New Vegas may be better, but it is very different to FO3. It almost doesn't feel like a Fallout game, but it's still great.

Fallout 3 is far, far superior. FO3 has a dense, interesting world with extremely thick atmosphere where there is always somewhere cool to explore.

New Vegas has a brown landmass of desert and mountains and quests that are mostly comprised of visiting a faction then running around in said faction's drab corridors doing mundane fetch quests. There is none of the thick, dreary mood of FO3 either. And don't get e started on New Vegas itself. That whole area is just horrible in every way: Ugly, slow to get through, filled with loading screens and nothing interesting going on.

As for combat, New Vegas is slightly better.

@Harkat said:

Fallout 3 is far, far superior. FO3 has a dense, interesting world with extremely thick atmosphere where there is always somewhere cool to explore.

New Vegas has a brown landmass of desert and mountains and quests that are mostly comprised of visiting a faction then running around in said faction's drab corridors doing mundane fetch quests. There is none of the thick, dreary mood of FO3 either. And don't get e started on New Vegas itself. That whole area is just horrible in every way: Ugly, slow to get through, filled with loading screens and nothing interesting going on.

As for combat, New Vegas is slightly better.

If you like exploring empty shacks with the same loot and generic raider camps and vaults then sure FO3 is alright but how can you say New Vegas is slow to get through when DC in FO3 was just a few open spaces connected by generic subways?

@TEHMAXXORZ said:

New Vegas may be better, but it is very different to FO3. It almost doesn't feel like a Fallout game, but it's still great.

So the original creators of Fallout don't know what a Fallout game is?

FO3 is basically an empty open world shooter with an ok story and side quests but a great ending sequence and pretty good assets.

FO:NV is a somewhat janky RPG-shooter with a pretty good main storyline, excellent side quests and A-list actors to boot.

Therefore FO:NV > FO3 but since FO:NV might never have come out without FO3 paving the way I can still respect it as an ok game.

Reading these posts made me realize that my copy of New Vegas is still wrapped in the cellophane. Might have to change that and give it a spin.

Well. I think New Vegas is a better game but it didn't impact me the same way as Fallout 3 did. Then again, if you haven't played either you'd probably don't have that problem so New Vegas is a great place to start :)

@Canteu said:

My problem with NV is the fact that It's literally always the same until you get past the eastern pass.

You can never just go off in a random direction at the start because of the fucking deathclaws and giant radscorpions.

um you can totally go to NV through the north at level 1 from goodsprings if you've prepared yourself

New Vegas is a lot better. Obsidian knows how to make an excellent story. Bethesda does not.

@ikwal said:

They are the same game.

I know your post is 9 months old. But fuck you.

@TEHMAXXORZ said:

New Vegas may be better, but it is very different to FO3. It almost doesn't feel like a Fallout game, but it's still great.

I assume you never played Fallout 1 or 2.

FO3 is very much the odd man out.

New Vegas was a lot better by far. Story was more interesting and it was better connected to the Fallout universe than FO3 was. Plus the game played a bit better, so there's that.

The setting for new vegas is good in premise, but horribly executed. Fallout 3 was better IMO.

I think New Vegas was a much better game. It felt more 'in' the Fallout universe than 3 did and actually had characters with some depth to them. 3 was slightly less broken and had better DLC, though. Also Liam Neeson.

I like them both equally. Fallout 3's world was funner to explore, but New Vegas expanded a lot with mechanics such as the companion system, crafting and weapon modding.

I preferred Fallout 3, to be honest, but I do think that the Elder Scrolls series is in general better. It's more polished or something. New Vegas, as a game, is better, but Fallout 3 interested me more. The environment seemed more likely as an apocalyptic setting.

@TheSquarePear said:

If you like exploring empty shacks with the same loot and generic raider camps and vaults then sure FO3 is alright but how can you say New Vegas is slow to get through when DC in FO3 was just a few open spaces connected by generic subways?

I think DC in Fallout 3, while basically a forking path painted as a city, was extremely atmospheric, scary even. New Vegas was barren and drab. Take that NCR-occupied airport for instance. A gigantic maze of brown corridors with almost nothing in them, filled with characters with nothing interesting to say. Places like these were the only thing punctuating the barren desert in New Vegas, with few exceptions.

UR OPINION R WRONG

Nope. New Vegas made some improvements but also put up useless restrictions like only being able to pick perks on even numbered levels (or odds, can't remember). And bombed out DC was way cooler than not bombed out Las Vegas. The alliance stuff was also unnecessary.

New Vegas is better than Fallout 3 in every single way.

New Vegas, just had more engaging things going on. The game really encouraged players to get more into the game, and explore more and more into it.

There are things I like more about Fallout: New Vegas, and some I like more about 3.

Fallout 3 pros:

Darker, more intimidating atmosphere, and world overall.

Brotherhood of Steel has a higher relevance in the story.

Better, more impactful view into the outside world when you first see it.

More explosive, and engaging (as far as the action is concerned) endgame with the giant robot thing fucking things up on a huge scale.

The DC area is cooler than any area in New Vegas.

Fallout: New Vegas:

The faction stuff is a very neat idea that makes the ending splinter in major ways.

The story, especially the endgame, is great.

The dark humor from the originals is back.

The references to Fallout 1 and 2 are great.

The people reacting to your outfits is a neat idea, even though I am the first to admit I didn't use the system all that much.

More quests that are often better.

Fantastic writing.

I had more fun playing Fallout 3.

I did like the idea of large factions in New Vegas, but that was it. No matter how much I wanted to like New Vegas, (and I really really tried), I just couldn't get into it. I bought one of the DLCs to try and make something interesting happen and it just failed like the rest of the game.

New Vegas is better, simply for the fact that it's written by the same people who made Fallout 1 and 2.

I'll still never get over the fact that Bethesda clearly has no idea how the passage of time works. 200 years after the apocalypse, DC is STILL foraging in supermarkets. I could see if it was set at the same time as Fallout 1 (75 years after the Great War), but 200 years? The biggest settlement is an irradiated pool around an unexploded bomb? Are you kidding me? Same problem with WInterhold in Skyrim, really... 80 years after the Great Collapse, and nobody's even ATTEMPTED to rebuild. Meanwhile, the Mojave is, while the frontier of NCR civilization, respectable in the grand scheme of things.

I guess it all boils back down to the two themes of the Fallout universe. One, of course, is that "war never changes". Humanity will always be jerks to each other. The other, of course, is that despite all the conflict, humanity will always rebuild. Civilization will return.

I love both games but New Vegas is better.

New Vegas has better writing, combat, and just overall feel than Fallout 3 did. I put roughly 130 hours into Fallout 3 and about 50 so far into New Vegas. A nice plus of NV over 3 is that it lacks the obnoxious parody feel Bethesda imparted on their game with some of the quests and writing. Probably the difference of having original team members doing the writing/etc of NV. Although I'll warn you that New Vegas starts out slow. I didn't really like it much until I hit about level 15. Awesome after that.

Good to see this thread is still going.

I masturbate to Fallout: New Vegas three times a night, so I'd say it's pretty good, yeah.

The correct answer is that they are equally bad games.

mixed bag, feel like the mechanics at play in new vegas (glitches aside) were more in depth, but fallour fallout 3 had the better story imo

@GameReviews: play fallout 3 the environment is more interesting plus your not gonna want to play new vegas first then play fallout 3 and expect some of the things in new vegas to be in fallout 3

New Vegas. I felt like F3 was little clunky sometimes and the annoying large walls of debris that block the simplest path to where your going was dumb.

New Vegas is what F3 should've been.

New Vegas is a better game. its better written, better characters, better gameplay, better and deeper mechanics, better weapons, better quests, better story. i could keep going but you get the point.

THOUGH, i had alot more fun and replayed FO3 alot more than i did new vegas. i played through fallout 3 like 5 times. i played through new vegas like once and ahalf? why? i dunno. new vegas is the better game.

@Terramagi: I never thought about the 200 year gap, it IS sort of weird if you wanna sit and think about it for a while I guess. Tamriel will always be a medevil/fantasy setting where people live in tents and castles no mattter then length of time, so why is it hard to believe a town doesn't want to rebuild the structure they believe destroyed them before, they DID rebuild their town.. just not the stuff surrounding the magic structure they think blew up etc.

@gaminghooligan said:

mixed bag, feel like the mechanics at play in new vegas (glitches aside) were more in depth, but fallour fallout 3 had the better story imo

Which is why if you own both on PC, you get this.

fallout 3 had the better story imo

I'm gonna be that one old grandpa that shuffles along and says you should just play Fallout 2 instead. I know it's dumb but thats what my heart tells me to do. Could not find less personality than Fallout 3 in MY humble opinion.

New Vegas is much, much... MUCH better than F3. MUCH better. It's my favourite Bethesda game. There are so many options, the dialogue is deep and new information opens up the dialogue trees. Not only that, your standing with the factions can change the whole dialogue tree. You can also kill every damn person in that game, except for one. None of that "So and so is needed to complete a quest" shit. No. F:NV goes rough on you for the mistakes you make, but rewardingly so.

The endings are superbly done, you ALWAYS get info on a quest, no matter what happened, and the narrator tells you what's what. Most of the characters are deep and interesting and the quests are amazing. Sometimes they don't have a happy ending. Well, most of the time. More often than not it's a choice between different shades of grey. Your companions also have noteworthy quests, like Lilly or Veronica, both quests are really cool and have great conclusions. Also, each complanion, faction, and most towns have their own endings. A couple of them in fact, up to 6 or 7 different endings depending on what you did!

The game has flaws, but these flaws are present in F3 also. What F:NV does, is raise the bar. Companions? Better. Quests? You bet your ass the quests are better. None of that A or B type of stuff. Yuck. Characters? Better. The world? Matter of preference, but I feel this world is very much unique, and F3's was bland. That last part was just my opinion on F3 though.

All in all, second best Fallout game, (original Fallout taking the no. 1 spot) and best gamebryo game bar none. After this game, I absolutely LOVE Obsidian. Playing Skyrim after New Vegas... yeah, the dialogue tree is laughable, the quests are abysmal and the world is dull.

Take all of that with a grain of salt. I'm a big F:NV fan.

@Humanity: Fallout 2 is not a very good game. Fallout uno is where it's at. So much better at guiding you through the experience. Much more concise and it just knew what it was doing whole the way through. F2 looses its thread a couple of hours into the game.

I'm gonna be that one old grandpa that shuffles along and says you should just play Fallout 2 instead. I know it's dumb but thats what my heart tells me to do. Could not find less personality than Fallout 3 in MY humble opinion.

It's better then Fallout 3, but didn't change drastically from Fallout 3 which is why it had less of an impact.

If you liked Fallout 3 and want more Fallout then you'll love New Vegas.

F:NV is so much better than FO3, most of which is already said, but I'd like to add that it got allot of the guys from the original FO1 and 2 guys making it, so it feels allot more like a Fallout game, much more than FO3.

Also Old World Blues better than all DLCs for FO3 and F:NV.

@Ghostiet said:

@Humanity said:

I'm gonna be that one old grandpa that shuffles along and says you should just play Fallout 2 instead. I know it's dumb but thats what my heart tells me to do. Could not find less personality than Fallout 3 in MY humble opinion.

I like you.

Fallout kinda ended with 2 for me. I had high hopes that F3 would satiate my inner fan after disappointing releases like Brotherhood of Steel - but alas like most Bethesda games I felt it had zero personality, a pretty awful UI and basically boiled down to following your quest arrow through locations that after an hour of gameplay continually evoked the sensation of deja vu as you passed the same props, tiles sets, textures etc. The Subways being the biggest offender.

I realize of course this is a super unpopular viewpoint so I'll shut up for the rest of the thread - everyone I know prefers Vegas to F3 though.

Yes.

@Humanity said:

@Ghostiet said:

@Humanity said:

I'm gonna be that one old grandpa that shuffles along and says you should just play Fallout 2 instead. I know it's dumb but thats what my heart tells me to do. Could not find less personality than Fallout 3 in MY humble opinion.

I like you.

Fallout kinda ended with 2 for me. I had high hopes that F3 would satiate my inner fan after disappointing releases like Brotherhood of Steel - but alas like most Bethesda games I felt it had zero personality, a pretty awful UI and basically boiled down to following your quest arrow through locations that after an hour of gameplay continually evoked the sensation of deja vu as you passed the same props, tiles sets, textures etc. The Subways being the biggest offender.

I realize of course this is a super unpopular viewpoint so I'll shut up for the rest of the thread - everyone I know prefers Vegas to F3 though.

It's not really though. I think every true Fallout fan prefers Fallout 1 and 2 to the newer ones, but again it's a matter of preference. I still don't think Fallout 3 was bad, in fact I think it was pretty good, it's just that New Vegas is a lot better, in almost every way. Besides, try not to bash 3 too much until you've seen Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

@mitsuko_souma said:

The correct answer is that they are equally bad games.

@TheDudeOfGaming: Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel was aready kinda Ehhhh.. After Fallout 2 but Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was just on a whole 'nother level.

@Humanity: Tactics is better than Fallout 2. Just throwing it out there.

Replaying them both right now, I greatly prefer Fallout 3's world and characters, but I also greatly prefer New Vegas' customization and perks. Fallout 3 pulls out ahead overall (deserts are just so damn dull), but it's a close comparison.

Storywise! Fallout New Vegas is definitely better since its lore is much closer to the 1st two predecessors which we're written well. Though gameplay wise its almost the same save the mini weapon custom option and the melee vats animations which barely added anything awesome. I preferred Fallout: New Vegas much more due to the fact I was a big fan of the 1st two back in 1997 & 1998, and I primarily play the game for it's lore and story which Fallout: New Vegas delivers much more than Fallout 3.

@TwoLines said:

@Humanity: Tactics is better than Fallout 2. Just throwing it out there.

Haha not even close. Tactics belongs into the "mediocre spin-offs" category.

Yes in some ways, and no in others. Both great games though :)

@CptBedlam: Hey, I like turn based tactical games. I liked Tactics more than Fallout 2. F2 was stitched together really ugly. It lacked direction and was utterly broken in terms of ballance. Also- too silly.

@TwoLines said:

@CptBedlam: Hey, I like turn based tactical games. I liked Tactics more than Fallout 2. F2 was stitched together really ugly. It lacked direction and was utterly broken in terms of ballance. Also- too silly.

You must be trolling because everything you're saying doesn't compute. Fallout 2 was the perfect RPG that didn't hold your hand and let you trully explore the world in a free form fashion.