Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vendayn]

Anyone else actually prefer Fallout 3 over Fallout New Vegas? I'm not the only one, am I? Even on the Nexus, New Vegas is way more active. Not including the older Fallouts...I'm talking about the two new ones.

I really liked the setting of Fallout 3 a lot more, the atmosphere felt a lot better and I LOVED the factions. I don't even barely remember any factions from New Vegas...it just felt kind of bland. And I don't even really know why I couldn't get into New Vegas...I enjoyed some aspects of it, but I just couldn't get into it. On the other hand, I still play Fallout 3 more than even Skyrim. I can't even put a finger on why exactly it is one of my favorite games I've played...something just clicked or something.

Maybe the area Fallout 3 is in, is more interesting to me. Since being in Southern California I already get a lot of desert. Maybe the factions as I said. Maybe the missions interested me more...I don't know.

But yeah...anyone else like Fallout 3 more? I barely see anyone actually say that...and my group of friends I have (be it, a small group) all didn't like Fallout 3 or just preferred New Vegas.

[MorleyDev]

Most people I've seen like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas played Fallout 3 before they grew past the age of 16 and hadn't played Fallout 1 and 2.

Still, each to their own. Me personally, I have these complaints with Fallout 3:
a) What factions? The Brotherhood of Steel in name only, the mostly personality-less Enclave? The completely unfleshed out Outcasts? They barely get characterized besides "good guys", "bad guys" and "arseholes".
b) The atmosphere? You mean the world mostly held together by drab stabs in the dark at comedy that tended to fall flat?
c) The missions? You mean those railroaded messes with bland characters and moral choices with the complexity of a mentally damaged two year old? And with the rare attempts at moral ambiguity being nothing more than a confused mess?

Those are my main complaints and impressions

I just love moral complexity of New Vegas. You have NCR's democracy in a world too hostile for it, Legions regression, Mr. House's statism, and You as the Wild Card. It also actually feels like a real Fallout game in themes and world.

[fenrif]

Fallout 3 felt like it squandered the best part of it's setting, the ruined city. What could've been a really dangerous urban maze, filled with mutated horrors lurking behind countless empty doorways and fallen walls was mostly a series of corridors with a few set-piece buildings. I like both games, but walking through that city and the countless boarded up impassable doors just seemed a shame to me.

[Gunner-Chan]

I actually do agree with fenrif. The game had a ton of potential in the ruins of DC but they really did underutilize it. They really should of had the ruins just be half the damn map and fill it with all sorts of hiding places for raiders and mutants and other things of that nature.

Instead DC is a few pathways with little to no danger to you after finding a hunting rifle. And the rest of the wasteland might as well be featureless hills and plains with the effort that was actually attempted into them.

And the sad thing is, fallout 3 genuinely IS a good game on the inside. As New Vegas shows. Just how they handled the story and setting are damn inexcusable.

[Asgarus]

I liked the story from Fallout 3 more, but all in all, NV had the better gameplay. I'm a crafting fan, and NV had maaany recipes^^
Also the factions are more interesting in NV. I did not play Fallout 3 for some time now, but wasn't there only the brotherhood and the enclave?
Morley did already numerate the NV factions, not even all of them (boomers, brotherhood, khans, and so on (even the enclave takes a small part again )). Well, NCR, Legion and House were the main factions, though.

I say both are good, but NV is better in some points.

[Sowelu]

I really liked NV in terms of theme, sunk about a hundred hours into it.  I think they nailed the Fallout 1 atmosphere, without getting into the silly, bad writing that pervaded about half of Fallout 2.  Haven't played Fallout 3...

Which do you think I should do?
- Replay NV in hardcore, maybe with mods to make it even more difficult
- Get some or all of the NV DLC
- Get Fallout 3

[dizzyelk]

Most people I've seen like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas played Fallout 3 before they grew past the age of 16 and hadn't played Fallout 1 and 2.

Still, each to their own. Me personally, I have these complaints with Fallout 3:
a) What factions? The Brotherhood of Steel in name only, the mostly personality-less Enclave? The completely unfleshed out Outcasts? They barely get characterized besides "good guys", "bad guys" and "arseholes".
b) The atmosphere? You mean the world mostly held together by drab stabs in the dark at comedy that tended to fall flat?
c) The missions? You mean those railroaded messes with bland characters and moral choices with the complexity of a mentally damaged two year old? And with the rare attempts at moral ambiguity being nothing more than a confused mess?

Those are my main complaints and impressions

I just love moral complexity of New Vegas. You have NCR's democracy in a world too hostile for it, Legions regression, Mr. House's statism, and You as the Wild Card. It also actually feels like a real Fallout game in themes and world.

That is exactly how I feel. Plus there's lots of little things that break the suspension of disbelief for me in FO3. Like how is there water pressure? Where do these nonsensical towns get their food if there's no crops growing anywhere? How did the White House take a direct hit and the rest of the mall is standing? Plus their characters were boring as hell. As to NV being better, I don't know. I've really only started.

[Gunner-Chan]

I really liked NV in terms of theme, sunk about a hundred hours into it.  I think they nailed the Fallout 1 atmosphere, without getting into the silly, bad writing that pervaded about half of Fallout 2.  Haven't played Fallout 3...

Have I ever mentioned you have excellent taste? Seriously I can't believe anyone likes Fallout 2. It's a very stupidly written unbalanced "More" sequel that shouldn't of seen the light of day.

Which do you think I should do?
- Replay NV in hardcore, maybe with mods to make it even more difficult
- Get some or all of the NV DLC
- Get Fallout 3

I think, for hardcore mode give it a skip. Hardcore mode feels rather tacked on to me and doesn't REALLY make the game harder. Just more annoying.

Skip fallout 3,  though the new vegas DLC is VERY good in my opinion. But I do know Dead Money and Honest Hearts rub some people the wrong way.

[Toady Two]

Sorry but i don't think you'll get much approval on this forum since most of us have probably played Fallout 1 and 2 first.

Fallout 3 was a really fun game set in a post-apocalyptic setting but to fans of the series it was New Vegas that was Fallout 3 done right.

I really liked NV in terms of theme, sunk about a hundred hours into it.  I think they nailed the Fallout 1 atmosphere, without getting into the silly, bad writing that pervaded about half of Fallout 2.  Haven't played Fallout 3...

Have I ever mentioned you have excellent taste? Seriously I can't believe anyone likes Fallout 2. It's a very stupidly written unbalanced "More" sequel that shouldn't of seen the light of day.

. 

It all depends on which title started your experience with the series.

Fallout 2 introduced me to the series and I was immediately sold. I now consider it to be the best installment though most people slander it for daring to evolve Fallout 1's setting.

Which do you think I should do?

If you are complaining about F2s writing then stay clear of F3

[dizzyelk]

Have I ever mentioned you have excellent taste? Seriously I can't believe anyone likes Fallout 2. It's a very stupidly written unbalanced "More" sequel that shouldn't of seen the light of day.

Ummm, I liked all the stuff they added to the engine, plus, aside from all the nonsensical fluff, its a darker, grittier world. I prefer it to the first one simply because its got far more going on in it. The first time I discovered I could get married, then sell my new wife into slavery I instantly fell in love. Plus I love Cassidy, the scheming going on in the higher levels of Vault City, and the introduction of the NCR, along with all their shadings of nowhere close to perfect, but the best damn thing going on in these parts.

[Darkmere]

If you have NV, skip FO3 entirely. You're supposed to be some vault-raised teenager hick that turns into... savior of the wastes. Yep. It also manages somehow to completely rip off FO1 and FO2's stories while mangling them both and removing anything engaging about either.

And just to be a maverick... I liked FO2 better for one reason. It went like this:

Fallout 1: "Oh, sorry. Time's up, you lose."
Me: "Right. Uninstalling forever."

Times were different then I suppose. But exploration under a time limit... I'll pass.

FAKE EDIT: Right, Sulik and Cassidy, how could I forget them? ... case closed.

[Burnt Pies]

When I started playing NV (after 3-4 playthroughs of 3), I had 3 problems with it. 1, VATS was no longer the I Win! button it used to be, 2, They changed my beloved hunting rifle! and 3, it seemed to crash/freeze/glitch 3 times as often as FO3 did.

Looking back now, 1 and 2 are kinda stupid things to get hung up on, and the game needed those changes. I practically won FO3 with only Ol' Painless and VATS, they were that good. No. 3's still a problem even now, but that's probably my PS3 being rubbish.


If I get one for PC, it'll be NV. It's a bigger, better game, with better writing and much better balance.
^{_{Lots of 3s in this post.}}

[mainiac]

Fallout 3 basically wasn't a fallout game.  Once I realized that I stopped hating it and had a more ambivalent view to it.  It was a pretty good framework for a game.  That framework ended up showing what it could do in Fallout:NV.  However the setting was pretty much completely unrelated to fallout.

Fallout:NV took the best thing about F3 (the engine) and put it in the fallout universe.  I like the fallout universe so I liked Fallout:NV a lot.

A lot of people complain that fallout 2 wasn't a proper sequel.  Personally I thought it worked pretty well.

[Johuotar]

FO1 timelimit: Get patch, problem gone.

I suggest New Vegas dlc, mods and hc mode and all that.

[Toady Two]

I like to see I'm not the only one in defense of F2.

F2 had some slip ups in the combat department and some pretty shameful story tropes("it was all a social experiment", and "evil fascist American government"). But for the most part it enormously expanded the settings universe and lore, deepened character creation and the choices you could make and added very interesting follower NPC. If anything New Vegas is at most a successor to F2.

Fallout 3 basically wasn't a fallout game.  Once I realized that I stopped hating it and had a more ambivalent view to it.  It was a pretty good framework for a game.  That framework ended up showing what it could do in Fallout:NV.  However the setting was pretty much completely unrelated to fallout.

This. Very good game but so un-Fallout that it felt like a travesty.