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

I'm sorry but Fallout 3 was just such a big experience for me.....

New Vegas just felt like it's slight improvement. And I wasn't really impressed but I was happy to experience another Fallout game.

Something close to what Borderlands: The Pre Sequel is to Borderlands 2.

Except New Vegas has better writing going for it.

Lets refute.

1. New Vegas was not first with this tone. That would be the first game for a town and much of the second. The town of Redding definitely had the cowboy atmosphere in Fallout 2.

2. Wrong. Its not U shaped whatsoever. You can go from Goodsprings directly to Vegas. But New Vegas is not afraid to throw enemies that are too powerful for your level and equipment. Bethesda is afraid of doing this.

3. Caesars have some good weapons, and they are better at hand to hand combat, and actually do outnumber NCR in manpower. And NCR DID win against the Legion in the backstory, you need to pay attention to things. They were surprised at how well equipped NCR were.

4. Yes it was. You also can explore Vaults in New Vegas, one being an irradiated deathtrap and another being full of plants from Fallout 2.

5. But the world is far worse written than the one in New vegas.

Fallout 3 looked like Bethesda did not know how to make a proper Fallout game, especially having a war torn setting that looked like the bombs recently hit when the game was set AFTER the first two Fallouts.

I found fallout 3 story borring and the map was very linear, new vegas had far better dialogues and choices and map.

For me, that is why I liked New Vegas more. It was trudging through the deserts of the Mojave Wasteland, but it was awesome to pick a direction and just see what you could find. New Vegas always has a city to come across, or a large building, or something that you could discover.

Fallout 3 had that as well, but since the DC area was more populated and in the back-story more built up, coming across an abandoned building was not as special.

I don't know how to describe it, but New Vegas encouraged you to just pick a direction and go. It felt like you were exploring a vast area, and it felt special when you came across something like an abandoned head quarters of a company or even a small gas station.

I played New Vegas first, so I tend to favor it over 3. I loved the Mojave Wasteland, the factions, and the feel of the southwest. I loved having a vast area to explore with no idea on what you would discover.

I played 3 and while I enjoyed it, the DC wasteland just did not draw me in like the Mojave Wasteland did.

Fallout 3. That game was a true experience of what a RPG in a post apocalyptic setting should be. From the first moments (I chose to go straight for Butch and end his ass) and stepping outside the Vault, having no damn clue where to go.

To your first Super Mutant encounter and getting your ass handed to you. (using a bb gun)

Embracing Megaton as your home. (or blowing it up)

and getting your first kick ass V.A.T.S. kill.

New Vegas was more like an expansion to me. Great but more of the same. Don't mention Pittsburgh though.

@Maroxad said:

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

This is why working on a real-world-open-world game is still my dream. I would have loved to be the guy who went out and took complicated measurements of the real-life areas for use in modeling them in the game. I wonder what that was like.

The FO3 vs FNV has gotten old.

I just want a FO4 announcement soon.

FO3 for me

I voted for Fallout 3 because the setting for Vegas sucked. If it was set in a different area that wasn't riddled full of sand and such I would easily pick it.

Just turn the color off in Skyrim and imagine the sword is a gun.

There, saved you $80.

I like Obsidian with their own projects as Pillars of Eternity but they are terrible with others jobs: Neverwinter Nights 2 was much better in single player but more complicated in multi (that kills NWN saga which is focused on multiplayer). Dungeon Siege 3 was a casual console game with nothing in common with 1 & 2 (I know that was a request from Square Enix but here they are). And Fallout NV was a very superior RPG but looks crowded of people that has nothing in common with the loneliness of Fallout 3, so, another game broken (I know that NV has more in common with 1 & 2 but come on, is a mod of Fallout 3, if I liked Fallout 3 why should I liked the crowded NV?). Fallout 1 & 2 excellent isometric RPGs (today we have Wasteland 2!), Fallout 3 excellent immersive ARPG, but FONV a strange attempt to mix RPG with ARPG in a complete change of environment, no thanks.

NV by miles. It is the actual sequel to the originals in terms of story and atmosphere. Ironically FO3 felt like the spin off.

It has better story, characters, rpg features, more weapons, dlc, etc.

F03 Was a pure abortion in comparison.

I also find it funny those voting for fo3 are newer noob gamers who never played the originals.

They're both good, but New Vegas was unquestionably more fun. Fallout 3's ending felt bland and anticlimactic.

New Vegas easily, 3 was just soooooo bland. Everything. The characters, the weapons, the interiors, the dialogue. Take away the main Liam Neeson storyline and the nuke fight in the beginning and the game is a 5/10.

New Vegas felt real, the quests were varied, the characters felt like they had life and a purpose, the dog companion was ultra super cool. Just so many good things about New Vegas and so few with 3. And then there's the fact that so many quests had completely different outcomes.

3 its just soooooo linear you only get one or two real choices and even then, you nuke a town and it still feels uneventful and linear.

New Vegas hands down. I can't think of anything Fallout 3 does better than New Vegas

The biggest thing for me in Bethesda games is the exploration factor.

And Fallout 3 smacks the dogshit out of New Vegas in that area.

Wandering around a post-apocalyptic D.C. was a helluva lot more fun and interesting for me than wandering around a barren fucking desert where you're fighting radscorpions, geckos and ants the majority of the time.

New Vegas. I found Fallout 3 to be quit boring after playing for awhile. Obsidian just did a much better job than Bethesda did.

New Vegas has actually better exploration. Because you get rewarded for your efforts.

Bethesda really doesn't like to reward you considering level scaling.

And outside DC, Fallout 3's atmosphere is a bore.

Fallout 3 is no different, sure it had the iconic landmarks but The Capital Wasteland was just as a barren probably even more so than The Mojave Desert. And the repetitive mandatory metro tunnels aren't helping your point either.

Because the outskirts of DC weren't a fucking pointless desert?

What do you mean exactly?

The bottom line to me is that D.C. was just a helluva lot more fun to explore. The Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, Little Lamplight, Fort Bannister, McClellan house, etc.

There really wasn't shit to explore in New Vegas. Outside of the Strip and Freeside...it was just a barren desert with the occasional small settlement or abandoned gas station scattered throughout.

And D.C. had way more of an apocalyptic tone to it. New Vegas just seemed like a regular desert until you come across a 5 foot ant.

I think we've been over this already a bit ago.

And this is exactly why these threads make me angry.

People who praise FO3 always seem to be incapable of processing the information that their senses give them.

Oh lord, console gamers...why:

Let's just get this straight...

I don't care if NV's tone or setting had more in common with the first two Fallout games

I don't care if Fallout 3 didn't have "hardcore" RPG elements

I don't care if there weren't as many "grey area" choices

I don't care if Fallout 3 didn't have level scaling (You're supposed to be the baddest motherfucker in the wastes, you SHOULD be able to take care of most enemies with ease after a certain time)

To me, Fallout 3 was just a more interesting and well...fun experience.

The only thing I liked better about New Vegas was how they included iron sights on the guns and the NPC's were a bit more interesting.

@R10nu: Okay so people are saying there is more to explore in Fallout 3 compared to New Vegas and so you show them a list of quests. Right. Good job.

Must admit I didn't get in to New Vegas at all. Part of that was the desert world. I'm sure I could have got more out of it but I didn't and that's that.

Dat necro thread.

But NV>Fallout 3

New Vegas by a mile

Fallout 3 was great and some of the locals cant be beat by any game. Real memorable setting with caves that had lil nuances like a skeleton next to a journal that really sets a mood.

But Vegas shines in almost everything else except the settings. Putting a wasteland in a desert doesnt pop like a wasteland capital D.C., but it has more quests, better story and dialogue, more true role playing options and builds, more guns mods/ ammo mods, better factions. It wasnt until my second journey into the Mojave that I realized FONV was the better game... but heck they are both fantastic.

I voted Fallout 3, mainly because I only played the X360 version. NV performed horribly(probably still) in a staggering amount of ways on X360, F3 runs great on it. All Obsidian did was copy Bethesda's and a few other games ideas, while coming up with Hardcore mode(great addition) IMO. Fallout 3 also had a better story and more interesting/variety of locations. I think Bethesda deserves alot more credit on the series. Reliable multiplatform performance should clue you in to who is the overall better developer ;p.

Damn, so all the vaults, factories, caves, camps and bunkers I went to must have been a very detailed figment of my imagination.

And it makes total sense for DC to look like the bombs just dropped, even though it's set 200 or so years after the war, right?

Curious why you to thought the story was even good let alone better than New Vegas.

Why did you bump an old thread?

And New Vegas destroys Fallout 3.

New Vegas if you want a good RPG.

Fallout 3 if you want a bad video game.

I meant stories. Which include a fun to experience and unique introduction vs you exist now, here is a question mark, please be exited until the "suprise"(very obvious). The side stories where more satisfying to me also. Do you need an essay on why I feel that way?

As a matter of fact yes. Your criticism has no weigh you assert things without backing them up with legitimate arguments. You have to explain why you find the story to be better or more exciting other than just stating "this is better", "this has better writing than the other"

FO3 for me, I couldnt get through Vegs

Only crazy people think you can legitimize an opinion.

The Fallout 3 story fails on so many fronts it would indeed take an essay to just list what aspects it fails on.

NOTHING in the main story makes the minimal amount of sense. You break free of the vault to look for your father, who wants to activate a water purifier and distribute clean water through the Potomac...except everyone else on the wasteland has managed to scrape by for the last 200 hundred years (yes, 200 years, that's a long, really LONG fucking time to survive with no clean water) without the need for it. Why the **** would I want to activate it now? And why does the Enclave, whose military base is like 10 minutes away from it on foot, suddenly decide to invade it when they could've done it decades earlier?

The setting is even worse. 200 hundred years ago we barely started scratching the surface of electricity, men wore powdered wigs, monarchies had just begun their decline, America had just finished kicking the arses of the englishmen who acted as their overlords, the fastest travel method we had was by horse. In short, again, it's a LONG ASS TIME. Yet in Fallout 3 the entire wasteland acts as if the nuclear war ended a week earlier. Which would've made more sense actually, considering it'd be pretty hard to explain how you can still healthily eat 200 hundred years old boxed food.

Ugh, I'll just stop here because merely analyzing Fallout 3 makes my stomach turn. How can anyone think it to be better than NV's story is inconceivable.

Look at it again......many UNMARKED QUESTS,.......these result from exploration of the game world.

@texasgoldrush: But it doesn't tell the full story that you wished it did. Not at all.

Which, when compared with the amount of nonsense present in Fallout 3, seems like an actually pretty good compromise

@N30F3N1X: People are saying they preferred the world, that it felt more to them. A list of quests doesn't do it.

New Vegas has better content. I finally got around to proceeding further in that 4 hours and it's the same gameplay as F3, but with better writing and quests; it's ugly as sin no matter what you do to it oo lol.

The first thime you get to Nipton... Damn... NCR and BoS are far from perfecet factions, but I don't think I'm a friend of Caesar.

So the world of FO3 is "alive" solely due to level geometry?

So in other words you got nothing. It's funny how people cower behind by stating it's just their opinion when it's clear that they can't back up their claim with strong points. That's when you know they're full of shit.

Aside from The Pitt, I can't remember anything I liked about FO3. It was my first Fallout game so I didn't know what to expect. Played through New Vegas and the DLCs recently and loved (almost) every part of it. Shame they had to use Bethesda's crappy engine and cut it back for consoles.

I've played through it five times now, and I could never bring myself to side with the Legion. I don't think I can enter that level of bad =P