FO3 and FONV are different flavors of the Fallout universe.

FO3 was definitely more conducive to "open world" gameplay. I definitely spent more hours of game time just raiding Enclave patrols and posts and spent countless more hours hunting the bullet spongy Albinos, Overlords and Reavers. Although the story sort of went off on it's own tangent, I liked it. The intro actually gave you a "taste" of what it was like being born and raised inside a vault. I liked the spin on how the East Coast faction of the BoS went "Robin Hood"and how the East Coast Enclave outwardly used "American" propaganda as opposed to those in the West Coast which were presented as an advanced, ruthless, secret organization, which you only discover later, towards the end of the story that the Enclave is what became of the American military/government complex after the bombs fell.

With that said, I still think FONV is a superior game. Just in terms of enhancements like the Companion wheel, the gun sights, hardcoe mode, ammo types, weapon mods, etc. I'd have a really difficult time trying to go back to play on the FO3 engine. It was awesome to see what became of the NCR around 40 years after the events of FO2. I'm glad that Obsidian and Bethesda teamed up on this one and I truly hope this collaboration will continue for future installments of Fallout.

I saw the enclave like once in FO3 because I either did not do the main quest at all or I saved it until last and ran straight through it. I probably saw a total of 1-2 enclave patrols ever.

I liked Fallout New Vegas until they came out with that update for 360 that made the game unplayable...i have been playing Fallout 3 recently im to afraid to put in Fallout New Vegas....

Following the road is just the easy way, the world is still open.

I agree, Definitely still open. I noticed how there are more walkable roads in New Vegas, but that just makes sense. New Vegas is an area that more-or-less indirectly effected by the Great War. in Fallout 3, we see areas that were nuked pretty hard. So it makes sense that we see communities that were created around an old tanker ships, derailed trains, or highway overpasses. The natural pathways people would take would not be the same as pre-war DC. New Vegas feels like the communities are built around intact structures, so roads should still lead you home.

my two cents.

Since like and dislike are matters of opinion, it's subjective by default; therefore, saying 'everyone disliked F:NV' is, in fact, a blanket assumption, and an incorrect one at that.

I, for one, like F:NV much better than FO3, since in F:NV my actions actually matter in the end and people in the various locations are aware of what I have/not done during various quests. This makes the game-world connected rather than a bunch of isolated small outposts, which makes it feel more 'alive' to me. In contrast, in FO3 nobody in a given settlement (aside from Arefu/Family) either knew or cared what happened in another settlement, even if I wiped Megaton off the map, and nothing I did during the main quest mattered since my decisions were rendered null by Broken Steel extending play past the second Purifier sequence.

That's not to say F:NV is faultless, since it's definitely not. Some of said faults are the same as in FO3, such as the character development mechanics; others are F:NV's alone, such as gross imbalances between weapon and armor types.

They do? That's news. I'm pretty sure the large amount of sales doesn't equate that.

So another Fallout 3 vs New Vegas topics only this time with a title that makes no sense.

I love Fallout New Vegas and it sold far more then Fallout 3. I know alot of people that love Fallout New Vegas.

There is already an on going topic about this ===> http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1216991-which-games-the-best-fallout-3-or-fallout-new-vegas/

This. Exactly this.

Thanks for changing the title, I was actually going to request it because it clearly was thoughtlessness on my part. I didn't think about all the debate it may cause. It's just one word. Anyway I'm glad it's fixed now.

I'm beginning to think that people don't know what post-apocalyptic means




Why wouldn't everyone be armed? In FO3 some of the raiders had pool cues rather then guns - but it was ludicrous that a dude two days out of a vault has a gun when someone living in the wastes their whole lives had chosen a pool cue as their weapon of choice.




Yes. I too hate making my own choices.


This is easily proven as incorrect.
But even if it was true, I prefer that to FO3's thinly disguised dungeons where you shoot anything that moves.

I'm sure people would be complaining too if everything magically remained an irradiated wasteland for thousands of years.

And I mean FFS, it's Vegas. This is the city that survived the apocalypse. Of course it's more civilized than other areas.

I don't think you do. The apocolypse would be the actual nuking and destruction of everyone. Therefor, afterwards, it would be all destoryed. Reguardless of what that term means, I found the dull destroyed cityscape of the Capitol Wasteland far more interesting than the mildly run-down looking areas that were to be found in New Vegas.



I never said the player didn't also have too many guns, now did I? I think it would be much more fun, if you had to be crafty, and guns were a rarity, and if someone had one, they were serious business. I guess it wasn't like this in Fo3 either, so this is a con for both games.



It wasn't that. It was that there were literally so many branches, that it was so open and had little direction. It was so open that there was little structure, and I got bored with it, and it was no longer a focus when I played. I'm all for non-linear stories, but they went SO far the opposite direction that it was also a bad thing.



Really? Cause I have about 25 unfinished quests in my save right now, and at least 23 of them are to go talk to some people and figure some stuff out. At least in Fallout 3, when you cleared a dungeon you were killing everything in it for a purpose. In NV, most of the time, there are the quests, and then the dungeons. They do not mix as much as they should.

Purchased today, and not able to get past the creation.. locking up repeatedly on the PS3(check my thread there), simple enough answer.

Because they wanted Fallout 3 2.

I like both games and both games bring their own greatness to the Fallout universe.

The only time I disliked FNV was when it was first released because the bugs made it unplayable. Now its fixed, its great. My only beef with I guess is the lack of exploring, like the wilderness, the large city areas and the metro areas like you find in F3. I'm an explorer type of gamer and I grow bored quickly if there isn't neat places to explore.

Actually, Apocalypse means "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse." :thumbsup:
Anyhow, point was that FO3's setting is more mid-apocalypse, people are still in the filth not moving forward.

I have to say that, in terms of raw atmosphere, I also preferred the Capital wasteland. (Pity it goes a bit crap when you look at the details)
A big weakness of the new First-person Fallouts is that they lack scale. Fallout 1/2 were able to do BOTH New Vegas style society rebuilding and the ruined husk of pre-war civilisation. With a smaller map space it would seem jarring if one were right next to the other.


Tru dat. At least NV has an explanation on where they are coming from.
But I'm totally with you on this one - having crappy home-made weapons for the most part would be neat. Have the few remaining awesome (by comparison) pre-war guns be rare.
:foodndrink:

This is where you and me are going to have trouble meeting eye-to-eye.
One of the reasons that I find New Vegas is so compelling is the freedom to forge your own path. It's so much more 'real' then being lead down a lame linear footpath.



For most of them you can just murder everyone. That'll solve your quest problems. :tongue:

i loved FO3, i thought it was a great game. then a friend tells me new vegas is even better than FO3 and i told him he's crazy, there's no way. then i played new vegas and had to admit he was right. but of course this is all opinion, and in reality we are trying to decide between two great games. for mafia film fans, it would be like trying to decide between godfather 1 and 2. you're really not losing either way.

what new vegas did better:

writing and story. i can't tell you how much i hate James the father from FO3. and i can't tell you how lame i thought building a water purifier was as far as epic story quests. i found much of FO3 to be rather boring story wise.

new vegas i found so many compelling stories. whether it was main quest (i really enjoyed talking to caesar and lanius and absolutely love mr house) or sidequest (i still laugh at fantastic despite having his dialogue practically memorized) virtually every character was developed regardless of how much dialogue they were given. and i can completely get behind a good revenge story. it's always a good sign when i find myself wanting more dialogue, and new vegas has me wanting more every playthrough. another great example is the survivalist from honest hearts. it's only text, but i found myself riveted, such great writing. i was disappointed there wasn't more, hell, his story could be a game in itself. having a great story and writing cannot be overlooked, it is absolutely paramount.

utilizing crafting/skills

it was an omission to not include craftable weapons, but overall (especially with the inclusion of the reloading bench) i loved the crafting. i liked how they included skill checks not just random luck of the draw speech checks. felt more true to FO2 and the fallout roots. weapon repair kits and jury rigging seemed so obvious to me while playing FO3 i wondered why it wasn't there (well i didn't call it that, but i knew there should have been something like that). i was elated to find it in new vegas.

FO3 did better:

basically i thought FO3 did combat/enemy encounters better, but not by much. packs of deathclaws are awesome in new vegas, but there wasn't enough human enemies to constantly beat up on. FO3 almost went too far, there were times when i just wanted to explore. similar to the feeling i had in OWB....i just killed 12 people, let me loot the area already!

i can't go back to FO3, not that it's a bad game, because it's still one of the top 5 games on PS3. but because of the little things FNV did better. well, writing and story isn't little, that's huge. overall i had a more fulfilling experience in FNV than i did in FO3. obviously i could go on, but those are the main points i think. but hey, that's just like my opinion, man.

In a non-flame baity way, this. That's what i was expecting, instead i was pleasantly surprised Apart from the sandbox that felt pretty empty.

However, i have gladly returned to Bethesda's games in preparation of Skyrim :hehe:

Agreed. I was introduced to the series by Fallout 3, and was like 'OMG, Fallout 3 was amazing, and I bet New Vegas will too. But New Vegas shows so much actual PROGRESS of humanity, and D.C. is just people living in the squalor of the past complaining how tough things are, yet no one is doing anything. All in all, I grew to love New Vegas's environment because it felt more real and believable for me.

The only one they have doing progress in Vegas is House. Without Houses Vegas would not be rebuild-ed and nuked hard. It be some community that are living in pre war building with many groups of raiders like the three Houses and the Great Khans. The Legion would not be after them near as much and The Dam would likely be nuked so the NCR would not care much about them. The BOS would also be taking technolgy from the area that could help it.

Remove House and Vegas would not show much progress.

bugs invisible walls and constant freezing :brokencomputer:

i didnt like new vegas at first....too much desert .....but after playing it i think its great....they both have their good points.....if i had to choose.....i would choose fallout 3 ....just because of the games i prefer....im replaying both right now....both great games

Mostly because people tend to flame before thinking. How many hated content did we justify here since release? 10? 100?
It all fits perfectly when you take 5 minutes and just think "why did they do it this way?"