Fallout 3 or New Vegas? - Which game is better?

New Vegas. The setting and DLC components beat the shit out of Fallout 3.

Fallout 3. only thing New Vegas does better is the writing

NV was Fallout 3 but much better and with way more quests. anyone saying Fallout 3, hasn't played NV because NV was superior in every way possible (except couple of quests were superior to any quests in NV but there was so little quests in Fallout 3 that they better be 'superior').

I like the story of New Vegas more.

So NV.

New vegas

New Vegas is a lot better.

Fallout 3 had a much better atmosphere, but that could be the novelty as New Vegas was more of what we already knew. But I loved exploring Washington DC area compared to the Mojave area. New Vegas had better writing though, better quests, and better overall gameplay (better factions, variety, enemies). Overall, I would much rather played New Vegas because it offers the best well rounded experience, but Fallout 3 remains high on my list because the setting is so ace.

Fantastic timing. I was about to replay Fallout 3.

Anyway, the answer is obvious: New Vegas. Writing, Quests, Factions, Choices, Storyline that changes with your decisions, more weapons. Fallout 3 is still good in it's own right and has great atmosphere, setting, and three dog.

Fallout NV is a lot better. Better setting and writing, it's more free-form in terms of decisions you can make and how they effect the different factions. It's just more complex with more going on.

And the first screenshot is from New Vegas, not Fallout 3. I've played New Vegas 10 times at least and can totally recognize that road.

No, this road was remaked in Fallout 3 :)

Oh, I see.

Which one do I want it to "look like"? Easy, Fallout 3.

I agree that NV had better writing (though tbh its a turd competition there). But with Fallout 3 we got an excellent and atmospheric wasteland jam packed with neat places to explore and capped off with an awesome rendition of post-apocalyptic downtown DC that still impresses. With NV we got a comparatively bland and empty desert (to be fair, that's what we would expect) leading up to a Vegas strip composed of four completely generic Casinos walled off in twos with no resemblance to the actual strip at all. One of the biggest Womp Womp moments of last gen.

Fallout 3... Better characters, better moments, better setting... Great dlc.

Optimistically, "Fallout: New Vegas".

New Vegas but I prefer the DC setting more.

I think NV was the better overall game, but I did enjoy the atmosphere and setting more in Fallout 3. Combine those 2 elements and Fallout 4 should be amazeballs.

both are great but i liked 3 better. NV did fix some annoying stuff from 3 though

I liked both but FONV was much better. Very few games are day one purchase for me but Fallout 4 would qualify without a doubt and I would like it to look like either 3 or NV and play like, well, a really good Fallout game.

New Vegas by a long shot, better story, better characters, better dialogue, factions, DLC was better, more replay value and it actually felt like a Fallout game, unlike Fallout 3.

The only aspect Fallout 3 did better imo, was the radio stations, everything else New Vegas did much better.

Bethesda sucks so NV wins by default.

New Vegas just seems more memorable to me.

Fallout New Vegas, it's an actual rpg for starters. The game structure is more satisfying since the stat allocations have a genuine impact on your build as well as what content you can and can not see, the factions are all well done, the writing blows Bethesda out of the water in comparison. Fallout 3 is a shallow theme park that's built to take advantage of the fact that gamers are ocd and compulsive. Fallout New Vegas is a legitimately rich role playing experience that goes to hell and back to overcome Fallout 3's bullshit game engine and lame combat, and for the most part does overcome all that to be a terrific game.

Fallout 1 and 2.

Agreed. I went into NV after it had been out a while. I read much about how it was teh bettorz than poopy Fallsout 3. Man was I let down. Its a good game, but give me a fuckin break.

Congrats you've set the bar of stupid shit I've read from you higher.

This must be a joke. Fallout 3 was Oblivion with a Fallout skin. It captured nothing of what made Fallout "Fallout".

if dont agree, you're wrong. its that simple and there's nothing you can do about it, Mr Wrong.

I liked fallout 3 atmosphere and characters.

NV by a mile,

-Better RPG components (weapon grouping, etc) and Quests.

-Better story, atmosphere, characters - Felt like an actual Fallout game.

-An actual faction system, with real multiple endings.

-Better open environment (FO3 too many walls/blocked paths in the middle).

-Better/More DLC

Vegas was arguably closer than Wasteland 2 was well.

Agree with all that except maybe the open environment (FO3's copious rubble walls were complete BS but at least I didn't hit actual invisible walls like in NV). The faction system alone should elevate NV above FO"3"; Bethesda couldn't even be bothered to allow the player to join the "evil" side (another BS move, making Brotherhood and Enclave Good vs Evil.). Lets also not forget the awful writing ("Have you seen my dad? Middle aged guy.")

Either one worth playing on console?

Without mods Bethesda titles are not worth playing.

Fallout 3. For me, it had a better story and atmosphere. Leaving the vault for the first time was one of the most shocking moments in gaming ever. NV had a better RPG and balance though.

Why? Didn't you see the games name, history, promos, trailer or back of the box?

I mean in F3 and seeing the world for the first time. It was huge. the NV world was just a U shape

Fallout 2 is the best game in the series, and New Vegas felt like a follow-up to that, so New Vegas easily wins.

Fallout 3 made it clear that Bethesda has no understanding of the franchise.

I'm not sure if you are specifically taking about the games opening or the game as a whole. Personally, I preferred Vegas wide empty environments, to me that feels more like it has scale. It also helps the game feel more like a Western, which Fallout is, much in the same manner (regardless of setting) Robocop is.

I found fallout NV to be kinda meh - i had trouble following the story, and sometimes i didnt know what the hell i was supposed to be doing. I also found the location kinda boring. I should really replay it but my comp is deaaaaaaad.

Fallout 3, I like the atmosphere much better. Plus, I liked the radio stations picked up on by the PIP-Boy better, and they changed depending on the exploits of the gameplay.

Though, that being said, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with Bethesda making another Fallout game after the way they handled Skyrim shitty quest system.

Fallout 3. It had a better world, better characters, and a much better atmosphere. I found New Vegas extremely boring.

Like everything else in the game, it was modeled around the 1950's. The Vegas Strip only had three or four casinos at the time and wasn't very big at all.

Depends on what you want. Fallout 3 if you want better shock aftermath atmosphere: Exploring DC was like exploring the aftermath of the world's end and the world is still trying to adjust to it but haven't accepted it. Very uncivilized. New Vegas if you want better characters and factions: the world has adjusted and accepted the end--they are moving forward with what there is. Personally I prefer FO3. I wasn't a fan of the end of the world as we know it feeling like it's no big deal because humans have already adjusted.

Whatever the case, I don't think comparing the two is truly fair. One came out before the other. Obviously the newest one would have some improvements over the older one.

New Vegas for me. Storyline, writing, quest's, environment, characters were all better imo.

Fallout 3 is shit. New Vegas is the best RPG of last gen.

The "atmosphere"? Atmosphere don't make the game compelling for more than 2 hours.

@cdragon_88: Sure, but Fallout 2 is vastly better than Fallout 3, so age isn't too much of a negative factor.

Also, what you described is one of Fallout 3's buggest problems - it feels like the bombs only dropped two years ago, rather than two centuries ago.

By the end of the second game, we'd basically unified the rebuilt cities of California under a single banner, had taught the world how to make helicopters again, and had dabbled in space flight.

Then Fallout 3, which is set decades later, uses this weird 'scavenging in bins for food' setting, which doesn't fit the franchise.

I personally liked fallout 3 better because of the story and quests. Fallout new vegas improves on a lot of stuff but it is and stays a sequel. A very good one though but the quests in fallout 3 are simply more original and so is the story. Still New vegas is an amazing game but fallout 3 was simply the best game of last gen.