Fallout 3 or New Vegas, which one is better?

I have a pretty good idea of what the result will look like, but let's see.

I like Fallout 3 more.

Enduring the glitches in NV, I found it to not only improve on the gameplay mechanics from FO3, but also better choices, storyline, quest design, characters, atmosphere, etc.

I don't really have any glitch issues with New Vegas on PC so I don't know what you guys are talking about... While I liked Fallout 3, New Vegas is better.

New Vegas. There was more to see and do, the choices had more consequences (the reputation system was awesome), and the world actually felt dangerous. I liked fighting Deathclaws that were capable of killing things again.

Hardcore mode was an awesome bonus too.

new vegas was bigger and better in most ways. I loved both games though, both are worth playing.

Fallout New Vegas improved on Fallout 3 in every way possible in a game. The writing is better, the gameplay is better, and it feels more like a Fallout game.

Fallout 3 is a steaming pile of crap. Fallout: New Vegas takes the untapped potential of that dull game and crafts one of the best experiences of this gen.

New Vegas was much better for me. I thought New Vegas had much better writing and characters.

Fallout: New Vegas felt like a true successor to the original Fallout & Fallout 2 in comparison to Bethesda's Fallout 3.

New Vegas and it's not even close.

I believe Fallout 3 was far superior to Fallout New Vegas.

The Western/warring factions thing just didn't work for me...

Didnt anybody notice how bland & repetitive F3s world was, with the exact same textures & designs. F3 only consisted of 2 interior designs that were copied & pasted1000 times. Those building with the white, dirty, cracked, paint or you ended up with the half cave/metal sheeted walls. There was just no variety.

F3 story was crap. Finding your dad, having everybody deny you information on your dads where abouts unless you ( a innocent, helpless kid ) goes out into the wasteland & battles many foes in order to do them a job. It was stupid. Also filtering radiation from water is actually very simple. The story was very flawed

FNV improved in every way. There were more variety in the actual world itself, more variety in the interior design, quests, personailties. The choices, the writing, the dialogue, the quests, the gameplay. All of it was better. There was also 40% more dialogue. It was also more true to the originals.

The only people to say F3 was better is people who had their 1st experience into Fallout with F3. Even my 1st time with the franchise was with F3 & i am one of the few that isnt blinded by nostalgia. New Vegas made Fallout 3 look amatuer at best. NV was a completely superior game wether the 1st timers want to admit it or not.

F3 story was crap. Finding your dad, having everybody deny you information on your dads where abouts unless you ( a innocent, helpless kid ) goes out into the wasteland & battles many foes in order to do them a job. It was stupid. Also filtering radiation from water is actually very simple. The story was very flawed

brucecambell

Not to mention that the game's main quest involved purifying water, taking down a mutant-engineering facility, getting exiled from your Vault...and also locating a GECK, and stopping the Enclave from wiping out all life in the wasteland...

...which were the plots of the first two games. There's a fine line between a homage, and just completely reusing older stories, and Bethesda fell off that line about half-way through the game.

Fallout 3 was vastly superior in my opinion. New Vegas seemed like they took all the ideas that weren't good enough to make it into Fallout 3 and made a game out of them.

Fallout 3 seemed like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. New Vegas seemed like a rundown slum. The story in Fallout 3 was somewhat interesting, while in New Vegas - I get to decide who gains control of a handful of casinos? Why on earth would I care? And the whole benefit of this is that one group will be able to make money in the years after the game is finished, so I don't even see any actual benefit as a player? In Fallout 3 I could side with the Brotherhood of Steel, who were some really cool, nice people (with awesome weapons and armor) and I really wanted to join them. In new Vegas I didn't want to side with anyone. You've got a computer, or a group of psycho cannibals, or some NCR troops who's leaders are a bunch of a-holes. Oh and it's got 4 endings - I played through all four and three of them ended with identical battles! I mean, are you freakin' kidding me?

And the sidequests in Fallout 3 wers SOOOOO much more interesting. I bet over 80% of the sidequests in New Vegas just involved going to the opposite end of the map and talking to someone. Then go waaaaaay over to the other corner of the map and talk to someone else. Then do that a couple more times, return to the quest-giver and receive your caps. In Fallout 3 you were meeting interesting, sympathetic characters, learning about the situation they found themselves in, you wanted to help them. And helping them took you to interesting places where you did interesting things.

New Vegas was nothing but milking the cash cow. Oh and it wasn't even playable at launch lol. That's how much time and effort was put into it. What did it take them, six months to finally come out with the mega-patch to actually "finish" the game? Six months after launch?!?!

And the only new environments in NV were the casinos and Hoover Dam. Other than that, every single solitary place you went into was recycled straight out of Fallout 3. I can't count how many times I chuckled after entering a building and noticing exactly which Fallout 3 building I was in, just slightly rearranged.

I liked FO3 better, it was dark and moody, NV was too happy.

I played 1 and 2.

NV had more writing, but FO3 had more interesting characters and environments.

NV was boring as sin. I hate NCR. I hate legion. Mr House was interesting but I prefer to be an independent and not aligned with any armies.

FO3 was more for a gypsy/wanderer/survivor.

NV was more for someone who wants to join the army and follow orders.

And what is up with having no automatic rifles until late in the game? Apparently there's no AK47's in Nevada.

Fallout NV... no contest:cool:

I liked FO3 better, it was dark and moody, NV was too happy.

I played 1 and 2.

NV was more for someone who wants to join the army and follow orders.

ZombieKiller7

FO3 has better side quests while NV has the better main quest/story.

NV was dull and seemed like there was less to do, like there where more locations but a majority of them had nothing to do once you got there plus the strip was very underwhelming, Fallout 3 was better in my opinion, better beginning, going through parts of your life living in the vault then the first time you stepped out into the world gave me chills and 3 by far had the better soundtrack and atmosphere.

Yep, us F3 guys are the minority it seems, but I still hope to see a "true F3 sequel". Heck, it doesn't even need to be called Fallout as far as I'm concerned, just as long as it offers the same kind of experience.

Fallout 3 is better.

The results of the poll so far don't surprise me at all....especially in relation to the preference of New Vegas for those who actually played the original games and are familiar with the great atmosphere of the original series.

Which was the better game may be up for debate....but, like someone else said in this thread, New Vegas is the better Fallout game.

Both games are very bugged. some weeks ago I just surrended to F NV because in last mission I had a bug and I couldnt pass one road.... I had problems with statistics(guns and energetic weapons I had on 0 lvl... dunno why all the time), problems with reputation, problems with companions(I was in house casino and Cass with EDE started to fight each other without any reason... ede died I was like WTF:D), and lot more minor bugs. F3 in other hand had problems with stability.

BOth games have a lot of copy paste textures, caves and places. It might look like a big world but it isnt.... Its a problem of other similar games like Morrowind and Oblivion.

If I would have a choose then.... it doesnt matter at all. F3 and FNV are very similar. They have amazing quests, great atmosphere and are very open. You choose several options to solve te problems and quests.

New Vegas seemed like they took all the ideas that weren't good enough to make it into Fallout 3 and made a game out of them.Jackc8

That's actually kind of unintentionally accurate. Sort of. New Vegas was at least partly based on concepts that were going to be in the original Fallout 3, before Bethesda bought up the franchise and decided to make their own game...apparently without having played any of the earlier games in the series.

"Fallout 3 seemed like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. New Vegas seemed like a rundown slum."

I don't really agree - Fallout 3 felt like a silly post-apocalyptic themepark, in which nobody could actually live. It certainly didn't feel like society was struggling to rebuild itself hundreds of years after the War, which is what every other Fallout game has been about; instead we just had a range of silly theme towns.

Meanwhile, New Vegas had a wasteland and a host of believable towns. Actual farms! Things like that. It may not have been as glamorous, but its crappy, run-down frontier towns fit the setting perfectly.

"The story in Fallout 3 was somewhat interesting, while in New Vegas - I get to decide who gains control of a handful of casinos? Why on earth would I care?"

It was more about determining the fate of the NCR in the Nevada region. You know, the faction we've been nuturing (or undermining) in every other Fallout game?

Meanwhile, why should we care about the DC region, or the Lone Wanderer's dad? Water purification was old hat by that point in the series (as were supermutant facilities, the enclave, and the GECK - they'd all been done before), and the latter was just a forced emotional plot point.

"In Fallout 3 I could side with the Brotherhood of Steel, who were some really cool, nice people (with awesome weapons and armor) and I really wanted to join them"

You could join them in the other games. They're complete bastards who wouldn't raise a finger to help those in need, but they have nice armour (because that's pretty much all they care about - sitting in bunkers, preserving whatever technology they can find).

"Oh and it's got 4 endings - I played through all four and three of them ended with identical battles! I mean, are you freakin' kidding me?"

As opposed to Fallout 3's two endings...one of which made absolutely no sense? I mean, what was the point of throwing in a sacrifice option, when the previous quest had involved getting a party member who was immune to radiation?

"In Fallout 3 you were meeting interesting, sympathetic characters, learning about the situation they found themselves in, you wanted to help them. And helping them took you to interesting places where you did interesting things."

Then again, Fallout 3 only had something like 15 sidequests, scattered across 15 towns. I'm sure NV had at least that many good quests, and then another 40 more.

"New Vegas was nothing but milking the cash cow."

Fallout 3 was nothing but a shameless cash-in on the series. New Vegas was an actual sequel to Fallout 1 and 2.

"Oh and it wasn't even playable at launch lol. That's how much time and effort was put into it."

Are we talking about the same game, on PC? Fallout 3 was far more unstable than New Vegas at launch. Like, it's not even close - F3 would crash every 15 minutes, and New Vegas was mostly fine.

"I can't count how many times I chuckled after entering a building and noticing exactly which Fallout 3 building I was in, just slightly rearranged."

Funny thing is, Fallout 2 looked identical to Fallout 1, yet offered a much deeper and richer experience (not to mention a hell of a lot more content).

I like to think of New Vegas in the same way, only the difference between F3 and NV is much wider than the difference between F1 and F2.

Anyway, if it wasn't clear, New Vegas was the vastly superior Fallout game. I'd say that F3 was the worst in the series - not that it was bad, but it has very strong competition.

Fallout 3 was vastly superior in my opinion. New Vegas seemed like they took all the ideas that weren't good enough to make it into Fallout 3 and made a game out of them.

Fallout 3 seemed like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. New Vegas seemed like a rundown slum. The story in Fallout 3 was somewhat interesting, while in New Vegas - I get to decide who gains control of a handful of casinos? Why on earth would I care? And the whole benefit of this is that one group will be able to make money in the years after the game is finished, so I don't even see any actual benefit as a player? In Fallout 3 I could side with the Brotherhood of Steel, who were some really cool, nice people (with awesome weapons and armor) and I really wanted to join them. In new Vegas I didn't want to side with anyone. You've got a computer, or a group of psycho cannibals, or some NCR troops who's leaders are a bunch of a-holes. Oh and it's got 4 endings - I played through all four and three of them ended with identical battles! I mean, are you freakin' kidding me?

And the sidequests in Fallout 3 wers SOOOOO much more interesting. I bet over 80% of the sidequests in New Vegas just involved going to the opposite end of the map and talking to someone. Then go waaaaaay over to the other corner of the map and talk to someone else. Then do that a couple more times, return to the quest-giver and receive your caps. In Fallout 3 you were meeting interesting, sympathetic characters, learning about the situation they found themselves in, you wanted to help them. And helping them took you to interesting places where you did interesting things.

New Vegas was nothing but milking the cash cow. Oh and it wasn't even playable at launch lol. That's how much time and effort was put into it. What did it take them, six months to finally come out with the mega-patch to actually "finish" the game? Six months after launch?!?!

And the only new environments in NV were the casinos and Hoover Dam. Other than that, every single solitary place you went into was recycled straight out of Fallout 3. I can't count how many times I chuckled after entering a building and noticing exactly which Fallout 3 building I was in, just slightly rearranged.

Jackc8

I beg to differ.

If you know Fallout lore, FO3 was "East Coast Fallout" and NV was "West Coast Fallout."

This lore was deliniated in FO Tactics, when they explained that BOS found an airship, travelled to the east in search of tech, they crashed and lost contact with the West Coast brotherhood, and became 2 seperate organizations.

They are both part of the fallout universe.

West coast fallout is based on the 80's game "Wasteland" centered around Arizona/Nevada Rangers.

East coast fallout is based on FO Tactics centered around Brotherhood of Steel.

West coast is more country/western.

East coast is more jazz/beebop.

West coast is about overreaching government.

East coast is about lack of government.

West coast is more happy, uplifting, inspirational.

East coast is more gritty, dark, survival.

2 different flavors of the same franchise, they are both classic Fallout all the way.

FO1 was closer to FO3.

FO2 was closer to FO:NV.

If anything NV broke with Fallout lore a little bit, as it was the first game where the goal isn't water. No water chip, no GECK, no project purity.

I like Fallout 3 more.

Vari3ty

Same here.

Fallut NV was better imo. The style is a little more gritty, and captures the retro vibe they're going for better than 3.
Plus you don't have to listen to 3-Dog Awwwwooooo! I liked everything better about NV. The story, the characters, the artistic choices all destroy 3.

Plus you don't have to listen to 3-Dog Awwwwooooo!

Conjuration

New Vegas was superior to Fallout 3 in all aspects but the soundtrack.

I would say that on console i would get FO3, but on pc i would get NV.

If you know Fallout lore, FO3 was "East Coast Fallout" and NV was "West Coast Fallout."

This lore was deliniated in FO Tactics, when they explained that BOS found an airship, travelled to the east in search of tech, they crashed and lost contact with the West Coast brotherhood, and became 2 seperate organizations.

They are both part of the fallout universe.

West coast fallout is based on the 80's game "Wasteland" centered around Arizona/Nevada Rangers.

East coast fallout is based on FO Tactics centered around Brotherhood of Steel.

West coast is more country/western.

East coast is more jazz/beebop.

West coast is about overreaching government.

East coast is about lack of government.

West coast is more happy, uplifting, inspirational.

East coast is more gritty, dark, survival.

2 different flavors of the same franchise, they are both classic Fallout all the way.

FO1 was closer to FO3.

FO2 was closer to FO:NV.

If anything NV broke with Fallout lore a little bit, as it was the first game where the goal isn't water. No water chip, no GECK, no project purity.

ZombieKiller7

I'm not interested in participating in the poll, but I personally think New Vegas is a better game. Complete and utter player freedom with no limitations... and I liked the gritty setting and the focus on massive handguns in Vegas as well.