FO3 GOTY was one the better games I'd played in years.

Since FO3 was so good, I got FONV when it came out. What a let down.

FO3 had a complex and varied game world, geography, and landscape.

FONV was a desert.

FO3 had iconic locations and structures.

FONV was a desert.

FO3 had a neat mix of appropriately placed monsters and villains.

FONV seemed to have maybe 3-4 different types of enemies through 90% of the game world.

FO3 had an extensive array of buildings, sewers, caves, hiddens locations, on and on and on and on, to explore.

FONV had pretty much none of that. (nearly all buildings were around "the Strip," at least 95% of those were boarded up)

FO3 rewarded you for exploring.

FONV essentially punished you for exploring.

FO3 seemed to have a nice balance of combat and NPC dialogue interaction.

FONV required a full day of dialogue and running chores when I first went to Freeside/the Strip.

FO3 had a story that was both personal, and grand on the large scale.

FONV apparently had no overarching grand scale story, and the personal story felt unimportant and discountable from the start.

FO3 properly set up quests so as to reinforce or work with the geography, enemies, conflicts, AND with both your personal story (usally chaing after dad) as well as the larger, world-level story.

FONV had you running all over place running trivial quests, apparently forgetting your discountable personal story, as you continuously ignore and go past the Strip in order to do chores elsewhere.

About the only thing FONV did that FO3 didn't, was put emphasis on the various 'factions,' though that seemed meaningless as well. So what if a bunch of Romans attack me all the time? I had those mercs in FO3 do the same thing. Beyond that, what real difference did it make? A few dialogue choices? Who I could or couldn't steal from?

Anyhow, I recently got a hold of all the DLC, reinstalled the whole game, hoping maybe that DLC added something to the core game, and at least let me finish it.

It didn't.

Got around 80 hrs in. Just can't do any more. Too damned boring, too tedious, too trivial and discountable.

Can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish a video game.

>States Fallout 3 had an bigger, grander tale than Fallout New Vegas.

Flamebait detected. I'm sorry, but it sounds like you literally played the game with an negative attitude before taking the very first step. You have a faint bit of hypocrisy in your 'details' on why New Vegas svcks. You're generalizing everything, which is a piss-poor idea to begin with. You have your opinions, but they sound like they're overreacting, IMO.

FO3 had some decent things, but you're literally going overboard on praising it, especially at...LOL!...the geography and story of it. FO 3 had some pearls in it, yes, and it was a cool step, after all, it was the stepping stone to New Vegas, and I bow to it for doing so, but FO3 is definitely not a masterpiece, especially when comparing to New Vegas. Both have their pearls, both are badass.