Fallout 3 vs Fallout New Vegas, grudge match!

[Imp]

I voted NV because of the much better handling of guns (iron sights and variety, mods, WIN!!!). The leveling and levels were also better done. So I guess you could say I liked it more for the mechanics than anything. NV still had more focus though.

Fallout 3 rocked, and I absolutely loved the ruins of Washington and the large availability of mini nukes (shit those are rare in NV). If they "fix" Fallout 3 with all of NV's mechanics, I'll replay it to death.

Speaking of, I replayed NV 3.5 times: one gun guy, one melee and 1.5 energy; I quite my first energy first time through cause I screwed him up. I couldn't stand to play Fallout 3 a second time despite the awesome expansions.

 

[Chriscross3234]

NV was so much better than FO3. For me, exploring is my favorite thing to do in Bethesda's games and NV's locations had much more lore/story to them when compared to FO3 (it seemed NV was like Morrowind while FO3 was like Oblivion regarding this). Experimental vaults, factions, better characters/companions, better humor... NV has everything that FO3 lacks.

 

[UberNeuman]

Ask me if I love my left arm more than my right arm...

I love them both - but I tend to favor my right...

Fallout 3 being my right - and enjoying the DLC released for it - Point Lookout, Broken Steel and The Pitt... and that other one, not so much...

 

[wuliheron]

Ask me if I love my left arm more than my right arm...

I love them both - but I tend to favor my right...

Fallout 3 being my right - and enjoying the DLC released for it - Point Lookout, Broken Steel and The Pitt... and that other one, not so much...

Yeah, the DLC for New Vegas sucks.

 

[Qbah]

Fallout New Vegas for me. The game's atmosphere felt a lot more like Fallout 1 and 2 for me. I loved the weapon upgrades and that technology was a lot more scarce.

Though I really enjoyed Falluot 3 too. But slightly less than Fallout New Vegas.

In the end both are great games, but I had to choose

 

[ViviTheMage]

FO3 + the 5 DLC's I think made it come out on top right now ... so fun.

 

[Rhezuss]

I voted for New Vegas but I hesitated for a long time. I remember having a blast in Point Lookout, blowing the heads of the inbreds...

 

[BrownShoes]

I liked New Vegas better but it's way easier. I like the openness, companions and side quests but I probably like the main quest in Fallout 3 a bit more.
Both could use an engine upgrade where there could be more npcs and enemies on the screen at once.

I liked both games and hope they continue the series (Fallout 2 is one of my favorite games of all-time).

 

[airdata]

Fallout 1 and 2

They were just so much better in every single way.

My wife recently found my original disks in a box somewhere. I remember playing through 1-2 a few times each. SOOO Great.

On the poll, I'm going with Fallout 3. I actually never finished new vegas. I got pretty far and then I think black ops came out... or something took my attention away and I haven't gone back to finish the game.

 

[Rhezuss]

I found my original 2-pack Fallout 1 and 2 disks...do you think it could still work on modern computers?

 

[Cerb]

]Both could use an engine upgrade where there could be more npcs and enemies on the screen at once.

...and objects, and terrain, and clutter, and maybe get rid of shimmering. I can't stand to play FO3 w/ defaults, and getting a decent distance view kills FPS like crazy (worth it for a sneaky char, though). I have seen FNV in play, and it's every bit as bad this way as FO3, w/ a default ini.

With Gamebryo now dead, I hope they use Id's for any future TES and FO games (licensing should be simple, after all).

 

[zinfamous]

I found my original 2-pack Fallout 1 and 2 disks...do you think it could still work on modern computers?

I think so. The GoG versions worked just fine on my XP system...though I've yet to try them on Win764bit.

so, I guess you really shouldn't consider my guess as a viable recommendation, lol.

there's got to be a fix out there, though.

 

[thraashman]

I liked New Vegas better but it's way easier. I like the openness, companions and side quests but I probably like the main quest in Fallout 3 a bit more.
Both could use an engine upgrade where there could be more npcs and enemies on the screen at once.

I liked both games and hope they continue the series (Fallout 2 is one of my favorite games of all-time).

I don't think New Vegas was easier at all. In fact I'd say it's a good bit harder. You get perks half as often. You can't collect bobbleheads to munchkin out your character. Vanilla enemies are more difficult (Giant rad scorpions and deathclaws were way harder to take down). FO3 had no armor effects for enemies, no poison effects for you, no fucking cazadors. Significantly fewer skill books to collect to boost stats. The best perk from FO3 was seriously gimped in New Vegas (Grim Reaper Sprint). I'm fairly sure (not 100%) that you get fewer skill points per level in New Vegas.

Overall I think the ruins of DC were cooler than the ruins of Vegas. So Fallout 3 wins just barely.

 

[Rakewell]

I definitely prefer NV.

The MODS are a lot better than the ones for FO3, as well.

 

[Sureshot324]

The main quest is much better in NV. An open ended quest with many possible branches just works so much better in a sandbox game than a linear quest.

 

[Arglebargle]

I went with Vegas: The story seemed better, and the interface is slightly less screwed up.

 

[isxis]

i loved NV. But i love to gamble lol

 

[sigurros81]

Hard choice since I really enjoyed both games. I voted for FO3 in the end just because the game was more memorable for me.

A few things I considered: FO3 seems more desolate and lonely, as NV was a bit too lively, which is not a bad thing, but it detracted from the whole apocalypse theme. FO3 had a better overall main story campaign with a much better ending. I also was not a fan of the modern style guns with ACOG scopes and 50cal rifles. The FO universe is suppose to be satirical of 50s Vintage Americana, not a knock off of Call of Duty, so I felt the technology and weapons in the game were misplaced. However, I love the faction system in NV, even though it was a bit buggy.

 

[Ray_Rogers2019]

New Vegas is more similar to 1 and 2 compared to 3.
But I own/have owned all of them. Will be buying 3 - GotYE for PC soon and New vegas - GotYE when it's released for PC.
My 360 will only get very select games from now on.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Fallout 2

 

[shortylickens]

If I have to choose between those two: New Vegas. Just because it was a little smaller and more manageable and the quests were funner. I got bored quickly with the first one not only because of its ridiculous size, but relative boringness.
Also New Vegas had a really nice house where all your helpers could automatically run to, which was something needed badly in the first one. Yes mods helped, but they were not always well made or easy to use.

 

[fatpat268]

If I have to choose between those two: New Vegas. Just because it was a little smaller and more manageable and the quests were funner.

You know, I find that statement funny, because I had the complete opposite experience. Fallout NV was bigger (or at least, it took me longer to beat) than FO3. NV took me about 55 hours to beat with a fair amount of exploration. FO3, with a similar amount of exploration took 29 hours, but that value doesn't include the Broken Steel DLC, haven't gotten to it yet (it does include Point Lookout and Anchorage though).

Maybe my result isn't typical, but NV sure felt like a much bigger game than 3 did.

 

[Cerb]

FO3, with a similar amount of exploration took 29 hours

You covered the entire map, including metros, and completed all possible quests for your character, in 29 hours?

 

[fatpat268]

You covered the entire map, including metros, and completed all possible quests for your character, in 29 hours?

I never said I did everything in either game. What I said was that I did the main story line in NV, and did a fair amount of sidequests and exploration, and that took me 55 hours of gametime.

Of course, I can't quantify how much I accomplished in FO3, but I played that game with a similar approach and style, and finished the main quest (sans broken steel) at 29 hours. Of course, when I go back and explore the rest of the map even more, I'm sure the hours will jump, but so will NV.

I played NV first, it's quite possible I played that at a slower rate than FO3, I dunno. All I know, is that I was pretty disappointed with the length of FO3.

 

[RobertPters77]

Vegas Baby, Vegas.

FO3 was buggy as hell, even on console. The story was okay but never fully fleshed out. The side quests, good but weak. The DLC was absolute crap. Operation Anchorage and Broken Steel should've been part of the core game. The Pitt was okay. Mothership Zeta I'm mixed. The swamp dlc(forgot it's name) was crap. But worst of all the game was so bland and stretched you'd be walking for hours before seeing anything of interest.

NV had a better story, better sidequests, and better companions(Craig Boone anyone?). Everything is balanced so much better in NV. And It didn't feel like a chore to beat the game. It was an enjoyable ride from start to finish. No matter how long you took. Dead Money DLC in my opinion is excellent. I don't care what the critics say, As soon as you got into the Sierra Madre you wanted to get out asap. Not because it was bad, but because the atmosphere of the DLC was so tense and alive. It felt like the Villa and the Casino were trying to eat you alive. The companions, dare I say it? Were much better and much more interesting than the vanilla counterparts. The only downside is that the next DLC will have you deal with the courier who let you take this job and get "kicked in the head." I felt that Obsidian did us a disfavor by building up such a climax and history between you and the other courier and then letting it go anti-climatically. I hope the next DLC won't be bad and feel like it was cut out from the game deliberately for the sake of profit. Like Broken Steel and Operation Anchorage were.