This I have to comment.

None of the companions in F3 seem charismatic or deep as..say, Rose of Sharon Cassidy or Arcade Gannon.
The main problem, I think, lies in how they were under-developed and bland. There is no NPC interaction, personal quests, nothing. Just a bunch of cannon fodders with some generic one-liners stuck in a 'looks badass' shell.

That being said, I am not saying that NV companions are perfect, but when we are making comparsions I am just bringing some facts. That is all. Don't burn me.

No, you are right. I actually agree with that.

Liking the Fallout 3 companions more does not mean they are better on a gameplay point of view - it just means they're more charismatic for me. The lack of quest lines for the companions of Fallout 3 was their fault, and my complaint about how they were developed. To be fair, it's not like they don't have any sidequests. It's just that Bethesda put each companion's sidequest before you get them as followers. Which sometimes is a real shame.... you really feel Charon needs to be more developed and get a sidequest revealing more of his past, for example.

But, apart from how the New Vegas companions have fixed this big problem by giving more dialogue to them, if we just consider the characters themselves... I'm not interested in any of the New Vegas companions. They're ok, I can't say I dislike them because they're cool.... but not cool enough to make me think "I want to bring them around in my Wasteland wandering!", you see. I prefer to travel alone, and if I do that, it means that none of the companions made me wanting to carry them around. So this means they failed in their purpose, regardless of how they improved the dialogues.

Charon and Butch instead were just awesome, even if they didn't have deep sidequests or much dialogue lines at all.

I play New Vegas and I'm thinking: why can't I get Victor or Benny or Vulpes Inculta or perhaps even Yes Man as my companions? Now they would be interesting!!

There are to many of these threads already, all just opinion driven. The only true answer is what you think, my feelings......I love them both for different reasons.

bigcrazewolf

They are both equally good, but FO3 had a more nuclear wasteland atmosphere to it. New Vegas just looked like everybody packed their bags, left for a century and came back, leaving eveything destroyed and in ruins.

First of all I am surprised that so many btich about NV lacking Post-war feel. It was a major city that survived more or less unharmed because of House. I rather liked that. I found it easy to justify in a RP perspective.

Secondly... I think NV is much truer to original Canon than FO3. As an old timer and a RP'er that appeals very much to me. I found BoS in their east coast holier than thou goody twoshoes style to be rather unbeliveable and not really in sync with the original lore of the games.

Thirdly... I like the moral ambiguity of NV alot better than that of FO3. FO3 hardly had any moral / ethical choises that were not clear cut. NV has alot more hard choises and a significantly more compelling story. (The pitt was good though).

Character depth in NV was also done so much better. Even if it wasn't PS:T ish, it was still alot deeper than FO3. You can believe the characters. And to an extent the followers as well. Again FO3 characters tended toward the steriotype tha good= smart, charitable, charismatic elaborate vs Evil= Stupid, crude, ugly and simple. It was too simple for a universe that has alot of depth, and alot more gray than white and black.

There's two sides to the question: objective technical game architecture or subjective game feel. From an objective technical game architecture, there is little difference, to be honest. They are both very well made games. Both have some glitches, primarily when it comes to character animation and stuff, but on the whole they are both very well made games. I could say that FO3 is a bit more polished because Bethesda have more experience than Obsidian, as a group. But it's a minor detail, to be honest.

From a subjective game feel point of view, it's going to depend on who you ask. For me, and it's my subjective opinion, I just liked FO3 better because it fits my play ideals better. But my opinion isn't more worth that anyone elses. If someone doesn't get into the atmosphere of FO3 but enjoy FONV, then FONV is the better game for them.

How about if you just play both, and then decide which one suits you better?

Basically if you want a feeling that is like so: nuked to hell, no hope for humanity, urban warfare, post-apocalyptic horror (more or less), exploration, then go with Fallout 3

If you want a feeling that sticks with the originals, civilization is rebuilding and if you like deserts...(dragging that word out won't save exploration) then Fallout New Vegas is your better game.

But like LoneStroller said above, try both games and see which you like better, both are great games.

FNV has a MUCH better story. Its more epic, mature, and just amazing.

If you want needless sandbox exploration and a horrible "200 years after the war" feel, than FO3 is right down your aisle.

I think this is a really hard choice because both of them are really good. Personanly i like fallout better because that place was really a "wasteland". I enjoyed it alot. But then New vegas is also up there and i loved that to so i would think its a tie between both

80sq miles?

If Fallout 3 had 80 sq. miles then Fallout: New Vegas has a lot more (it was technically bigger)

I thought Fallout 3 had 15 sq. miles or 17, I'm not sure.

really... that would be very small

Better game?
Fallout 1.

For real "roleplaying" then New Vegas.
For hack and slash dungeon crawling with slight RPG elements then Fallout 3.

I want real roleplaying though so my vote is for New Vegas.

Fallout 3 was a fun game, but horrible Fallout game.
Even so, it wouldn't have mattered as much if it "were" a good roleplaying game.
But all you do is kill stuff with cool weapons and level up your character with a black and white karma system.

So it depends on what kind of RPG you want.
Grinding.
Or taking actual choices and experiencing it's benefits and consequences.

good point

You should play both and decide for yourself. Personally I loved Fallout 3 and only got maybe half way through New Vegas and stopped playing. Not that New Vegas is a bad game I just couldn't get into it.. it didn't pull me into the story and make me feel like I was a part of it like Fallout 3 did. Fallout 3 has allot of little gems in it. A place called the Dunwich building which literally scared the &%$#@ out of me for instance. Some of the dlc's are really great... running through a swamp freaked out and hallucinating comes to mind also... so wierd. I loved it.

Allot of people prefer New Vegas. It's very story intensive and very politically motivated which may be your thing so you should definitely give them both a try.

Yeah, starting to argue for one or the other will just paint you into a rethorical corner. It's a dumb argument because it is an argument based on subjective feeling. I prefer FO3, but would never suggest that FONV is worse in general. Both FONV and FO3 are very well made games that will cater to slightly different demographics. Both are good Fallout-games, imo, and heading down the track to say one is and the other isn't is just... silly.

They're just different interpretations focusing on different aspects of the fallout world, and will thus appeal to slightly different kinds of players.

As LoneStroller wrote, it's really a matter of preference.
Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas are amazing games, and I prefer Fallout 3 only for a purely subjective preference towards desolated and dangerous no-man lands, instead of populated post-nuclear societies.

I came in awhile back stating FO3 was the better game, saying that newvegas was alot harder and not near as good.Now that ive been playing Newvegas Im totally awed, just as I was on fallout 3, they improved on so many things in newvegas. The thing is thier both great games almost equal in epicness. Its close for new people to the fallout universe I would recommend fallout 3 because it was epic and later on play fallout NV because You have a greater apreciation for the game and how awsome newvegas is and how much of a great job Obsidian and Bethesda did on making this recent installment to the series. AS FAR AS IM CONCERENED you cant compare these two fallout games to one another thier both great. You have to compare them to every thing else that is not fallout. fallout 3 is easier played and gotten into for newplayers excellent game. Fallout new vegas is everything someone who already played fallout 3 could wish for. There two different games that are good in thier own right.

Yeah, I was thinking that too, I read it somewhere, might have been a misread. :shrug:

Anyways, I'm starting to get into New Vegas, only because of Tactics. Now considering Tactics really has nothing to do with Fallout 2 which New Vegas is based off (I'm sure) it still got me to play it. Got immersion mods going on such as a brahmin follower and some more towns but that's it really.

God I love Tactics.

On topic: I guess I'd like New Vegas more if the city itself didn't svck. By svck I mean its size limitation and how colonized it was. Not to mention it being divided up by giant gates annoys the hell out of me.

Clearer? Well, if you mean it's clearly much worse than something you'd expect a middle schooler to write, then I agree completely.

New Vegas had iron-sights, hardcoe Mode and mods for weapons, which are features that I love, but I just found the Capital Wasteland to be a more enthralling game world than the Mojave. It's very close, but at a push, I'd probably say Fallout 3 was my favourite of the two.

We've gone over this...

Fallout 3 - Better Bethesda Game

Fallout: New Vegas - Better Fallout Game

New Vegas fails as a sandbox game, it should've been made like the classic Fallouts instead (traveling between locations on a map, only towns and dungeons etc, are explorable areas). New Vegas has much better choices and consequences and is better balanced than Fallout 3 ever was (though they seem to be fixing that with the DLCs :rolleyes:) but the world and locations in it are just boring.

Actually, i should mod the game so that every location marker is fast travelable from the start, and only use fast travel to move between locations. After all, the wasteland between them is empty.