New Vegas, easily. Much better writing and gameplay that actually allows for a variety of character builds rather than Fallout 3's "Small Guns 4 Lyfe" philosophy.

Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

And yes, NV > F3.

SO now I am just gunna start asking "what do they eat" in like every game or movie... too bad no one will get the reference.

New Vegas was WAY buggier than 3 on release (freezing was a big issue for the first month, especially on ps3). They only incrementally improved the gameplay; wasn't a big difference between 3 and NV in that department. I liked the main quest better in 3. Sidequests were of equal quality in both.

3 was something fresh, and new vegas was more of that (which is both a good and bad thing)

If you haven't played either, I recommend playing NV instead of 3, but if you're like me and played 3 first, New Vegas was un-refreshingly similar.

@animasta: Obsidian have over the years accrued a reputation for making narratively impressive yet technically shaky games. This isn't something that just started with Fallout New Vegas. I dunno about Neverwinter but Knights of the Old Republic were rooouughh; although had a good story and great characters.

Yup, and i preferred fallout 3 for its world. Beautiful game.. in a strange way

Agreed on all counts. Except, since I'm a world junky with these kinds of games, I'd choose Fallout 3. And yeah, pay $5 for the whole package. NV has some great DLC worth seeing.

i thought new vegas had a way better tone

Both of the DLC's for each game are about even but overall Fallout New Vegas was a better game.

@humanity said:

NWN2 was also damn rough, so was fucking Alpha Protocol.

While I stand by my opinion that Obsidian could use better guys to actually make games and a few more competent project leads/producers, I've kinda slowed down with my hate for them since something hit me recently - the Mask of the Betrayer for NWN2 and the four New Vegas DLC were fucking exquisite. These guys kinda do stuff nobody does and it's risky enough that they rarely got the time to actually finish their games. They would obviously get more time and free reign with downloadable content, which is were those brilliant designers have a better way of shining through.

It still doesn't really excuse them much for putting out such a mess like Alpha Protocol - which is by all means the most wasted potential of the entire generation.

New Vegas is a better game overall but I like 3 fine. I think they're both worth playing.

I really like both of them, but if I had to choose, I'd probably choose New Vegas. In terms of graphics, both of them look pretty much the same, only Fallout 3 is a little bit more greenish blue and New Vegas is more orange yellow. This might not really make any sense if you hadn't played or even looked at some gameplay, but if you did, you know what I'm talking about. Story wise I liked New Vegas more. The ongoing warfare between 2 factions seemed really interesting to me, but it's not to take away anything from 3. DLC wise I liked 3 more, but if you are just trying to get into the Fallout franchise, you don't really need it at the beginning, because the game is very long if you decide to do as much stuff as possible. I've put nearly 100 hours on both games each and there's still stuff to do and with the price of 2.49 euros on steam, it's a steal.