• 50 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) 1 year, 4 months ago

Poll: Fallout 3 Vs Fallout New Vegas (43 votes)

Fallout 3 63%
Fallout New Vegas 37%

What one is better?

#1 Edited by QueenCorp15 (1035 posts) - - Show Bio

Loved both but i thought 3 was better

#2 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio
#3 Posted by SheenLantern (6860 posts) - - Show Bio

Fallout 3, spite.

Bethesda > Obsidian.

#4 Edited by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio
#5 Posted by Jdd895 (22 posts) - - Show Bio

I found Vegas too easy. Caps were much easier to get and getting rich so easily kind of "broke" the game for me. I found the backdrop of Washington to be much more exciting to explore.

#6 Edited by RDClip (1165 posts) - - Show Bio

FO3 was better. The additions in NV were nice, but FO3 had a better world and main story, IMO.

#7 Posted by SheenLantern (6860 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous said:

@sheenlantern: Is Vegas bad or is 3 just better?

3 is just better.

If 3 had never existed and New Vegas had nothing to be compared to, I would say it was excellent.

#8 Posted by spinningbirdcake (1430 posts) - - Show Bio

@rdclip said:

FO3 was better. The additions in NV were nice, but FO3 had a better world and main story, IMO.

To each their own man, but I don't think it's possible for me to disagree with you more. FO3 maybe had the better gameplay, perks etc. but the overall world and story of New Vegas I thought was fantastic with the factions and all that. Plus it just felt like a proper sequel to Fallout 2.

#9 Posted by LimpoyzLoan (1646 posts) - - Show Bio

I honestly thought Vegas was better. The story was just a little more interesting and it allowed you to have more free will in what you wanted to do. In FO3, you're just kind of forced to find your dad. In Vegas, it allows you to have more diversity in what you wanted to do. Join Mr. House, join Caesar's Legion, join the NCR. You could pretty much decide how the story goes. Mind you, the story in FO3 was NOT bad at all. It just kind of reduced your decisions in how you wanted to go. As for the main character, I thought the Courier had more personality. I kind of thought of the Wanderer as a whiny teenager. Courier was just more relatable IMO.

#11 Posted by SheenLantern (6860 posts) - - Show Bio

@sheenlantern said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

@sheenlantern: Is Vegas bad or is 3 just better?

3 is just better.

If 3 had never existed and New Vegas had nothing to be compared to, I would say it was excellent.

If fallout 2 didn't exist fallout 3 wouldn't have either...

I think you've completely, 100% entirely missed my point.

#12 Posted by GreenArrow4924 (29 posts) - - Show Bio

My two favorite games! I liked the environment, story, and dlc in New Vegas better.

#13 Edited by XImpossibruX (5183 posts) - - Show Bio

Man both were amazing games.

However I have to go with Fallout New Vegas, mostly because you had badass Boone and could end the game as you wanted to.

In Fallout 3 even if you were evil, you still had to pair up with the good guys. However in Fallout New Vegas, you could decide between Good, Evil, Neutral, or Anarchy. Different endings, depending on your alliances and karma. Also the Fallout New Vegas' backstory is amazing, the characters were more deep and likable, and House and Legion were great side-characters.

In terms of DLC, Fallout 3 takes it, and I really liked the variety of quests.

Can't wait for the next one.

#14 Posted by BadVoodoo (381 posts) - - Show Bio

Ok guys im a vet at the Fallout- Bethesda forums. Heres some common knowledge so you guys know.

Bethesda somewhat screwed Obsidian with the New Vegas contract. Obsidian orginally wanted to make the world bigger and add more legionary quest, but they had a deadline to meet. Obsidian had half the time Bethesda when making fallout. Because of this the game became known as a bug mess. Obsidian also didn't have time to add to the strip "it was orginally suppose to be 2/3 the size of the imperial city from obilivon" But they ran out of time.

Its best to compare DLC if you actually want the best possible estimate since both sides had the same amount of time when making DLC.

Generally people who like Fallout 3 more like it because it had a better landscape, people who liked New Vegas like it because it felt more like an RPG (Role playing game) and not a Bethesda styled Oblivion with guns.

I personally love Fallout: NV, it had a superior storyline and better character depth. Though i'd admit i liked the Captial Wasteland better then the Mojave. NV felt like an RPG, while 3 i just felt like a white knight badass shooting the enclave badasses. If you value RPGs you would most likely prefer NV, if you like exploring and beautiful landscapes then you would probably prefer 3.

I honestly wished Bethesda would let Obsidian write out the plot and design the characters while they worked on the animations and landscapes and weapons.

#15 Posted by Chaos Prime (10857 posts) - - Show Bio

FO3 for me.Did enjoy NV to start with but after awhile i just thought dam this isnt anywhere as good as FO3.

#16 Edited by BadVoodoo (381 posts) - - Show Bio

@sheenlantern said:

@badvoodoo said:

@sheenlantern said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

@sheenlantern: Is Vegas bad or is 3 just better?

3 is just better.

If 3 had never existed and New Vegas had nothing to be compared to, I would say it was excellent.

If fallout 2 didn't exist fallout 3 wouldn't have either...

I think you've completely, 100% entirely missed my point.

I was actually just deleting my comment. I re-read your comment after i made that sizable post above me. My fault man.

#17 Posted by Bruxae (14008 posts) - - Show Bio

Fallout 3 by a longshot, Obsidian ruins everything they touch.

#18 Posted by GraniteSoldier (8589 posts) - - Show Bio

Both games are excellent. I actually enjoyed the DLCs for NV much more, but I found the games main story to be better and more immersive in Fallout 3. Plus I thought DC was much more haunting and well constructed than Vegas was. Still, two excellent games.

#19 Posted by Pwok21 (2459 posts) - - Show Bio

I enjoyed New Vegas more than 3, so I voted for that one.

#20 Posted by JM3D (24 posts) - - Show Bio

Fallout 3.

The problem with Vegas is that while it likes to appear as an open world, go-anywhere game, it really isn't designed that way. In fact, the story progression is quite a straight line. The wasteland is crowded with creatures that are too powerful for you at lower levels unless you follow a very specific path. Then, once you get to the main area of the game (Vegas), you're forced to to chores to even get inside. And then when you do get inside, everything just sort of falls apart. The missions become unorganized, overwhelming, and sometimes flat-out broken and directionless (White Glove Society). Also the strip just feels...empty and lifeless, something you would expect from a Fallout game, only here it isn't supposed to be. The whole game hypes up this place before you get there only to arrive somewhere very underwhelming. The main quest also eventually forces you into taking sides, something that's off-putting in a role-playing game centered around making decisions your character would make.

I love the world of New Vegas in general because I'm a sucker for anything post-apocalyptic, but it had a weak story and linear progression, and MAN was it just an especially buggy mess. The only better thing about New Vegas was aiming down sights. That was pretty cool.

That, and I also felt like New Vegas suffered the Bioshock 2 problem of just not feeling fresh like the original, or in this case Fallout 3, and just sort of tiring out the concept. Even if the game is good in itself, we've recently seen it before and seen it done better.

Also Fallout 3 had better DLC. There's that.

#21 Posted by i_like_swords (16506 posts) - - Show Bio

Actually spent quite a bit more time playing New Vegas, and I liked the DLC better than 3's.

However, 3 is the superior game by quite a big margin. The overall feel of the game is so much more post-apocalyptic than New Vegas. In Fallout 3 you have a constant survival instinct, knowing any kind of mutated animal or super mutant can pop out, as well as bandits, and there's the real risk of radiation poisoning. Walking through destroyed Washington DC was much more invigorating than walking through the New Vegas strip, or anywhere else for that matter.

In Fallout New Vegas, you really had to make the effort to find excitement. You got the odd insect on the road and the occasional "viper" gang, but aside from that there really isn't much to contend with out in the wild.

I also preferred the characters in Fallout 3. Not sure why. Perhaps down to better scripting/more unique characters.

Followers and supporting cast were much better. When I think of Fallout 3 I think of Fawkes, Charon, Jericho and DOG MEAT.
When I think of New Vegas I think of Boone.. ED-E.. Cass.. Veronica.. Ron.. not that great to be honest. The only exceptional follower from New Vegas at a push was Lilly but even then Fawkes is much more interesting than her. Oh, infact, Arcade Gannon was actually very cool. He was one of the few human followers who I found interesting to have travel with me, and his side quest is awesome. However, one guy isn't tipping the scale..

As for supporting cast.. you have Dad, Sarah and Elder Lyons, and likely more characters I can't remember.

In New Vegas you really have none. They did a poor job in this department, because they made far too much of the NPC interaction with robots. Yes Man, Mr House, Victor, even ED-E. The human supporting cast for the NCR and Caesars legion consisted of Caesar and his goon Lupin (or something) who are really blunt and not that interesting, and the NCR general guy.. who again, is a typical army-man who isn't great to converse with. I'll give New Vegas one thing, some of the factions were cool, but in terms of main characters and NPC interaction, they dropped the ball.

My vote - Fallout 3

Online
#22 Posted by _Zombie_ (10462 posts) - - Show Bio

3. New Vegas has considerably improved gameplay, but it falls short so badly in story that 3 is far better.

#23 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4165 posts) - - Show Bio

There were parts of them I liked and parts I didn't so I can't really pick just one.

I liked the story a little more in 3, I liked the mods in NV, I loved the weapon schematics in 3, I enjoyed using the iron sights in NV, the DLC to me is a push with a slight edge to NV for the fact that they tied into the main game a bit with Ulysses being the common factor. The environments go to 3 the ruins of DC and Pittsburgh were awesome, although would love to have traveled more of the Burgh.

#24 Posted by Reignmaker (2235 posts) - - Show Bio

Never played a fallout game before. 1 & 2 are on my laptop waiting for me to give them a try.

#25 Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy (8048 posts) - - Show Bio

Both are great games, but Fallout 3 is the better one.

My character is always name Dishonest Abe, and I go to the Museum of History and get the Lincoln Repeater and Lincolns Hat then become a slaver at Paradise Falls.

Ahhh, good times.

'Get your ass to Paradise Falls before your head f*cking blows up!'

#26 Posted by TheTrueBarryAllen (5849 posts) - - Show Bio

All in all Fallout 3 had the better story, better characters, and better setting.

That being said I really appreciated the improvement of the Mechanics in New Vegas, it wasn't a bad game I just will always remember leaving Vault 101 for the first time whereas leaving Goodsprings was just kind of like... meh.

#27 Posted by FearTheLiving (3859 posts) - - Show Bio

New Vegas. It's more of a sequel to the previous Fallouts than 3, had tons of depth to the quests and dialogue, the writing was overall better (without roping you into set choices), and the DLC was better. Fallout 3 was good, but it just shoehorned a lot of stuff from the Fallout lore with very minor reasoning. Also they force you into the role of a 19 year old which was a bit off putting, for most games it's fine but an open world RPG like Fallout I didn't care for it.

So it's an easy choice to make.

#28 Posted by BadVoodoo (381 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't get how people are saying the story and characters of fallout 3 where better then new vegas. Do this for me, get a timer, time the conversations between the important NPCs for both games and see which one has more dialog. (spoiler: its new vegas)

As for story New Vegas doesn't force you down the righteous path, you actually have a say so on which faction you fallow, and you can follow the faction that best fits your ideals. You actually have to think in Fallout:New Vegas, I'n FO3 you don't have to think, you just do. Hell In FO3 you don't even have a choice, your a white knight no matter what you do (unless you count blowing up megaton for no freakin reason what so ever). Not even mentioning the ass load of plot holes in Fallout 3. HELL Todd Howards even admitted fallout 3 sacrificed story "just so you could have a cool laser gun", he actually said that.

#29 Edited by CaptainDoeo (789 posts) - - Show Bio
#30 Posted by i_like_swords (16506 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: What about Three-Dawg?!

Yeah I remembered I forgot to include him earlier today! Best character in the whole game. Yes, even better than you, Dad.

Online
#31 Posted by CaptainDoeo (789 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: It's pretty hard to be cooler than Liam Neeson, but Three Dawg does it. However, what the hell was up with Con. Autumn? He just shows up, kills your dad, and then you kill him. That was it.

I also feel like I am the only one who liked Mayor Maccready.

#32 Posted by i_like_swords (16506 posts) - - Show Bio

@i_like_swords: It's pretty hard to be cooler than Liam Neeson, but Three Dawg does it. However, what the hell was up with Con. Autumn? He just shows up, kills your dad, and then you kill him. That was it.

I also feel like I am the only one who liked Mayor Maccready.

Colonel Autumn was an asshole, I'll give you that. Cold blooded motherf...

I hate that little sh!t and every other child in the Fallout-verse..

Online
#33 Edited by JM3D (24 posts) - - Show Bio

@badvoodoo: More dialogue =/= better story.

Also, expressing your views through the views of other factions doesn't always work. What if your views don't align with any of them? Well, that's unfortunate for you as a first-person role-player, because it's heavily impressed on you to do so in New Vegas. Or maybe it isn't, but it certainly felt like it to me. I felt much more free in 3.

#34 Edited by BadVoodoo (381 posts) - - Show Bio

@jm3d said:

@badvoodoo:

More dialogue =/= better story.

Also, expressing your views through the views of other factions doesn't always work. What if your views don't align with any of them?

You have Indpendant Vegas / You ruling Vegas, That faction that is based on YOUR views. So it does work.

Well, that's unfortunate for you as a first-person role-player, because it's heavily impressed on you to do so in New Vegas. Or maybe it isn't, but it certainly felt like it to me. I felt much more free in 3.

Yea you seem really cool about it and i do appreciate that. Just a heads up im not bashing you or trying to bash you, i'm just tell you why i dislike fallout 3 compared to New Vegas.

More dialogue =/= better story. Technically your right. But the only thing going for Obsidian is their writing skills. Thats what their known for. You can actually go on for 15 minutes talking to Father Elijah, Caesar and Ulysses about their ideals and backgrounds. It adds so much to the story and lore, Obsidian does a great job filling in the "how did that happen", and "why are you doing this" questions which fallout 3 somewhat lacked.

The thing that annoyed me in FO3 is the lack of free choice. Well i take that back, fallout didn't lack free choices, New Vegas just had more of and made them more creative. i'll give an example

And the thing about these quest is they have more variety then Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas actual has quality and quantity. For example.

(SPOILERS)

Lets take the more Non Liner DLC in new Vegas and Compare it to the least likeable DLC of New Vegas, Honest Hearts.

Fallout 3:The Pit

  • Option 1: Let the Slaves take over and run The Pitt
  • Option 2: Let Ashur continue his regime

Those are your only two options. There really isn't much room in between.

Fallout New Vegas: Honest Hearts

  • Option 1: Save the Sorrows innocences by evacuating
  • Option 1a: Decide weather or not you want to save the refugees
  • Option 1b: Decide if revenge is worth endangering the dead horses
  • Option 2: Kill The White Legs
  • Option 2a: Let Joshua Gram lose his humanity by letting him execute the chieftain.
  • Option 2b: Save Joshua Grams soul by convincing him to letting the chieftain go.
  • Option 2c: Inbetwen A and B, Get revenge but at the same time save Joshua Grams soul by killing the chieftain yourself.

Lets do one more

Fallout: 3 (Trouble at Big Town), this is the more non liner quest i could find.

  • Option 1: Save Red or Don't
  • Option 2: Save Big Town or Don't
  • Option 2a: Decide how you want to save Big Town
  • Option 3: Decide weather or not you want to sell Red off to slavery

Fallout: New Vegas (Beyond the Beef)

Fallout: New Vegas has far more executions for doing quest. And this is why i love it. And lastly about the story. THIS IS AN ACTUAL QUOTE FROM TODD HOWARD, THE DEVELOPER OF FALLOUT: 3

"Violence is funny, lets all just own up to it. Violence done well is fucken hilarious! If its Itchy and Scratchy or Jackass Now thats funny"

Heres a quote from the producer of Fallout 1

This is what fallout is all about, not having a better plasma gun... Obsidian actually worked on Fallout 1, they get what fallout is about. People who claim their a fan and hate FO: New Vegas are full of it. You can't like one song off an album and say your a fan of the band.

#35 Posted by Bogey (952 posts) - - Show Bio

Whichever one was less buggy for the PS3..wait they both crashed consistently so they were equal.

#36 Edited by BadVoodoo (381 posts) - - Show Bio

@bogey said:

Whichever one was less buggy for the PS3..wait they both crashed consistently so they were equal.

Then buy them on the Xbox / PC lol

Oh and its been over 2 freakin years, THE BUGS ARE ALL PATCH FOR BOTH GAMES!

#37 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio

So by the looks of the poll you guys are saying I should get Fallout 3?

#38 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

FO3 for me.Did enjoy NV to start with but after awhile i just thought dam this isnt anywhere as good as FO3.

haha I get it

#40 Edited by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

For me it is Fallout 3 which is the better of the 2. Sure some things are better in New Vegas... using your iron sights, better mechanics, joinable factions. Fallout 3 had a way better setting and the main quest was more interesting (maybe because you feel a connection to your father because he is motha f***** Liam Neeson).

I also found the side quest more enjoyable in F3 stealing Bill of Rights, hypnotizing people into being slaves, taking over the Lincoln Memorial.

F3 was also more challenging early on it felt more difficult to find ammo and bottlecaps. In New Vegas I probably had enough caps to buy the entire mojave from everyone.... HOWEVER fallout 3 was never stupidly frustrating like FNV (CAZADORES)

#41 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio

@badvoodoo: I cant decided what to get, F3 is winning the poll but your making a good argument for NV

#42 Posted by Chaos Prime (10857 posts) - - Show Bio

So by the looks of the poll you guys are saying I should get Fallout 3?

Get both ;)

#43 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous said:

So by the looks of the poll you guys are saying I should get Fallout 3?

Get both ;)

Hmm I could but thats money

#44 Posted by SheenLantern (6860 posts) - - Show Bio
#45 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio
#46 Edited by BadVoodoo (381 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous said:

@badvoodoo: I cant decided what to get, F3 is winning the poll but your making a good argument for NV

Before you look any deeper to what iv said keep in mind I only made those points because people kept saying F3 had a better story / quest. New Vegas has the better story hands down... I mean read the comment VercingetorixTheGreat made

"maybe because you feel a connection to your father because he is motha f***** Liam Neeson" He likes the fallout 3 story just because he can pretend Liam Neeson is his dad.

It really depends on what you want in a video game.

Fallout 3 feats

  • Better exploration
  • Better dungeons
  • Better intro
  • A better apocalyptic feel "because the capital wasteland cant get their shit together"

Fallout New Vegas feats

  • Better role playing / writing
  • Better plot / ending
  • Better Looking Guns
  • More memorable characters and better character dept
  • Its Newer

Being straight up.

If your a casual gamer, most likely you'll enjoy Fallout 3 better. If your a gamer who enjoys Role Playing games, and i stress ROLE PLAYING then you'll enjoy New Vegas. Now i'll admit, the landscape for new vegas isn't as cool as fallout 3,

Fallout 3 Landscape

.

Fallout New Vegas Landscape

about this pic don't let the ugly dirt fool you, there are some ugly spots in FO3 as well.

As you can tell The Mojave (New Vegas) is desert, the capital wasteland (3) is the ruins of DC. You'll spend more time exploring the landscape in FO3 and have fun searching every little detail. Same with New Vegas but to a lesser extent. The Mojave is more tamed and has more civilizations in it, while DC is struggling with water.

Bethesda caters to the Casual gamer / Explorer, Obsidian caters to the Role Player / Story seeker. There are more casual gamers then Role players so thats why the poll favors FO3. I'm not bashing any gamer, its just preference. Most people don't like to listen to lines of dialog and just want to shoot stuff, thats fine, because fallout 3 will cater that need just like how fonv will cater the whys and hows.

It depends on you. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are two completely different games. If you have a question i'll answer it for you but as of now id suggest New Vegas, only because its newer. But truly its up to you.

#47 Posted by SheenLantern (6860 posts) - - Show Bio

@sheenlantern said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

@chaos_prime said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

So by the looks of the poll you guys are saying I should get Fallout 3?

Get both ;)

Hmm I could but thats money

Pirate both.

No I'm not down with pirating

Well buy one, then pirate the other, if you weren't able to buy it anyway then how has anyone lost any money?

If you're going to get either, get Fallout 3. On the PC.

Don't bother getting either if it's for a console.

#48 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (34280 posts) - - Show Bio

@jonny_anonymous said:

@sheenlantern said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

@chaos_prime said:

@jonny_anonymous said:

So by the looks of the poll you guys are saying I should get Fallout 3?

Get both ;)

Hmm I could but thats money

Pirate both.

No I'm not down with pirating

Well buy one, then pirate the other, if you weren't able to buy it anyway then how has anyone lost any money?

If you're going to get either, get Fallout 3. On the PC.

Don't bother getting either if it's for a console.

No I'll just wait till I have more cash

#49 Posted by LimpoyzLoan (1646 posts) - - Show Bio
#50 Posted by Gambit474 (1485 posts) - - Show Bio

Here's my interests and differences between the two. I'd pick 3 but storywise I enjoyed 3 more. 3 had some better characters imo,though yes NV did have some interesting personalities,but nothing beat having an unstoppable companion like Fawkes for ex. One of the things I preferred over NV was that the Brotherhood of Steel were more relevant and more of the "good guys" in 3 then they were in New Vegas. I could also feel more heroic in 3 then I did in NV because although it was fun decimating Caesar's legion..Killing all the slavers in Paradise Falls,destroying the Super Mutants in the DC ruins,and all that other stuff just felt so invigorating lol The soundtrack was also better in FO 3

DLC was a big difference for me. I liked most about FO 3 that broken steel allowed you to continue after you beat the end whereas NV ends at the hoover dam battle..I just enjoyed an "aftermath" DLC more. Point lookout was pretty stupid but had some nice guns, Mothership Zeta was cool the first time I played it, Aiding the Outcast just seemed kinda pointless but had some nice gear at the end,and Into the Pitt was alright but it felt like neither choice in the end was really that good. Ashur and Werhner were both bad...As for NV I thought Old World Blues was hilarious the first time I played it. Honest Hearts was pretty lame since I felt like the Burning Man was the only interesting thing about it..I just didn't care for the story nor the tribes. That one with that crazy Elder guy felt pretty rough at first..It felt like a more hardcore version of into the pitt with how you had to survive with what you could find along the way and that other DLC with the other courier dude was kind of cool mostly cuz of all the gear lol But man did he had a crazy voice ha