Please forgive me, as I'm fairly new to the forums and my perception of the general vibe here isn't well founded. That being said, it seems the general sentiment around here is that Fallout 3 svcked, New Vegas was the best thing since sliced bread, and all of each has something to do with who developed what game. Having played both games (just finished my first play through of NV, actually) I just want to air my view, unpopular though it might be, and explain why I'm incredibly hyped for Fallout 4.

Let me start by saying I adored Fallout 3. Sure it was buggy, and sure, the main quest was a throwaway (par for the course when it comes to Bethesda), but I felt the tone and aesthetic they had was simply magnificent. While I have many cherished memories from that game, my favorite moment was quite simple: Seeing The Mall for the first time, specifically the Lincoln Memorial and the associated "free the slaves" quest. Knowing all that history, and seeing a post apocalyptic interpretation of it was, in my opinion, one of the coolest things to come out of gaming.

It seems from reading various posts on the forums that a number of people on here don't seem to like having all the US History elements, and would prefer a more 'modern, realistic experience'.

Personally I disagree; I love the bizarre interpretations and incorporations of pre-war history into the post apocalyptic world, and frankly that's where I found New Vegas to be most lacking (other than with Mr. House and the Legion, which were both great). I'm incredibly excited to see Fallout 4 be set in Boston, with its rich Revolutionary war history, and even more excited to see Beth capitalizing on it with the Minutemen, Laser Musket, etc. I suppose it's ultimately a matter of taste, but if brutal realism is your thing why don't you go play Metro, or S.T.L.K.E.R.- both do the post-apocalyptic thing quite well, while I think what makes Fallout unique is its fifties paranoia vibe.

Fallout 3 did not svck.

I'm replaying it now, and whilst there is much that is basic by modern standards, I'm having fun in the wasteland.

I too am looking forward to Fallout 4 and taking my time with it.

There is a lot of context to the various opinions [both those in favor and against].
Many voiced dislike for New Vegas, for the very reasons other's praised it, and it is because the two groups appreciate different [even mutually exclusive] aspects of the IP.
The only way to truly understand it [I think], is to play all of the Black Isle RPGs, and Interplay's Fallout. Then (perhaps only then) can one see FO3 in the different light, that the opposed opinions take for granted that all others can see by. Most [I think] can understand where the TES fans come from, and what they value, but it does not seem very often reciprocal; and the notion that TES ~should~ shape the Fallout series, is not taken kindly.

That really depends on who you ask and it's a charged question. The 'dinosaurs' will tell you anything not made by former Interplay hands is utter dross and will look for any excuse to criticise it. Anyone who only enjoys the 'Bethesda formula' will decry New Vegas as a lackluster game with a lame story because there's no clear-cut 'good' or 'evil' choices all the time. Personally I think they both have their merits and faults that makes both enjoyable and why I enjoy them both for different reasons. Fallout 3 is a great game for exploration and sight seeing, New Vegas is rich in characters, dialogue and writing. It's all about what you're chasing.

I loved both Fallout 3 and New Vegas but I like NV better because of the stronger focus on characters, companions, and character building. Despite how it may seem, I am excited for Fallout 4

This is false; (or at least I hope it is). It is not that a game isn't made by the ex Interplay/Black Isle developers, it is that it's not ever striving for what they tried to achieve.

(And "Dinosaur" needs a definition here. Around here it means Fans from the previous age; Fallout 1 & 2. And it refers to both the vehement, and the relaxed ones.)

Actually most people here liked fallout 3. The reason all you're seeing is praise for obsidian and the threads talking about the story is because that's what we are concerned about. No one needs to make a thread wondering if Bethesda has crafted an amazing open world game with fun places to explore, because we pretty much know that's what we are getting. However main quests of a Bethesda game are almost always lackluster, as opposed to Obsidian who crafted an amazing story in New Vegas.

Fallout 3 better world/map, better home base IMO

New Vegas better overall story, faction reactivity, guns, characters

If these could be combined dear mama.

I feel like one of the best quests in Fallout 3 with actual choice and consequence is the tenpenny tower one, yet I think most hate that quest cause they feel like they got

"duped".

I'm not referring to fans who enjoyed the series since the beginning. I'm talking about the ones you see running around here as if they've made it their life's mission to denounce and vilify any Bethesda developed Fallout, yet they'll be among the first to buy it come November. I enjoy the old Fallouts but I also recognise the series HAS to change lest it stagnate and die and personally I enjoy the direction has taken the series with Fallout 3 and I enjoyed very much so what Obsidian made in New Vegas.

The true "dinosaurs" aren't even on this forum. Either they reside in NMA/Codex or have given up on Fallout entirely.

I'm with you OP. Fallout 3 introduced me to the series, and to BGS. Initially I hated the game as I got lost and then stuck in a Metro tunnel and could not get my character out of a hole. After talking to a friend about the game, he told me about Megaton and to head there when I exit the vault. I was really clueless about the game mechanics so I took my time the second time through and fell in love. I tried Fallout NV, and played quite a few plays throughs, but I just found I enjoyed 3 a lot more.

I too am excited for FO4 and can't wait to get my hands on it. I plan to take my time on this one and explore every area I come upon thoroughly before moving on. Its one of the things I like most about the games BGS makes.

I vastly prefer FO3 to NV. I didn't like the setting much, found the pacing was pretty bad, story wasn't really good, there's no character I found cool or interesting and hated dmg threshold. Besides technical issues I thought FO3 was pretty much flawless, there's some things that could change for the better but nothing was actively bad about it imo.

So far my impression of FO4 is it'll be just as fun to play (maybe more if anything) despite the RP freedom having taken a hit. But I can ignore that really, I RP in games with fixed stories when I don't like the story and/or PC (which is most of the time)

I haven't seen one of those.

As for changing; I assumed that we all are for (and expect) changes, but not all changes are positive ones... Fallout2 to FO3 is like milk changing to motor oil. Motor oil is great, unless you'd planned to drink it. If you then told an auto mechanic that the motor oil was terrible, he'd never conceive that you meant 'terrible to drink'; and it's the same way FO3/TES fans react when they read complaints. They've no idea why the qualities they love about the game, are complained about.

**For those that still don't understand it... Think of FO3 as if it was the most awesome pocket-knife on the market, but that the box cover says it's a desoldering iron. If you bought it for the name on the box, you're not getting what you were hoping for, no matter how cool the gadget inside turned out to be.

Out of morbid curiosity.. Which Fallout 3 characters were "cool" and "interesting"?

Ashur

Colonel Autumn

Charon

Lucas Simms

Uncle Roe

Moira Brown

Those were my personal favourites anyway.

Really?!? You are one of the first that comes to mind when someone makes a statement about decrying anything BGS has done with the series! Sure you always add in, "I appreciate the game for what it is, but it isn't Fallout", but you are one of the most vehement posters about how BGS does not follow the formula set forth by the original developers.

Cheers, now why were they interesting compared to other npcs in the game?

NV has significantly better quests and companions. While Fo3's quests were still fun and humorous, the writing and moral complexity weren't on par to NV's. A couple great example's of NV's quests are "I Forgot to Remember to Forget" and the one with the solar panels.

That being said, I do enjoy Fo3 more. The world and atmosphere is engrossing, making traversing and exploring the funnest in any game I've played.

Fallout 3 is pretty good, it just lacks the RPG elements and choices that Vegas had. FO3 does have the superior Open World and much better atmosphere. Can't wait For Fallout 4, the wait will be unbearable.

He said, "I'm talking about the ones you see running around here as if they've made it their life's mission to denounce and vilify any Bethesda developed Fallout, yet they'll be among the first to buy it come November." That won't be me... and when I first read it, I actually mistook what he typed to mean Anti-Bethesda gamers that hadn't played Fallout 1 or 2; hence the, "I haven't seen one of those".

I would actually like to see [to buy] a Bethesda made RPG based on any Palladium Books setting; especially Rifts. I think it suits their style 1000 fold better than Fallout does.

I would also love to see [to buy] a Bethesda made Lands of Lore 4/5/6.

I loved FO 1 & 2, I thoroughly enjoyed FO3... NV I was 'meh' over. I found it quite lackluster. In fact, I only did one complete play through as I didn't find it very replayable - unlike FO3 (and 2) which I played multiple times.

Ashur- One of the few characters to stand out for having a morally grey structure instead of pure black or pure white and I always side with him because I think he's genuinely the best for The Pitt.

Autumn- Same thing to a lesser extent. He's one of the few shades of humanity and (small) progressive change in The Enclave, seeking instead of committing genocide to using Project Purity as a rallying call to convince the Wastelanders to be supportive of The Enclave.

Charon- While he comes off a simple robot of a human being, he's actually a bit esoteric in his brief shades of morality we see him express them.

Lucas Simms- He's one of the few people looking to make a proper way of life for people. He isn't a jerk with his power and genuinely tries to do right by Megaton in a society where 'laws' and 'rules' don't count for much to many.

Uncle Roe- He's a symbol of mercantile unity in his ability to form a semi-structured system with the traders should you be so inclined to help with the matter. He's a different side of the social structure coin as Lucas Simms. Simms is Law, Roe is Commerce.

Moira Brown- You either love her or you hate her. She's eclectic and I find her charming, but what actually draws me to appreciating her is she's also one of few people interested in more than just hoping to live to see another sunrise. I admire anything to help my envisioning of a society on the East Coast like the ones we see in New Vegas, societies moving past the Great War and rebuilding with their own societies and building organised and structured systems of governance. I guess that's kind of the general format for why I like most of the Fallout 3 characters I like, Charon aside, because they all, in some fashion, represent a form of progress in their own unique ways.

And Skyrim had significantly less RPG elements than Fallout 3. IMO Fo3 was Bethesda's last great, epic RPG, which leaves me feeling hopeful and quite worried.

I'd certainly agree with the whole "NV had a better main quest and characters"- it wasn't amazing, but it was certainly much better than Fallout 3's, and there were definitely more memorable characters overall (Mr. House is easily one of the coolest characters ever).

I also LOVED the faction system and really, really hope there is something similar in Fallout 4; siding with some groups and facing the consequences is great stuff.

However, I wasn't a huge fan of the pacing, and the companions in NV can't hold a candle to the ones in Fallout 3. I also really didn't like the Courier; playing as a wastelander just didn't make sense from a "stranger in a strange land" perspective.

From a pure mechanical standpoint, New Vegas stands out; if only because of the incorporated weapon mods, iron sights, damage threshold, and crafting system.

From a story standpoint, I would again give the edge to New Vegas (Though I did love Fallout 3's story, especially Broken Steel, Operation Anchorage, and Mothership Zeta) for their much more diverse methodology and morality.

From a setting standpoint, Fallout 3 wins the day. The Capital Wasteland was just so much more interesting to explore and wander than the Mojave Desert was.

From a character standpoint, they're tied. There are great characters in both games, and I can't bring myself to choose either one as 'better'.

All in all, I enjoyed Fallout 3 much more than I enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas. And with the Tale of Two Wastelands mod, I enjoyed the Capital Wasteland more than I enjoyed the Mojave Desert.