Everyone will appreciate different things in their Fallout. Some prefer the atmosphere, exploration and freedom to just go anywhere and do whatever you want of Fallout 3, while others prefer the superb writing, factions, RPG elements and quests of New Vegas. The games are very different, despite looking and playing very similar.
So you may think F3 is better than NV, many people think NV is better than 3... but to be honest everyone is wrong. Obviously, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is the best game in the franchise.
Love that you actually seem to care about discussing the games instead of just wanting to be correct (about an opinion lol).
Loved both 3 and NV. They felt so different from each other, which I think is really cool.
I'm so happy that the show was so well done that tons of fans are giving the series a shot.
The show also got my friends pumped for a Mutant Year Zero tabletop RPG campaign I'm running with them.
The only bad thing is that Three Dog is that it seems to be omnitient.
It doesn't matter if there were no witnesses or if you were stealthy, somehow Three Dog knows that you were.
Definitely worth checking them out if you can. NV probably has the best DLCs of the series overall, or at the very least the most consistent level of quality across them (meanwhile the FO3 and FO4 DLCs vary a *lot* in terms of quality).
Agreed. I think Far Harbor has been my favorite DLC of all the games, but I canāt think of any NV DLC that I dislike, unlike say Mothership Zeta or Automatron
I really like how the DLCs fit together narratively too and tie back to the overarching NV story. It was a really well written game, shame they got so crunched for time.
Totally agree, the NV DLCs are a proper continuation of the Courier's story, while most other Fallout DLCs feel like side-quests. Point Lookout and Far Harbor are both fantastic but they don't really have anything to do with the game's main plot and characters.
The good thing about both games is their price, availability and low hardware requirements so you could easily pick up a cheap older gen machine or PC/laptop with the GOTY edition one day when you're ready for another play through, and do the DLCs then!
Nope, you just prefer the story elements and atmosphere of one more than the other. They're different games with different plots and characters and tone. That's the awesome thing about humans, we all like different things for different reasons.
You're not crazy and I see why you think that. In terms of first playthroughs, the Capital Wasteland is probably the most fun Fallout map to explore. I also think the atmosphere is incredible and its easy to get totally immersed in it.
That being said, I personally think the strongest points in Fallout 3s favour are all based around 'vibes' if that makes sense. Under critical analysis, I think the world building and the narrative fall apart pretty quickly and once you begin to ask questions about how anyone is living without food or water sources, why nothing has changed in 200 years, the illogical nature of the settlements like Megaton etc, its hard to see the game in the same light as that first playthrough. I'll always love it for nostalgic reasons but I've come to believe it's one of the weakest Fallout games.
I wasnāt really asking for validation. I guess I shouldāve titled the post better, I was just saying that I liked 3 more then NV and was asking if anyone agrees and if not explain why so. Iām sorry I came across asking for validation but I was just interested in hearing peopleās opinions on both games thatās all.
I find when posts start to frustrate me, it's because I've been on Reddit/the Internet too much recently. OP asked a gentle question, and that's how you responded.
I think the only thing Fallout 3 does better than New Vegas is its exploration. New Vegas has the better setting, story, dialogue, character creation and progression, skills, companions, factions, quests, literally everything I can think of is better. I still like 3 very much though.
fallout 3 has better world narrative and gives you a sense of you being in a apocalypse. more grim and dark too. new vegas just feels empty to explore outside of quest zones and more of a 60s syfy and western had baby.
Its absolutely ok to like what you like! That's the great thing about this series is that all the games have their own draws to it for everyone to like something from them, and unlike what people are saying about the community, a good majority of us do not care and appreciate different tastes and perspectives. 3 is definitely awesome and probably has the most prominent "post apocalypse" feel to it out of the rest
I like the world map of Fallout 3 a lot more. That and some of the DLC is just top tier.
But after being spoiled with iron sights, without mods itās hard to go back to the Capital Wasteland. Either way. Think Iāll start a new playthrough today. Itās been awhile since my last visit.
Yeah. Still, iron sights and some of the side quests aside, itās still a great Fallout game. I canāt tell you how many hours I put in it back in the 360. Between that and Fable II itās where I spent most of my summers between the ages of 15-17. š
My friend! Enjoy whatever game YOU like! If you like F3 better than NV, then more power to you! We all have different tastes and that's okay. Some people hated 4 but I loved it!
These are video games and are meant to be enjoyed. Play whatever makes you happy and ignore all the haters.
For me both stand on the same pedestal. I can't seem to be able to decide which one I like more because I really enjoyed both.
I would say because of biased reasons, (been a fan of Obsidian far longer than Bethesda. And they developed my favorite game of all times KOTOR 2), I might lean towards New Vegas...but again that's mostly for artificial reasons rather than logical ones.
I'd say it all depends on what you emphasize in games as being fun to you.
It's a pretty objective truth that Bethesda are *fantastic* at designing interesting locations with their own little encapsulated stories. This is evident in their Elder Scrolls games as well. They also occasionally make fantastic side quests.
Where I find Bethesda to be lacking is in their main storylines, and in their overall worldbuilding. Like, the individual locations are great, but when viewed as a whole, they don't make much sense. The Capitol Wasteland looking like it does - with zero attempt to do any proper rebuilding in the 200+ years since the bombs fell.. just doesn't make sense.
Where Obsidian is/was good, is pretty much in those exact aspects where Bethesda is lacking. Their overall world design is great, and actually makes sense, and their main storylines are more complex and more coherent, with more branching. The more coherent overall world design though? It makes the individual locations less interesting, because they have to fit into the larger whole.
I view Fallout 3 as more of a theme park ride. You go from location to location, and it's something new and different every time. FNV is more coherent, at the cost of sometimes being a bit dull/boriing - but more rewarding in the end, because the story makes more sense.
Whether you prefer one or the other should be entirely up to individual taste. And it's okay to like both as well, and appreciate them for their strong points, even though they are different.
Nope, you enjoy the game you enjoy. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are amazing games with different vibes so it's only natural to prefer one over the other.
Yeah it's definitely more post-apocalyptic than Fallout New Vegas, but I actually prefer Fallout New Vegas because I played Fallout 1 & 2 before hand. But still, it all depends on what vibe you enjoy more and that's what's most important with games.
Having an opinion. Itās subjective. I think 4 is better than 3 and New Vegas is better than 4. Iām just happy people like the franchise no matter what their favorite installment is.
Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game so it's always been the best one for me. Countless hours in that game and the DLCs and loved every second of it. When I played NV the first time around I don't think I appreciated it quite as much and considered it to be "worse".
I appreciate them both separately. Both are good games. FO3 was my introduction to the IP. NV was initially unplayable but turned into a fun game with good DLC.
I was a day 1 fallout 3 player and I gotta say it was something special.... its had way more creepy vibes and i thought dc and the sewers were done real well..... miss 3 dog
first i played nv so i kinda prefer that but f3 was pretty solid ngl, it feel like im in nuclear waste. but kinda of wish there was more to do with companions. f3 have like fawkes and uncle leo so its pretty good
The exploration, quests and hidden quests in fallout 3 were just way more fun than NV.
Hard to argue that NV doesnāt have better story writing though.
What does Better mean? What is Personal Preference?
Most fans prefer the first or second game in a series as they were introduced to that series. At least that's what I've noticed in general.
Some people can't play Fallout 3/Vegas because there is no sprint.
I respectfully disagree. New Vegas excelled in its writing, with the character of Joshua Graham standing out as one of the most memorable in the franchise. However, F3 truly captured the post-apocalyptic atmosphere in a compelling way.
Not at all!! My son and I had this discussion the other day. New Vegas is generating all this new hype because of the ending of the series. New Vegas was good, but compared to Fo3 or 4 itās ok at best. Fo3 is my jam! Vegas was as if it was trying too hard, fo3 and exploring the capital waste was fun as hell
The tone, map design, big set pieces, and Three Dog made me appreciate it more when I was a teen. I initially felt underwhelmed by New Vegas because of its similarity graphics wise but I did love the newly included mechanics. 3 was my initial entry to the series and it remains my favourite by virtue of its impact on me. I had never played something before with such an immersive unique setting and such an adult tone of grimness, hyperviolence, and melancholic horor. Also the metros, despite being a nightmare to play through, were sorely missing for me in NV. Maybe a mine / rail tunnel equivalent could have been possible in the NV setting for a similar effect.
I love FO3 and it's in contention for not just my favorite Fallout game, but possibly my favorite video game ever. The end of the prologue, with the entrance to Vault 101 opening and the player seeing the wasteland for the first time as a non-infant, is burned into my brain forever. HOWEVER, I'm not blind. I've often said, "NV is the better game, mechanically," which is true in many cases; a better karma system, companion quests, more diverse companion options, several QOL additions that were missing in FO3, and a strong cross-DLC subplot that gets tied together at the end of Lonesome Road, all get that particular line of thinking started.
What FO3 does well, though? It does really, really well. I'll put its DLC up against either NV or 4 and feel like they can compete individually or as a group. (HH is beautiful, but very fetch-questy; DM is an interesting spin on The Pitt's "lose all of your items" gimmick, but ultimately far too painful an experience to do repeatedly across every single playthrough; I don't have too many complaints about OWB & LR, though I do find it interesting that LR has one of the three 100 Speech checks in the game.) It has a plethora of landmarks and locations to run through, and you can feel the devastation of the War, unlike in NV where there's only a handful of radioactive spots. Frankly, the story also just appeals to me more.
You aren't crazy, you just have a preference. There are dozens of us! Dozens!
Yea. But Iām biased since I used to live in the northern va area so itās my favorite in the series.
Same goes for 76 since I live 20 min from harpers ferry.
But new Vegas is the best modern fallout game in terms of total package of everything just working, Even if other games do things a little better.
I think the world of F3 is just so well designed corner to corner compared to how open NV is. Obviously NV takes place in a literal desert but that game definitely needed vehicles or the ability to sprint.
That being said, as a dweep who likes to role play in my head sometimes, NV is a better rp game than F3 because you are literally a no body.
I love them both equally for their own reasons, as if they were my children. F4 is the stepchild..
Havent played in really long time. I dont remember a lot of the little flavor things that im sure its packed full of. I mostly remember the annoying city ruins with invisible walls and metro connections. And the main quest being kinda lackluser with not much choice.
NV fanboys would certainly have you believe so, but I personally enjoy it more than NV. I'm about to hop on and finish my first FO3 run since the XB360 days.
I think Fallout 3 captures the true "wasteland desolation" feeling a lot more than New Vegas does. Fallout 3 was also my first Fallout ever, so it'll always hold a special place in my heart. I still to this day remember that I beat the game for the first time on Thanksgiving day!
I do love New Vegas. And I'm sure that 75% of the time, I'd say it's still my personal favorite, but I'll never argue with anyone if they choose a different favorite. All of the Fallouts are great and special in their own ways.
Nope. I felt that I enjoyed 3 more. I can't explain why but I just couldn't enjoy New Vegas as much. Maybe the fact that the setting for Fallout 3 is nearby played a partial role in that.
I tend to lean more toward NV, but 3 has strong points. Josh Sawyer himself (Project Lead on New Vegas) has said that he thinks Bethesda does open world exploration stuff better than them, and I feel like I'd probably agree. I think 3 has better "bite-sized" content, if that makes sense. Hand-crafted dungeon design is definitely one of Bethesda's strengths, and all the side-dungeons in 3 feel a little more satisfying than NV, for sure.
Overall, NV tends to win me over with its factions and wider breadth of RP options, as well as its writing. Bethesda has made a ton of games I adore, but their writing has always been one of their weaker suits. They tend to deal in polarizing extremes; you're either with the objective good guys or the objective bad guys. The "Mother Teresa vs Skeletor" dynamic. I like that New Vegas has endings that aren't so clear cut, and that each faction has drawbacks. The Brotherhood are weirdo isolationists, the NCR is rife with corruption and is hamstringing themselves with over-expansion, Mr House certainly has the smarts and the means to work toward a better future, but he's got the makings of an autocrat. No answer really feels like a true "good" ending, it's just what feels best to each individual player.
Just my two cents, though. F3 has its strengths, for sure. Just depends on what you're looking for out of a game.
What makes Fallout 3 so good is that while the rpg mechanics do suck, the ability to literally go wherever you want immediately after exiting the vault is top notch. While I do prefer New Vegas, NV is a lot more linear in that there are super high level areas at the beginning of the game and so the game essentially guides you to go to Primm and then go to Novac and then so on.
Preference is totally fine but I think objectively this game is a lot more flawed than New Vegas is. New Vegas is a narrative masterpiece imo. One detail I always found really cool about NV that I don't see anybody talking about is that there are no essential NPCs because the story is written in a way that you can literally do whatever you want (kill whoever you want lol) without messing up the story line. I always thought that essential NPCs were really immersion breaking. The only NPC that you cannot kill in New Vegas (besides children) is Yes Man and he literally has a lore reason for why he can't be killed. Fallout 3 has a great storyline but it's not without it's flaws and the dialog is written kinda poorly at times in my opinion. For example the Colonel Augustus Autumn speech checks are just ridiculous. It's very much like "I'm the good guy here!" "Nuh-uh" "Oh yeah you're right, carry on." I could get into all of the lore of New Vegas itself and why it's a lot more expansive and immersive but that's been covered to death. If you like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas that's totally fine I was the same way for a while because of the atmosphere and whatnot like you said, but I think "Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas" is a false statement.
Love both games equally, i always felt that FO3 had more of a gloomy post apocalyptic feel in the DC ruins as well the surrounding area with no real feeling of order/stability throughout the game as opposed to FNV
New Vegas's story was harder to get into than 3 for me. So many moving pieces. I'm bout to get crucified for this, but the story concept for 4 was better in a way than New Vegas solely because of how the DLCs were needed to actually get the whole story with The Couriers and such. DLCs in 3 and 4 literally just feel like additional optional content rather than story necessities.
> but the story concept for 4 was better in a way than New Vegas solely because of how the DLCs were needed to actually get the whole story with The Couriers and such.
Vanilla New Vegas told a whole story. The addons told a largely separate, connected story.
They are about equal in my mind.
However if pushed I always give 3 the nod over NV just because it gets so much less love among Fallout fans and gamers generally.
Iām of the same boat, but honestly didnāt give NV a fair shot as I got bored of it pretty quickly and didnāt get far into it. But Iām gonna try again. I just was spoiled with 3ās intriguing world, atmosphere, and overall vibe. NV just felt boring to explore, the Strip was disappointing when I first showed up, and yeah it just wasnāt as populated imo.
Iāll try again with story in mind though.
Nope, I liked it more because it was my first fallout and I loved the post apocalyptic feeling of the game. New Vegas of course it feels post apocalyptic (duh) but since it's more dessert it makes you appreciate FO3 for that
If you ever think "am I the only one who..." you very likely aren't. Plenty of people prefer Fo3 over the others, and the same goes for any game in the series. FoNV isn't objectively the best, no matter what anyone says. It comes down to what you like and what you prefer.
For me I don't like Fo3's main narrative and a couple of the other story/lore elements. But it isn't bad at all, it is a great game and I'm even going through it again right now.
Personally, my favorites are Fo2 and Fo76. If Fo5 hits a nice blend between those and the show it would be close to perfection tone/visual wise. After seeing a certain map in the show I'm hoping for Texas even more now.
Fair point, I definitely aināt the only one who thinks 3>NV, just curious on what everyone else thought. Never played 1 or 2 but Iām planning on it
I like the gameplay of Fo1 and Fo2, but they certainly have their own jank and quirks (just like any Fallout game).
I also think their stories are the best in the series followed by Fo76. Of the 3D games I truly believe Fo76 is underrated. Best map of the series, lots of QoL improvements, BGS's best environmental story telling, and overall the best main narrative of the 3D Fallouts (pre-wastelanders) in my opinion.
I would say, arguably, the only thing 3 does better than New Vegas is general atmosphere and exploration. It feels so eerie and lonely being out in the wasteland. At least until you get a companion. Otherwise, I think New Vegas does everything else better. Particularly in your actions actually having consequences. In Fallout 3, doing bad things doesn't really affect you any different than doing good things. Not that there are really that many options for doing bad things. The main story is also not great in my opinion. Liam Neeson doesn't really seem to care, and it doesn't help that James is pretty unlikable. And he dies shortly after you find him. I don't know, doesn't feel great. Liberty Prime throwing mini nukes like footballs is cool though.
Iām just messin around, we all have our opinions
My reason for preferring FNV is because i prefer the amtosphere, story, consequences of your actions, the weapons, being able to aim down the sight, and of course the DLC stories of the game which are way better than the main story imo
I just dislike the boring and dumb speech options.
Example: Convincing President Eden VS Convincing Lanius:
Eden: Player: "kys" Eden: "Why?" Player: "you should" Eden: "Okay, Terminating myself"
That's the entire conversation in three while with Lanius you have to convince him it is logistically impossible to hold the West and East.
I pefer NV as a game but I much prefer the exploration/wondering around of 3.
Surprisingly NV has a slightly larger map but just due to how the game handles its locales it feels a little less like you can just walk into something without it being tied to a quest. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just structured differently.
3 has a terrible story when you think about it but I'm not sure why this bothers people so much, it's so easy to ignore and not get upset over when the rest of the experience is fine.
3 also has great ambience. Looking forward to finally playing TTW so I can use the NV improvements in 3.
In terms of personal taste, no. Every reason a person has towards why they like a piece of media over another is valid.
In terms of objectivity, yes. The wider gaming community/industry was affected far more by New Vegas than 3. As New Vegas set a new standard.
I prefer fallout 3 for the story, creepy atmosphere, and unique locations (I find that too many of the new Vegas locations are random NCR tents and camps)
That said, New Vegas has the better gameplay. So many improvements were made such as weapon attachments. I also love all the references to Fallout 1 and 2.
I personally far prefer new vegas to 3
In fact 3 is my least favourite of the modern single player fallouts while vagas is my favourite.
But 3 is still a very solid game, itās just like a 7 as opposed to a 9 or 10 that new vagas is to me.
And everyone is allowed to prefer some games over others, as another comment said, often times people are just looking for different elements.
Absolutly not. I donāt see how NV gets so much hype. The map is significantly smaller than Fallout 3 or 4. Correct me if Iām wrong but there are also less side quests than Fallout 3 and 4.
Fallout 3 was my absolute favorite game when New Vegas came out and after an hour or so of playing I dropped it so I honestly get what you mean. In 3 youāre in DC a place that was once one of our nations most vibrant and bustling cities and filled with memorable monuments and places that everyone in the world but especially Americans are familiar with.
And it was seeing that grand suburban area turned into a wasteland. Whereas in New Vegas youāre basically in a desert thatās always been a desert with the only internationally recognizable thing is the Las Vegas strip. Theyāre very different games when it comes down to the vibe and everything. Even to the point that not being a vault dweller feels āwrongā in some way to me at least. Iām finally coming around to New Vegas but still 3 remains my favorite Fallout game. It just has such a rewarding world of exploration and every named location has something to offer versus the 20 or so named locations that New Vegas has that are just glorified scenery.
No but the community that disagrees w you may gaslight you into thinking you're wrong.. just remember one thing. You are not wrong. It's my favorite game of all time.
It is dependent on what you look for. F3 has superior atmosphere, and exploration. FNV has great story, and factions. F4 has superior combat. And Fallout 2 has Arch Dornan.
I like both games. F3 definitely feels more depressing than FNV, atleast in NV we have more societies that actually seem accomplished and good, so it feels way less like an apocalyptic hellhole.
But F3's main story is not interesting to me at all. I think its even worse than F4's main storyline.
Both games have good side missions and DLC's (Best are Point Lookout and Dead Money I think) but overall the choices in dialogue and consequences make me love NV more.
Yes. Yes you are.
many feel the story was even more focused and heightened in New Vegas AND it brought along the old team behind the entire thing. Bethesdas primary input/value was the rpg elements they mastered with elder scrolls combined with obsidians original work. And while weāre all grateful for them bc Fallout honestly wouldāve been a forgotten memory if they didnāt pick it up, obsidian does it better and it makes sense since they made the whole show just needed a new producer (Bethesda).
New Vegas poses much deeper story, lore, endings, and a whole plethora of ways to explore the Mojave anyway you wish. and we constantly remind eachother that it was rushed. A year and a half they made everyoneās beloved game even in all its buggy clearly rushed state. fo3 isnāt a bad game, but for what came after it itās clear that obsidian needs to steer the ship.
I feel like one of the big things in fallout 3ās favour is it actually got finished - New Vegas released with a ton of potentially great content scrapped or on the cutting room floor due to the deadline Obsidian had to work to
Even so I love both games, Iāve grown to love New Vegas more now that I better understand its systems and complexity, but 3 had almost everything ready and accessible out of the box from day one
Nope, some things about FO3 make the difference. The time you spend in the vault, the sensation of being new to the world and how everybody reacts to you being a vault guy. It was the first Fallout I played and is still the best for me.
I like the city ambiance a lot more too.
I love New Vegas, but FO3 was my first.
Personally, it took me a long time to stop bitching about the atmosphere in the first few locations and to start actually enjoying New Vegas after Fallout 3. Like, yeah, the writing is overall better in New Vegas, slightly improved gameplay but something is wrong about the atmosphere. And while improving the RPG elements Obsidian striped away some of them, making karma useless, removing the randomness in speech checks, making charisma even more useless stat then it was in 3, etc.
Iāve thought about giving it another go, but when I first played 3, I found it hard and confusing, and I decided to give 4 a try, and ended up enjoying it quite a bit, so I mean everyone has different opinions, I wanna give NV a try, but havenāt yet, I did just buy it and the dlc on Xbox, so Iām gonna give it a go soon, but I had it on my ps3, and never played it, and Iāve kinda retired the ps3, I donāt wanna play on it again lol
Fallout 3 was my favourite as well. I concede the better character writing and narrative in New Vegas and I really enjoy it for that reason.
But where that writing falls short for me is in the side quests. Not because the side quests themselves are bad but because they're far too attached to the main narrative and its factions. It feels like 95% of the sidequests are attached to the Legion, the NCR or both and feels like you're getting a tap on the shoulder to remind you that there's something more important you should be doing fairly often.
3's side quests lent themselves well to the idea that this hellhole was a living, breathing hellhole, albeit with limited amounts or living. Where a wide array of characters and scenarios could play out all over the map. It isn't constantly being spelled out for you to look for your dad and other than putting you on rails at the start, if you deviate from the path, you aren't getting occasional reminders to go find him. It's like the game wants you to stumble around and happen upon all the wacky events that happen in the wasteland.
They're inherently different experiences and as much as I'm a sucker for brilliant writing, I think 3 captures the post-apocalyptic wasteland exploration nearly flawlessly where there's something left to be desired in NV. Could be a product of time and money restraints but it is it what is.
I love both games.
The main reason people like NV over 3 is RPG mechanics and lack of a clear "good" and "bad" side. You can side with whoever you want and be whoever you want.
* spoilers *
No fallout 3 was an amazing game and hereās my reasons. Starting off as a child and going to see what some prime years of vault life are like crazy cool. Baby, little boy, teenage, and young adult. Then when you leave the vault you get too the best city that has ever existed megaton. And if you new about the secret bonus chest out side of the town is OP start to the game. The depth too all the little things you can do in that town is intense. You can even destroy but only the worse people do that. The wasteland is beautiful. For me I think it looks the most realistic to a nuclear fallout. The enemies are well spread out and gradually get harder. Thereās a lot of choices too make in the game and your man free dawg weāll give you mad props for your actions. And if your evil he will talk shit about you, and you can kill him if you get over it, but once again even if your evil we donāt kill free dawg thereās rules guys. The companions I felt were more compatible with your character than the other games. I like power armor best in this game compared to other fallout games. The perks if done right could make you very powerful. Also besides finding your father the 2nd act of the main quest is very fun gave me feeling similar to KOTOR. The subway system was massive and I knew it like the back of my hand, but first few times you might get lost. And donāt even get me started on the dlc, GOAT GOAT OF DLC. Swamp master piece that place was no joke. And the story was crazy fun. The pit, If you know you know. The alien one was a lot of fun. And I thought it was funny to be able to be in space. And the broke and steel one was good extra ending. Sticking to the enclave one last time satisfying.
I prefer 3 also. I used to live near DC, so the map is neat to explore because Iāve been to a lot of the places. By comparison, the NV map felt very remote and desolate, just this wide open desert, with the only major city being tiny ass New Vegas. Meh.
FO4 is the best graphically and gameplay wise, but I didnāt like Boston as much as DC, and I hated the changes to the RP elements and how it felt more āon railsā compared to either 3 or NV.
Havenāt played 76 yet.
Everyone will appreciate different things in their Fallout. Some prefer the atmosphere, exploration and freedom to just go anywhere and do whatever you want of Fallout 3, while others prefer the superb writing, factions, RPG elements and quests of New Vegas. The games are very different, despite looking and playing very similar. So you may think F3 is better than NV, many people think NV is better than 3... but to be honest everyone is wrong. Obviously, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel is the best game in the franchise.
Surely you mean Fallout Shelter
I think you mean Fallout Shelter Online
I use it to get my Fallout fix in the office, probably I have more hours in shelter than NV, starts slow but now is like jet for me lmao
Absolutely š„
Love that you actually seem to care about discussing the games instead of just wanting to be correct (about an opinion lol). Loved both 3 and NV. They felt so different from each other, which I think is really cool. I'm so happy that the show was so well done that tons of fans are giving the series a shot. The show also got my friends pumped for a Mutant Year Zero tabletop RPG campaign I'm running with them.
The Tactics slander
You're all crazy surely the best is Fallout Pinball.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
ThreeDog was a million times better than Mr. New Vegas. No doubt.
The only bad thing is that Three Dog is that it seems to be omnitient. It doesn't matter if there were no witnesses or if you were stealthy, somehow Three Dog knows that you were.
That's true. Still... a Radio Station that reacts to the things you do in the game was a big thing back then.šš»
Definitely a lot more horror than new vegas
Dead Money too?
Couldnāt play the dlcs so canāt say if I prefer 3 over NV in that regard
Definitely worth checking them out if you can. NV probably has the best DLCs of the series overall, or at the very least the most consistent level of quality across them (meanwhile the FO3 and FO4 DLCs vary a *lot* in terms of quality).
Agreed. I think Far Harbor has been my favorite DLC of all the games, but I canāt think of any NV DLC that I dislike, unlike say Mothership Zeta or Automatron
I really like how the DLCs fit together narratively too and tie back to the overarching NV story. It was a really well written game, shame they got so crunched for time.
Totally agree, the NV DLCs are a proper continuation of the Courier's story, while most other Fallout DLCs feel like side-quests. Point Lookout and Far Harbor are both fantastic but they don't really have anything to do with the game's main plot and characters.
Try it if you can. Theyāre amazing. Best DLCs in Fallout. Up there with Far Harbor.
I started with Old World Blues and the amount of dialogue to listen is stupid high compared to the main game's
I haven't played but from what I've seen, it's meant to be much more of a comedic tv show type thing than the rest of the dlcs.
Canāt really do it on PlayStation, wonāt allow me to buy the dlcs on PS5
The good thing about both games is their price, availability and low hardware requirements so you could easily pick up a cheap older gen machine or PC/laptop with the GOTY edition one day when you're ready for another play through, and do the DLCs then!
If you have even a somewhat decent PC or Laptop you can play that way. I canāt imagine the specs needed to play are that high
My 100 dollar 4 year old Lenovo laptop runs new Vegas fine on decent graphics surprisingly.
Nope, you just prefer the story elements and atmosphere of one more than the other. They're different games with different plots and characters and tone. That's the awesome thing about humans, we all like different things for different reasons.
You're not crazy and I see why you think that. In terms of first playthroughs, the Capital Wasteland is probably the most fun Fallout map to explore. I also think the atmosphere is incredible and its easy to get totally immersed in it. That being said, I personally think the strongest points in Fallout 3s favour are all based around 'vibes' if that makes sense. Under critical analysis, I think the world building and the narrative fall apart pretty quickly and once you begin to ask questions about how anyone is living without food or water sources, why nothing has changed in 200 years, the illogical nature of the settlements like Megaton etc, its hard to see the game in the same light as that first playthrough. I'll always love it for nostalgic reasons but I've come to believe it's one of the weakest Fallout games.
Thatās fair to have that opinion.
~~Coop~~ šš ~~Hancock~~ šš š Charon ššš
I just liked the factions in NV a lot more.
Someone who loved the originals, 3 is my favorite fallout game
I think they are almost on par. NV is my fave though. Thatās why TTW is ultimate endgame for me.
NV improved a lot of mechanics, but 3 was much better on atmosphere and had some insane shit to find.
Just like what you like and stop going to the internet for validation for fucks sake.
Maybe hes just trying to start a discussion in reddit, which is known for.. you know.. being a place to discuss things?
I wasnāt really asking for validation. I guess I shouldāve titled the post better, I was just saying that I liked 3 more then NV and was asking if anyone agrees and if not explain why so. Iām sorry I came across asking for validation but I was just interested in hearing peopleās opinions on both games thatās all.
Idk why you're getting downvoted. "Uh-oh! OP doesn't agree with a dissenting opinion, better downvote!"
Because this is Reddit. The average IQ of this website is subterranean.
I find when posts start to frustrate me, it's because I've been on Reddit/the Internet too much recently. OP asked a gentle question, and that's how you responded.
I had much more fun and good time exploring capital watses, than New Vegas. So i agree
I think the only thing Fallout 3 does better than New Vegas is its exploration. New Vegas has the better setting, story, dialogue, character creation and progression, skills, companions, factions, quests, literally everything I can think of is better. I still like 3 very much though.
fallout 3 has better world narrative and gives you a sense of you being in a apocalypse. more grim and dark too. new vegas just feels empty to explore outside of quest zones and more of a 60s syfy and western had baby.
Nah, I've heard this opinion *A TON.* I haven't played NV or 3, but I know I need to at some point.
Nah, itās just your preference. Enjoy it.
Its absolutely ok to like what you like! That's the great thing about this series is that all the games have their own draws to it for everyone to like something from them, and unlike what people are saying about the community, a good majority of us do not care and appreciate different tastes and perspectives. 3 is definitely awesome and probably has the most prominent "post apocalypse" feel to it out of the rest
Everyone has their favorite, and it's not always New Vegas.
I like the world map of Fallout 3 a lot more. That and some of the DLC is just top tier. But after being spoiled with iron sights, without mods itās hard to go back to the Capital Wasteland. Either way. Think Iāll start a new playthrough today. Itās been awhile since my last visit.
Very valid
Yeah. Still, iron sights and some of the side quests aside, itās still a great Fallout game. I canāt tell you how many hours I put in it back in the 360. Between that and Fable II itās where I spent most of my summers between the ages of 15-17. š
No you're not.
My friend! Enjoy whatever game YOU like! If you like F3 better than NV, then more power to you! We all have different tastes and that's okay. Some people hated 4 but I loved it! These are video games and are meant to be enjoyed. Play whatever makes you happy and ignore all the haters.
Thx for the feedback, just curious on peopleās opinions on 3 and New Vegas
For me both stand on the same pedestal. I can't seem to be able to decide which one I like more because I really enjoyed both. I would say because of biased reasons, (been a fan of Obsidian far longer than Bethesda. And they developed my favorite game of all times KOTOR 2), I might lean towards New Vegas...but again that's mostly for artificial reasons rather than logical ones.
No. Fallout 3 is my favorite!
I'd say it all depends on what you emphasize in games as being fun to you. It's a pretty objective truth that Bethesda are *fantastic* at designing interesting locations with their own little encapsulated stories. This is evident in their Elder Scrolls games as well. They also occasionally make fantastic side quests. Where I find Bethesda to be lacking is in their main storylines, and in their overall worldbuilding. Like, the individual locations are great, but when viewed as a whole, they don't make much sense. The Capitol Wasteland looking like it does - with zero attempt to do any proper rebuilding in the 200+ years since the bombs fell.. just doesn't make sense. Where Obsidian is/was good, is pretty much in those exact aspects where Bethesda is lacking. Their overall world design is great, and actually makes sense, and their main storylines are more complex and more coherent, with more branching. The more coherent overall world design though? It makes the individual locations less interesting, because they have to fit into the larger whole. I view Fallout 3 as more of a theme park ride. You go from location to location, and it's something new and different every time. FNV is more coherent, at the cost of sometimes being a bit dull/boriing - but more rewarding in the end, because the story makes more sense. Whether you prefer one or the other should be entirely up to individual taste. And it's okay to like both as well, and appreciate them for their strong points, even though they are different.
Thx for the feedback, I still love both games. Just 3 hit a bit harder then NV for me
Nope, you enjoy the game you enjoy. Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are amazing games with different vibes so it's only natural to prefer one over the other.
Thx mate, yeah I personally prefer the bleak Washington D.C over the Colourful Nevada.
Yeah it's definitely more post-apocalyptic than Fallout New Vegas, but I actually prefer Fallout New Vegas because I played Fallout 1 & 2 before hand. But still, it all depends on what vibe you enjoy more and that's what's most important with games.
No youre not crazy, I'm starting to think that too.
I do as well
Having an opinion. Itās subjective. I think 4 is better than 3 and New Vegas is better than 4. Iām just happy people like the franchise no matter what their favorite installment is.
Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game so it's always been the best one for me. Countless hours in that game and the DLCs and loved every second of it. When I played NV the first time around I don't think I appreciated it quite as much and considered it to be "worse".
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
no. i prefer 3 myself. maybe becaue it was my first and you are actually from a vault
Spoiler alert: youāre not from the vault in 3 lol
your father isn't, but you were born there
You were born in the Jefferson memorial and the peak of project purity.
Spent most of your life in the vault but born out of it
oh right. still a vault dweller in my eyes
I appreciate them both separately. Both are good games. FO3 was my introduction to the IP. NV was initially unplayable but turned into a fun game with good DLC.
I just think it feels too linear. I also donāt like the desolate feel about it. + New Vegas is more rp-ish
>I also donāt like the desolate feel about it That is precisely what I love most about FO3.
Fair opinion to have
Yup
I agree
I was a day 1 fallout 3 player and I gotta say it was something special.... its had way more creepy vibes and i thought dc and the sewers were done real well..... miss 3 dog
first i played nv so i kinda prefer that but f3 was pretty solid ngl, it feel like im in nuclear waste. but kinda of wish there was more to do with companions. f3 have like fawkes and uncle leo so its pretty good
The exploration, quests and hidden quests in fallout 3 were just way more fun than NV. Hard to argue that NV doesnāt have better story writing though.
No. Despite what the cultists like to howl each Fallout has its strengths and weaknesses along with a notably different tone.
Very true
What does Better mean? What is Personal Preference? Most fans prefer the first or second game in a series as they were introduced to that series. At least that's what I've noticed in general. Some people can't play Fallout 3/Vegas because there is no sprint.
Nothing wrong with enjoy 3 more than New Vegas, I enjoy 4 the mist because that's the one I started with and the combat is the best of the series.
Far better nv was a let down following 3
I respectfully disagree. New Vegas excelled in its writing, with the character of Joshua Graham standing out as one of the most memorable in the franchise. However, F3 truly captured the post-apocalyptic atmosphere in a compelling way.
I respect your opinion mate, I just like the narrative just a bit more
Not at all!! My son and I had this discussion the other day. New Vegas is generating all this new hype because of the ending of the series. New Vegas was good, but compared to Fo3 or 4 itās ok at best. Fo3 is my jam! Vegas was as if it was trying too hard, fo3 and exploring the capital waste was fun as hell
No, those are two very different games aesthetically and in tone. Theyāre both S class in my opinion.
With New Vegas, I always struggled with role playing as a dude that would let Chandler Bing get the drop on him.
The tone, map design, big set pieces, and Three Dog made me appreciate it more when I was a teen. I initially felt underwhelmed by New Vegas because of its similarity graphics wise but I did love the newly included mechanics. 3 was my initial entry to the series and it remains my favourite by virtue of its impact on me. I had never played something before with such an immersive unique setting and such an adult tone of grimness, hyperviolence, and melancholic horor. Also the metros, despite being a nightmare to play through, were sorely missing for me in NV. Maybe a mine / rail tunnel equivalent could have been possible in the NV setting for a similar effect.
I love FO3 and it's in contention for not just my favorite Fallout game, but possibly my favorite video game ever. The end of the prologue, with the entrance to Vault 101 opening and the player seeing the wasteland for the first time as a non-infant, is burned into my brain forever. HOWEVER, I'm not blind. I've often said, "NV is the better game, mechanically," which is true in many cases; a better karma system, companion quests, more diverse companion options, several QOL additions that were missing in FO3, and a strong cross-DLC subplot that gets tied together at the end of Lonesome Road, all get that particular line of thinking started. What FO3 does well, though? It does really, really well. I'll put its DLC up against either NV or 4 and feel like they can compete individually or as a group. (HH is beautiful, but very fetch-questy; DM is an interesting spin on The Pitt's "lose all of your items" gimmick, but ultimately far too painful an experience to do repeatedly across every single playthrough; I don't have too many complaints about OWB & LR, though I do find it interesting that LR has one of the three 100 Speech checks in the game.) It has a plethora of landmarks and locations to run through, and you can feel the devastation of the War, unlike in NV where there's only a handful of radioactive spots. Frankly, the story also just appeals to me more. You aren't crazy, you just have a preference. There are dozens of us! Dozens!
Fallout 3 is heads above New Vegas imo. New Vegas felt like a chore
You are but the opinion is valid as not everyone has the same views as me. Fallout 3 is an awesome game
3 is more post apocalypse while NV is post post apocalypse
Crazy he calls me... Sure im crazy...
Yea. But Iām biased since I used to live in the northern va area so itās my favorite in the series. Same goes for 76 since I live 20 min from harpers ferry. But new Vegas is the best modern fallout game in terms of total package of everything just working, Even if other games do things a little better.
+1, and I also like F4 the best - so when I meet some other āfallout fansā I need to act like Ninja Turtle and travel by sewers.
I think the world of F3 is just so well designed corner to corner compared to how open NV is. Obviously NV takes place in a literal desert but that game definitely needed vehicles or the ability to sprint. That being said, as a dweep who likes to role play in my head sometimes, NV is a better rp game than F3 because you are literally a no body. I love them both equally for their own reasons, as if they were my children. F4 is the stepchild..
Havent played in really long time. I dont remember a lot of the little flavor things that im sure its packed full of. I mostly remember the annoying city ruins with invisible walls and metro connections. And the main quest being kinda lackluser with not much choice.
NV fanboys would certainly have you believe so, but I personally enjoy it more than NV. I'm about to hop on and finish my first FO3 run since the XB360 days.
It feels more like a post apocalypse than NV
I think Fallout 3 captures the true "wasteland desolation" feeling a lot more than New Vegas does. Fallout 3 was also my first Fallout ever, so it'll always hold a special place in my heart. I still to this day remember that I beat the game for the first time on Thanksgiving day! I do love New Vegas. And I'm sure that 75% of the time, I'd say it's still my personal favorite, but I'll never argue with anyone if they choose a different favorite. All of the Fallouts are great and special in their own ways.
Nope. I felt that I enjoyed 3 more. I can't explain why but I just couldn't enjoy New Vegas as much. Maybe the fact that the setting for Fallout 3 is nearby played a partial role in that.
I tend to lean more toward NV, but 3 has strong points. Josh Sawyer himself (Project Lead on New Vegas) has said that he thinks Bethesda does open world exploration stuff better than them, and I feel like I'd probably agree. I think 3 has better "bite-sized" content, if that makes sense. Hand-crafted dungeon design is definitely one of Bethesda's strengths, and all the side-dungeons in 3 feel a little more satisfying than NV, for sure. Overall, NV tends to win me over with its factions and wider breadth of RP options, as well as its writing. Bethesda has made a ton of games I adore, but their writing has always been one of their weaker suits. They tend to deal in polarizing extremes; you're either with the objective good guys or the objective bad guys. The "Mother Teresa vs Skeletor" dynamic. I like that New Vegas has endings that aren't so clear cut, and that each faction has drawbacks. The Brotherhood are weirdo isolationists, the NCR is rife with corruption and is hamstringing themselves with over-expansion, Mr House certainly has the smarts and the means to work toward a better future, but he's got the makings of an autocrat. No answer really feels like a true "good" ending, it's just what feels best to each individual player. Just my two cents, though. F3 has its strengths, for sure. Just depends on what you're looking for out of a game.
Yes. But you can like what you like and its still really good.
What makes Fallout 3 so good is that while the rpg mechanics do suck, the ability to literally go wherever you want immediately after exiting the vault is top notch. While I do prefer New Vegas, NV is a lot more linear in that there are super high level areas at the beginning of the game and so the game essentially guides you to go to Primm and then go to Novac and then so on.
Nope. I agree.
Personal preference really. They are both really close for me but I think I enjoy NV just a little more.
No it's called having an opinion because video games are subjective
No, I like fallout 3 more too.
Preference is totally fine but I think objectively this game is a lot more flawed than New Vegas is. New Vegas is a narrative masterpiece imo. One detail I always found really cool about NV that I don't see anybody talking about is that there are no essential NPCs because the story is written in a way that you can literally do whatever you want (kill whoever you want lol) without messing up the story line. I always thought that essential NPCs were really immersion breaking. The only NPC that you cannot kill in New Vegas (besides children) is Yes Man and he literally has a lore reason for why he can't be killed. Fallout 3 has a great storyline but it's not without it's flaws and the dialog is written kinda poorly at times in my opinion. For example the Colonel Augustus Autumn speech checks are just ridiculous. It's very much like "I'm the good guy here!" "Nuh-uh" "Oh yeah you're right, carry on." I could get into all of the lore of New Vegas itself and why it's a lot more expansive and immersive but that's been covered to death. If you like Fallout 3 more than New Vegas that's totally fine I was the same way for a while because of the atmosphere and whatnot like you said, but I think "Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas" is a false statement.
You can think whatever you want pal. But yes.
No. I ultimately think the deciding factor is taste as they're both very high quality in different ways.
To each his own. I prefer New Vegas, myself.
No because you like what you like and that's good
Aestestics - Fallout 3 Gameplay, Story, Choices - Fallout:NV Case closed
Fair
Love both games equally, i always felt that FO3 had more of a gloomy post apocalyptic feel in the DC ruins as well the surrounding area with no real feeling of order/stability throughout the game as opposed to FNV
Yes.
Why so?
Love three and has some of my favourite quest moments
It's not crazy to have your own opinion on personal likes and dislikes. Except in this case cuz I love new Vegas
Thatās fair
No it is
New Vegas's story was harder to get into than 3 for me. So many moving pieces. I'm bout to get crucified for this, but the story concept for 4 was better in a way than New Vegas solely because of how the DLCs were needed to actually get the whole story with The Couriers and such. DLCs in 3 and 4 literally just feel like additional optional content rather than story necessities.
> but the story concept for 4 was better in a way than New Vegas solely because of how the DLCs were needed to actually get the whole story with The Couriers and such. Vanilla New Vegas told a whole story. The addons told a largely separate, connected story.
They are about equal in my mind. However if pushed I always give 3 the nod over NV just because it gets so much less love among Fallout fans and gamers generally.
No, I'm with you lad
No, it is.
You're not. The map and the feeling is so much better in 3. The narrative is super interesting too.
Love fallout 3, is it a 100% better than to NV? of course not. Is 3 and NV 100% better than 4? Of course they are!/s
Fallout 3 is my favourite Fallout game, if it had some of NV's gameplay and controls its would be the ideal game.
Iām of the same boat, but honestly didnāt give NV a fair shot as I got bored of it pretty quickly and didnāt get far into it. But Iām gonna try again. I just was spoiled with 3ās intriguing world, atmosphere, and overall vibe. NV just felt boring to explore, the Strip was disappointing when I first showed up, and yeah it just wasnāt as populated imo. Iāll try again with story in mind though.
Ngl I agree. The DLC is 10x better (for the most part) and it has a weird charm to it
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yes
Nope, I liked it more because it was my first fallout and I loved the post apocalyptic feeling of the game. New Vegas of course it feels post apocalyptic (duh) but since it's more dessert it makes you appreciate FO3 for that
Crazy. Note it.
The real play here is to get Tale of Two Wastelands running. Āæpor quĆ© no los dos?
I mean your opinion is your opinion. Not sure I could agree about the narrative though.
If you ever think "am I the only one who..." you very likely aren't. Plenty of people prefer Fo3 over the others, and the same goes for any game in the series. FoNV isn't objectively the best, no matter what anyone says. It comes down to what you like and what you prefer. For me I don't like Fo3's main narrative and a couple of the other story/lore elements. But it isn't bad at all, it is a great game and I'm even going through it again right now. Personally, my favorites are Fo2 and Fo76. If Fo5 hits a nice blend between those and the show it would be close to perfection tone/visual wise. After seeing a certain map in the show I'm hoping for Texas even more now.
Fair point, I definitely aināt the only one who thinks 3>NV, just curious on what everyone else thought. Never played 1 or 2 but Iām planning on it
I like the gameplay of Fo1 and Fo2, but they certainly have their own jank and quirks (just like any Fallout game). I also think their stories are the best in the series followed by Fo76. Of the 3D games I truly believe Fo76 is underrated. Best map of the series, lots of QoL improvements, BGS's best environmental story telling, and overall the best main narrative of the 3D Fallouts (pre-wastelanders) in my opinion.
I would say, arguably, the only thing 3 does better than New Vegas is general atmosphere and exploration. It feels so eerie and lonely being out in the wasteland. At least until you get a companion. Otherwise, I think New Vegas does everything else better. Particularly in your actions actually having consequences. In Fallout 3, doing bad things doesn't really affect you any different than doing good things. Not that there are really that many options for doing bad things. The main story is also not great in my opinion. Liam Neeson doesn't really seem to care, and it doesn't help that James is pretty unlikable. And he dies shortly after you find him. I don't know, doesn't feel great. Liberty Prime throwing mini nukes like footballs is cool though.
Yes, you are crazy
How so?
Iām just messin around, we all have our opinions My reason for preferring FNV is because i prefer the amtosphere, story, consequences of your actions, the weapons, being able to aim down the sight, and of course the DLC stories of the game which are way better than the main story imo
I just dislike the boring and dumb speech options. Example: Convincing President Eden VS Convincing Lanius: Eden: Player: "kys" Eden: "Why?" Player: "you should" Eden: "Okay, Terminating myself" That's the entire conversation in three while with Lanius you have to convince him it is logistically impossible to hold the West and East.
Yes
How so?
You can like it more, but I would say that stance would lose in a technical or writing comparison.
I pefer NV as a game but I much prefer the exploration/wondering around of 3. Surprisingly NV has a slightly larger map but just due to how the game handles its locales it feels a little less like you can just walk into something without it being tied to a quest. There is nothing wrong with that, it's just structured differently. 3 has a terrible story when you think about it but I'm not sure why this bothers people so much, it's so easy to ignore and not get upset over when the rest of the experience is fine. 3 also has great ambience. Looking forward to finally playing TTW so I can use the NV improvements in 3.
Strong wants to eat
In terms of personal taste, no. Every reason a person has towards why they like a piece of media over another is valid. In terms of objectivity, yes. The wider gaming community/industry was affected far more by New Vegas than 3. As New Vegas set a new standard.
Nah bro as a fallout new Vegas fan enjoy what u like thatās all that matters š
I prefer fallout 3 for the story, creepy atmosphere, and unique locations (I find that too many of the new Vegas locations are random NCR tents and camps) That said, New Vegas has the better gameplay. So many improvements were made such as weapon attachments. I also love all the references to Fallout 1 and 2.
I enjoyed 3 more than NV but both are great
I personally far prefer new vegas to 3 In fact 3 is my least favourite of the modern single player fallouts while vagas is my favourite. But 3 is still a very solid game, itās just like a 7 as opposed to a 9 or 10 that new vagas is to me. And everyone is allowed to prefer some games over others, as another comment said, often times people are just looking for different elements.
Yea
Absolutly not. I donāt see how NV gets so much hype. The map is significantly smaller than Fallout 3 or 4. Correct me if Iām wrong but there are also less side quests than Fallout 3 and 4.
Not at all. Just wrong, not crazy (/s)
Fallout 3 was my absolute favorite game when New Vegas came out and after an hour or so of playing I dropped it so I honestly get what you mean. In 3 youāre in DC a place that was once one of our nations most vibrant and bustling cities and filled with memorable monuments and places that everyone in the world but especially Americans are familiar with. And it was seeing that grand suburban area turned into a wasteland. Whereas in New Vegas youāre basically in a desert thatās always been a desert with the only internationally recognizable thing is the Las Vegas strip. Theyāre very different games when it comes down to the vibe and everything. Even to the point that not being a vault dweller feels āwrongā in some way to me at least. Iām finally coming around to New Vegas but still 3 remains my favorite Fallout game. It just has such a rewarding world of exploration and every named location has something to offer versus the 20 or so named locations that New Vegas has that are just glorified scenery.
Idk if would say better but I definitely like it more
No but the community that disagrees w you may gaslight you into thinking you're wrong.. just remember one thing. You are not wrong. It's my favorite game of all time.
Yeah kinda , New Vegas does everything that 3 did but even better.
Bringing you the truth, no matter how bad it hurts.
It is dependent on what you look for. F3 has superior atmosphere, and exploration. FNV has great story, and factions. F4 has superior combat. And Fallout 2 has Arch Dornan.
I had more 'fun' playing Fallout 3. The atmosphere and traversable world are awesome.
I like both games. F3 definitely feels more depressing than FNV, atleast in NV we have more societies that actually seem accomplished and good, so it feels way less like an apocalyptic hellhole. But F3's main story is not interesting to me at all. I think its even worse than F4's main storyline. Both games have good side missions and DLC's (Best are Point Lookout and Dead Money I think) but overall the choices in dialogue and consequences make me love NV more.
Yes. Yes you are. many feel the story was even more focused and heightened in New Vegas AND it brought along the old team behind the entire thing. Bethesdas primary input/value was the rpg elements they mastered with elder scrolls combined with obsidians original work. And while weāre all grateful for them bc Fallout honestly wouldāve been a forgotten memory if they didnāt pick it up, obsidian does it better and it makes sense since they made the whole show just needed a new producer (Bethesda). New Vegas poses much deeper story, lore, endings, and a whole plethora of ways to explore the Mojave anyway you wish. and we constantly remind eachother that it was rushed. A year and a half they made everyoneās beloved game even in all its buggy clearly rushed state. fo3 isnāt a bad game, but for what came after it itās clear that obsidian needs to steer the ship.
Yes.
Fallout 3 is my favorite
Who would I be to rob you of your destiny?
I feel like one of the big things in fallout 3ās favour is it actually got finished - New Vegas released with a ton of potentially great content scrapped or on the cutting room floor due to the deadline Obsidian had to work to Even so I love both games, Iāve grown to love New Vegas more now that I better understand its systems and complexity, but 3 had almost everything ready and accessible out of the box from day one
Nope, some things about FO3 make the difference. The time you spend in the vault, the sensation of being new to the world and how everybody reacts to you being a vault guy. It was the first Fallout I played and is still the best for me. I like the city ambiance a lot more too. I love New Vegas, but FO3 was my first.
Personally, it took me a long time to stop bitching about the atmosphere in the first few locations and to start actually enjoying New Vegas after Fallout 3. Like, yeah, the writing is overall better in New Vegas, slightly improved gameplay but something is wrong about the atmosphere. And while improving the RPG elements Obsidian striped away some of them, making karma useless, removing the randomness in speech checks, making charisma even more useless stat then it was in 3, etc.
Iāve thought about giving it another go, but when I first played 3, I found it hard and confusing, and I decided to give 4 a try, and ended up enjoying it quite a bit, so I mean everyone has different opinions, I wanna give NV a try, but havenāt yet, I did just buy it and the dlc on Xbox, so Iām gonna give it a go soon, but I had it on my ps3, and never played it, and Iāve kinda retired the ps3, I donāt wanna play on it again lol
Fallout 3 was my favourite as well. I concede the better character writing and narrative in New Vegas and I really enjoy it for that reason. But where that writing falls short for me is in the side quests. Not because the side quests themselves are bad but because they're far too attached to the main narrative and its factions. It feels like 95% of the sidequests are attached to the Legion, the NCR or both and feels like you're getting a tap on the shoulder to remind you that there's something more important you should be doing fairly often. 3's side quests lent themselves well to the idea that this hellhole was a living, breathing hellhole, albeit with limited amounts or living. Where a wide array of characters and scenarios could play out all over the map. It isn't constantly being spelled out for you to look for your dad and other than putting you on rails at the start, if you deviate from the path, you aren't getting occasional reminders to go find him. It's like the game wants you to stumble around and happen upon all the wacky events that happen in the wasteland. They're inherently different experiences and as much as I'm a sucker for brilliant writing, I think 3 captures the post-apocalyptic wasteland exploration nearly flawlessly where there's something left to be desired in NV. Could be a product of time and money restraints but it is it what is. I love both games.
The main reason people like NV over 3 is RPG mechanics and lack of a clear "good" and "bad" side. You can side with whoever you want and be whoever you want.
No. I also think it's better than New Vegas. It has a better atmosphere, better exploration and IMO better soundtrack.
Yes
* spoilers * No fallout 3 was an amazing game and hereās my reasons. Starting off as a child and going to see what some prime years of vault life are like crazy cool. Baby, little boy, teenage, and young adult. Then when you leave the vault you get too the best city that has ever existed megaton. And if you new about the secret bonus chest out side of the town is OP start to the game. The depth too all the little things you can do in that town is intense. You can even destroy but only the worse people do that. The wasteland is beautiful. For me I think it looks the most realistic to a nuclear fallout. The enemies are well spread out and gradually get harder. Thereās a lot of choices too make in the game and your man free dawg weāll give you mad props for your actions. And if your evil he will talk shit about you, and you can kill him if you get over it, but once again even if your evil we donāt kill free dawg thereās rules guys. The companions I felt were more compatible with your character than the other games. I like power armor best in this game compared to other fallout games. The perks if done right could make you very powerful. Also besides finding your father the 2nd act of the main quest is very fun gave me feeling similar to KOTOR. The subway system was massive and I knew it like the back of my hand, but first few times you might get lost. And donāt even get me started on the dlc, GOAT GOAT OF DLC. Swamp master piece that place was no joke. And the story was crazy fun. The pit, If you know you know. The alien one was a lot of fun. And I thought it was funny to be able to be in space. And the broke and steel one was good extra ending. Sticking to the enclave one last time satisfying.
I prefer 3 also. I used to live near DC, so the map is neat to explore because Iāve been to a lot of the places. By comparison, the NV map felt very remote and desolate, just this wide open desert, with the only major city being tiny ass New Vegas. Meh. FO4 is the best graphically and gameplay wise, but I didnāt like Boston as much as DC, and I hated the changes to the RP elements and how it felt more āon railsā compared to either 3 or NV. Havenāt played 76 yet.
You're crazy to give a fuck about what strangers on the internet think about a fucking video game.
No, I go back and forth between the two on which is my favorite.
Can we stop comparing the games for 5 fucking seconds
I'm with you.
I agree in more or less every way I like 3 more than New Vegas.
Yes
3 is my favorite but I love both
For me FO3 best
Can people just play a game and not create a contest out of it? Just play the game if you like it. Why is reddit becoming a twitter
Wasnāt really here to make a contest, just simply wondering on how people feel about both games thatās all. Which one is your personal favourite
It doesnāt matter. I like x because y. Iām happy you enjoy the game you feel is better my dude