. People growing food and not just eating 200 year old Cram.

Anways its your opion. Mine is Fallout One has the best atmosphere. Post end of the world but people were getting their act together and started rebuilding and forming new cultures. FO3 theres just crazy raiders,slavers and people that can't figure out how to grow food or get it in their head that there are better places to live.

Roflcopter!




Well I'm likely one of the oldest people on this board and have never played ANY rpg prior to Fallout 3..........and still prefer Fallout NV. Even though I have no hangups about FO3 "not being a Fallout game"...since I have no idea what a true fallout game is.

I don't think FO3's supposed "wrong" atmosphere is it's issue (not a deal breaker for me anyway). It's the implausible plot holes, sometimes frustrating dialogue choices (or lack therof) & and lack of story impacting choices (and I must admit they bothered me a lot less prior to experiencing NV).

I could live with The Capitol Wasteland being too demolished for 200 years later if some of the other things were on the quality level of New Vegas.

Realistic or not, the landscape in FO3 is stunning. First time I saw it it blew my mind.

However I can't understand why so many complain that New Vegas isn't like it or doesn't have that "creepy feel". It's a new game, new place, new atmosphere. Like I want to pay 60 bucks to rehash what I already did.

This game isn't creepy. It's....."gun slingery". Works for me. It's fitting, for the desert setting.

No. The Fallout 3 story was strictly amateur hour. "Finding your father" is a terrible motivation, because you, the player, have no reason to give two [censored] about the Lone Wanderer's father. The only character you'd identify with in the beginning is the Lone Wanderer himself, because he's, well, you--there simply hasn't been time enough to develop the other characters to the point where you'd feel any attachment. It's a rookie mistake that neatly illustrates the difference between Bethesda and Black Isle/Obsidian when it comes to writing.

Meanwhile, in New Vegas it's you who gets shot in the head. Both the immediate motivation (I'm gonna get the guy who did this to me) and the long term motivation (why is the platinum chip so important?) are compelling because they directly affect you rather than relying on your supposed attachment to another character who has all of ten minutes of screen time before he disappears.

This is complete rubbish; how can you state opinion as fact. FYI finding my dad on the game was a massive motivation factor. Is he alive? What does he look like now? Will he remember me? and in real life id rather find my father than find who shot me in the head.

I think you said it better than I did. Literary versus visual sounds right. Because I don't think visual people are not intellectual, being more on the visual side myself.

On this I have to side with you. I found it very powerful, especially playing a female character as I find the father daughter bond to be especially powerful. For me the story starts to fall apart later. I had to RP my ass off to make ANY evil choices (which in the end amounted to squat anyway) since I was locked in with project purity and the BOS.

But again, I agree with you. To me, anyone who claims finding your dad isn't a good motivator is begging.

On the other side, FO3 failed MISERABLY in reuniting them (especially with a female Wanderer). The dialogue between the wanderer and dad after he discovered that his little girl (or his son) left the vault, somehow survived and then broke his ass out of the sim from hell? He/she is clearly no longer the fresh faced kid that he remembers, but a formidable bad ass of a young woman/man. The lack of emotion of seeing him/her and then the lack of an option to tell him that the Overseer went nuts and started capping people? Are you flippin kidding me?

EPIC FAIL.

Later when dad asks him/her (again, especially her) to go into the Jefferson Memorial to wipe out Super Mutants while he cowers outside with his Rivet City eggheads, I almost bailed. There should have, at the very least, been options for a serious rift in their relationship after his repeated selfish acts. Which in turn would have made it easier to act out and be somewhat "evil".

Add to that an option to go with the Enclave and you have the possiblity of a story line just as good, and probably more emotionally powerful, than FONV.

But alas, they didn't and it wasn't.

I never had any motivation to track down Benny - my character wasn’t vengeful and didn’t care about recovering some weird chip or honoring his 200-odd cap contract. As Yahtzee said (paraphrased) the fact that he shot me in the head was reason enough to try and stay away from him in the future.

Something that bugs be about these threads they rarely take into account FO and FO2. Its FO3 is better then FO New Vegas or New Vegas is better then FO3. Or this one "Is it me or is Fallout 3 a through and through better game" and its clear op is talking about FO3 vs New Vegas. There are other Fallout RPGs to compare it by. FO3 as a fallout game is not that great. If you like it so much and its the best game you ever loved great but theres no way it can be the best Fallout. Only thing FO3 has going for it from what I can read from these forums are that it has better exploration (debatable) and atmosphere. I don't see alot of FO3 fans complaing about the many, many improvements New Vegas has made. Many of which bring back original fallout mechanics.

There is a FO4 suggestions section and making the case there would be good. My point is FO3 > New Vegas or the other way around is pointless unless you look at all the Fallout RPGs. Hopefully FO4 will have more that the FO3 fans love but keep what the Fans of New Vegas Love.

I actually didn't mean to make it sound like visual people are not smart. Being a visual person myself, why would I? I don't think intellectual/literary people have any greater depth of taste than visual people. I'm just saying people prefer different things. Someone else used the word "literary" instead of intellectual and I think that is a far better word.

Oh boy, I'm sure a few other people have picked apart my choice of the word intellectual instead of literary. Oh well.

Thank you. That is indeed what I was trying to say. :biggrin: