so lots of people say that the New Vegas story is far better then FO3 and quit frankly, I disagree 100%. Now don't get me wrong, I love a good story, but more emotional ties are needed to make a good story great. In FO3 you are given that connection, your father that you literally grow up with goes missing and you have that emotional need to find him.

turn the page to New vegas, your some random guy that get's shot in the head. You have no back story, no family or friends to speak of. it's bland if you ask me. Right now i don't really care if i ever finish the story because i don't care what happens. There is no need to go on. Do you know what i mean? I mean the character is alive and that's all that matters, why do i need to continue?

What are you thoughts? I hope pepole see my points and don't just hate me because i like FO3 better. New vegas is a great game, I just don't see why it has a "better" story.

When I played Fallout 3, I did not even had a connection with your dad. I thought it was bland especially the way they created F3 with its black and white story.

Thats the point. You are supposed to show some creativity and create your own backstory and motivations. That's the beauty and freedom of what New Vegas allows with its character creation.

Unlike Fallout 3 where its Born in the Vault > Find your dad because you are supposed to care for him > Join the Brotherhood > Fight the Enclave.

I never felt anything for James other than "who the hell is this guy and why should I care?" You never get to really talk with him for more than like 20 minutes throughout the whole game.

Now you say the F3 story is better, what about the Generic Factions and Companions. Forced to join the ECBOS. Cant join the Enclave at all , the people there eat old pre war food. The story is just good vs evil while FNV offers multitude of options. Legion, House, Indpendent, NCR with its morals of how to run nations and what best for the new world. When I first played FNV, I killed Mr House and frankly, I felt like I made a wrong decision for killing a man that wanted to restore humanity to its former glory. In F3, like what Andronicus is has pointed out. Exit Vault- Find Dad-Forced to Join Bos-Fight Enclave. Thats it, no storytelling.

All the factions (yes, even Caesar's Legion) are morally grey and should force you to think on who would be the best choice to control the Mojave. Fallout 3 recycled the plot of Fallout, and then added in the Enclave. In New Vegas, a simple revenge story evolves into the Courier declaring his/her loyalty to a certain individual or group (or, if you believe that the Mojave should be free you unite the tribes and fight for independence) and helping them, ultimately deciding the fate of this area in a meaningful way.

It doesn't hurt that the writing is much stronger than in 3.

You're not given any emotional connection to your father in Fallout 3 though. He barely appears in the game. If there is an emotional connection it's one the player is making up by substituting in their relationship with their father rather than one the game provides. This is a common failing in Fallout 3 to me. The player is forced to provide what the game doesn't.

The truth is I'm far more invested in even minor characters, factions, and their fates in New Vegas than I ever was in my father, who's supposed to be the center of the whole story, in Fallout 3. That's the hallmark of a good story. One that draws you into the world and keeps you interested and New Vegas does that very well.

I find the OPs point moot because the entire story of FO3 is 1 & 2 mashed together.

The game gave me no reason to care about him as a character beyond the simple fact that he's the protagonist's father. The thing is, as someone else pointed out James had very little screen time, and what little time he did have wasn't used wisely. You can do a lot with 20 minutes, J.E. Sawyer did an excellent job with Joshua Graham in Honest Hearts who had roughly the same amount of screen time, and the reason for that is because Graham is a better character supported by better writing. Fallout 3's James is essentially a one dimensional robot who Bethesda apparently expected the player to project their father onto, because I don't see how anyone could care about him otherwise.


I think it has a better story because it offers more choice, it focuses more on the bigger picture than the protagonist and his undeveloped father, it has better characters, and it's better written in general.


Well the father thing was original, it just wasn't done very well. Then again, the Fallout 1/2 copy and paste job wasn't done very well either.

It actually allows you to role play for one thing and there are less plot holes.

It's an RPG franchise so I want to roleplay, New Vegas allows much more wider roleplaying possibilities thanks to it's branching storyline and limited backstory elements. In Fallout 3 you are 19, you have a father, you grew up in a vault, Amata is your friend and you are meant to care for whatshisface, Jonas or whatever. No matter what you try to be you will always be chained to those story elements, and that makes Fallout 3, in my opinion, a RPG with a bad storyline.

New Vegas doesn't have the same kind of carrot to dangle in front of you like Tactics, 1, 2 and 3 had, but because of it you can decide for yourself what New Vegas is about for each character you make.
That is one reason why New Vegas' storyline is far superior to me.

Another is the actual story, in Fallout 3 you run around with power armored friends against power armored villains to solve a water problem in an illogically irradiated wasteland and are given few choices during that path. It tries too much to be "epic" for it to be interesting at all. It's like The Thing 2011 and the original, The Thing 2011 just gives you eyecandy with no real substance, action scenes, gore scenes, unmemorable characters and a boring storyline. The original film on the other hand dealt with paranoia, isolationism and had hidden clues throughout the storyline for you to ponder.

Fallout 3 is the kind of film that just throws things in your face and goes with the most crudest form of trying to "epic!" and in the end you save the world, again, how lovely.

In New Vegas on the other hand it challenges your views on morality on an intellectual level. It is the original The Thing.

So do I like a story where I'm forced to care about a father and two friends who I know nothing about and have no chance to get any real emotional connection with, which throws me out into a wasteland with idiots running around in space armors to save the world by making water drinkable, despite the fact that it, scientifically, shouldn't be that irradiated in the first place OR do I like a story where I'm allowed to craft a character backstory which drives me down a path filled with colourful characters in a wasteland that makes sense for it's date, where my morality is challenged through morally grey scenarios which allows me to grow as a person?

I'll take the latter.

The story is better because it allows you to have your own story co-existing with the games, it allows role play. Also, IMO, it is good that the story doesn't center to the Courier, it centers on the Mojave. It challenges the player to think what is right and what is wrong, and tangles these elements together as well.

And pit that against Fallout 3: You already have an backstory, the plot is about you and your father/his dream, the game clearly states what is evil and what is good and most evil is stupid evil.

Fixed.

Actually, if you read the Mojave Express delivery order given to you by Doctor Mitchell, it mentions failure to deliver the package may lead to “criminal charges, and/or pursuit by mercenary reclamation teams”.

This should give your courier a reason to go after Benny to get the package back.

Can't say Fallout 3 gives me much reason to invest emotionally in anyone. My in-game father is on-screen for about 10 minutes and not once does he actually portray himself as a fully-realized character for me to connect with. The game doesn't do anything to make me care about him aside from say that I should.

Meanwhile, NV does a lot to make me like some of the characters. You can have lengthy and detailed conversations with House, Caesar, Boone, Cass, McNamara, and so on that give you different facets of their personalities. And the writing, in general, is a whole lot better, with even a whole lot of one-note characters being given some depth and characterization with the few lines they're given, like Mean Sonofa[censored] and Klamath Bob (both of whom also flesh out the character of Tabitha just a little more). Furthermore, the game doesn't condemn or condone anyone or say how I should feel about them; it lets me form my own opinions and react accordingly. I can see things Caesar's way, or I can ensure that everything he stands for will fall apart. I can do what I can to help the Brotherhood and hope that they'll see the error of their ways, or give up on them and blow their bunker to kingdom come. And so on.

NV shows you a birds-eye view of the Mojave and its inhabitants and pretty much lets you make your own story out of it.

Hell, there are many motivations you can have. Some Couriers can be driven by a need to avoid that situation, others by revenge, others by curiosity. And others don't even need to give a damn; they could just run around the Mojave doing whatever they feel like. No one's forcing the Courier to do any of the quests laid out on the marked road to Vegas, or even to follow it in the first place.