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

LOL I love you

NV craps over FO3 so hard you'd think actual persons made NV first and then their toddlers accidentally stumbled on the GECK, started messing around with it, and released FO3 without telling their parents.

Fallout NV was much better. Also, what's up with the DoF in that last pic? It's horrible.

I like the location and metro tunnels in fallout 3, but new vegas is better in everything, mods too. I don't think the plots for both games are remarkable even though new vegas has the better writing/acting.

New Vegas, but I played Fallout 3 a whole lot more though. I guess I got burnt out on the series after 3.

Now I'm waiting for 4. My burn out ended 2 or so years ago lol. I guess I could try my hand at New Vegas again.

I just want Fallout 4.. :-(

New Vegas was IMO the best RPG of last gen. Your usually morally grey decisions actually had an impact on the world.

For those of you complaining about bugs keep this in mind; with FO3 Bethesda gave themselves a 3 year development time. They gave Obsidian a hard deadline of 1.5 years.

3 > 1.5

That is why it was so buggy at launch (FO3 was pretty damn buggy at launch too), and some questlines weren't fully fleshed out. The Legion being the most prominent.

Fallout 3

@commander: Fallout 3's story wasn't "more original."

Bethesda basically just recycled the stories from the first two games, took out all of the charm and wit from the dialogue, then inserted a father figure macguffin.

Honestly, it's as if a ton of Fallout fans haven't played half of the games in the franchise!

Didn't get to nuke a town in NV so I voted for Fallout 3 :)

I loved Fallout 3, spent so many countless hours, locked away in my room like a gargoyle, playing that game...lol When Fallout: New Vegas came out, I tried playing it, but couldn't get into it too much, was distracted with other games, but I know I made it up to the casino; I remember. Never really played it again, I did hear that New Vegas was more empty in terms of buildings and exploration than Fallout 3? Anyways, reading through this topic, it seems I should give Fallout: New Vegas a second go...lol

that doesn't even matter because i never played fallout 1 & 2, I don't play 2d games, so to me and a lot of others, the story is more original than new vegas

And objectively you would still be incorrect.

You're entitled to an opinion about enjoying one game or wanting to play one game more than the others. Not necessarily entitled to an opinion that comes off ignorance.

that still doesn't matter, most people haven't played the 2d version simply because it's old and/or that it uses old technology. It's exactly the reason why the op didn't mention 1 & 2.

It's like saying a king kong movie hasn't got an original story because they already made one, completely ignoring the fact that most people skip the older ones because it's in black & white and with stop motion tech, yet you call me ignorant lmao

loved the story of fall out 3 more. It felt more like the end of the world and just had a more focused story. New vegas gave you many choices, but it always felt like it was trying to push th NCR down your throat.

i sided with Caesar and the game kept trying to show me how great NCR was.

The issue @commander is that many "fallout 1+2" fans hate on 3 simply because the game changed. It happens: Resident Evil 4, DMC: Devil May Cry, hell even from TES:III Morrowind to Skyrim. They are both great games. Preferences only separate them. NV was only better in many older fans eyes simply because of Obsidian. Of course I'm not saying change is always good either (RE5+6) but that there's too many unjust hate simply because there is change.

I get the feeling that people voted for NV because of the added iron sights, its really hard to choose for me. Nonetheless I am patiently waiting for Fallout 4. My most anticipated game of this gen.

They haven't. And I wouldn't call them Fallout fans either.

Was playing Fallout 2 last night and it had me cracking up. Don't think Fallout 3s writing even brought a hint of a smile to my face, it was so bad. As if it was written by preschoolers, lol.

I can actually see how the kiddies can relate to it better.

It isn't change, it's simply that the established lore was ignored/butchered to various degrees.

Hence, changed. The issue is that the lore (or lack thereof from FO1+2) was changed from what you were comfortable with. As it's own entity rather than a continuation, I didn't see an issues with lore in 3 nor with NV. It was just different like I said from my original post. I can understand the loathing from change however, don't get me wrong. I've not enjoyed a Final Fantasy for quite some time and not looking to 15's boyband.

New Vegas is better in EVERY conceivable way. People who say otherwise aren't Fall Out Fans and definitely don't understand what good game design is.

Not a big fan of Fallout, but i think i enjoyed New Vegas more than 3

I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. I thought NV had better writing, quests, and shooting. I preferred Fallout 3's story and setting. I played Fallout 3 first, of course, and NV felt pretty much the same, so I didn't find it as "epic".

Wrong.

Many Fallout 1 and 2 fans actually like it because its the actual sequel to those games, unlike Fallout 3. Notice that some characters such as Marcus and Dr Henry are from FO2, and Cass is the daughter of a Fallout 2 party member.

Fallout New Vegas has a better setting. People forget that writing is part of setting and New Vegas has a far better, more realized world than Fallout 3, which puts crap together for coolness factor.

Which regardless of all that, still wouldn't make him wrong that Fallout 3's plot isn't original, it's taking all its cues from the first two games.

And uh yeah if they made a new king kong you could knock it for being unoriginal if it was taking its plot from an old ass king kong movie or just up and decided to ape Godzilla vs Mothra. So yes you would continue to be ignorant towards this, you're trying to argue against a fact mate.

And it still doesn't matter because it's not about if it's original or not, it's about what me and other people think if it's original or not.

maybe the game is too old, I mean I think it was one of the best games i've ever played but I played that back in 2008. When I started playing I played everyday for three weeks till I finished it. I'm thining a lot about replaying it lately though especailly when I see screenshots like that because I played fallout 3 on a x360 and an old tube .

I enjoyed Fallout 3 more. I don't think I ever got over the disappointment of visiting the strip for the first time in NV.

Vegas had much less linear quest designs as well as much better secrets. I've played through both twice and would gladly go play New Vegas again whereas Fallout 3 would be a chore to play again. I'm sure there are tons of things in New Vegas I missed out on.

"comfortable with"?

Pardon me, but what the **** is the point of making a game called Fallout when there's barely anything Fallout in it? Might aswell call A Song of Ice and Fire like Tolkien's Lord of the Rings because there's the medieval setting, men bitching at eachother and "something evil".

Although I like NV and think the dialogue is better written I prefer Fallout 3. The location and music is far more to my taste.

Fallout New Vegas. Fallout 3 felt like a bad parody of the Fallout franchise.

And Fallout 1 is better than Fallout 2 :)

Fallout: New Vegas is among the finest RPGs to come in the past decade. The core game is packed with so many interesting quests which present a variety of weighty moral choices. The relationships you develop with certain characters and/or factions can both lead to restrictions and new opportunities for the player. Each level up for your character matters because of the emphasis on stat allocation. The dialogue and context behind the writing is undeniably strong and plays a part in making the Mojave is a highly dynamic setting.

Fallout 3 has none of this. Beyond its initial impression, it's quick to see it's an incredibly hollow, poorly written game with a fascinating setting.

Both are great, but New Vegas borders on being a masterpiece, while Fallout 3 is very enjoyable.

Nothing fallout about it? You basically just made my point. That you simply hate it because it's different. why couldn't it be? Like how Michael Keaton's Batman film was crap simply because Joker killed Batman's parents? Or you can even point to the Batman Begins being stupid simply because Chill killed Bruce's parents because you love the 1987 Batman. How the the Dark Knight's Joker giving totally different vibes than Jack Nicholson's? Why not just dress Batman up with a hood and Joker with mask and call it The Dark Hood vs Mask Man right? Who really trained Batman for combat? Bethesda created Fallout 3, a new Dev. New devs, new visions, new interpretations. Case in point with the Batman films.

@texasgoldrush: I'm not even going to bother. You're right I'm wrong. There you go.

New Vegas blows 3 out of the water. It's is the best Bethesda published RPG since Morrowind and Fallout 3 is the worst.

When you completely miss the point, of the various factions and themes. You might not be qualified to make a game using that IP. And Bethesda, quite clearly, were not capable of understanding what the inner workings of the universe and the context of everything. Its almost like if they just checked the wikipedia articles on the first 2 games, and based their knowledge on that. And what they did add was just extremely stupid, like vampires or "I'm looking for my father, middle aged man, have you seen him?"

Again, new devs, new interpretation. An example, Batman 89 vs Dark Knight was truly different considering they are of the same IP and both featured Batman and Joker. Funny how this one thing can cause so much unwarranted hate. Now, if 3 really did suck a la RE6 (or Batman and Robin), then yes the hate would be warranted. Let me ask you this, if FO3 was named "Apocalyptic DC" instead of Fallout 3, would that make the game any better or worse? The answer is no. It would still play the exact same way with the exact same characters. If NV was named Fallout 3, would that make the game any better? No. As I have said before, it's a matter of preference which is better. Now, if you really are saying a name change would fix all the issues, then I have no counter-argument to that. I concede as I did to texasgoldrush. Most old Fallout fan will like NV more because of Obsidian's revert changes, but there's no need for such hate towards 3 simply because their interpretation was different but of course, the interpretation, that there lies the problem correct?

Ok, I will write my rant on New Vegas and why I think F3 is better:

1. This stupid cowboy atmosphere. NV doesn't feel apocalyptic at all, but as a western with automatic and laser rifles, that is, it sucks. If I wanted a Western, I would play one.

2. The world of NV is U shaped - you go to the bottom of the map, do a U turn and then go up till reaching NV. In F3, you could go wherever you wanted from the start.

3. This stupid faction, Caesars. I mean come on, NCR armed with automatic rifles can't win a war against dudes armed with spears and swords ? Really ? In F3, it was a war against mutants and the enclave; there was a destroyed DC, the white house, the city of gouhls, slavers, a robot convinced to be a George Washington, and other Falloutish crazy stuff like that. What does NV have ? Stupid Caesar legions and casinos theme. Boring as f*ck.

4. The vault topic is never raised in NV, when every Fallout game was about that. In F3, you actually had an opportunity to explore a bunch of abandoned vaults.

5. Leaving the vault in F3 for the first time and having 360 degree freedom was one of the best gaming experience ever

In the end, F3 felt like a world really torn by war. NV felt like a sci-fi Western. And yes, it's a bad thing. I hate westerns with a few exceptions like Jango Unchained

Fallout 3 for me but man I loved both games sooooo much. Never got into any of the DLC tho.

If the game was named post apocalyptic DC, the game would not be a travesty on Fallout lore. However, the game would still be just as badly written. New interpretion is still a godawful excuse, especially since the new interpretion is kinda awful.

And it is more than just the writing that is bad, the RPG elements are pitiful. It is possible to max every skill and attribute without cheating. Considering the time difference between the nukes dropping, and the time the game takes place, the setting they went for didnt make a lot of sense either.

To me they are equally good and complementary. Skyrim for example was very different from Oblivion. Maybe not too different, but you can draw more distinctions from those two games. I liked the story/characters, and atmosphere better in Fallout 3, and I enjoyed the game play tweaks and writing of New Vegas Better. But overall these Fallout games are similar enough for someone to enjoy both.

Which would make you and other people objectively incorrect and ignorant.

Again you're entitled to enjoying something mate, out right denying a fact? that you're not entitled to. That makes you an idiot.

Honestly, you might just have said.

"Fallout 3 is the first Fallout game I played, and thus introduced me to all these concepts." At least that way you would not have made a factually incorrect statement. And not wanting to play the previous because they are 2d is a terrible excuse. Fallout 1 and 2 look better than Fallout 3 does today, and part of the reason is superior artstyle and lack of sewage filter on the screen.

'fallout 1 & 2 look better than fallout 3 does today'

@commander said:

@Maroxad said:

@commander said:

And it still doesn't matter because it's not about if it's original or not, it's about what me and other people think if it's original or not.

Honestly, you might just have said.

"Fallout 3 is the first Fallout game I played, and thus introduced me to all these concepts." At least that way you would not have made a factually incorrect statement. And not wanting to play the previous because they are 2d is a terrible excuse. Fallout 1 and 2 look better than Fallout 3 does today, and part of the reason is superior artstyle and lack of sewage filter on the screen.

'fallout 1 & 2 look better than fallout 3 does today'

Ever heard of a thing called artstyle?

Potato faces and sewage filter made Fallout 3 the first game I uninstalled because of its hideous visuals (though the writing and poorly thought out broken gameplay also contributed heavily). There is a hell lot more to visuals than technical graphics.

Fallout 3 isn't just a bad Fallout game. It is a bad game... period.

Fallout New Vegas just got even more impressive. For more see, http://imgur.com/a/6lFKI