Fallout 3 vs Fallout New Vegas

After playing New Vegas on and off for a few weeks I much prefer this game to Fallout 3.

- The story is much better.

- The villians are better.

- Weapon vareity.

- Gun modifications.

- Better side quests.

- Lots of options with quests.

- Rex.

The only thing I see better about Fallout 3 is the actual wasteland. It's much darker and more fun to explore. The atmosphere was very good.

Before I started New Vegas I was warned it was one of the buggiest games, riddled with quest breaking bugs.

Haven't encountered a single one yet and I am nearly done.

Fallout New Vegas is much much better, only thing I liked more in F3 was the radio stations.

New Vegas was much much more enjoyable, just point blank MORE FUN. So much so that I beat it 7 times and could only stomach F3 once.

FO3 was garbage IMO, but it did have some nice locations to visit that were pretty atmospheric. NV was definitely better, but after so much FO3 playing and modding i got really sick of the crappy game engine and clunky combat that I couldn't finish NV.

I liked NV too.... I've yet to play the DLCs though...

Are there any mods out now that take Skyrims animations and replaces the horrid default animations?

As an 'explorer' I still prefer Fallout 3 GOTY edition, and enjoyed the last stages of the main quest more. I think my enjoyment of Fallout 3 is also somewhat boosted by the many references to 50's era SF/Monster movies, which I love.

New Vegas brought a lot of great tweaks and changes to the table, including better writing, as you've outlined. The moddable guns, aiming down sights, etc., were nice additions, and I did like the companions more.

But I did unfortunatley play the buggy 'release' version of the game, and suffered from game freezing/crashing on both PC and X360, which marred my enjoyment somewhat. The game was patched, so it's a lot more stable now. I also did not like the last levels of the main quest very much.

The Nevada wasteland was a bit too empty for me, and some of the side quests didn't feel finished, or lacked that little bit extra - but in fairness this was also a fault of FO3. There were times when I was shouting at the screen - why didn't you make me go 'there' and open up that area to make it more interesting? I could see 'lost opportunities' if you will. I guess they were limited by resources.

This won't prevent me from getting FNV: Ultimate Edition, though, as I want to explore the additional areas and quests.

On a side note, the Vaults were some of my favourite areas to explore in both games. Both developers did a great job there in terms of atmosphere and back-stories.

Both are great, but if you haven't played eith then New Vegas wins out now, especially on PC.

Since I played a ton of Fallout 3 and sadly got a terribly optimized New Vegas for PS3, I'm not too enthusiastic. It feels like "more" Fallout 3 with a few changes and better writing, and is at least 10x buggier on the PS3, so while I vastly prefer Fallout 3, if you HAVE to play only one, and have access to a gaming PC and are playing it after its been patched to hell, then New Vegas.

As an 'explorer' I still prefer Fallout 3 GOTY edition, and enjoyed the last stages of the main quest more. I think my enjoyment of Fallout 3 is also somewhat boosted by the many references to 50's era SF/Monster movies, which I love.

New Vegas brought a lot of great tweaks and changes to the table, including better writing, as you've outlined. The moddable guns, aiming down sights, etc., were nice additions, and I did like the companions more.

But I did unfortunatley play the buggy 'release' version of the game, and suffered from game freezing/crashing on both PC and X360, which marred my enjoyment somewhat. The game was patched, so it's a lot more stable now. I also did not like the last levels of the main quest very much.

The Nevada wasteland was a bit too empty for me, and some of the side quests didn't feel finished, or lacked that little bit extra - but in fairness this was also a fault of FO3. There were times when I was shouting at the screen - why didn't you make me go 'there' and open up that area to make it more interesting? I could see 'lost opportunities' if you will. I guess they were limited by resources.

This won't prevent me from getting FNV: Ultimate Edition, though, as I want to explore the additional areas and quests.

On a side note, the Vaults were some of my favourite areas to explore in both games. Both developers did a great job there in terms of atmosphere and back-stories.

RobertBowen

Also this summarized my feelings on the game a bit more then my own post.

Right now i am using cheats and forcing myself to play Fallout 3 just for the story while Fallout NV is my favorite RPG this generation.

[deleted]

Same with me, I was forcing myself to not only finish Fallout3 but I tried to force myself numerous tiems to play/beat it a second time but just got very bored.

Where as New Vegas I beat 7 times and FR3 I could only stomach beating once.

New Vegas was better in every way except setting. I liked DC a lot because I lived there, so I can recognize a lot of the places.

Oh yeah and the DLC is better in New Vegas imo.

Old World Blues especially is probably my fav DLC of any game, my favorite dialogue since Planscape Torment.

New Vegas is the better game technically, but you know what? I absolutely can't stand it, the simple fact that Fallout 3 has a better atmosphere and amazing radio stations, makes it by far the better, way more enjoyable, game.

FNV, but that is on the very strong notion of forgiving the bugs.

FNV, but that is on the very strong notion of forgiving the bugs.

DoomZaW

as I said I have not encountered a single bug.

Maybe when it came out it was buggy. I bought it 2 months ago.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

FNV, but that is on the very strong notion of forgiving the bugs.

jakes456

as I said I have not encountered a single bug.

Maybe when it came out it was buggy. I bought it 2 months ago.

FO:3 made me want to jab pencils in my neck. My loathing for that game cannot be overstated. It dumps all over the Fallout name and lore. New Vegas, while it may not the Fallout sequel of my dreams, really did restore some of the damage Bethesda did to the series. New Vegas felt like a Fallout game, the writing was WAY better, and it was simply a better RPG on every level. My biggest criticism of the game is that it's simply too easy and there's still way too much handholding.

As far as being buggy, New Vegas only crashed once (FO:3 crashed a lot more) and I didn't experience any more bugs than I have in other games of similar scope. New Vegas is one of my favorite mainstream RPG of the past 5 or so years, and other than total crap like Dragon Age 2, FO:3 is one of my least favorite.

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

FNV, but that is on the very strong notion of forgiving the bugs.

jakes456

as I said I have not encountered a single bug.

Maybe when it came out it was buggy. I bought it 2 months ago.

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

FNV, but that is on the very strong notion of forgiving the bugs.

DanielDust

as I said I have not encountered a single bug.

Maybe when it came out it was buggy. I bought it 2 months ago.

it runs fine on my computer.

[QUOTE="jakes456"]

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

FNV, but that is on the very strong notion of forgiving the bugs.

DanielDust

as I said I have not encountered a single bug.

Maybe when it came out it was buggy. I bought it 2 months ago.

I've had the opposite experience. The release version froze/crashed regularly for me - although admittedly I was playing for hours at a time. Since the patches, it's been much more stable for me, as long as I don't use mods.

[QUOTE="DanielDust"][QUOTE="jakes456"]

as I said I have not encountered a single bug.

Maybe when it came out it was buggy. I bought it 2 months ago.

RobertBowen

I've had the opposite experience. The release version froze/crashed regularly for me - although admittedly I was playing for hours at a time. Since the patches, it's been much more stable for me, as long as I don't use mods.

New Vegas is easily the better game. The characters have a lot of depth, the world is packed with stuff, the story is really well done, there is plenty of meaningful C&C and it doesn't sell the real ending as DLC.

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

SPYDER0416

I really didn't have any bugs except for the ones associated with the Gamebryo engine, which were present in F3 as well. And really your comment about NV being more like a small mod you're either not being honest you haven't really played much of it.

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

SPYDER0416

I had more crashes in F3 then I did New Vegas, so no crashing wasnt a HUGE issue for me in New Vegas.

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better".

SPYDER0416

Almost nobody in this thread has said that.

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

kozzy1234

I had more crashes in F3 then I did New Vegas, so no crashing wasnt a HUGE issue for me in New Vegas.

FO:3 made me want to jab pencils in my neck. My loathing for that game cannot be overstated. It dumps all over the Fallout name and lore. New Vegas, while it may not the Fallout sequel of my dreams, really did restore some of the damage Bethesda did to the series. New Vegas felt like a Fallout game, the writing was WAY better, and it was simply a better RPG on every level. My biggest criticism of the game is that it's simply too easy and there's still way too much handholding.

As far as being buggy, New Vegas only crashed once (FO:3 crashed a lot more) and I didn't experience any more bugs than I have in other games of similar scope. New Vegas is one of my favorite mainstream RPG of the past 5 or so years, and other than total crap like Dragon Age 2, FO:3 is one of my least favorite.

-wildflower-

What was a HUGE problem for me though was in F3 how boring and uninsteresting the story, dialogue, questing and characters were. Not to mention it felt nothing like a fallout game.

Again, 30+ hours into New Vegas no bugs.

So maybe it depends if you played it at launch day or the past year or so.

Where as New Vegas I beat 7 times...kozzy1234

Have you tried playing it with this:http://www.falloutwiki.com/JSawyer

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

Gooeykat

I really didn't have any bugs except for the ones associated with the Gamebryo engine, which were present in F3 as well. And really your comment about NV being more like a small mod you're either not being honest you haven't really played much of it.

So because I have criticism for the game I either haven't played it or am not honest?

I already mentioned that I enjoy it and I'm a big Fallout fan, I'm not saying I hated it, I'm just saying I MUCH preferred Fallout 3 and that New Vegas just felt like more, better written Fallout 3 with more bugs. Not a bad thing, but it was disappointing to me.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

SPYDER0416

I really didn't have any bugs except for the ones associated with the Gamebryo engine, which were present in F3 as well. And really your comment about NV being more like a small mod you're either not being honest you haven't really played much of it.

So because I have criticism for the game I either haven't played it or am not honest?

I already mentioned that I enjoy it and I'm a big Fallout fan, I'm not saying I hated it, I'm just saying I MUCH preferred Fallout 3 and that New Vegas just felt like more, better written Fallout 3 with more bugs. Not a bad thing, but it was disappointing to me.

[QUOTE="Gooeykat"]

[QUOTE="SPYDER0416"]

Its weird people going "oh if you forgive the bugs, NV is way better". I mean, it is one of the few problems the game has, but is a HUGE problem. Its like ignoring the giant cyst on someone's forehead when judging their beauty and calling them a ten.

Plus I honestly didn't care for the setting as much (it was MUCH smaller and less interesting then DC to me), and just felt like someone gave Fallout 3 a small mod overhaul in what changes it made to gameplay. I loved it, but still I vastly prefer FO3.

SPYDER0416

I really didn't have any bugs except for the ones associated with the Gamebryo engine, which were present in F3 as well. And really your comment about NV being more like a small mod you're either not being honest you haven't really played much of it.

So because I have criticism for the game I either haven't played it or am not honest?

I already mentioned that I enjoy it and I'm a big Fallout fan, I'm not saying I hated it, I'm just saying I MUCH preferred Fallout 3 and that New Vegas just felt like more, better written Fallout 3 with more bugs. Not a bad thing, but it was disappointing to me.

Edit, okay I see now you were specifically addressing gameplay. Which I would agree, the gameplay wasn't much different. However, content wise it was as big or bigger than F3.

Fallout New Vegas is a vastly superior game in just about every way possible.

Both are my favourite games.. but Fallout New Vegas looks better than Fallout 3.

I got nearly 30 hours of enjoyment out of FO3. Haven't played it for awhile though. Lost interest I guess. I may pick up NV GOTY when it has a reasonable price.

Both games are fun,but Fallout New Vegas has the edge here. F3 is great but just the weapon variety and the enemy variety doesn't live up to expectations. With New Vegas, you have a great amount of weapons,enemies,different story parts(endings),and almost a better story. F3 in my opinion, has the best story. F3 also has a better setting. Now about the dlcs. Fallout New Vegas's DLCS are pure fun and challenge. I wish I could get GOTY for F3 so I could give an opinion on their DLCS. I hope this helped to any people wondering which Fallout to get! GamesElite

This thread is from April, do you realize that?

Do any new users bother realizing how incredibly old threads are before pointlessly bumping them?

Personally I like NV more. Sure, it could use a higher density of important locations but because of that lack, it gives a nice atmosphere of the mojave desert, what always is going to bug me is why they oversized Hoover Dam and underzised Las Vegas. But I guess they had to.

Necroed thread. But, for stay in topic, I prefer New Vegas over 3.

I like how New Vegas has different factions that are neither good or evil, mod weapons, companions, story and characters.

FO3 and NV combined are not even a quarter the game FO2 was.

FO3 and NV combined are not even a quarter the game FO2 was.

Socijalisticka

[QUOTE="Socijalisticka"]

FO3 and NV combined are not even a quarter the game FO2 was.

Toxic-Seahorse