Why do most people think this game is a million times better than fallout 3? The story is boring, it has no excitement and no sense of urgency. Yes Fallout 3 was different from the rest but it obviously was for good, fallout 3 attracted tons of people to the Fallout series and isn't that good?

The whole wasteland felt a lot better in Fallout 3 everything was scarce, you actually had to trade to keep going, everything felt dark, it felt how a wasteland should feel yet in F:NV nothing did, I know its explained that Mr house used lasers to stops the nuclear bombs but when I play Fallout New Vegas it just feels as everyone just got up and left, then returned. They said the map was bigger which was a lie as about 2 thirds was blocked by invisible walls which couldn't be more annoying. Don't get me wrong I love Fallout New Vegas i just don't get why people think it was amazingly ground-breaking good and the story was immense when it really wasn't though the DLC story was.

You probably don't understand WHAT story people are referring to.

War...War never changes. That's the theme of Fallout. Most Fallout 3 fans will tell you Fallout is a post-apocalyptic game, but I really think that above all, it's a game about war. Being post-apocalyptic? That's just a very interesting setting that works as a narrative tool that allows them to experiment with different kinds of societies and cultures, since the cultures we know in our world have been blown up.
Some people seem to play New Vegas as good vs. evil. Typically, and allow me to take a guess...you supported the NCR? Or if not, Indy? Typically a lot of the good vs. evil players just always always ALWAYS support the NCR and hate the Legion, never straying from that path.
But for others? It's about discovering who's evil and who's good. Things are never just black and white; there's multiple layers to everything and everyone. This is the truth of the world we live in, and New Vegas does a pretty kick ass job of simulating those layers. If you look at it from that perspective, conciously considering each and every option the game throws at you, all their ups and downs, then Fallout New Vegas has a lot to offer. The story of Benny is nothing but the intro, the real story being "behind the scenes" in that you have to go look for it by doing the various sidequests and talking to the people of the wastes, hearing their opinions. If you just pick one of the four armies when they initially introduce themselves and never look back? Then yes, it won't seem as good because you're skipping a lot.

Fallout New Vegas offers philosophical ideas and debates that can actually be applied to real life scenarios and debates, in many ways. In that way, the story is far more valuable than a simple one about honor your father's values and wishes. A real life story of honoring your father's values? Sure that has power, but Fallout 3 is but a game. It loses it's merit in that sense, and while the story might be fine, it's simply forgotten once the credits roll and you're playing something else. Fallout New Vegas' story is timeless in the sense that it offers philosophical debate that will always be relevant.

Fallout 3 deviated from the formula, it isn't supposed to be a post apocalyptic wasteland, it's supposed to be a post-post apocalyptic wasteland, which New Vegas got right.
New Vegas also has more content to it all in all, it has companion wheel for smoother interaction, it has iron sights for more accurate aiming, it has balanced tweaks like chaning the 90% DR from VATS to about 10%.
It tries to make SPECIAL, skills and perks matter more and balance them out so we don't get demi-god characters again. (though with the DLC's it's balance broke IMO)
It has more types of ammo, it has weapon mods, it has crafting for a lot of skills, it has hardcoe mode.
It has better writing and follows lore far better than Fallout 3 did.
Instead of forcing the player down one path it gives the player 4 paths, 1 of which branches again and then there is 2 more paths in Dead Money to go by.
It has emphasis on action and consequence, cause and effect and it actually tries to challenge you in terms of combat and morality.
It has agriculture, industry, production and a economy.
It has a reason for each faction to be there and quests for all of them to do.
It has a reputation system which actually takes note of what you're doing, unlike Fallout 3 where you can shoot up Megaton every 3 days without anyone batting an eye when you return.

Why wouldn't New Vegas be better?

The story being boring is just your opinion,and who said it was amazingly groundbreaking lol?

Maybe thats how a wasteland should feel if the bombs dropped a year ago,its been about 200 years and people are still rolling about in the rubble in DC,it does not make one bit of sense that barely any progress has been made.

"Different then the rest"

Have you even played Fallout, Fallout 2 and Tactics?

New Vegas is alot like the orginals.

The writing is great IMO.

There's more than one way to play the game (more than one path).

Quests have more outcomes than Fallout 3.

There are more of them including companion quests.

There's a hardcoe mode which makes Fallout New Vegas more like the orginals.

The game is more advlt.


Anyways I could go on and on but I grow tired of these "Fallout 3 vs New Vegas" topics. If you don't like Fallout New Vegas yet haven't played the Originals, I suggest you do.

I'd actually like to hear an explanation of why New Vegas' story is boring, for once.
Y'know. I feel like people have made attempts to explain why they LIKE New Vegas but not why they DON'T like it, at least story-wise. If we had a good explanation then we could pinpoint the gap between FO3 fans and New Vegas fans.

1. I thought Fallout 3's story was very boring, mostly because it being a mash up of Fallout 1 and 2's plot with some daddy issues thrown in.

2. Fallout 3 didn't either.

3. Matter of opinion.

4. Yes and no, it got people to play Fallout 1 and 2, but most seem to think Fallout 3 is the first game in the series and that it needs to be more like Elder Scrolls.

5. You kidding? Fallout 3's wasteland was filled to the brim with loot, it's ridiculously easy to find stuff in that game, I had to keep trading because I had too much junk. New Vegas was a bit better in that aspect, but not by much.

6. It's been over 200 years since the bombs fell, it cant stay dark and radioactive forever, New Vegas got it right.

7. It is bigger, it's the same width but taller, not counting everything outside the playable area, which is there so you see land in the distance, otherwise it would be just a black void, and I never really ran into many invisible walls, I ran into more in Fallout 3.


Not enough explosions and generic epic crap.

The majority of people who find it boring would be dialogue skippers i would presume,they suddenly dont know what they are doing or whats happening and dont feel connected.

Find daddy kill bad guys,you aint forgetting that lol.

There is no justifiable explanation for the story being boring. It's full of rich history and substance. Sure you might go a few minutes at a clip withouth shooting something, but Fallout 3 was the same way, even worse at times because of the random encounter generators. There were a lot fewer respawning enemies than New Vegas.

Anyway back to the story, in Fallout 3, you were GOING to restart Project Purity for the BOS. That's it. The only other choice was to insert the FEV. In New Veags you're GOING to fight for Hoover Dam, but for who? House, the NCR, The Legion, or for no one (or everyone). There's a lot of moral decisions you have to make along the way. If you roleplay the game, you can create amazing situations for yourself. It's all in how you wan to see the game.

I like Fallout 3 a lot, it's great. New Vegas is the superior game all around.

I ran into a ton of them, BUT they're there to keep you from just skipping passed high level enemies. If you took the invisible walls down, you could probably skip the Deathclaws in Quarry Junction, most of the Cazadores near Jacobstown and so on.

I have no problem with them. The "walls" as we all call them are basically near the top of hills and peaks. So, since you don't have mountain climbing gear, you can't reach them. Problem solved. This is balanced by the fact that you can basically scale rock faces without falling to your death 200' below.

I just didn't find the story gripping, I tried to get into it but I just couldn't. I would put why but I don't think I am allowed to post spoilers and I do not how to put the spoiler code thing.

[spoiler]
*text goes here*
[/@spoiler]

Just remove the @

Do this [Spoiler] what you want to say in the middle [/spoiler.] but without the period in there and you have the spoiler thing.

Have you played Fallout and Fallout 2 I suggest you do. Oh and Fallout Tactics I tell everyone they should play them, so I am not picking on you

Thanks, and well
That's it I think they may be more but I'm little tired.

I honestly don't think you even need to worry about spoilers as most of this is already long-known by everyone. Even the parts about the Divide are explained in a blog post that acts as an introduction to the Divide; none of it's really spoiler quality imo.

Having said that...


How do you propose he would plan it? The Courier doesn't know who Benny is. The entire journey to Vegas is about trying to answer that question as you trail him. You can't really develop a detailed plan to kill someone you know nothing about, but revenge is the motivation. By the time the Courier finds out Benny leads the Tops, he's in Boulder City. No real turning back at that point...


Depends on the person, no? Thus, it's a roleplaying game. You're free NOT to pursue him just like you're free NOT to pursue dad. It is actually possible to beat the game without ever confronting Benny. (albeit only for the NCR) I understand that sometimes RPG intro quests seem more constraining than others or more insisting than others, but I don't really consider that a downside with any of them. For example, in Oblivion I hate the urgency of finding Martin. Does that make Oblivion a bad RPG? No, it just means tough cookies for me that I want to be able to ignore the main quest and the dialog regarding the main quest makes it difficult. FO3 on the other hand gives you plenty of reason to not pursue dad, and some people may hate that, wanting a more important-feeling main quest. It's just preference, not right and wrong.


I simply don't understand this criticism. His "master plan" works.If you mean why doesn't Benny attack you then and there with his bodyguards? He will if you force him to, but first he tries to lure you backstage and off-guard so his bodyguards can finish you off without a commotion. I don't see how this is illogical. Benny goes into enemy territory because he has to. His plans won't work unless he does, and although it's a stretch, he attempts it anyways because it's his only choice. Why he goes without bodyguards? Well for one his actions aren't officially condoned by the Tops, and two, he'd be a dead giveaway to the Legion if he went with a small army. Thus, he tries to kill a legionaire, wear his uniform and ride on the boat with a stealth boy. His plan only fails because of....his hair gel.


You can address this directly in dialog.
But again:

-House is completely out of options. He doesn't know ANYONE except the leaders of the three families. Benny just double-crossed him, the Omertas can't be trusted and Swank/the White Gloves don't seem like the best agents. The only other person he's at all familiar with is you: the guy who just took two bullets to the brain, survived, then had the balls to march his way to the Strip with a plan of revenge.
-To the NCR, you're the ONLY person to ever get to talk to Mr.House. Their ambassadors have been trying to meet House for four years now, without success. The Lucky 38 doors opening and letting you in is definitely an eye-catching event, and the NCR notices too. They don't know WHAT about you is valuable, but they know you must be if House let you in, (and they know you're the only one they can use against him), thus they ask for your help.
-Caesar is perhaps the most obscure. Caesar has simply developed a respect for you and your determination and thinks you'd make a good agent.
-Yes Man is programmed to help. Who? Anyone; his programming doesn't specify anyone in particular. Guess what? You're anyone.



This right here is probably where you fail to appreciate the game the way others do.

I'm guessing you're expecting practical differences, like post-ending gameplay where they all award different rewards for your support. No, then you're looking at it "wrong." New Vegas is a personal journey with which to test your own morals and ideals. The ending basically tells you how "good" your ideals are. If you have any interest in self-improvement, then I would think the ending would matter to you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying getting a bad ending in New Vegas means you're a bad person, but it is a good way to get a sense for the meaning behind moral choices you would make and understand personal responsibility and the consequences of your actions.
If you're viewing the story as just a story and not a way to test yourself, then you're missing out.



The Courier simply made a delivery, nothing more. If you deliver an item to a building, then maybe a day or two later the building is destroyed in an explosion, is your FIRST thought "wow I bet I unwittingly did that?" That's a little pretentious and paranoid of you, if you don't mind me saying.
But that's what happened. The Courier made a delivery, just like any other, and shortly after the Divide blew up. There's no reason to think "omg I did that" anymore than there is to think "omg I did that" if you forward your friend a video of a cat playing the piano in an email and one week later his computer is fried because it got a virus. COULD you be responsible? Yes, of course it's possible, but you have no reason in particular to believe you actually are. In that sense maybe the Courier did consider it, but likely shrugged it off since it's not exactly something he can prove or disprove; no sense guilt-tripping yourself over something you might not even have done and couldn't've known.

Also:

1) Where does it say it wasn't felt miles away? The Divide is kind of famous, after all...
2) How exactly do you happen to know that underground detonations of nuclear weapons can be felt miles away? I don't exactly recall humanity ever testing this theory...


I gotta be blunt and say that with your last 2-3 criticisms I quoted, I simply don't get your logic at all, as those seem like some of the most logical reactions/occurances in the world to me.