The problem with Fallout 3 being so ruined, desperate and hopeless is that it's so much so that the land couldn't sustain any life at all, so it just doesn't work.

New Vegas. Its not as black and white as FO3, its way more advlt and it has more referenses to the Originals. The companions are smarter and have their own quests, they are not bullet sponges. I never feel like I am a God that's untouchable in New Vegas and the bad guys don't become super human with thousands of HP. :fallout: Most of all the story is better. New Vegas brings back multiple endings that let me know what happens to the people and places I go to, this gives the game more replayability and gives me a sense that my actions have meaning.

Fallout 3. More to explore, more sandbox, not so much a linear tied to the rail experience. Not that New Vegas svcks or anything (although I am way less than impressed with the number of boarded up structures and nowhere/nothing locations), Fallout 3 just had more of what I enjoy.

The story is pretty good, and the writing is decent and all, but sometimes I like just going off and doing my own thing, and that isn't easy to do in NV. And when I do manage it, I later find I've broken some quest(s).

I don't think she openly states that she doesn't like men. She just states that she was in love with a woman once. :sadvaultboy:

Or maybe it's just mah wishful thinking. Haham kidding, let's not stray away from the topic.

Hrm I'd have to say New Vegas because your actions have consequences, the ending is much more like the classic fallout endings, we can't easily become J.O.N.T.M.O.A.'s or wasteland godlings, the shades of grey to each faction, the return of the factional reputations, a less linear main quest (at least once you reach a certain point), the fact that if we wander into certain area's we won't last long in them if we are not ready for them.

For Fallout 3, as to why I prefer New Vegas. The main quest was purely linear (even though you can skip parts of it) in that you can only do it the same way with only a couple of minor variations each time, the disjointedness of the whole gameworld with the lack of interconnectivity between side quests, it was too easy especially after Broken Steel to become a J.O.N.T.M.O.A with every character, the combat was or at least feels less dangerous than the combat in New Vegas (excluding some of the bullet sponges, which are just silly).

This is why NV is better. It's a real RPG not a dating sim like most of what passes for an RPG these days. But no worries fella, as I'm sure the modders are hard at work on a Sengoku Rance mod which tranforms Veronica into an anime naughty little schoolgirl with a giant machine gun and pink hair.

Fallout 3 didnt have linearity? I was FORCED to join the BOS in their "noble crusade" to wipe out the demon Enclave. I wanted to join the Enclave and help them take the purifier but oh, guess what? I can't.

And of course you broke some quests. If you join NCR, you break the Caesar's Legion quests and vice versa.

You should make a poll.
Oh and it's hard to choose when the devs can't make a proper game work on the fking ps3.

New Vegas, by a long shot. There's nothing Fallout 3 did better and even some of its core design, that got transferred, is already eating New Vegas' appeal.

Uhm...

Guys, my Fallout 3 was more bugged than a month old Braham corpse, but my New Vegas ran flawlessly without ever seeing a single CTD.

How come everyone else have the opposite situation?



But yeah, my main love for Fallout 3 NV was that I could choose my side.

My biggest downside in FO3 was that I couldn't side with the Enclave further than just adding the FEV. Damn it! I wanted to fight for them!

I was referring to the game as a whole, not the main quest line. I would have thought that was clear by the sentence itself, obviously not.



Yes, that's exactly what I meant. :rolleyes:

Well I can only speak about my own experience. I'm on 360 and you're on PC anyway, so we're essentially talkiing about different games. My Xbox 360 version of New Vegas is riddled with bugs in a way my 360 version of Fallout 3 wasn't. I can't comment on the PC versions.

What a choice,it's a good question,but i find myself getting bored alot,don't get me wrong ,the games are awesome,it just feels like a add on like the pitt or point lookout.it just doesn't have the kick i was expecting is all.New Vegas is far better though.the leveling is good when creatures are involved because if a giant rad is chasing you on level one,you'd better have a stealthboy or a save.And the other creatures don't level up as well.like being on level 20 and having to shoot a mantis a hundred times just to kill it.new vegas was much more thought out

Well, the FO3 story is a bit more subtle, and a bit more emotional. The FO:NV story is in-your-face-politics.

FO3 easily.

FO3 felt like I was playing a post apocalyptic game with some harshness to the environment, which is what i expect when I purchase a FO game. The Vegas environment when it gets harsh (mostly due to critters) I found was to keep me on a predetermined path. Otherwise it's a nice pretty green/yellow evironment with a few broken buildings along the roads. FO3 doesn't have a predetermined path in that out the vault I could anywhere I wanted. FO3 has that 'wow' factor, one example is exiting vault 101 for first time, still waiting for something similar in Vegas.

Overall too many dissapointments against a handfull positive factors made first impressions not very good. I'm sticking with it though and trying stuff out like sacrificing putting skill points into weopon skills and put them in the survival/medicine/repair/science skills to allow me to take full advantage of the crafting options and the benfits I will get becasue of this, but early indications are that I'm heading for another dissapointment.... but maybe I'll find something new just round the corner that will 'wow' me

New Vegas. if not for the greater weapon variety, larger amount of locations, ease of finding many of these locations, more open play and non-linear storyline, then definitely for the more realistic firefights. if its guns vs guns, it feels really realistic: shoot, take cover, peek up, shoot, recover, etc. running out in the open during a firefight is suicide.

The problem is that it doesn't make sense.

What the hell were people doing during the events of Fallout 1 and 2? In 2196, the NCR was established on the West Coast...and what happened during that time in the East Coast? People just sat around, doing nothing?

I'm not saying I don't like the post-apocalyptic vibe. It just doesn't fit with the fact that Fallout 3 takes place 200 years after the Great War.

Thank you! With the survival skill and hardcoe mode, exploration in New Vegas should have been far more interesting than Fallout 3. It's the exact opposite. Once I finish most of the quests I feel little incentive to simply wander the Mojave only to find a marked location with just a few radioactive barrels piled up. If there was a way to mix the two games, I would be one very happy person!

To be fair, DC was hit hardest by the nukes, so any attempt at rebulding civiliztion would be stymied by the radiation and environmental destruction that resulted. Harder to tame the East Coast after all the damage sustained in the war.

I like both, FO3 wins but probably because I bougth it game of the year, with dlc, well patched etc.
This time around I couldnt wait 12 months.
FO3 I liked the "shortly after the Big One" feel with dead lovers on carhoods, emergency radios beeping etc.
FO-NV was nice with the "we are rebulding" feel.

I wish they could have retcond FO3 to say 40 years after the Big One rather then 200.
I did in my imagination (I do that alot hen I play computer games.) :fallout:

This is exactly how I feel. Both great games, with similar gameplay, different settings and different things that they do well. I have both for the Xbox 360 and when I get my new computer I will buy both for PC.

what holy machinery are you using? a bethesda game without bugs is like.. like.. turkey without gravy! its comepletly unethical! even though we all hate the bugs. :sadvaultboy:

the best thing in fallout 3 for me is the story didnt end with a certain dlc. with NV, mr. house is still waiting for me to get ready and go to the dam. for some reason caesar's legion is really patient :shakehead:

Or neither side can land a decisive blow until the Courier shows up.

I wouldn't mind a Fallout taking place like 50 years after the bombs *HINT HINT*