This topic is locked from further discussion.
New Vegas is basically what I wanted the original Fallout 3 to be. It's a better written game than 3 was plus I love the setting of New Vegas since it reminds me of the older Fallout games. I believe that the overall story is better in New Vegas and it actually let's you keep playing after the game ended instead of forcing you to buy DLC like in Fallout 3. I'll vote for New Vegas.
Man, I respect the hell out of New Vegas, and mostly I really enjoyed my time with it, but there are some really fucked aspects about how the narrative develops in that game and sets you down paths that I kinda don't want to go into because spoilers and all. Also it's kinda impressive that they took a Bethesda game and made it even more janky.
I picked Fallout 3. It's one of my favourite games of the generation. I have no loyalty to the old Fallout games, because I've never played them, but Bethesda games just stand out so much to me because of how much fun they are to explore and how they go around presenting the world (I was going to say creating a world, but that obviously doesn't apply to Fallout). The main story was kinda bullshit, but goddamn the side quests and all the explorable areas are so good. The writing wasn't as good as it was in New Vegas, but there's some great writing in the game, just mostly in sidequests and less obvious places. I also find that the Bethesda games are extremely good at encouraging and empowering roleplaying; one of my favourite ever RPG characters was my lawful evil FO3 badass.
Fallout 3. I love both games but I'm gonna give the edge to Fallout 3 due to how much more revolutionary it was compared to NV. NV was a very good iteration and in some ways improvement on F3, but Fallout 3 was a bit more interesting and was a bigger experience than New Vegas.
Both amazing games that I really loved, but I'm gonna give the edge to F3.
New Vegas IS Fallout 3.
Fallout 3 is just The Elder Scrolls 4.5: Future
I think in many ways this is the core of this debate, because I agree with you and that's exactly why I prefer Fallout 3. I definitely get the impression that people who loved the old Fallout games prefer NV because it's more faithful to the originals (which makes sense considering it was Obsidian), and what was good about those old games is what's good about NV (especially the writing), but if you hadn't played those games, and you either loved the Bethesda games or wanted a non-fantasy game made in the Bethesda style, then Fallout 3 was a goddamn revelation. That's why FO3 is more popular, and why it's currently winning, because there were more people in the latter camp than in the former.
Also, I understand where the notion is coming from, but saying "Fallout 3 is just TES4.5" is ridiculous - for one thing, why phrase it as if it's a bad thing?
3 because the ending of New Vegas sucked the big one, and I never finished 3, so I will just imagine it had a better ending. But now I'm remembering the disappointment over that ending on the Bombcast... dammit, already voted.
From someone who adored Fallout 3, here's a bit of advice: don't assume the ending is better than New Vegas. I didn't beat New Vegas because the game fucked me over, but Jeff and the Bombcrew were right; Fallout 3's ending was a super underwhelming way to end such a masterful game. I don't think I was angry about it as Jeff was, but still.
This is a tough one, because New Vegas is the better game, but I enjoyed Fallout 3 a lot more. If I had played them in the opposite order, I'm positive I would be picking New Vegas, but having played it second it just felt like more of the same with some minor improvements and better writing. From a base game standpoint, New Vegas felt a lot like an expansion pack to Fallout 3, because the core of the game remained almost entirely the same. If it had been a leap in terms of the engine, graphics, design, and gameplay like we had from Oblivion to Skyrim it would have a been a much more interesting game, but as it is New Vegas is simply Fallout 3 on a different map with better writing and a different color UI.
@atlas: Saying Fallout 3 is just Elder Scrolls 4.5 is no more 'ridiculous' than saying New Vegas is just the third Fallout game. I think it's pretty clear I phrased it that way because I feel that Fallout Games are superior products to Elder Scrolls Games. If someone felt the opposite, they would phrase it the opposite way.
I'm at level 36 in NV, feeling like I'm only a few decisions away from the final battle, and getting to the DLC now. Old World Blues was effing brutal, the game crashes on my PS3 frequently, I don't like how certain actions executed in secret effect factions big time. Companions are much better in NV, but I'm having a tough time remembering as many complaints about FO3.
Still having a lot of fun with NV, despite my gripes.
Granted, I am just starting with NV, but I hate how on rails it feels.
On rails wut? Its one of least on rails games ever made. You can literally go anywhere, do anything. Its the absolute opposite. As soon as you get done making your character you are free to go. There are plenty of things wrong with NV but linearity is not one of them.
To the OP Fallout 3 made a bigger impression on me because it was the first 360 game, and first Bethesda game I ever played but I think New Vegas is a better game objectively. Better story, better characters, funnier and closer to the original games (or what I have played of them).
Fallout 3. I love both, but I never really clicked as well with New Vegas. I still haven't completed everything in New Vegas, but I wrung every tiny bit of content out of Fallout 3. I just think the destroyed Washington DC was a more interesting setting for me personally. I also enjoyed a lot of the story beats more. New Vegas is fantastic, don't get me wrong, it just didn't have as much of an impact on me as a player.