I preferred 3 in almost every way personally. I enjoyed the massive feel of war in wiping out the enclave and mutants in various areas around the wastes and in the main quest line. I loved feeling like I was an over powered God running around in T-51b or Enclave hellfire armor burning everything with a heavy incinerator or blasting it with a gauss rifle or sneaking around with my chinese stealth armor slashing people with the shishkebab or just doing anything I WANTED TO DO, the countless hours of exploration and killing mutants/ enclave is beyond description as to how fun it was. In spite its lack of weapon customization a limited choice in story (I couldn't side with the enclave and just kill everything ) and horribly laggy dlc's (aside from broken steel) I preferred it to new vegas in every way almost. New vegas is closer to the original fallouts but it just lacks for me because there was no enclave to crush, there was no real enclave to side with (remnants don't count thats like 4-5 dudes..) and the final battle was so tiny D: ... I know this game was rushed but many of the features felt so lacking like not being able to have a choice at a perk every level, not being able to cook at ovens, it feels like fallout 3 if you took away half the world, and replaced it with twice as many bugs.. I have tried to enjoy this game but it's just too short, the replay value doesn't make me want to go back and do it over and over with various characters with different weapon specialization's.. But how do you all feel about this game as oppose to three, what do you like/dislike do you feel this was a good follow up to the original fallouts? *There is also the fact I have been able to put 3k hours into fallout 3 since it came out, and less than half that into New Vegas due to the fact my games data corrupts or i constantly freeze once I get past the boomers in game...* *Ending "BATTLES!!!!" in fallout 3 Destroy enclave at project purity, destroy enclave at their new base after broken steel, destroy enclave at the missile area and choose what to destroy with said missiles..* Fallout New Vegas ending battle *pop 10-20 guys across the bridge* deal with first boss guy through speech or violence... quickly... Deal with second boss guy in similar way.... Game over.. See my point? It builds up to a "HUGE" battle with very few people being there. I expected to see at least 200 guys on each side, not so few.

Strict Old school people say don't complain about the lack of post-apocalyptic survival because 1 & 2 happened and we are on the west coast.

And people who loved fallout 3 say, things are too settled--- we don't care if you have set the game to right after people come out of the vaults. We want a post-apocalyptic constant fight for survival like Fallout 3.

New Vegas feels like a really big expansion pack for Fallout 3 rather than an independent game.

and here we gooooooo!!!!!!

FO:NV has a much better storyline and adds a lot of new features.
It's also much more diversified and makes the game somewhat harder to the easy mode that was fallout 3

Anyway I think FO:NV is clearly better than Fallout 3 even with all the glitches/fps drops and freezes

and an old dino fan will come in (styles) in three, two, one...

A Fallout 3 fan post in the New Vegas forum asking who liked Fallout 3 or New Vegas better, WHILE saying how Fallout 3 is superior. Yes, this is a thread that has turned out well in the past. :shakehead:

ugh there really is no story to New Vegas. NCR is at war with Legion, and players like House and Benny are trying to get into the action.

As opposed to an ACTUAL story in Fallout 3 about the lone wanderer's father sacrificing himself to cleanse the wasteland with a protoganist that wants to "cleanse" the wasteland in a much more horrific way.

I like Fallout 3 more because it just feels like a bigger game.NV doesn't do that for me, it really feels like it lacks something.But this is just what I think.

Fallout 3 > Fallout New Vegas for me. Though I enjoy both games for a number of reasons, I felt Fallout 3 had a better level of exploration and I prefer the atmosphere of the Capitol Wasteland over the Mojave Desert. However, I would take how Fallout NV plays over how Fallout 3 plays any day (I am referring to the game play aspect).

I hope people can remember that opinion =/= fact, as I see fires starting bliviongate:

It would be nice to be able to Side with the enclave in 3... And see more of the original fallout weapons in 3, other than that though...

Hey I like New Vegas I'm just hoping they might make a patch to add a few improvements upon reading why people prefer certain aspects of each game and use this information to improve it. I mean they do care about their opinions and we show interest in their game that WE payed for, so don't we deserve that much at least, don't they?

I am trying to add the requiem for the wasteland mod to New Vegas. The installation is really hard and I keep failing but it will be worth it once I figure it out.
The mod basically lets you play Fallout 3 from within New Vegas. As in I can go to the capital wasteland with the survivalist rifle and dynamite or bring back
with me a chinese assault rifle to Vegas.

New Vegas. I really enjoyed Fallout 3's story, but once you played it... well it was over. With New Vegas I have played 3 complete games, and two partial games with the story changing wildly each time.

The factions... the end slides... it all adds up to me enjoying New Vegas much, much more then 3.

To the uninformed eye, it would appear that way, but New Vegas's story is so much more deeper. NCR has invaded New Vegas, which House has had first claims on, House being able to be destroyed, and NCR with the huge risk of a Legion offensive, they both see it better to just play nice, then soon after the NCR reaches the Mojave, the Legion show up ready to crush all they can. The NCR just barely wins by Chief Hanlons tactical ingenuity, the Legion is utterly disgraced for the first time in it's history, leading to the Malpais Legat being thrown and burned off the Grand Canyon. Fast forward to the Couriers arrival, the three big powers, House, NCR, and Caeasars Legion are at a very thin stalemate, with the Legion breaking it. From there, it's up to The Courier to determine which power, if any, should run Vegas, determining Vegas's fate for decades to come.

Fallout 3's story is about a kid leaving the Vault and seeing the outside world for the first time in his concious life. From there, he searches for his father who abandons him in the Vault. He tracks down James after much fetching for people, then tracks him down to another Vault, after this, they attempt to restore Project Purity, but James commits suicide in what he deems the greater good. The Lone Wanderer quantessentially joins the BoS and tracks down a GECK, is captured by the Enclave, escapes, and helps in an assault on the Enclave, starts Project Purity, The Lone Wanderer escapes death by the luck of God, helps continue the fight on the Enclave, and that's about it.


From a personal perspective, Fallout 3 might seem more appealing, but to me, New Vegas's story is much more compelling for me.

Edit: Removed part of the quote that was unrelated to my post.

I can concur with many of the people on this forum, even my own brother, who has a lot of knowledge when it comes video games. I have to go for Fallout 3 on this one, I have a couple reasons to back my post up. First of all, I didn't very much appreciate how many decisions you had to make during the story for New Vegas, including all of the reputations you had to keep balanced and the fact that it didn't even matter which story line you picked, you did the same thing. Fallout 3 was straight forward and clean cut. Fallout 3 had a better soundtrack to it than New Vegas and this gets me hooked because I love the 40's and jazzy interludes as much as the next guy. I loved the DLC's that were included like the Broken Steel DLC, which continued the story. I feel as if the Vegas feeling didn't hit me as much as the Capital Wasteland feeling hit me. I am a huge fan of the Fallout series and hope for its future. I would give Fallout 3 a 9.3 out of 10 and Fallout: New Vegas a 8.4 out of 10.

Fo3 Shoot me, but I liked the story more. It was more gripping....

More action........... DC is a better setting than the desert.


Fo nv has some things that I think are here to stay. DT, ADS, HC mode, factions.

DM was a masterpiece IMO . Fo is going to be better because of fo nv.

I like the people that did fo nv. I just can t get into it as much because of all the endings I m sorry.

Its a fine game.......... I ll never [censored] about buying it I got more than my moneys worth out of it. The devs come on here and chat with us sometimes.

I was really happy with HH, but even with 2 dlcs to go I just don t think it will get me like fo3 did.

I m sorry........ J.E Sawyer and Chris Avellone.


I would hope Bethesda keeps Obsidian on the fo project. More games will be made, and fo and fo2 fans love fo nv. Even though I [censored] about fo nv you ll never hear me say its bad.

I ve got people to buy it and I ve bought it twice myself. On release day for 360 and then again when I switched ps3

one word: iron sights

Side note, would anyone here be interested in a fallout 2 remake with real time combat and more modern graphics, that being all, and using the creation engine/ what ever they will use for fallout 4? If it were made by obsidian and they were allotted 3 years to do it?

A huge fan of the franchise would play Fallout 1 & 2.

I like New Vegas. Simply because it doesn't have a number...nah just kidding.

But in reality, the reason I like New Vegas better is because of the more dynamic story to it. It literally drives you to play the game more than once rather than load back to a previous save because such a thing is impossible. There's no bad guy and there's no good guy. Heck, even the guys who are supposed to be the "good" guys, the NCR, are bad people.

NCR is literally the spawn of all the corrupt politicians in the world put together. Caesar's Legion, the supposed bad guys, are also not as bad. They are organized and disciplined, never corrupt in the slightest. Meaning there's a balance going on with shades of grey rather than a light and dark side. Even the shades of grey can be manipulated by the people who play the game depending on their perspective.

And then there's the sub factions. You either feel great dislike or great like for each of the factions. For example, I absolutely HATE the Kings. They remind me of Butch from Fallout 3 and first chance I got, I blew Butch's brains out. But I kind of like the Brotherhood of Steel and the Casinos in the Strip.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
As for Fallout 3, it's too linear and definitive. There's a designated bad guy...who I think Bethesda went out of their way to make them look like bad guys, even to the point of breaking lore. There's also a designated good guy group that Bethesda again, went out of their way to make them look like knights in shining armor, breaking the true faction of the Brotherhood.

And there's no interaction with the sub factions other than a linear quest. In fact, Megaton is the only sub faction/town that you can actually destroy or save. In fact, Vault 101 could've had a more interesting interaction.

A perfect example is the Arefu story where you help the Family. COME ON SERIOUSLY?! ONLY ONE OPTION?! Yeah sure, there are different ways to end the quest but in the end, it doesn't really matter. Wouldn't it have been awesome to side with the Family and have that group be a fully fleshed out faction? Or vice versa where you blow all of those Vampire Wannabe's brains out?

As for the ending, it's basically the same with only two options that are light and dark options. For its time, I praise the game. But comparing it to New Vegas...Fallout New Vegas is simply more dynamic. And for a SANDBOX ROLE PLAYING GAME, it's good to have lots of options.
~~~~~~~~~~
PS: But I do praise Fallout 3 for being a huge overhaul to the series gameplay wise. I hate the turn based RPG and think Fallout 1 and 2 are good games story wise but aren't that good in terms of gameplay. Or maybe I'm saying that because I feel more immersed when I'm actually controlling where they're aiming in real time.

I like Fallout 3 better than New Vegas, probably because it was the "woah" factor of my first Fallout game, and also because I liked the overall atmosphere of the "Wasteland" a lot better than NV. That is to say, although I like FO3 better overall, I like a lot of additions to NV. My favorites are DT, iron sights, crafting, and weapon repair kits.

NV.

*It explores how humanity rebuilds after a nuclear war, as opposed to FO3 which was frozen in time (200 years after the bombs? we're still scavenging 200 year old cans of food lulz).

*A plot I care a lot more about in NV. It's about different visions of society, and it taps into our political views, our ideals and the pragmatic/cynical sides of us. FO3's plot was kinda tasteless; the one thing I did find interesting in FO3 was the schism between the Capital Wasteland BOS and the rest of the organisation. And Malcolm McDowell had awesome voice acting. But it takes remarkably poor writing to make Liam Neeson such a throwaway forgettable character. Thing is, the Mojave Wasteland seems to be a living breathing land. You can see the trade routes, and I didn't find myself questioning how all the little towns survived. The Capital Wasteland seemed a pastiche of little gimmicks (a town, population 2, based on a Nuka Cola competition. A Peter Pan underground town, with no realistic chance of survival beyond underage immunity to harm. A mad scientist experimenting on ghouls in this building. It was fun to an extent, but it was a bit TOO wild wastelandish for my taste. Curiously I didn't have a problem with the crazy amounts of silly content in Fallout 2 because they were all presented as Easter Eggs or in-jokes from the designers. In FO3, the whacky content made up a huge chunk of the core game and wasteland)

*Much better character writing and motivations (compare NV companions with any of FO3 companions. There's a lot more depth to the NV companions)

*Better gameplay mechanics - guns feel more solid, and pleasant to shoot. (A lot of my beef with FO3 was its reliance on shooter action when it was such a terrible shooter) Both real time combat and VATS have their place now.

*DLC. Dead Money and Honest Hearts > all of FO3's DLC imo, with the exception of PL. Broken Steel broke the game with the new enemies. Broken Steel and Anchorage were basically extended shooting sequences, but as I've already mentioned, the real-time shooter mechanics in FO3 are horrible (to me). Pitt was a wasted opportunity. (Point Lookout was actually good. Still broken in terms of balance, but it was fun)

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE! *Ducks into a sewer and makes a home out of it so I am spared the wrath of the old Fallout Fans*

The DLC is superior to Fallout 3's, but as an overall game I enjoyed Fallout 3 much more. It was a new experience and it really felt that way, Vegas used the same engine with a few new features and fixes.

Please God no. As much as I liked Fallout 2 I don't want to start the game as a tribal, raise skills I don't want to use just to complete the main quest, and chase 20 leads to find out where the G.E.C.K. really is.