I love both i personally think new vegas is the better game in every way but setting capital wasteland is way better than new vegas but id like to hear what you think?

Both are amazing games made by two different companies, it is hard to choose.

Edit: Yeah welcome!

Welcome to the forum :foodndrink:

A simple search of the forum would have found many topics about this very thing.

For me the order of best Fallout games goes:

1st: Fallout
2nd: Fallout 2
3rd: New Vegas
4th: Fallout Tactics
5th: Fallout 3

This is one of those topics everyone fights about. The infamous question(s) of "Which Fallout is better?" and "Which Fallout did you like more?".
For me, I have two completely different views towards both FO3 and FO: NV. In my opinion you just can't compare the two. I see them as being made on two different mind sets.

Fallout 3 is set in D.C., is there any better location to see the damage that has been inflicted on America. When you think America, you think D.C.
When you see D.C. destroyed, in ruins, it hits home. FO3 is the gloomier of the two, and I think it's message is: Look at what happened, look at it's effects,
look at how it changed us and the problems we face because of it.

Fallout: New Vegas is set in Nevada, sunny, a much more happier vibe. From the minute you play you can tell the difference between the two and that's the first
thing I noticed. Two completely different atmospheres. NV's message to me was: Look at how we recovered. Look at how we look towards the future.

But if I had to pick between the two Fallout 3 is my all tie favorite game. I could pick up my controller, put that game in and find something new even with 100's of
hours invested into it. That's something.

New Vegas is better in just about every way, I just couldn't get into Fallout 3's setting, mostly due to how impossible it is. I mean are you trying to tell me DC was nuked the hardest? it barely looks touched at all, which makes its lazy denizens all the more stupid.

I just don't like its "Look how we haven't moved on even though in the first 2 games its obvious that we have".


also I choose Fallout 1.

That.

Out of the two newer ones New Vegas tops it cause it has more quests, choices, dialogue and reputation system.

The better RPG is New Vegas.

The better sit-back, relax, and shoot things game is Fallout 3.

I prefer RPGs so I like New Vegas more. Although, Fallout 3 is definitely good as far as TES sandboxes go. I wish New Vegas had as much content outside of quests as Fallout 3. I wish Fallout 3 had RPG mechanics that were not watered down to 'barely tacked on' compared to the originals.

New Vegas. Improved on the concept of Fallout 3 on every aspect and felt more a part of the series (although I would've liked it to go even further on that regard as the general gameplay and mechanics weren't all that different from FO3).

Fallout 3, it's a better game than the others. New Vegas is ok, but it doesn't hit the bar.

Liked New Vegas better. it should be better after all.

It exceeds the bar.

No, it didn't.

Then tell us what bar it didn't hit in you're opinion?

The bar for a good Fallout Game, New Vegas did a far better job then Fallout 3 in every way possible.

If it was a topic about which is better at being a TES game then Fallout 3 takes the cake.

New Vegas is the best now a days but i've been playn fallout 2 for the past month or so and it's been the best fallout for me the dawn of NCR, the enclave, new reno, a [censored]load of weaps, new reno, in short its a great game.
Fallout 3 was more look down the sight, squeeze the trigger, level up, do it all over again.It was very good at it but that just ain't my thing(if it were i wouldnt be here);the setting was so damn unreallistic like 200 years after a nuclear war it couldnt all that bad, there should a lot less super muties with the enclave in there and them(muties) being sterile;but it did had a very good exploration.
But there is one thing tht doesnt change :fallout:

Let's discuss gameplay, perhaps the best measure of a good game.

Fallout 3 had weapons with a single ammo type. It also had armor with straight up damage reduction (ie DR of 50 lops 50% of your damage off every enemy attack.) Its crafting system was extremely limited, with no more than a handful of guns.

New Vegas has weapons with a panolopy of ammo types, many of which you have to craft. It also uses damage threshold instead of damage reduction, which means that you have to exceed the DT to do the listed damage (otherwise your DAM is reduced to a 30% minimum.) And its crafting system was massively more involved.

Why is this important?

Let's take an example:

FO3, an Enclave trooper with 25 DR. You can choose a SMG or a sniper rifle. (Let's pretend that their DPS is the same for argument's sake.) In this situation, there is no functional difference between the SMG or a sniper rifle except ammo consumption. The DPS is the same, and DR knocks a flat percentage off of every hit regardless of actual damage dealt, so the only reason to choose one or the other is personal preference, the presence of a scope, or you only having ammo for one.

This isn't very nuanced.

FNV, a Brotherhood Paladin with 25 DT. You have a SMG or a sniper rifle. In this case, two things matter - damage per second and damage per shot. If you don't exceed the DT, you're only going to do 30% of the listed damage - which means 70% is going to be blocked! This means that against highly armored targets, one weapon is more useful than the other. However, that sniper rifle's high DAM is a liability against swarms of unarmored enemies, since its damage is frontloaded. Even if the DPS is the same. Which means that both weapons have actual distinct roles that they can fill.

But that's not all, Comrade! You can switch ammo types in FNV as well! So if you're sniping something unarmored, you can switch to hollow point bullets, which do more damage but are weak vs armor. If your machine gun is dealing with heavily armored targets, you can swap in AP rounds to help with that, negating 15-20 points of armor at the cost of a modest damage reduction.

And then there's handloaded rounds. Often these introduce even more options, like match rounds that make your gun more accurate. Or SWC rounds that pierce armor and do more damage, but eat away at your gun faster. And there's even more specialized ammo types - like dragon's breath shotgun shells that turn your riot gun into an imprompteau flamethrower, or pulse slugs that give it massive bonus damage versus robots and power armor.

FNV has more options in gameplay and is generally more nuanced, and in an open-world RPG, more options and nuance is always a good thing.

Main story, no really depth to any quest, bugs and glitches.
No, Fallout 3 did a great job. Not saying it was missing things, because it was, but it did a better job at being a good game then New Vegas did.
Nice, you come up with that yourself? I'm sure that really hurt Bethesda, bet their all crying.

Wasn't trying to hurt Bethesda.

I just wanted to know what made Fallout 3 better then New Vegas in you're opinion.

By the way the glitches and bugs are Bethesda's fault. They were the ones in charge of fixing them, they ran Quality Control. It was also their buggy engine.

So the only thing that makes Fallout 3 better then New Vegas is the story? Not saying you are wrong, It can't be wrong because its you're opinion. Besideds its one of the reasons I feel Fallout Tactics is better then Fallout 3.

When I say which is "better" I mean better Fallout Game. Which best fits the series as a whole.

Because Fallout 3's handful of quests were totally deep, and the whole game was bug free.

Oh yeah and don't forget the main story, totally original and deep, its not like it ripped off Fallout 1 and 2's plot. and its not like Fallout 3 is dependent on you liking your in game Father, who was too [censored] stupid to be a scientist, let alone a parent.

Fun is subjective. And who cares?

It's his opinion if he thinks that Fallout 3 is a second coming of Jesus. It has been universally agreed that NV is a better Fallout game out of the new series anyway. :fallout:

Personally I find them equal. Although that's probably mostly due to my intial bias towards Fallout 3 (as my first Fallout game) and the fact that I prefer its atmospheric feel to New Vegas's.

That said, from an objective perspective New Vegas defintely has better gameplay mechanics and much better writing.

Nothing illustrates this better than the fact that no matter what you do, the CWBOS will never be permantly hostile to you. Case in point, I wiped out everyone in the Citadel and a few days later they were still buddy-buddy to me. :rolleyes:

Hmmmm .. - that's a tough one.

It's much more fun to explore in FO3, but much more fun to create new characters and play RPG in FOV.

Going forward, let's remember that all of these are opinions. Nothing more. Please do remember to treat them as such - this tends to be where threads like these go downhill.

Myself, I think I enjoy both of the games for different reasons. I'm actually playing back through both games in tandem, at the moment. (Switching every couple of days between the games, so I don't start getting bored or fatigued with them.)

I really like a lot of the additions implemented in Fallout: New Vegas. I think that's kind of to be expected, though - when you're building on an existing foundation, there had kind of better be certain improvements, or else I think I would have been rather disappointed. What I find really notable as things that I particularly miss when going back to Fallout 3 are things like all the extra crafting opportunities (which really adds a lot to scavenging and looking through all of the "junk" items,) hardcoe Mode (even though I hate the name and I've never once actually found myself lacking food or water - again, it does add a nice element to scavenging and exploration, I find.)

What I like most about Fallout 3 was simply it's art direction. Coming from an art background myself, I just really appreciate the overall gestalt and cohesiveness of the world they've created there. Their art director is just very talented; I can tell he had worked out a very specific vision, and it really shows in all aspects of the level design. There's a lot of depressing vistas in Fallout 3 - but they're all rather beautiful at the same time. And they do a really good job in the level design of finding subtle ways of directing you to some really nice imagery in that game.

With New Vegas, I find that while I don't the art was necessarily "bad" in any way, it just didn't "pop" as much (to me) as Fallout 3 did. But to their credit, Bethesda has been making this sort of game for a long time, and it's kind of hard to compete against a company when that's one of the things they're best at. What I did like about the layout of New Vegas's map was the innate logic behind it. Everywhere I go in the Mojave, I feel like it makes sense for people to live there - I get a sense of how they survive, the role politics play in the region, why someone would settle in that place, etc.

They really put a lot of thought into that aspect. I think that's really a rather telling difference, actually. I get the sense in Fallout 3 that it's concept first, justification second. (ie, "Hey, wouldn't it look cool if they had a settlement built on top of a decayed overpass?") And in New Vegas, they justify the settlement and frame it's background in a believable manner, and then try to make that looks as cool as possible. Frankly, I don't think there's any objective value to place one over the other. Just different approaches.

Honestly, I think what's more important to me is that Fallout 4 manage to take the best aspects of New Vegas, while still maintaining their characteristic emphasis on highly-detailed and visually stunning environments to explore.

Glitches may have been the engines and Bethesda area, seems like they did a better job with Fallout 3 than New Vegas in that area.
The overall stories, New Vegas had a few that were ok but a lot was just useless surface junk fetch quests with little depth under them.
I don't really care if it makes a good Fallout games so long as it makes a good game. The stories important but I want to have fun.

I thought exploring was way better in New Vegas, Fallout 3's world was boring and poorly designed.

Yes, I say Fallout 3's wasteland was poorly designed, not poorly made, just poorly designed. Within the Fallout universe it makes no damn sense, hell within our Universe it makes no damn sense.

Also Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game.

If DC was just a massive crater, I'd say they got the atmosphere right.
But alas......