I prefer New Vegas it feels like a near perfect blend of old and new though FO3 was also pretty fun

Pros

More better Ammo System
Crafting
Better writing in all aspects
A proper city(albit sometimes feels a tad empty)
Multiple Factions with most being non hostile on the map
Multiple endings where one ending can influence another ending.
hardcoe Mode
Continuation of Fo1 and 2
Have enjoyed all DLCs so far


Cons
Not much Exploration (though I can understand why and has to a degree been fixed with DLCs)
Lacks Creative weapon creating(railway rifle etc....), would of loved aswell if they included the idea from Van Buran for science players to continue making Poseidon or other pre war companies tech (would of worked well given the crafting feature)
Hardly see NPCs talk to each other (kinda takes away from the city aspect)
While more of a nitpick I really disliked the assult rifles in the game just looks out of place compared to most other weapons and would of prefered FO3 assult rifles to be in aswell.


FO3

Pros
Great Atmosphere
Some creative towns
Good Exploration
Some really great quest designs
Liberty Prime

Cons
Really weak Writing pretty much all round(Was never a fan of RPGs what allow you to create your own chracter and then shoehorn the player in to a personal story)
There was 2 endings and the DLC kinda when oen ending completly pointless (I liked seeing the purfier work in Broken steel....though that was the only good bit for me)
Alot of towns lacked detail
Lack of greyness (though the pitt was nice)
Mothership Zeta....What were they thinking?

@ Kuddlesworth
@ looloolooigotsomeapples

I found the FONV vaults rather tedious too, and not really rewarding. The vaults in FO3 with the mind-control experiments in them were very interesting imo, and well implemented.

They are both different and both great so play fallout 3 and/or nv but don't nag about it all the time. I like nv better but today I played fallout 3 and liked that too

New Vegas

Pros
Better writing.
Better voice acting.
Better world.
Better atmosphere.
More quests.
More towns.
More things to do in general.
More post apocalyptic sounding score.
The return of Mark Morgans Fallout music.
NPC's with personality .
Improved Gameplay.
Improved animations.
NO THREE DOG.
A return to that original Fallout feeling.
Great DLC.
Crafting.
Different kinds of ammo.
Enemies don't level up with you.
More interesting factions.
No random raider spawns.
No gratuitous dungeon crawling.
More mature then Fallout 3.
Your choices actually matter.
No dumb post ending gameplay like Broken Steel.
The Vault Experiments seem to be going back to Social Experiments rather then Bethesda's messed up actual experiments.

Cons
Invisible walls.
Repeating radio songs.
Boomers (I hate them)
Lack of Easter Eggs and random encounters.
It uses Gamebryo.
Vegas is a little too small.
Mini games (this is an rpg, whats wrong with stat based lock picking or hacking?).
Can get a bit boring at times, mostly during the start of the game.
No Malcolm McDowell.
Raising the level cap, it was fine at 30.

Its not that more people like Fallout 3 than New Vegas, its just the majority of the people that played NV started the series with 3 and the two games have entirely different feels to them. Three is focused more around the atmosphere and exploration aspect of the game while NV revolves around the story, power of choice, that kind of thing. Plus NV had a lot of references to the originals that the people that are new to the series and never played the first two just were never going to get, so that turned a lot of the new fans off right there.

As I posted last time this topic came up...

There are a lot of things that make it hard for me to replay Fallout 3 – it would have made a serviceable prequel and the choice to have it set 200-years after the bombs was a total stuff-up. Fallout was always supposed to be a post-apocalyptic series, but there was nothing ‘post’ about Fallout 3’s apocalypse. The whole world didn’t make sense for a place that was 200-years past the war.

And actually, very little about Fallout 3 made sense. It’s like they took all the ideas they thought were ‘cool’ and tossed them into the world. No thought to how they relate to each other, and no thought about the overall world they were creating.

Fallout 3 is an open world exploration game with an inventory, not really an RPG. You level up to fast, your skills don’t matter a whole lot and the main plot is linear.
What makes New Vegas an RPG? A world that is plausible (rather the ‘cool’ areas all tossed into a map), a plot that is as shallow or deep as you want it, skill checks that allow non-combat focused characters, a rebalanced skill system that makes it harder to max your skills out (thus your skill choices matter more) and more skill checks right across the board. And then there is hardcoe mode that adds additional depth – in an industry that is obsessed with ‘streamlining’ games.
The characters in New Vegas are less two dimensional, the conversations are better and the quests are interconnected.

Frankly, FONV is the only game this generation I would call an RPG without having to slap a ‘j’ or an ‘a’ in front of it. And it’s the only game that even comes close to the legacy of Fallout 1/2, Torment, Baldurs Gate 2, Arcanum and Bloodlines.

You might think that this sounds like I hated FO3, but that’s not true. FO3 and FONV might look the same, but they are fundamentally different genres. I loved FO3 so much that I put in over 600 hours and wrote a blog about one of my FO3 characters.
But I’m an RPG fan, and at the end of the day, regardless of which is the better game, Fallout New Vegas is unequivocally the better RPG.

Pros:
4 different endings
Reputation among most important towns and factions. they missed some but meh.
weapon modding
followers having back stories and related side quests.
unique weapons having unique looks.
gambling


Cons:
only getting perks every 2 levels
too many safe houses. seriously, im only gonna use 1, why do i need 15 options.
lack of fast travel to the lucky 38
goodsprings being pointless after ghost town gun fight/ run good springs run. seriously, depending on which side you choose there should be some side quests from joe cobb or the people who live in goodsprings.

I like New Vegas in areas Fallout 3 failed in
I like Fallout 3 in areas New Vegas failed in

They both have their pros and cons that outweigh the other.

You have a con listed as having too many options? Usually people are screaming about not having enough options.

I agree about Perks every 2 levels, it should be every 3 levels. B)

yeah, i just never find myself using any of the safehouses besides the lucky 38

There's a bunch of people that wine about the game. If you don't like it dont play it

See, this is a 'pro' to me. I hate the overpowered Fallout 3 characters who are AWESOME at everything (although with the DLC level-cap boosts, FONV is going that way too).
I like making a hard choice because it means that that choice is important.


Options is never a bad thing... use the one you like, ignore the rest. Everyone gets what they want. :disco:

I wouldn't say everyone, that's far from the truth. I love it on the same level but for different reasons as FO3, I can't recall any games that I've played for such a long period of time, Oblivion is good second to the latest FO's though. As I'm sure Skyrim will be in there as well .......preordered and upgraded the rig in advance.

It's like any game some people will like NV over FO3 some won't, we all have our own tastes, and choices....it's kind of nice.


wolf

I like Fallout 3 alot more, here are my pros and cons.

Pros:
- Ironsights.
- More guns.
- DT instead of DR.
- Improved reputation system.
- Ammo types.
- Crafting.
- Survival skill and combining of other skills.


Cons:
- Not post-apocolyptic feeling at all.
- Too many people.
- Too many guns, as in, everyone is armed.
- Felt more like the wild west than the Capital Wasteland.
- Story had so many directions it could go that it kinda got boring...
- 90% of quests are you standing around talking to everyone.
- Interesting quests are far and few.
- Vaults didn't fit in as well.
- Main story had possibly the worst hook I have ever seen in a game.
- Not enough cool places to stumble upon.
- Too much technology, not wastelandy...
- Took forever to level since I didn't complete most of the boring quests.
- hardcoe mode could have been so much cooler.
- Gameplay was too similiar to Fallout 3, and since the game didn't stand up on it's story or anything, it felt like a giant DLC with a bad setting and story.
- Most perks still useless. I only get 1 every 3 levels, and I have trouble deciding because I don't want any of them.

Basically, I like all the technical improvements. The engine related stuff. But in terms of people, setting, story, and gameplay, it was either the same or far worse.

If I had to pick one of them (All of this not including mods of course) to play and I never saw the other again, it would be Fallout 3 without hesitation.

Gotta say this topic is one huge assumption. Hate to break it to you TC but just because you don't enjoy New Vegas doesn't mean everyone else who played it feels the same way.

"I dislike something, therefore everyone else must as well. Derpityderpityderp!"

I smell a board game title there "Wastelandy a post-apocalyptic struggle for survival after the bombs fell on Candyland" :biggrin:


wolf

1. LINEAR?! No...having four factions and giant decisions that will affect the end game is totally not linear. True, it would have more of an impact if there was an end game but it costs too much money to rehire the voice actors for all of the main characters.
2. New Vegas still has grit. The center of it all isn't gritty, it should be obvious since the setting is Las Vegas. But try going to Caesar's camp...quite gritty.
3. You got a point there, but Fallout 3 didn't have many interesting quests either, except the ones everybody completes like Power of Atom or the Ghoul killing thing. Same with New Vegas, everybody loves Marcus...except me, I always kill him. Fail mutants.
4. Fallout 1 & 2 weren't about your character either. Fallout 1 was about your Vault and Fallout 2 was about your tribe. Heck, even Fallout 3 was about Project Purity. So none of the main games are about your character!

What I don't like about Fallout NV is the same thing I didn't like about Fallout 3...the gaming engine. For some reason it doesn't run well on multi-core processors well and it doesn't like Wiondows 7 much and it seems to hate 64bit systems.
All of which describe my machine. While I can run all other games at 30-60 fps with no problems, when it comes to a Bethesda made game they run at less than 10 (usually below 5 fps on the lowest graphics setting) making them totally unenjoyable.

I have tried every fix, setting adjustment, and even tried the .dll file that alot of people said fixed their problems, but nothing will make it run any faster. With my system specs this game should run at 40 fps according to my video card manufacturer. I even copied all of their recommended settings from their benchmark for the game. My system is actually better than what they tested it with but it seems that the better your system is - the slower this game runs. This seems to hold true for both of my other Bethesda games - Fallout 3 and Oblivion IV.

I tried getting support but it's been a month and I have yet to even get an answer back from Bethesda. Last time I tried with Fallout 3 they told me that since Windows 7 was released after Fallout 3 they did not support it and that was all the help I got. Now they just ignore me.

Here's my system specs;

ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 LGA 1366 Intel X58 ATX Intel Motherboard Xtreme
intell core i7 920 2.66Ghz quad core CPU
EVGA GeForce 550ti 1Gb GPU
12Gb(6x2Gb) OCZ Platinum SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

Ermm ... I don't dislike it :thumbsup:
I see nothing really different in it compared to F3 so I dunno why its disliked so much :shrug:
Well apart from ones a DESERT and the others a CITY ofcourse theres going to be some differences but they cant just keep the game in destroyed towns as the country is rebuilding and there are hunderds of locations to cover in America

I said linear game world, not linear quests or linear gameplay. Linear gameworld as in there is a path (road, physical) set out for you to follow unlike FO3 where everything was scattered around with no road connecting them.

I made the statement because of the threads I read comparing FO3 and NV, polls about NV, game reviews and ratings about NV. It wasn't subjective in any way.

^^^^ that for is the problem I have with NV,I do like the game but the above points messed it up for also and also the fact the each monster had there own area and you wouldn't see them outside that area was really annoying.

I love FNV, i love F3, i love Oblivion... i'm in love with Bethesda.

I'm not sure either one is significantly better or worse than the other. They have their major differences, but equally enjoyable.

But it's a good question, 'cause i have heard people say they didn't like Fallout New Vegas as much as they liked Fallout 3. Even in Game Informer Magazine, i remember seeing Fallout 3 as many of the staffs top 10 games. I was sure I'd see the same thing after Fallout New Vegas Came out, but not so much. They gave the game a good rating, just not on their top 10 picks.

Personally, i think it just comes down to Fallout 3 just being so incredible; everything was new. Now with Fallout New Vegas, they are continuing the greatness, but it's just not new anymore. We love new experiences. If they keep making Fallout Games in the same vein as New Vegas, i will be a happy boy.