Just a nice little quote I found on another site.

New Vegas hands down is better than fallout 3 in EVERY way.

NV has everything F3 has but improved and more of it.

Fallout 3 was my first fallout game, but I later played one and two. At first I just assumed that Fallout 3 was the way all the Fallouts were (story line wise of course, I knew that the gameplay was drastically different) and loved it. But after playing one and two I came to the conclusion that Fallout 3, while a very, very amazing game was more like Bethesda had decided to make a post nuclear game and just thought Fallout would take away some of the responsibility of making a decent story from them. They could throw in vaults, supermutants, enclave, and crazy radiation mutations so they didn't have to come up with much in the way of original stuff, and from there just built the world on how they figured D.C. would look 10 or 20 years after a nuclear war. They seemed to make a off the wall main quest and explained it away as being a Fallout game, while the main focus was more on some sidequests and exploration. While that was very fun and I loved it more than 1 and 2 (only because I HATED the gameplay of those games, while I liked Fallout 3's gameplay) it wasn't really much of what a Fallout game is supposed to be about.

Fallout New Vegas on the other hand feels much more like what Fallout is about. The characters and the storyline. The quests are absolutely brilliant, the characters believable, and all in all it stays true to Fallout. Fallout 3's story was about the super heroes in metal armor, the evil guys with the upper hand, and those big scary vaults. New Vegas's is more about the factions and settlements, and more importantly, the people in them. While there does seem to be very little meaningful things to do outside of each individual settlement, it's still more fun. Occasionally in Fallout 3 you'd get small unmarked quests or maybe even a sidequest or two (though those usually ended up with a dungeon crawl of some kind) that relied on you dealing with people in town, those were rare and never seemed long enough. New Vegas did it right, with most of their quests revolving around you moving through town, talking to people, and settling problems in a believable manner. New Vegas heavily relies on storyline, even going so far as to simply fade to black then put you where the next important part of the storyline is, where as Fallout 3 will give you some random quest then put an arrow pointing towards where to continue then leave you on your own, almost as if begging you to get sidetracked and just go wander around the wasteland instead.

While some may prefer 3 because it is more action oriented, I prefer New Vegas as it seems more of an RPG than a shoot em up.

I'm still blasting away in New Vegas, I love it! (About 40 hours now). But Fallout 3 was a little better, while the combat has been improved for NV I still think FO 3 was more Epic in scope than Vegas. While Vegas is slightly more akin to the older games, FO3 was my intorduction into the world of Fallout and will always have a special place for me. FO 3 feels bigger than Vegas plus there was a lot more weapons and armour in FO3. I like the rep system a lot in Vegas and this is better than not having it. While I love both games FO3 is slightly better in my opinion, while it does have lots of action I think Vegas isn't really that far behind and still caters to Action Fans but it does have a more RPG feel to it and that isn't a bad thing. I just felt the build up in FO3 and the scope of the game dwarfs Vegas a bit. But I'll be looking forward to the DLC. One example is the Alien Easter Egg in FO3 as opposed to the Alien Easter Egg in Vegas, which was done better? FO3 did it better, crashed dirty well executed looking UFO while the Vegas one looked like it was just plonked on top of that cliff, it may harken more to the older Eggs, FO3 did it a little more stylishly than Vegas. Overall FO3 was a 10 outta 10 game for me and Vegas is a 9 outta 10 game. I love both games but FO3 was slightly better for me

Both games are great, i personally am more immersed and having a larger amount of "BLAST" in NV.

Obsidian are the potatoes Bethesda's meat has been missing, please keep working together.

Just imagine what they can accomplish in the future.

>>hardcoeMode<<
^^^more of this^^^

\o/

New Vegas is awesome, seriously.

Actually, New Vegas has awesome characters and quests, but FO3 had better locations and scenery. So in FO4 I would like Bethesda designing the place, and Obsidian designing the quests. Thanks!

Fallout 3 was a nice starting ground, but i think New Vegas just kicks it up a notch all round.

Fallout New Vegas by far! The quests are much more in depth and really do feel more rewarding once you've completed them, you have to choose your path in dialogue more wisely which i like alot, Also i love the iron sights on the guns and the mods you can add to them! Deathclaws are now a thing to run away from if you want to live...love it!

won't this poll be a bit biased seeing as we're on the new vegas forum? :whistling: nevertheless, both are incredible games, but i think new vegas just edges it with the improved combat and a more unusual story.

Fallout 1.

I haven't even made it to level 10 yet in New Vegas so it is too soon for me to make a proper comparison between it and Fallout 3. I also cannot make a comparison with the first two games since I never played them.

I will say this, however:
New Vegas gives the player more freedom and purpose in designing their character. In Fallout 3 I had no choice but to be the kid from Vault 101 with a known father and a set age. It is harder from this set up to create a believable character that also had, say, more malicious inlinations. New Vegas, on the other hand, only tells you that your character was shot in the head while making a delivery. Your character can be an old man or woman, a merchant or mercenary, good or bad, parentless and even homeless.....and what helps with the roleplaying is the limit on Perk selections and the greater emphasis on eating, drinking, and even Charisma and Speech.

I'm looking forward to playing the rest of New Vegas and appreciate exploration being more difficult, if not as flashy and interesting as the Washington D.C. backdrop.

So far I like Fallout 3 better. While the quest writing is quite good in NV and I enjoy the factions, I really don't see the reason for the "try to reinvent the wheel" approach Obsidian took to certain aspects of the game. Skill leveling changes, neutered V.A.T.S., gimped energy weapons, crafting, a myriad of ammo types, perks only every other level, small substandard cave areas, poorer exploration opportunities, etc... I find most of them tedious, frustrating or unnecessary more than adding depth to the game. They could have skipped many of those mechanic changes and/or additions and concentrated on making the world larger and more interesting to go along with the nice quests.

Oh the irony.

Also: New Vegas, by a loooong desert mile.

There's no irony if you have no exposure to Black Isle's games. Can't "rip-off" something from a company who went broke and you bought the license for.

Two things:

1) The irony was that this is exactly how fans of 1 and 2 felt when 3 came out, which is a far more reasonable stance than being upset that the game has been brought back to it's actual roots.

2) Bethesda was not the only company bidding for the license; it may not have been "ripped off" but it was very much a redirection of the series.