Just what the topic title says. I was reading a whole bunch of locked threads on why New Vegas is better than Fallout 3. A lot said that it was better because it focused on the advancement of the human race after the bombs fell. You also see that new technology is being created. So on that I'm good. The thing I hate is when people bash Fallout 3 ALL the time.

Everybody says that Fallout 3 is bad because, Bethesda over did it with post-apocalyptic setting and theme; but I understand why Bethesda did that way. All of the Fallout games before FO3, took place on the west coast of the U.S., which is where a lot of the really big factions have their roots: NCR, Enclave, BoS, Legion, etc. FO3 is the first Fallout game to take place on the east coast, and since you don't have the presence of a lot of the big factions, (Well there is the BoS and the Enclave, but they just arrived a couple of decades before the events of FO3), it is understandable that it isn't as advanced as the west coast (If you take the Commonwealth out of the equation).


So what is your guy's take on these things?