FO3, just because you can reach the boundaries, the FONV is [censored] up, it cut off on the Jacobstown side, just empty areas.

Yeah same.

Fallout 3. Why; cause it actually used the whole map and was packed full of interesting location that had a back story to all of them. I just liked the atmosphere of war still fresh in the aireven if it is un realistic after 200 years. Also no annoying invisible barriers.

In all honesty I don't care for either, the game worlds are too compressed and cluttered (especially Fallout 3's) to feel like proper wastelands. New Vegas' world felt more like a wasteland, but it still felt really compressed.

I tried going back to FO3 from NV but the lack of iron sights kept me from enjoying it. I really liked both games but I voted for NV just because of the detail of the weapons, alternate ammunition types, and in general I had a better experience with NV.

I like NV, but enjoyed FO3 more. Much more to do, more interesting locations, larger interior spaces to explore and battle through, and more danger around any corner. Sneaking was almost mandatory in FO3, but in NV you don't have to nearly as much, because of the fewer enemies. I also hate the invisible walls that often seem to have no rhyme or reason. I can climb up the side of a mountain and suddenly (even though the climb hasn't gotten any steeper) I hit that wall and start drifting back down.

Maybe the story is a bit better in NV, but I'd rather have more action. I have so many great weapons. Seems a shame to not be able to use them more often.

Fallout 3 definatly feelt like a wasteland hell everything was either destroyed or very close to it.

I suppose unlike the "which is better?" questions this is asking which WASTELAND is better, i suppose fo3 had a more wasted feeling than FNZ manly dew to looking like it just got nuked a few years ago. But FNZ on the other hand is like the rebirth of the wasted ruins of life and kindly showing that even after 200 years mankind is still in ruins but is recovering. All in all, tough choice.

WTH?

There's an option for "I don't like either one" so why is there no option for "I like both"?




I like BOTH. Equally. Sometimes I'm in the mood for one and sometimes I'm in the mood for the other.

I would vote "BOTH" but sadly (again) this poll does not offer all choices

That's why it was unrealistic 200 years later and still everythings radiated

I'd find them about equal...

If it wasn't for that [censored] stupid green filter over everything in FO3. So my vote goes to Vegas.

I WOULD have liked FO3s wasteland if:

1. The settlements were plausible.

2. People ACTUALLY farmed.

3. There were actually safe roads and caravan routes.

4. There was at least ONE country or very organized multi-settlement group.

5. IF THERE WERE SOME PLANT LIFE BESIDES GRASS.

6. And NO GREEN TINT.

Fallout 3, exploration purposes only.

But yeah the green tint used to bug me, until Fellout.

I never understood the issues with the infamous "green tint". I am I totally missing something or....am I blind? :spotted owl:

No love for the green tint still.
After playing NV for months I reinstalled FO3, loaded it up for a trial..
Must say the tint never bothered me then, now I kind of miss it.

I think most here are just Jade d tbh.

The desert wasteland is nice, has plenty of changes to scenery but still lacks a certain life or natural lighting.
In FO3 the green tint smoothed this out a bit imo.

I loved the Fallout 3 wasteland; but when I played it... I was playing in 2079 ~until I found a settlement and got back to doing the game quests.

There is a distinction between "what is better", and "what is better for" and then, "what is most appropriate". I think Fallout 1 had the best wasteland, Fallout 3 had the most interesting wasteland, and Fallout:New Vegas had the best Wasteland for the Fallout series (where it stands today); the most appropriate Wasteland.

**When asked "what is the best ~waste", you are really being asked what is the worst, no?

I will not vote on this one, and there is a reason i am not voting, here is my points:

1. Fallout 1 was set in 2161, by then it was only 84 years since the great war, and with the fact of Super Mutant attacks, Raiders, High Radiation counts, and the lack of pure sources of clean water, it would be difficult at best to create any farms or order, frankly i am amazed the NCR was created in the chaos, but if the Vault Dweller could take down the Master and bring order, more power to him/her.

2. Fallout 2 was set in 2241, by then the Background Radiation has lessen in 164 years, but it is enough that prolong travel or running around in waste was enough to bring about Radiation poisoning. But in the time, communities were organized, Caravans were better protected, Farms sprung up where there was clean water to be had, and protection was organized on community levels. Though Major Organizations, like the NCR or the Enclave could roll over them, still it was a fair sight better, and the conditions were better overall as well.

3. Fallout 3 was in a difficult position, set exactly 200 years after the great war there was no order or farms set outside of armed or hidden settlements because of the high concentration of Super Mutants and Raiders who were making the place a living nightmare to the normal people. Radiation is now limited to exposure to hot spots, and leaking barrels that were stored all over the place, or some creatures. If it was not for the intervention of James and the Lone Wanderer, the purifier, and Owyn's BOS, it is getting better with time.

4. Fallout NV was set in 2281, and thanks to Robert House, the Mojave was spared from any major bomb hits, but it still has a hell of a lot of mutated creatures, but no major radioactive hot spot, except craters, creatures, barrels, and one man made one. Plants are common, and Farms are not so common, as it is a desert, but water is cleaner than in a lot of areas, thankfully. If this was not such a dangerous area with all the factions fighting, and all the creatures, i would not be suprised if more people would flock here.

in closing, all have there merits and flaws, and voting for one over the other would be difficult at best, and do not forget that all would have there own difficulties to survive as well, so it is to the eye of the beholder as to what is the best wasteland overall

i prefer the mojave over dc

I only preferred FO3 wastland purely because of more items to be found and spontaneous A.I. both of which seem to be less in FNV (so far based on the current patches) but disregarding those apects, I don't mind either of them. The only problem I have with FNV is the inability of your character to climb hills or mountains.

I like New Vegas it's more accurate to the time that the game takes place. Plus, it looks nicer and more variety, it looks awsome with the desert and the blue sky rather than FO3's drab grey.

It's a matter of taste. I personally find the use of exaggerated colored tints to enhance atmosphere obnoxious, and how exaggerated the tint in Fallout 3 is becomes really apparent when you use Fellout.

I preferred FO3's wasteland: the random encounters, the extremely distinctive locations (despite there being less locations to begin with) and the whole atmosphere worked. I enjoyed FNV but I am hoping the next game will revert to simpler post-apocalyptic survival and scavenging somehow. As the game is reaching the point where a new civilization has essentially formed...

New Vegas.
I hate the invisible walls.
I hate that enemies are too static and becomes cake-walk at lvl 15-20.

But I love it more than FO3's.
If FO3 was set in 2095 with Brotherhood named something else and Enclave being a different part of the old world government then it might've worked a bit better.
But in 2277?
No.

Now that's a tough choice.

Fallout 3's wasteland is fun and so is Fallout New Vegas's wasteland. I don't think you can choose as both are good, I can't really complain about either of them.