I don't know about you guys, but i try to get into Fallout NV but i just can't

I looooooooove fallout 3 and i have hundreds of hours of game play and i have done at least every quest 3 or 4 times :fallout:

But, for Fallout NV i barely got through one run through before I pretty much quit it. So, i came back to it a couple months later and tried to get into it again by trying to side with the other factions... i was sadly disappointed. It was fun in all but i almost want to say it's more repetitive than fallout 3....(I'm not saying fallout 3 is repetitive) I mean it is great in all how you can pick whether or not you want to side with the Legion, Mr. House, or NCR but i think Bethesda could have done a better job as too changing up each faction's campaign as much as possible. Gaining the Boomer's, Great Khan's, Brotherhood of Steel's, and other's trust was fun in all but your telling my i have to do that 2 more times for each faction just to see some end game play for the faction I sided with.....? I know its not a big part of the game but i was just wondering if any of you were feeling the same way...

First, somebody is going to say it so I say it with less [censored]ing: Bethesda didn't make NV. Obisdian did NV. Bethesda just published the game.

NV's dialogue was far superior but I also had much less fun in New Vegas. I've played some 70 hours of NV, one and a half playthroughs. The exploration was inferior and there was not much to see. I found myself just doing quest after quest. As nice as they usually were, I didn't find much to do in a place besides running through the quests.
Not saying NV is bad in any way. It's in Top 10 of my list, definitely. I just enjoy Fallout 3 more, although I admit that it's much because of mods. But then again, Fallout 3 seems to leave much more room for modding, though I'm quite sure that without F3's mods we wouldn't have many things that make NV superior in certain gameplay aspects.

EDIT: what I really meant was, Fallout 3 leaves more room for modding, not less.

well you know, I completely disagree. But thats just me.

Somehow I think that most will not be as brief and civilized as you so I think that despite the OP's apparently honest intentions this thread should be shot, burned and buried.

I agree with Pistolero, there are some things that FNV does better, but FO3 is more fun overall IMO. FNV is still a good game, I just don't think it is as good as 3.

I can see someone enjoying exploration in FO3, but the quests?

I've been playing FO3 while waiting for Lonesome Road to come out, and holy crap.... I struggle to play for 20 minutes straight before getting bored with the quest and turning the game off. They svck. Exploration is all FO3 has going for it.

Fallout 3 is exploration and fighting focused, almost a "dungeon crawler" if you will, with some quests to have some purpose to explore it. New Vegas is a linear plot-driven RPG, disguised with an empty sandbox. Both have their pros, both have their cons. Which one is better depends on everyone's own preferences in games.

Personally i feel New Vegas is a better starting point to mod it to my liking, because of the better main questline and characters. It's easier to mod in optional dungeons and more enemies than to improve the the integral components of the game. That said, i still play and enjoy both of them. And Oblivion too :hehe:

Everything above is naturally IMO.

You should get Old World Blues for F:NV, it's more like FO3 with more exploration and combat than the main game!

That's true, though the constant enemy spawning out of thin air and constant ambushes get a bit annoying.

Agree! New Vegas bores me quite a bit, and I bought DLC for it before it started to annoy me. I regret this. :brokencomputer:

Prefer NV but everyone has prefrences

The difference between Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas is largely, I think, because Bethesda did NOT develop Fallout New Vegas, but did develop Fallout 3. Obsidian Entertainment developed New Vegas. So you can see the difference in styles.

I am also struggling to "get into" Fallout New Vegas. But I'm going to keep trying.

But you can see the difference between Bethesda and Obsidian style in the games.

No.

When you compare a Fallout game, you compare it to every other game that *isn't* Fallout.

F3 > most games
F:NV > most games

Any equation with both F3 and F:NV on the same line is impossible to solve.

NV made some improvements with the main story, companions, and hardcoe mode but it was missing some of my favorite aspects of F3. F3 had less locations but the locations it did have were deeper, more interesting, and had weird narratives stitched into them. The only location in NV that felt anywhere as interesting as a F3 location was Vault 11. Also F3 had wide open spaces in between locations where all sorts of weird random events would happen. NV had maybe one or two (not so) random events.
Most importantly however, it didn’t take them 6 months to make F3 playable. To be honest it’s still a little buggy but it was never anywhere near as bad as NV which crashed on me constantly, had locked quests, disappearing npcs & companions, and all sorts of other issues.

Again with yet another VS thread..

How about we just use this thread that is already on going http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1216991-which-games-the-best-fallout-3-or-fallout-new-vegas/

Let's use that thread. Thanks.