I didn't like NV as much as Fallout 3 either. But I can't quite put my finger on the reason. There are a lot of things NV did better than Fallout 3 too, (at least in my opinion) but I never grew to like it as much as I did Fallout 3. My review of NV would be;

Pros:

• Livelier world (this could be a con for some others)
  
• More settlements / more characters
  
• More quests
  
• Lots of joinable factions
  
• More gear

Cons:

• Linear game world (NOT linear gameplay)
  
• Lost the gritty Fallout feeling
  
• Not as interesting quests
  
• Main story is not really about your character

Comparing those, I would've thought I'd like NV better, but it just didn't happen. What do you think is the main reason New Vegas wasn't liked as much as its predecessor?

Edit: After all the criticism I'm getting for being subjective,I feel the need to clear this up. That's not true at all. I have read various player reviews about Nev Vegas, viewed some polls comparing the two games, read threads (mostly in the FO3 section) and I came to the conclusion that the majority of gamers liked FO3 more and were a little disappointed in NV. It's not my personal opinion, it's what I have observed, and I opened up a topic to discuss the reasons why people may not have liked it as much as the previous game. You may not agree with the statement, if so state your reasons (because that's why opened this topic, to talk about things) but please don't accuse me of "pretending my opinion's everyone else's opinion and just because I didn't like the game, it doesn't mean other people didn't either" etc, because that's really not the way it is.

i dunno, i liked new vegas a lot more. and i can't really figure out why. i played through FO3 a few times and honestly don't think i could go back to it now, i've tried and it just doesn't hold my interest at all. there are tonnes more secrets to find than in NV, there are more enemies all over the place, but it just feels like, to what end? theres a layer of complexity that is entirely lacking after playing New Vegas for so long (no plants to harvest, no campfires, no iron sights, no multiple bullet types etc) and i really can't get into FO3 again after playing with hardcoe mode. i've put over 300 hours into new vegas altogether, and maybe 100-and-something into FO3 and i'm still playing NV. i dunno i just can't get enough of it, whereas FO3 i certainly have gotten enough.

I think you just have described Oblivion to Morrowind abit. By that I mean Morrowind is about you, while Oblivion is about the Emperor. I had no problem with the game not being about me, but I find it even better because I can shape the out come of what happens. While it's not about YOU, you still shape what happens in the Wastelands.

As for people liking New Vegas, you really don't see that here on the forums. I guess most people who don't like NV have already left and don't spend their time here. I don't find NV any more linear than Fallout 3, so not sure what you mean by that. I can sort of understand what you mean, that for most of us, (being that Fallout 3 was our introduction into Fallout universe) and Fallout 3 seemed so new and refreshing, that it's awsome, and NV just didn't surpass it. NV is still an awsome and great game, just didn't have that freshness as F3 did, just like how Oblivion was for Morrowind for alot of people as well.

well, isn't this a loaded question
I my self Like New Vegas more because it sticks alot closer to Fallout Canon that was setup in FO1 and 2, not to mention the Writing is heads and shoulders above Bethesda's nonsensical writing style used for FO3. I like the fact that the Main Quest line gives you branching choices. unlike Fo3's where you have to be the savior of the wastelands. the New Vegas Feels like it had love and thought put in to its settlements, locations and people.

to me New Vegas is the True Successor to Fallout 1 and 2. it shows now that 220 years after the bombs dropped, society is thriving and expanding, but that Human nature still is the same as it ever was.. because War, War never changes

I wasn't aware that Fallout 3 was liked better overall. I think thats a bold statement to make.

Personally I like both games. Fallout 3 lacks good writing and quests, but it makes up for it with amazing world-building, exploration, and an atmosphere I love.

Fallout New Vegas has far superior writing, better quests, and much improved gameplay mechanics. Its cons for me include poor exploration, a lack of random encounters, and a setting I dislike (desert).

Pros:

• Crafting & Modding
  
• Feels slightly more like a Fallout game.

Cons:

• Wild Wasteland ~this should not have wasted a trait; It should have just been a regular aspect of playing the game.
  
• Missing the series combat mechanics
  
• TPP is crippled by design, and needs a mod to let you pan back farther than a few feet.
  
• Ant holes are not real holes, and you cannot drop mines in them, or burn them out with the flamers.
  
• HC mode optional ~Wish it was just the regular way the game worked.
  
• Fast Travel is prohibited in HC mode if the PC has a cracked leg. :banghead:
  
  Edited:
  
• Fast Travel is prohibited when overburdened. :banghead:
  I don't see the sense in having the game prohibit walking somewhere due to a heavy load, when it never paralyzes the PC
  due to inventory weight, and still lets you walk to the same place you wanted to Map-Travel to. Its just a creative way to annoy the player IMO.

I agree everything in Fallout New Vegas is better than anything in Fallout 3 exept that the Wastland is a better representation that there had been a nuclear war but in new vegas there isn't many signs that there has been any war at all. also the enclave and brotherhood are far better than the ncr legeoin. also there are many more things to do in fallout 3 which is increased by broken steel which is by far the best dlc for fallout 3. what realy iritates me is that there won't be a dlc for new vegas which adds more to the end which means that no one realy wants to finish it you would had thought that bethesda would had learn't from there fallout 3 mistake.

Pros for new vegas.

. Better Combat Style
. Better Repair System
. More Than One Group That You Can Join
. Nicer Looking Armour And Weapons
. Crafting, Cooking And The Reloading Bench

Cons for New Vegas

. Lost The Gritty Nes In Fallout 3 Which I Liked Alot
. Not As Many Things To Do As In Fallout 3
. The Story Line Is Less Personal
. Vaults Are Crappy Nothing Interesting
. Storyline Linear
. The Ending Is Crappy (It Doesn't Carry On)

New Vegas is crippled with both slightly irritating bugs or game destroying errors. It's like having your house supplied with electricity by telling a 9 year old kid with severe muscle atrophy to run on a hamster wheel for 5 hours a day. That is what this game runs on. The kid will only run when he feels like it, but even when he does, he falls short and disappoints you, causing power outages at random times.

I hope F4 changes that

Not ANOTHER 3 vs Nv

There both different and amazing games leave it at that.

Whoa whoa whoa slow down Calhoun! Fast Travel is prohibited in HC mode with a broken leg? Sinec when???

Come to think of it I do believe I have it wrong...

[I just checked, and I do have it wrong :facepalm:]

What I was remembering was that I could not get back to the Doc's (to heal the limb) while overburdened (Which is pretty bad, because I've mentioned that a few times already; its been a few weeks since I played the game).
**Doesn't matter though IMO, because it is the exact same situation as crippled really. Fast travel should not be restricted at all, unless you are in a fight or an enclosed hostile area. The principle is the same... Limping all of the way back, and/or hauling too much stuff all of the way back. It should just pass more hours of game time once you arrive.

There should have been more market stores like the one in fallout 3, forgot the name of it though. It also feels easier to survive even with hardcoe mode, I think overall besides the glitches it needs Better places to loot, slightly more realistic.

I just felt like I needed to respond to these 2, first for objective reasons, second for subjective ones.

1. This is factually untrue. Perhaps you spent more time with Fallout 3 running around the wasteland randomly because of higher spawn frequencies and more randomness, but that is basically just one thing to do in the game. You could very well do the same thing in New Vegas, you might just not find it as appealing. So really, the actual con would be "less rewarding exploration" or "less appealing exploration". Other than that, New Vegas simply has more to do than Fallout 3. More quests, more crafting options, more weapons, armors, etc. If you have a point to make that involves proving Fallout 3 has more to do than New Vegas beyond just walking around, I'd like to see it.

2. I must ask you A. Which vaults you visited and B. What Fallout 3 did better with vaults. Also, was it the experiments you thought were crappy and uninteresting? The content of the vaults? Loot? Here's a basic rundown of the vaults in-game (spoiler-free):

Vault 21: Doesn't really count, as it is mostly inaccessible and is no longer something one would explore. Still, has quests.
Vault 3: Quests are involved, non-hostile versions of a certain faction.
Vault 22: Quests, unique storyline (extends to DLCs)
Vault 34: Very rewarding, quests, lots of things that attack you
Vault 19: Quests and characters
Vault 11: Nothing obvious, takes some digging for it to be worth it

So just about all of them have something worthwhile in them, and most of them have quests involved with them. So I'm really, really flabbergasted that you'd say they were crappy and uninteresting, and I find it almost hard to believe that you've actually experienced all of the them before making your opinion.

OT (finally): I don't dislike New Vegas, and it is one of my favorite games. However, I do have some main complaints:

-Invisible walls. When they're not at the borders of the game, they are absolutely horrible.
-Dynamics. Things are just too static and they revolve too much around the player.
-Quest markers. Most quests give enough details that finding things should be trivial or at worst, force you to use your brain. Quest markers kind of ruin that fun when you know exactly where things will be as opposed to their approximate location.

Pros:

Great location for a fallout game
Tons of ways to playing the game

Cons:

Long loading screens
Caesar haha

The game would be flawless if there were much more dangerous areas across the wastes, giving it a more wasteland feel, the Strip was bigger and better, and game crashes were rare.

applesguy: I can understand why that guy doesn't like vaults. Vault 22 and Vault 34 are horribly confusing and frustrating. In 34, you are timed by radiation, and you have to look for random things to activate random things to go on a random computer and type in random things. Vault 22 is just as confusing with all the floors, and the weird markers. You get cut off at many points and you get stuck and not know what you need.

The vaults in F3 were simpler.

But he didn't say simpler, he said "crappy/nothing interesting" :shrug:

This is my main gripe, but I sure as hell am not saying I dislike New Vegas. But I definitely prefer Fallout 3's setting, as it's so much like in Fallout 1.



Other than that, I prefer Fallout 3's story but I prefer how it's told in NV.

After spending over a 1000 hours playing NV I've just gone back to F3 and as much as I passionately love NV, after a straight 9 hour session I'll say F3 just feels better made! Hell it works for a start!

Its like comparing an F1 car to a Moto GP bike, both amazing and super quick but the car does the corners better! What I mean is NV slips up because being the bike it falls off track because there are too many corners, ie it over complicates things and struggles to get them right. F3 is complicated but NV clearly pushes the game engine in places beyond its limits and the result imo is a hollow feeling game.

Then F3 gets the atmosphere just right from the off! NV is just too jolly. Its not because of more people around, its the landscape and obviously thats what its like in Vegas. All the destruction and buildings made F3 feel much fuller, bigger area between places makes exploring more fun. The terrain means even on 3rd 4th playthrough you can find new things where as NV is so flat and locations maybe to close to make searching fun, OWB an exception!

Basically they should of done another, lets say practice Fallout game with the current engine and tools and saved the beast of a game NV wants to be till it could be done right. They could of made Fallout 3 and a bit and stayed on the east coast and gone back to the NCR with F4 using the brilliant NV story writers. ALL IN MY OPINION!

I've really enjoyed them both,but for some reason i always get pulled towards FO3, maybe because i enjoyed the DLC's more, with the exception of MZ. Maybe because FO3 felt more post nuclear where i don't get that feeling with NV. I dont know, each to their own i suppose.

I dunno, I think Fallout New Vegas does a good job at making the world look like http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050330070539/fallout/images/0/02/Death.jpg.

I don't compare NV to F3 since they are different games and (especially because) each was actually designed and developed by two different companies.

The Pros and Cons as I see them:

Pros -

Weapon mods. Crafting. Different factions to work for. Story-telling. Excellent DLC. The environment. Every named character in the game.

Cons -

Invisible walls. Level cap (doesn't matter that it gets raised by DLC; it's still there, and that's bad). Mojave feels a little bit empty once you've done everything there is to do.

Also, anybody who is declaring that Wild Wasteland and hardcoe Modes should be mandatory - you should explain WHY you think it's a good idea to impose those modes on everybody who plays the game. I don't use either of those. I tried them both and I hated them both. Why, exactly, do you think I should be forced to play with them?

i don't think hardcoe mode should be mandatory, but the game was definitely designed with it in mind. you're cheating yourself out of the full experience by playing it with hardcoe mode off as far as im concerned. i never found it to be an encumbrance, in fact for something called "hardcoe" mode i didn't find it very hardcoe at all. but it definitely increases my enjoyment and appreciation of the game. playing with hardcoe mode off essentially makes the Survival skill and a lot of the different camp fire recipes useless, and you're missing out on a big chunk of the experience by doing that i think. just makes it more like FO3, and everytime i go back to FO3 i sorely miss that added layer of complexity.

That's a bold statement the OP did, a lot of people actually like NV a lot, including fans who started the series by FO3.

Why?

New Vegas' setting of scattered oases of fortified civilization amidst a desolate wasteland regularly traveled by caravans and wanderers seems a lot more like Fallout 1 than 3's anarchic setting amidst standing old world ruins IMO.