Fallout 3 versus Fallout New Vegas, which should i play?

[Mopetar]

I found New Vegas to be somewhat boring, and not feeling the post-apocalyptic feeling I had in Fallout 3.

I agree, I preferred 3 as well.

I have to agree with this. Fallout 3 felt MUCH more post-apocalyptic than New Vegas. There was simply too much civilization in New Vegas.

I'd suggest playing both, but this is the main difference between the two.

Fallout 3 is more post-apocalyptic, and New Vegas is more post-post-apocalyptic.

Fallout 3 has a pretty lame story in my opinion, but it's a hell of a lot of fun to explore the wide-open wasteland. That's the part that I think is the biggest reason some people prefer Fallout 3.

Fallout NV on the other hand feels as though you can't go too far in any direction without hitting some kind of civilization. For that reason it does lose the allure of having a giant empty world to explore. However, the storyline is a lot better, and it's more shades of gray than obvious good vs. obvious bad ending.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I liked New Vegas more, so I'd say play FO3 first. Otherwise you'll be disappointed.

 

[Specop 007]

I couldnt get F3 to run no matter what tricks I tried.

So my vote is FO:NV, as its a kick ass game and actually loads.

 

[spittledip]

I think that New Vegas is much more fun. I think the New Vegas world is much less copy-and-paste than FO3, and much better looking as well. Go with NV.

 

[StinkyPinky]

What I find weird in the Fallout universe is that people never bothered to clean/fix their houses. So an entire family is living in a shack with holes in the wall and junk scattered about from 200 years ago. D:

 

[tHa ShIzNiT]

I preferred new vegas. Thought they were roughly the same but NV is more polished. Really enjoyed playing them both though, post apocalypse is probably my favorite game setting.

Also, LOL at the post above ^^ =)

 

[GoodRevrnd]

I don't get why people think New Vegas should still feel post apocalyptic like the war was a week ago. Its been what, over 200 years since the great war. Do you really think 200 years after the war, people will still be living in caves and mud huts?

Fallout was NEVER only dark and gritty. It was always a black humor type game with some genuinely funny moments. Dark and gritty? You've never played a fallout game. Hell, in Fallout 1, the first settlement you get to was a fairly thriving multicultural town with farmland, tons of crops and herds of cows, and well to do people. Who can forget the time where you wake up with a ballgag in your inventory after you lose to that mutant, or the first time you meet Harold. People who say that fallout has been dark and gritty have completely missed the point of the first 2 games.

Fallout 3 was not a fallout game. Fallout NV at the very least tried to be one.

If you really want a "Fallout" experience, play New Vegas. Fallout 3 was a decent game on its own. But it is extremely easy, and has a ton of extremely dumb mechanics. Its a prime example of how Bethesda manages to ruin the franchises it touches.

Ya, did all these people manage to play Fallout 2 without ever going to New Reno or something?

No side quests really stand out in my mind from FO3. Side quests are what made FONV shine. And super mutants being in FO3 didn't make much sense. Also, fuck neverending subway dungeon crawls. FONV >>>>> FO3. The only thing I really didn't like in NV was the whole ending sequence but it really didn't matter because everything else was so good. Caesar's Legion wasn't really fleshed out well enough as a faction / antagonist in practice, though I did like the overall independent vs. bloated government vs. post apocalyptic barbarism theme the game had.

However, the storyline is a lot better, and it's more shades of gray than obvious good vs. obvious bad ending.

Heh, there really wasn't a "good" ending for NV was there?

I think the New Vegas world is much less copy-and-paste than FO3, and much better looking as well. Go with NV.

This is actually a really good point.

If you do decide to play both, no matter how enticed you may be to do NV first, for the love of god play FO3 first. I really think NV would ruin 3 for you if you played it second. I'd also try to figure out what the best rebalance mods are for 3 as the game sorely needs it. If you go for full completion the game will be snooze inducing easy by the time your halfway through the content (or whenever you find your first unique weapon).

 

[StinkyPinky]

I have enjoyed all the major fallout games.
I'd rate them

Fallout 2
Fallout
Fallout: NV
Fallout 3

But they are all enjoyable.

Does anyone know what the story is with Fallout 4? At some stage a prequel could be interesting. Say set a decade after the great war.

 

[JeffNY35]

Interesting to see wide variety of opinions on these games. The only one I finished was Fallout. I played a TON of F3 and F:NV but didn't actually finish the main quests. Explored vast majority of the world though.

One thing that sets the newer games apart in my opinion is the mods. If you are playing ANY Bethseda game and have not explored the mod nexus, you are missing half of the fun in my opinion. Takes time and some trial and error to find the right mods, and not break your game but well worth it.

I think F3 has a slight edge over F:NV. Vegas was SO buggy, some of the landscape is just so barren, some of the mobs were just rediculously powerful or too easy. Loved the city, but other wise extremely rough around the edges.

ill go with this order:

Fallout 3
Fallout 2
Fallout 1
Fallout NV - mind you this is a good game. But I can't put a bug ridden expansion at the top.

 

[thespyder]

I gotta go with what others were saying. Play both. In order.

personally, I really enjoyed F3 a lot. I got endless hours of fun out of it. I played NV, and enjoyed it, but I really felt that I actually got more enjoyment out of F3. Maybe it was the novelty. It just felt, dono.

Anyway, any real differences between the two are pretty small in the grand scheme. if you enjoyed one you will enjoy the other. IMHO.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Greatly preferred New Vegas. Obsidian (former Black Isle, devs of Fallout 1 & 2) does story much better than Bethesda.

 

[zokudu]

http://tunnelsnakes.com/

 

[thespyder]

Interesting to see wide variety of opinions on these games. The only one I finished was Fallout. I played a TON of F3 and F:NV but didn't actually finish the main quests. Explored vast majority of the world though.

One thing that sets the newer games apart in my opinion is the mods. If you are playing ANY Bethseda game and have not explored the mod nexus, you are missing half of the fun in my opinion. Takes time and some trial and error to find the right mods, and not break your game but well worth it.

I think F3 has a slight edge over F:NV. Vegas was SO buggy, some of the landscape is just so barren, some of the mobs were just rediculously powerful or too easy. Loved the city, but other wise extremely rough around the edges.

ill go with this order:

Fallout 3
Fallout 2
Fallout 1
Fallout NV - mind you this is a good game. But I can't put a bug ridden expansion at the top.

I am curious. You appear to judge the game based on if you finished it or not. Or maybe not (from your ranking)?

In my opinion, completion of the game is secondary to the amount of fun I have playing it. I, for instance, have yet to "Finish" the main quest in Skyrim, yet still (after 100+ hours at it) find it a thrilling game. Fallout 3 (although I did finish it) is another similar game. You can wander way off the ranch and still just have fun exploring. It is the nature of sandbox games like that (IMHO).

 

[JeffNY35]

I am curious. You appear to judge the game based on if you finished it or not. Or maybe not (from your ranking)?

In my opinion, completion of the game is secondary to the amount of fun I have playing it. I, for instance, have yet to "Finish" the main quest in Skyrim, yet still (after 100+ hours at it) find it a thrilling game. Fallout 3 (although I did finish it) is another similar game. You can wander way off the ranch and still just have fun exploring. It is the nature of sandbox games like that (IMHO).

Actually I agree and was in part my point. But , the way I worded my post in hindsight was misleading. We also sorta turned this into a list of which we like best rather than recommended order of play .

Yeah, I rarely finish these games in terms of main quest lol.

 

[byteman99]

You bought both so might as well play them both. But if you are only going to play one play NV. It's just does everything FO3 did but better.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

This can be said about any Bethesda game but with mods, mods, and more mods you can make up for most of the glaring problems in both games and add a lot more hours to your gameplay.

 

[thujone]

Greatly preferred New Vegas. Obsidian (former Black Isle, devs of Fallout 1 & 2) does story much better than Bethesda.

this.


the dark humor of the original series was actually present. large devs don't seem to understand how to make things "dark" or "gritty". they just throw in some F-bombs, get the M rating, and call it a day.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

This can be said about any Bethesda game but with mods, mods, and more mods will make up for most of the glaring problems in both games and add a lot more hours to your gameplay.

Actually, I've modded the crap out of many Bethesda games, and in the end it never gave me much. The core game is still there, and no matter how much you try to mod it, it's really the same game in many sences. Also, they tend to get very unstable and erratic with lot's of mods.

 

[clok1966]

I am curious. You appear to judge the game based on if you finished it or not. Or maybe not (from your ranking)?

In my opinion, completion of the game is secondary to the amount of fun I have playing it. I, for instance, have yet to "Finish" the main quest in Skyrim, yet still (after 100+ hours at it) find it a thrilling game. Fallout 3 (although I did finish it) is another similar game. You can wander way off the ranch and still just have fun exploring. It is the nature of sandbox games like that (IMHO).

gotta agree, great games play both in order. I have never finished either (really as I get to the end (so to speak) and never turn in the quest so i can keep playing. I have found the game does get almost mundane after a point thouhg as Im not challanged by anything.

FALLOUT 4 please.. i wants somemore.

 

[thespyder]

gotta agree, great games play both in order. I have never finished either (really as I get to the end (so to speak) and never turn in the quest so i can keep playing. I have found the game does get almost mundane after a point thouhg as Im not challanged by anything.

FALLOUT 4 please.. i wants somemore.

Wasteland 2 please.

Seriously, I get what you meant. You get to a point where you become pretty invincible. But definitely play FO3 to the end. that last little stretch will cure you of the invincibility feeling I think.

And yeah, would be nice to have FO4 at some point. Although I still think that Bethesda could milk FO3 engine a bit more (personal opinion).

 

[shortylickens]

I couldnt get F3 to run no matter what tricks I tried.

So my vote is FO:NV, as its a kick ass game and actually loads.

Whats your OS?
The both use the exact same engine so there really isnt any reason one would work perfectly and the other not at all.

 

[sandorski]

Whats your OS?
The both use the exact same engine so there really isnt any reason one would work perfectly and the other not at all.

Some people had more problems with 3, some had more problems with NV. 3 crashed on me a few times, I don't recall the same happening with NV. Right now I can't even start 3 due to GFWL.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Whats your OS?
The both use the exact same engine so there really isnt any reason one would work perfectly and the other not at all.

Because choice of engine decides how buggy a game is over another.

 

[shortylickens]

Some people had more problems with 3, some had more problems with NV. 3 crashed on me a few times, I don't recall the same happening with NV. Right now I can't even start 3 due to GFWL.

I have the disc version of Fallout 3 and if I dont install GFWL I never have a problem. That also means I cant play about a quarter of my Steam titles.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Actually, I've modded the crap out of many Bethesda games, and in the end it never gave me much. The core game is still there, and no matter how much you try to mod it, it's really the same game in many sences. Also, they tend to get very unstable and erratic with lot's of mods.

True it still has the core story-line but I've spent countless hours doing side activities in these games so that it makes my gaming experience drag out much longer then the vanilla version. On top of improving certain game mechanics and visuals I thought were out of line with what I wanted to play. In the end Bethseda makes games that are designed to be modded and in some instances beg to be modded be it for good or bad reasons.