Is New Vegas better than Fallout 3?

  • 196 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#1 Posted by GameReviews (13 posts) -

I've been looking into it, and i was wondering if New Vegas did enough new things to really make it better than fallout 3.  
 
Take the games being so similar to each other away. 
 
Which one is better and why?  
 
Thanks for your help.
#2 Posted by groin (838 posts) -

That was a sick knife kill, dude.

#3 Edited by Aishan (1011 posts) -

New Vegas has better writing by far, much more interesting characters. 
 
They took the RPG-elements in FO3 and refined them, condensed them down, added lots of awesome new things (Damage Threshhold alongside Damage Resistance, for example) and just generally made a technically-superior RPG.

#4 Edited by Mikemcn (6959 posts) -

Tough Choice. I think that everything in Fallout 3 had a bigger impact, the locations you found, the events that happened stood out alot more, and the atmosphere was much better.

But New Vegas had just a whole lot more stuff going on, a ton of variety, and lots of stuff to see. But each individual thing was a bit less fantastic.

@Aishan said:

New Vegas has better writing by far, much more interesting characters. They took the RPG-elements in FO3 and refined them, refined them down, added lots of awesome new things (Damage Threshhold alongside Damage Resistance, for example) and just generally made a technically-superior RPG.

Vegas had a way greater volume of characters, personally though I preferred FO3's characters.

#5 Posted by karatetron (690 posts) -

Nah.

#6 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5138 posts) -

I liked New Vegas better, the characters and story are much better and the quest are a lot more interesting.

#7 Posted by MightyDuck (1510 posts) -

I loved Fallout 3.  I put about 60 hours into it and bought two of the DLC expansions. 
 
I was super excited for New Vegas once it came out.  I played it for about 15 hours or so, and just couldn't get into it like I did with 3. 

#8 Posted by natetodamax (19177 posts) -

No. It has more weapons and better combat, but the Mojave Wasteland is always a chore to navigate and the game is still really busted even after all the patches. I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot more.

#9 Posted by Tennmuerti (8014 posts) -

New Vegas is better.

Story, dialogue, game mechanics, are all better.

My personal apreciation goes out to New Vegas since writers at Obsidian actually know how to make a functioning logical world in the Fallout universe, that feels cohesive and believable. None of that silly bullshiterry found in F3, like all raiders being cannibals, no1 growing any food, people living around an undetonated nuke, Chinese ghouls having a circle jerk in a 200 year old factory, and many many more.

#10 Posted by Animasta (14651 posts) -

@natetodamax: a chore to navigate? compared to fallout 3? you've got to be kidding me. I loved all those times in 3 where I wanted to get somewhere in the capital but I couldn't because there just HAPPENED to be a wall there! and all those metro tunnels! endless samey metro tunnels. FUN

yes, new vegas is the supremely superior game, people just make fallout 3 better in their minds because it was first.

#11 Posted by Bloodlines (172 posts) -

It is a much better game for the reasons that has been already said. For me it must be all the references to Fallout 2 that makes it better.

#12 Posted by Tennmuerti (8014 posts) -

@natetodamax said:

No. It has more weapons and better combat, but the Mojave Wasteland is always a chore to navigate and the game is still really busted even after all the patches. I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot more.

How is Mojave more of a chore to navigate then DC area? If anything thank god there are no more shitty tunnels like in F3.

And both games are equally busted after patches for a lot of people. Some people have more problems with F3, some with New Vegas.

#13 Posted by Ventilaator (1501 posts) -

Fallout New Vegas added things like "characters" and a "story" 
That game also game with the new gameplay mechanic where shooting at stuff outside of VATS had a chance to hurt them, which was kind of revolutionary when compared to Fallout 3.

#14 Posted by Zippedbinders (983 posts) -
@Mikemcn said:

@Aishan said:

New Vegas has better writing by far, much more interesting characters. They took the RPG-elements in FO3 and refined them, refined them down, added lots of awesome new things (Damage Threshhold alongside Damage Resistance, for example) and just generally made a technically-superior RPG.

Vegas had a way greater volume of characters, personally though I preferred FO3's characters.

Moira, Button, and Fawkes are the only noteworthy characters from 3. Everyone else was little more than bland NPC quest giving fodder. Maybe Harold, but he's not a Bethesda character and I would have vastly appreciated him in New Vegas over F3.
#15 Posted by natetodamax (19177 posts) -
@Laketown @Tennmuerti The DC area is one small section of the Capital Wasteland. The Mojave Wasteland is absolutely blanketed in invisible walls that in many cases seem like they were placed at random. Maybe you somehow had a good time exploring in New Vegas. All I know is that if I had a dime for every time an invisible wall stopped me in my tracks in New Vegas, I'd be very rich.
#16 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

Fallout 3 looks better, sounds better, and is less buggy. The Capital Wasteland is far more of an interesting place than the Mojave. The best thing about New Vegas is hardcore mode.

Fallout 3 is now a classic, whereas New Vegas is just OK.

#17 Posted by MrKlorox (11209 posts) -

Couldn't get into Fallout 3 at all. Got into New Vegas somewhat. New Vegas is a real Fallout game, Fallout 3 is not.

#18 Posted by Cloudenvy (5891 posts) -

New Vegas is way better BY FAR, in my opinion.

#19 Posted by thornie_delete (436 posts) -

@Aishan said:

New Vegas has better writing by far, much more interesting characters. They took the RPG-elements in FO3 and refined them, condensed them down, added lots of awesome new things (Damage Threshhold alongside Damage Resistance, for example) and just generally made a technically-superior RPG.

YES. Great post. New Vegas is vastly superior. The quests are far more engaging, and the main quest is actually something you care about. The factions are all well fleshed out, and the world is just prettier to look at.

#20 Posted by CL60 (16906 posts) -

Yup. New Vegas is by far better than Fallout 3.

#21 Posted by oraknabo (1453 posts) -

Too many bugs and Invisible walls in New Vegas, but in most other ways, it's a better game though it's also less fun.

#22 Posted by Redbullet685 (6029 posts) -

New Vegas is overall better, but I think Fallout 3's Wasteland was better than the Mojave.

#23 Posted by ryanwho (12082 posts) -

Yes. Unless you include mods. But all the good FO3 mods have been converted into FNV mods. So its still better. But there was a brief period where FNV didn't have the converted mods, and during that brief period, the modded FO3 was better.

#24 Posted by Tennmuerti (8014 posts) -

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

Fallout 3 is now a classic

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#25 Edited by FritzDude (2256 posts) -

For quality - Fallout 3 
For quantity - Fallout: New Vegas  
 
I like them both so.

#26 Posted by Jimbo (9776 posts) -

Fallout 3 was great for the most part (especially the opening), but yeah I think New Vegas is better. Some fantastic characters and dialogue in NV.

#27 Posted by Spoonman671 (4566 posts) -

Fallout: New Vegas is a better game.  Fallout 3 works (mostly).

#28 Posted by SomeDeliCook (2233 posts) -

Theres reasons I like Fallout 3 more and reasons I like New Vegas more. However, one of the biggest reasons is theres no metro stations in New Vegas, and that for me is one of the best things possible. The metros were so copy and pasted and boring.

#29 Posted by KillyDarko (1888 posts) -

I personally think Fallout 3 is by far better than New Vegas, but that's just my humble opinion, of course. But you should definitely play New Vegas anyway, it's a good game :)

#30 Edited by GodsMistakeXx (134 posts) -

Fallout 3 is much better in my opinion... The mojave Wasteland was just a boring place to explore when compared to that of the remnants of Washington D.C. I also highly disliked who you played as in New Vegas.. He was really just some dude(or chick) who survived being shot in the head not much more than that. And there really was no reason somebody else couldn't do the job he/she was assigned.....  
 
EDIT: I also didn't give two shits about any faction whatsoever. Not even Mr. House... But perhaps thats just me.

#31 Posted by eroticfishcake (7782 posts) -

I enjoyed New Vegas miles more then I did F3. F3 wasn't bad mind you but it just didn't feel like a proper Fallout title to me in terms of character and personality. New Vegas does which is unsurprising given the fact that it is based on the original cancelled Fallout game. I'm glad F3 exists though, it brought some new mechanics and NV took and refined them. I am a big fan of the first two though so that may be why I preferred NV over F3.

#32 Posted by pweidman (2307 posts) -

While I played New Vegas I really thought so. So many great ideas and additions. The story and characters were more compelling easily. But as I played the endgame, and came across more and more bugs and the shit framerate droppage, the more I started to wonder if it was really better. First off it's much shorter, and i saw every location.

I really liked most of the Fallout 3 dlc, and haven't bothered w/any FO:NV dlc. Don't care to go back and deal w/all the issues again, whereas I'll venture back into FO 3 anytime. It seems more unpredictable in general too, especially when just wandering aimlessly, which is indeed the best way to play both games.;)

Some of my fav games all-time...both of 'em, so whatever.

#33 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -

I sure as hell think so. 
#34 Posted by FancySoapsMan (5808 posts) -
@MrKlorox said:

Couldn't get into Fallout 3 at all. Got into New Vegas somewhat. New Vegas is a real Fallout game, Fallout 3 is not.

This.
#35 Posted by ClaritySam (594 posts) -
@eroticfishcake said:
I enjoyed New Vegas miles more then I did F3. F3 wasn't bad mind you but it just didn't feel like a proper Fallout title to me in terms of character and personality. New Vegas does which is unsurprising given the fact that it is based on the original cancelled Fallout game. I'm glad F3 exists though, it brought some new mechanics and NV took and refined them. I am a big fan of the first two though so that may be why I preferred NV over F3.
This saves me having to communicate my own thoughts.
#36 Edited by Zacagawea (1585 posts) -

I can not get into Fallout 3 even though I think the setting is awesome. Fallout New Vegas sucked me in and I've played it for about 100 hours total. I guess I was just late to the party with Fallout 3.

#37 Posted by Sackmanjones (4652 posts) -
@GameReviews:  Had both, liked New Vegas better.  They are both pretty cheap right now I believe.  Personally I would go with New Vegas because of the better main story and characters
#38 Posted by joshth (501 posts) -

in a word yes.  I takes everything FO3 did and does it better.
#39 Posted by Xpgamer7 (2377 posts) -

I loved fallout 3 more. From a technical perspective and from some points of view New Vegas was clearly better, but the atmosphere and world in Fallout 3 was just plain better to me.

#40 Edited by Irvandus (2826 posts) -

New Vegas is definitely better just from a game play perspective. I like Fallout 3 more though because I enjoyed the quests and the setting more. Basically I would sort the games as this.
 
Fallout 3:
*Better Quests
*Better DLC
*Bleaker atmosphere
*Cooler "Sub Text" and background information 
*More exploring
*Liberty Prime
 
Fallout New Vegas:
*Better gameplay with more support for non combat players.
*Better Companions
*More Quests 
*Western atmosphere
*More loading screens
*Lots of caves

#41 Posted by bioblood22 (420 posts) -

I'd have to go with NV, even though I love the BHoS and liked that 3 had a lot to do with them, NCR I couldn't care less about them or the others. But as games go, NV is more engaging than 3. Oh and I like when games allow you to play beyond the end. I know a lot of people don't but I do so I liked that about 3 after the Broken Steel dlc.

#42 Posted by Getz (2989 posts) -

million times better now that it's been patched up.

#43 Posted by Kyreo (4600 posts) -

I must say that I was deeply moved by my time with Mr House but I prefer Fallout 3, overall.

#44 Posted by DirtyEagles (274 posts) -

I would say Fallout 3 is a superior experience. My New Vegas play through was so busted I could not even finish the game because my save became corrupted on the final mission. Also the countless other glitches and performance issues made the good stuff  not so memorable. I guess its a lot more stable now, but who cares at this point?

#45 Posted by MistaSparkle (2148 posts) -

Definitely not. F:NV is fine...I played it and finished it and didn't have nearly as good a time as I did playing F:3. I think I may go back in and give it another try though...

#46 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2314 posts) -

New Vegas is MUCH better.  The only things Fallout 3 did better was the story and sadly graphics.

Online
#47 Edited by Tennmuerti (8014 posts) -

@Turtlebird95 said:

New Vegas is MUCH better. The only things Fallout 3 did better was the story and sadly graphics.

Let's not brig story into it :)

Fallout 3 story is a complete train wreck.

They took all the parts of previous Fallouts and just mashed them together, then failed to apply any trace of logic. Your dad is chasing after a water purification gimmick (Fallout 1) you then find and use the GECK to solve his problems (Fallout 2) and encounter a sentient computer that is only "evil" due to the way it was programmed (Fallout Tactics) Unfortunately the "unopened" vault is open like a hookers cunt, yet the tiny population is unaware (an impossibility in any small community). The "eveil boss" computer you have a conversation with is a complete joke, the dialogue used to convince him to suicide is something a 5 year old would say. Oh lets not forget the story biggest bullshit moment since the water purification plant is at the estuary of the river, so how the fuck is it purifying anything upriver, and not just wasting that shit into the ocean. And the piece de resistance: epilogue when the game takes a dump on logic with all of your mutant/ghoul/robot companions refusing to not kill you (retconned in DLC)

#48 Posted by McGhee (6094 posts) -

@Tennmuerti said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

Fallout 3 is now a classic

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#49 Posted by Tennmuerti (8014 posts) -

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

@Tennmuerti said:

@McGhee_the_Insomniac said:

Fallout 3 is now a classic

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

See that was not funny at all :(

Unlike your hilarious initial statement :)

#50 Posted by JayDee (439 posts) -

yes, its not even close really. the style of play is just too similar for people who've played lots and lots of 3 though i think.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.