New vegas doesnt hit the bar im sorry fallout 3 left boots to fill new vegas doesnt do it for me.

fallout 3 had a good storyline the quest lines where simple and the endings to quests where good you know really got me in to the game from the very first moment from escaping the vault,
but new vegas doesnt do that i like how they have changed it weapon modding running and gunning iron sights oh yeah dont get me wrong that hit the spot but i didnt feel to explore new vegas the way i felt to explore every desk and metal box in fallout 3

it saddens me because fallout is by far the best game ever i completed number 3 like 8 times "although the pitt DLC and anchorage where shocking" new vegas is going the right way but on the wrong track

PROS:
iron sights
weapon modding/ new weapons
everything is just all around funner to play
new perks ooh joy
followers dont die that saves me from going through my saves

CONS:
quest lines are so uuuuuuuuh
new vegas doesnt make me want to go for a jog in mojave desert exploring its boring "that rhymes"
vegas strip was craaaaaaaap so many load screens and for what roulette and black jack the strip just uninterests me so much dont get me wrong gambling drinking and the chained postitute on the side is my idea of a good night but in the strip wow iv never got so bored i got so bored of the strip i actualy went and spent quality time with my mum which no 19 year old should ever do

now share your honest thoughts fallout fans its ok you dont have to lie to yourself anymore

p.s if a dev sees this thread uv taken the fun out of drinking in fallout if u get drunk the gameplay should be as if you are drunk, and if these are your ideas of prositutes, youv been getting mugged down at your loca brothel ahaha they saw you coming a mile off

I'm not exactly sure how to respond to this, but I agree that Fallout 3 is superior. My primary issues with NV is that it simply lacks memorability when compared to Fallout 3; there is nothing as cool as Little Lamplight or Rivet City location-wise, and quest-wise, most of them start out promising but they end far too quickly (especially if you have high speech). Overall, I'm not completely disappointed with it, but it defnitely isn't as compelling as Fallout 3 was.

This probably doesn't satisfy you because it is so similar to Fallout 3 in regards of engine and gameplay, so it doesn't feel as fresh as Fallout 3 did.

Game-wise, I like New Vegas better because of the way they changed how the rule mechanics work.

Atmosphere-wise, I like FO3 and New Vegas about the same for entirely different reasons. FO3 took you through a truely post-apocalyptic setting of the ruins of a bombed-out metropolis and surrounding communities. New Vegas was more "post post-apocalyptic", showing us what a portion of the world would look like after it had time to rebuild and establish itself again. FO3 had a recently destroyed 1950's America vibe to it. New Vegas had a cowboy western vibe to it. More than anything else, I'm glad that FO3 and New Vegas are vastly different in all these regards.

Some of the NV positives for me:

Locations didn't all bleed together and all of them felt "unique"
A real variety in weaponry.
Greater diversity in NPC types.
Enemies that are actually challenging.
Survival aspects.
No 3dog (my ears still bleed)
CHARACTERS ARE NOT NEAR THE SUPER MASSIVE OVERPOWERED PEWPWLASERBEAMOMBWTFBBQ GODS OF FO3!!!!


Some negatives:

Needs a large dungeon that is not associated with faction quests.
Some quests lack depth.
Weapon mods are rare unless you have high luck.
Crafting was not as interesting as I hoped.
Empty roads could use more foot traffic. Just having some settlers and prospectors and what-not wandering down the empty highways would make it feel less....barren.

I also felt the load screen made The Strip feel smaller.

Honest opinion? I just purchased the game off Steam tonight and loaded it up less than an hour ago. I've got a pretty killer rig so all graphics are maxed but even after adjusting the brightness way down the game looks like crap. I dont know what they did to the render engine but its obscenely bad. Highmap doesn't seem to have any vertex shading (nor does anything else). New assets look like they were modelled in Google Sketchup. NPC/PC bodies are really skinny and clothing is rigged weirdly. New creatures look ridiculous. Texture resolutions are inconsistant (high/low next to each other). I put a hat on and my hair disappeared (WTF?). Animations are wonky. Very extremely disappointed so far. Sorry, but Obsidian has missed the mark by a lightyear on this one.

Oh. Another "Fallout 3 is better than Fallout: New Vegas" thread.

What a surprise...

I'm really glad I don't agree because I friggen love New Vegas... Much more than I loved Fallout 3.

I feel like the only one who thinks the world Obsidian built for New Vegas was a lot more detailed and interesting then Fallout 3's, which was just a pile of junk every 2 feet.

NV actually made me want to explore the land more. It has more of a "Oh, I wonder what could possibly be over this way" feel than the "There are a billion orphan bodies it's so depressing" feel FO3 had. That said, a lot of the locations and eventsin FO3 were way more memorable. Rivet City and Little Lamplight were really cool to visit, and exiting the vault for the first time had a much bigger impact than leaving some old doctor's house. Also, and I know this has probably been discussed to death, nothing will ever compare to blowing up Megaton with the nuke.

You're not alone. It's just that the most vocal people are the ones that have been complaining about Fallout: New Vegas.

People are entitled to enjoy FO3 just because some of you think that the originals are the way Fallout should be, doesn't make Fallout 3 any less a Fallout game. The series is meant to be whoever the owner wants it to be.

In my opinion(seems people get mad if you don't say that), New Vegas is more of a Fallout game than Fallout 3 will ever be. Fallout 1(haven't played 2) did not focus on exploring the world, because you couldn't explore the world, and could only get random encounters. Instead, it focused on story, writing, dialogue, quests, factions, settlements, character interaction, lore, etc. Fallout 3 doesn't really do any of that stuff well. Bethesda, instead, focused on creating a huge world which is fun to explore. However, there are so many side quests and a lot of content, plus all the stuff I mentioned above, in New Vegas. Obsidian focused more on the qualities that make a Fallout game a Fallout game rather than a Bethesda game.

In short, Fallout 3 is Bethesda's Fallout, while New Vegas is closer(and, to me, hits the nail on the head) to a true Fallout game.

Just my opinion, of course.

That'd be me as well. I do not deny New Vegas has a few flaws, but that does not detract from the fact that New Vegas is a beautifully crafted game. My favorite view is the overview of New Vegas from the Goodsprings Cemetery.

I'm p@ssed that FONV's bugs make FO3's bugs look tame in comparison...

My favorite is standing on the cliff in The Fort overlooking the wasteland to the West. Mind you, at this point I've usually gone on a killing spree already.

New Vegas feels like an RPG and has many factors from the older RPGs....hell Its now my number 2 behind Morrowind (and thats only cause Im and ES fan more then fallout).

I do feel that everything is too tied to the MQ...there isnt one good long storyline that doesnt effect the MQ (unlike Fallout 3 where every quest was seperate...but that wasnt right either). But the fact that there are quests and items that overlap, and factions actually have proper fights and conflicts with each other is something I havent seen since Morrowind and it makes you want to play through multile times, see what each side is like...see if its possible to befriend both etc.

Fallout 3 went for quantity over quality...it will take you twice as long to do everything in fallout 3...but everything you do will be pretty linear and the choices you make hardly effect more then a few NPCs at a time. New Vegas has alot more choice and desion making (to the point that at times I really had to stop and think about what choice to make) and while there is less to do, most quests really feel as if they have been finely crafted.

There are quite a number of things I miss from Fallout:3 in NV but there are some things I am pretty happy that were changed. IMHO I don't find either game much like either of the first two. Or at least no more like them than FO:3 was. And both FO:3 and FONV are far better than FO:2 ever though of being. Fallout, the first one, stands alone and will never be matched in some ways. In some ways I liked FO:3 more if not just for the perspective and RT and updated graphics.

It really doesn't matter which people prefer what game or what each of them thinks of the other for their opinions. What matters is that we can all share our views so we can all be heard and listened to just as much as the next. We all need to be happy so it would behoove us to find the things we can all agree on instead of poking one another in the ribs about the things we disagree on. I'm of the belief that the success of one determines the success of the next. Sometimes they will please some more than others but on some level...all of us Fallout fans new and old will be more pleased than if neither existed. I think it's one of those win/win or lose/lose situations.

My honest opinion is, New Vegas isn't even comparable to FO3. It's more comparable to hurling $50 off of a bridge and calling it a day at the moment.

New Vegas is so incredibly buggy (far worse than FO3) that I simply do not find it fun at all in its current state. The game won't allow me to become immersed in it (which is important) and I feel like I'm spending more time managing my inventory, faction standing, saving-reloading to overcome random bugs and whatever else (in hardcoe mode) than I am actually playing it, exploring and enjoying the story. I understand and appreciate the fact it comes with whatever aspirations it has to be a RPG of sorts, but I feel it was just gone about wrong with how clumsily the inventory, crafting and faction systems were implemented. The quests are hit-or-miss and while this was also true in FO3 somewhat, I could at least go explore some dilapidated building and gun down some raiders in FO3 if I didn't feel like doing any of the quests I had at the time.

Bottom-line, New Vegas may be a better game but I wouldn't dare say that until its actually at a point worthy of being called a game, rather than a beta test. There are a few aspects of New Vegas I like more than FO3 (primarily concerning difficulty, the combat system is a little more refined, larger pool of voice actors, more enemies) but there are several aspects of FO3 I like more as well (most quests were actually immersive and worth doing, exploration is more rewarding, the game actually felt like it wanted me to play it for the most part). New Vegas added a lot of cool stuff that improves on FO3 immensely but considering barely any of it works properly and ends up doubling, if not tripling the amount of bugs I have to wade through, I feel like it would have actually been beneficial to New Vegas if Obsidian hadn't bothered.

I personally feel first-impressions are important and with New Vegas, I feel it simply wasn't fully realized. The Fallout games have always been more rewarding as an experience than they were about fun gameplay for me. New Vegas has made a far worse first-impression than FO3, while simultaneously failing to deliver on both the experience and gameplay aspects of the game due to all of the issues and bad design. I'm far enough into the game I'm starting to see a really good storyline emerge out of this mess Obsidian made but I'd never pay $50 for that alone. It almost seems like Obsidian was over their head with New Vegas. They felt like they needed to deliver a game as long and immersive as FO3 was, while redesigning a great deal of it in a vain attempt to recapture the feel of the original Fallout games and improve on it by adding all kinds of additional features (including the crappy Caravan mini-game). Instead, they delivered a half-realized game that trips over itself constantly.

So... who is to blame?

1) Obsidian for always making extremely buggy games and over-exerting themselves with New Vegas (attempting to please both fans of the old Fallout games and Oblivion aka FO3, despite the games being nothing alike).

2) Bethesda for setting the bar too high in terms of what Fallout 3 offers (primarily with world size, quests and actual play space) and having a really buggy engine.

3) The fans of the old Fallout games, for all of their complaining which eventually caused Bethesda to hand it off to Obsidian with the hope of actually delivering something great from this mess.

We all know Bethesda and Black Isle came from similar game design backgrounds (CRPG focused) and where Bethesda were masters of creating massive, immersive worlds with countless hours of exploration with the Elder Scrolls series, Black Isle had a more imaginative back-drop, were pioneers of gritty, realistic moral choice systems and rounded it all out with child killing with Fallout.

When I sit and think about what actually aspired to cause New Vegas to come to exist, I imagine Bethesda wishing to please the fans of the original games due to their constant complaining of how Bethesda "had ruined the franchise" and then handing it off to Obsidian, complete with the engine and tools to do so. However, what we received instead was a FO3 clone with some (on paper, anyway) improvements and dozens and dozens of game-ruining bugs. This scenario may or may not be accurate (I haven't personally researched the development of New Vegas), I'm merely saying it seems rather plausible to me.

I hope, in the future, that Bethesda (or whomever makes the next Fallout game) simply attempts to make a great game, rather than attempting to explicitly please fans of Oblivion or Fallout or whatever. And please, by the love of god, actually test the thing and fix the bugs, rather than shove it out the door (this applies to both Obsidian and Bethesda, regardless of what game they're making).

FNV was overhyped in some way, just like MW2 and we all no how that turned out.... :shakehead:
Even though everyhting is different, becuase we played the sh** out of F3, after a while it still feels the same, and it is getting broing quicker than F3. I am not sure why, even though FNV improved f3 in every way. Maybe it becuase they used thee same skins that they used in F3, especially doors. I'm not saying the graphics are bad, this game doesn't need good graphics, but it kind of feels like you have been there before...

I do like the story in this better, but after doing it twice, i'm only doing the other 2 just for the trophies.....
This game just hasn't hooked me like F3 did....

Okay, I'm one of those rare critters that enjoys every Fallout game, from the old to the new. My introduction to the series was through Fallout 3, and some things work better, some things aren't as engaging.

This is all of a matter of opinion (ain't it all, really?)

Pros:

THE REPUTATION SYSTEM. I cannot stress that enough. It was way, way, WAY too easy to have extremely good karma in Fallout 3, not to mention you could exploit the karma system through donation to the churches or giving water to beggars. There needed to be another system in place, so I'm glad the Fallout 2 style of measuring rep was resurrected. This needs to be how it is going forth into future games.

Speaking of which, the karma system as well. As I previously mentioned, it was way too easy to exploit that in FO3. It's (a little bit) harder to do that in this game.

Siding with any faction you choose. I love FO3 to death, but I found it kind of troublesome that you couldn't really side with the Enclave in any capacity. (Granted, you couldn't really do that in FO2, either.) I like the fact that those who like to make evil characters can side with malevolent factions.

More varieties of weapons. I love weapons. Though I'm pretty sure everyone else does, too

Companions: not ridiculously overpowered, not as flat. I like the fact that each character has a story behind them. (Also, Veronica's the best. I love her so hard.)

Cons:

To me, the story wasn't as emotionally engaging as FO3. Fans will argue about this aspect for days, weeks, months, years, and possibly decades. We all interpret things different ways; ain't that the beauty of it all? But to me, after getting my revenge, so to speak, it was all "now what?" Don't get me wrong -- I still love it. But that emotional punch? Didn't sock me as hard. The story's very well-written though, but on the emotional side of things... different strokes, different folks. Moving on.

Gah, the bugs, good golly, the bugs! I had FO3 freeze up on me a couple of times. Yesterday, I had FNV freeze up on me five times in twenty minutes. Doesn't stop me from playing it, though it's frustrating to have to get up to hard reset my PS3 when my tush is nice and warm and comfy on my couch.

Okay, I think I've finished my dissertation now. Haha.

Your opinion doesn't count when you can't spell or construct sentences. Now...



That's a load of [censored]. I've done nearly every quest and the amounts of bugs are negligible.



To me, the story was much more interesting as in FO3. In FO3 you have to go after your father that you don't really care about - he has very little character development. FO3's main quest bores me every time.

In NV, it isn't just about revenge. I wanted to find out what the hell is going on. It's less boring. Though shorter, unless you don't count FO3's walking between objectives (talk to this person, talk there, talk here....)

See I actually felt the opposite of this bit. Don't get me wrong I loved NV but I just didn't feel like exploring as much as I did in fallout 3. In three there was always something different to see that really kinda wow'd me but in NV I just feel like it's all the same I look around and think "Oh boy look at that, more empty desert..." And I think the invisible walls kinda let me down, nothing hinders that exploration vibe like getting smacked in the face with an invisible wall on top of a hill you could easily climb over. Maybe my explorer's instinct is broken? If I wasn't on 360 I'd mod out the invisible walls, I think they're my biggest downer lol.

I agree that Fallout 3 nailed the bleak post-nuclear atmosphere very well. It was a desolate lawless wasteland, where only the strong survive.
There were very few settlements, and although Megaton was one and you visited it early on, it seemed like one that was struggling to defend itself. So when you finally visited Rivet City, you thought wow, this was a very defensible settlement and you would feel safer there.

The water from your vault was fresh and free of radiation, and when you came out of your vault, all the water is irradiated. It adds to the grim and dangerous existence of the Fallout world.

In New Vegas, there are heaps of settlements, clean water, even high class entertainment like casinos. There are even rich people in a land that is supposed to be lawless and full of ragged people.

Edit: Don't get me wrong, New Vegas has new improvements like reputations, weapom mods, multiple endings, telling you what happened to the people you helped, hardcoe mode where ammo have weight, etc. Just Fallout 3 felt more bleak and dangerous. Even meeting Three-Dog was a memorable experience. I don't know why, Fallout 3 just had more of those moments.

I agree with the OP on many points, though I have enjoyed NV, it sometimes feels like a cash cow. FO1+2+3 all have a tragic, post-nuclear holocaust feeling to them. NV doesn't really have that, and while I realize it's the most 'current' game timeline wise, it mostly fails to capture any true 'Fallout' feel with it's cheerful skies and cowboy music from the 1980's.

What's done is done though, and I don't think any more threads of this nature are useful.