Hey people. Before I start, don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed New Vegas, I still play it from time to time, but it doesn't hold a candle to Fallout 3.

Although F:NV implemented some cool things that FO:3 didn't contain, companion wheel, ironsights, hardcoe mode, stuff like that, it also got rid of a lot of stuff; stuff that made FO:3 alot more immersive.

• The fact the wastelanders rarely (if ever?) communicate with one another. I am completely shocked as to why they don't in New Vegas, did the writers just forget?
  
• Although many people will disagree with me, I absoloutely despise the desert setting. Everything is so sparse. One thing I loved about FO:3 was the fact the landscape was so packed. You could walk past an abandoned shack and be 100% sure it was enterable, yet in New Vegas, alot of the buildings are covered in wood. What's the use of that?
  
• Random Events! Where the hell are the random events? In Fallout 3, you could be traipsing through a forest, only to see a group of slavers firing at a group of escaped slaves. I realise New Vegas does, in some way, contain events. But the only difference is that they are bound to happen, Nipton will always be set on fire by Caesar's Legion, there will always be that same pair of escaped convicts firing at that gang (forgot the name) right before the NCR camp.
  
• Don't even dare tell me the Fiends are New Vegas' version of Raiders; to hell they are. It seemed the majority of places in F:NV weren't inhabited by enemies, and if they were, it'd be by bloody Cadazores or something similar.
  
• Although New Vegas did contain the NCR, Caesars Legion etc, you didn't really get this sense of belonging. Perhaps you'll disagree, but you could actually become somewhat of a slaver in Fallout 3, you could become part of the BoS and do their quests, you could become a Regulator and take people's fingers, and vice versa. For me, this is practically non-existant in F:NV.

There's a ton more, but I'm sick of typing. Moral of the story? Fallout New Vegas feels like the predecessor.

Actually, it feels like it's successor that was pushed out the door too soon.

With regards to the buildings being 100% enterable in Fallout 3, that is piffle in that a lot of the buildings in Fallout 3 were also boarded up an unenterable.

As for New Vegas feeling like the predecessor, that is in part because it is a lot more akin to Fallout 1 & 2 in it's feel than Fallout 3 was. In my opinion Fallout 3 departed a bit too much from the core precepts of the series.

I do agree on the random events, they were quite a nice touch.
I somewhat agree on your first point in the sense that there is less communication between NPC, although e.g. in Oblivion it became pretty repetitive after a while.
So all in all, for me its not a big deal.

On your other points raised here, I disagree however, but they are anyway personal taste.

You can Join the BoS in this game though. Just like you can do quests for nearly every faction in the game.

Graphics wise no it looks much better then Fallout 3 did.

I miss the Capital Wastelands nuclear wasteland type of feel. The Mojave just feels like a giant desert not that its a bad thing by any stretch of the Imagination

Bugs wise yeah it feels like it came out before FO3 there were too many glitches you could do that made your character broken example Chet, Primm.

I like both games equally and I do miss Random Events I wish Obsidian would've keep that feature from Fallout 3.

...

I agree.

I dare, I dare....

FO1 and 2, had things called raider tribes.
FO3 had "raiders" / generic #, assault rifle..
The difference being FO3 made a slot acarde version of "whack'a raider"...
FO1, 2 and NV actually put a little thought into the why, how, who, where, when of raiders....
If only they focused more on these fresh elements and the developing states aroun NV than on the BoS, and Super mutants.

OP does make a couple of valid points; the lack of random encounters truly was disappointing, and a lot of the map doesn't have any kind of location anywhere near it.

Lots of valid points.
Here's to hoping Fallout 4 will be a perfect combination of the two.

I was shocked to see how many bugs NV has... I actually waited for updates before playing, cause the first couple attempts were almost unplayable.
But NV has much cooler weapons, and armor.

But NV fails on player interaction. They said this fallout(nv) was going to heavily character driven, and story based.

Well doesn't that require random events? and wastelander entcounters?

Overall I like the Capital wasteland more than The Mojave. It's just desert, and desert, and invisible walls in between.

I fail to see how Fallout 3 is better at these two parts.
It's story had two points which were better, it connected very smoothly and had a very interesting and I guess immersive intro.
But the downfall on it was that it forced the character into a role.
And it didn't leave a lot of options to take you away from it either.
A linear game can have a great story since everything is connected by numeric checkpoints, but when in an RPG it can be harder to create certain checkpoints and make them all feel connected.
So what I mean is, Fallout 3 had a nice story, but it was linear like crazy and forced the player to take a role one wouldn't always want to take and in doing so failed to live up to the RPG aspects, especially Fallout's RPG aspects.

And Capital Wasteland is just destroyed buildings, dead trees, mud and the annoying DC ruins metro land, no better than Vegas' desert, desert and invisible walls in between.

I disagree there, i personally think that the plot in New Vegas have more inmerssion that the Fallout 3 itself

Saying the Mojave is more desert than the capital wasteland is downright laughable. There shall be no question that NV is far better game than F3 on pretty much all levels.

Maybe the Mojave is more like a desert than the capital wasteland is BECAUSE IT'S A DESERT?!! CAPTAIN OBVIOUS MUCH?!! It's in VEGAS, VEGAS IS IN THE MIDDLE OF A DESERT!!

Step backward? Despite there are far more quests in NV? Despite the advancement in game mechanics? With iron sights, ammo types, damage threshold, and better crafting? Despite the obviously better writing? Despite how more logically laid out the world is? ./rantoff

Shiiiit, son, you're on to something.

I wouldnt say it feels like it came out before but it doesnt have unique atmosphere FO3 did. I realized FO3 was GOTY and had A-list reviews while FNV doesnt. FNV feels like, any other game with FO3's mechanics. I notice a lot of people think FNV is better because it has "moar" of the typical things a sequel should have. Weapons, enemies, locations.. quests. Those dont equate to a better game at all, that just shows the team knows how to add more of what was already originally created. So many re-skinned enemies, armors, etc.. no new character facial hairs or hairstyles. The game should have been delayed but even then, it still wouldnt change the game doesnt have the atmosphere FO3 did. If FNV was released prior to FO3, I honestly would not have played it. The gritty, decaying D.C. wasteland appealed to me.. not sunny warm Vegas desert.

If it were me, Vegas would have been abandoned or taken over by a raiders or something. There would have been small pickup games here and there. Its the post apocalypse and people are gambling what little money they have, rather than scavenging, hunting and gathering? Meh. Definitely not the creative direction I would have head in. But its obvious why this game was even created.. ($).. when Bethesda makes another Fallout and not a subpar in-it-for-the-$ studio, I'm sure it will be on par with why FO3 was an A-list game and goty.

True it depends on what you're looking to play at with each, I don't dislike either.

I however dearly wish FO4 will be it's own game just like every title in the series, but that wish is off topic for this thread.

You haven't played the originals that's obvious. So it's no surprise you fail to see why many people feel FNV is a superior game.
If the time frame had been shorter after the war you might have had a point, but it's more than 200 hundred years and people on the Pacific side people have actually been busy rebuilding.

On the OP's point of Raiders. Really, the raiders here seem to have a logical and a story to them. CW raiders were just random drugged up sadists.

Of course Fallout 3 got such high praise. A massive hype train and the fact that it was a decade since people got a full fledged Fallout game.

Well, I wanted a Fallout game. NV delivers. F3 does not. The only place where F3 has the upper hand is obviously the exploration aspect(arguable). But the rest? Miserably fails when compared to NV.



Buddy, you seem to fail to grasp the concept of "character driven" and "story based" aka player interaction.
NV offers a lot of different outcomes for both you, your companions and the factions, be it the major ones or otherwise etc.
The dialogue writing is VASTLY superior and in-depth when compared to F3.

Also, NPCs acknowledge your actions, comment on your companions or quest outcomes.

Having random things jumping off some david blaine trapdoor horsecrap [censored] does not add to the "story" or "character" factor. The above mentioned stuff does.

I've only played New Vegas for around 8 hours as of yet. With regards to: dialogue, characters, quests, game mechanics (ammo types, iron sights, etc) it is a much better game than Fallout 3. I especially love the different dialogue choice you get when you fail a speech check.

I have to admit though that I don't feel the Fallout vibe. Maybe I never will. It feels like I'm playing an excellent post apocalyptic wasteland RPG.

Maybe it's the horrible engine? They can only do so much with Bethesdas limitations.

Dunno. There was one area where the colour palette of the game changed to a very dull colour. It's that NCR camp where morale is low. I liked that touch.