Actually, I think this is a succinct summary of where and why FO3 went completely wrong from a lore point of view. Its like the guys that wrote the FO3 storyline picked up random plot elements and dropped them into FO3 without any regard for context or plausibility. But, because they were using classic 'fallout' tropes, it must be fallout, right?

E.g. the supermutants are basically Oblivion orcs dropped into the fallout world, and nothing like the original version found in fallout. The BoS are basically paladins dropped into the fallout world, and completely nonsenical vs. the original lore. The water purifier plot is just stupid. The geck is a complete afterthought, where they basically decided to reuse the word without it meaning anything.

FNV on the other hand, feels authentically fallout; the various factions are more or less what you'd expect (though the whole thing with Caesar's legion is a bit of a stretch, granted). But beyond that, FNV plays with the morality of your choices much more than FO3 did; there is no 'good' faction (I suspect that the NCR would have been even more ambiguous if Obisidian were allowed free rein, as its quite clear that this faction has been shoehorned into the 'good' concept but even then with a lot of grey areas if you poke around and talk to various characters in game).

Having said all that, don't get me wrong - I really enjoyed FO3 (particularly modded up with FWE) and it was a great dungeon crawler (in these sense of having lots of stuff to explore underground or in abandoned buildings etc). However it doesn't hold a light to FNV story-wise.

Oh i get the similarities but to refer to it as a copy of Fallout 1 and 2 while being so different in tone and play style and most importantly in interaction it seemed a very strange statement. Perhaps it's the geographical proximity but NV feels much more integrated into the lore and to a lesser extent the more choice based problem solving of the first 2 games.

NV beats FO3 by miles in my book. The story is better, more quests, better conistency with FO lore, the people are more ambiguous, the moralities are not as black and white, ect ect ect.

Here is why NV is better:

FO3 had 3 types of characters and they were the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.
FO NV characters were all unique individuals.

That pretty much sums up the fundamental difference. (yes, I know there are more)

Me too. The saddest part is almost everything for them in in the GECK- sounds, scripts, factions, even the yao guai meat is in there- everything except the creature itself.

Maybe some day some enterprising modder will make us new ones.

Is FO3 better than NV, maybe.

Is NV or even fo3 better than the first two, maybe.

Is tactics better than any of them, maybe.

Is any of FO3 - NV gameplay weaker than the first two, maybe.

Do I like them all yes, in different ways they are all great games.
Depending on your views any could be better than the rest.

Edit: needed less gahhhh in it.

By copy, I meant the story was copy-pasted and badly photoshopped (If you get what I mean.).

Well not complete copy but some Bethesda developers have a case of kleptomania.

I think FO3 needs more cowbell.