Six of one, half a dozen of another. I do prefer the more gradual branching of Fallout 3 over New Vegas, and also the less emphasis on dialog. But New Vegas is more new, with more fun things to do. Love the hardcoe, love the crafting, love the cowboy theme.

I'm divided, in some ways I prefer FO3, in others I like F:NV more.
NV has better character progression than FO3. It's no longer possible to make a walking god with every stat and skill maxed, and every single decent perk (though I do miss my slightly ridiculous "Nuclear Anomaly" perk).
However I preferred FO3's "DR" as opposed to the "DT" of F:NV (I hate my minigun being useless in F:NV), and F:NV also broke energy weapons.
FO3 started better than F:NV though. Vault 101 was a better start than Ol' mole-butt's clinic and Goodsprings.
F:NV so far seems to have better side-quests, though not sure about the main story quests. Haven't seen anything in F:NV yet that tops Tranquility Lane or reclaiming Jefferson Memorial with a giant republican nuke-throwing robot.
As for the game environment, I definitely prefer FO3. Just seemed to have cooler locations, like those big satellite installations up north that I found randomly while wandering, or Rivet City or Megaton. I preferred FO3's "downtown" to NV's as well. The Mall and it's museums/monuments I found much more interesting than The Strip and it's casinos. The massive underground subway network was amazing too imo.
I prefer F:NV emphasis on factions rather than karma though.
So for me, the perfect Fallout game would have the introduction, the environment, some main quests, DR over DT, and decent miniguns/gat lasers/energy weapons from Fallout 3. From F:NV I'd take stats and levelling system, skill book distribution, side quests and factions (Oh, and AM rifles and Ballistic Fists).

Lord Humungus, If they would have put in a "proper" DT and DR system like it was in the originals you wouldn't have this problem. The problem is they only put it in half way, in a attempt to not change up(I guess) the "oblivion" formula too much. So you ended up with universal DT that energy and explosive weapons can't get past.

OP: yeah, I like 3 more too, but that's probably inevetable as it was my first and I went in with zero expectation, knowing nothing about the game whatsoever, so was blown away as a result. New Vegas had two years' worth of my own internal hype to live up to, and struggled to meet that. It's a really good game in its own right though.

Terrible thing, expectation. I'm just glad I could play 3 from a clean slate, rather than having a decade's worth of hopes and fears invested in it.

New Vegas has a lot of problems, comes short in a lot of aspects, but when I think back at how FO3 was then it might just be a gift from god.
FO3 was a 50/50 for me.
I loved some things.
But I absolutely hated others.
And as a Fallout game? I hated it with a passion.
But it was still a fun game.

But New Vegas?
It's like 90/10 for me, they made a couple of bad design decisions but it's an awesome Fallout game and is miles ahead of FO3.

So no, I would never ever prefer FO3 over any other fallout game.

Picture Repesentation for my entertainment..

Fallout 3 = :brokencomputer:

Fallout 3's DLC = :swear:

Fallout 3's Reference to first games = :facepalm: + :cryvaultboy:

Fallout 3's Direct Ripoff of the Originals story... = :nuke:

Fallout: New Vegas = :intergalactic:

Fallout: New Vegas Story = :foodndrink:

Fallout: New Vegas Bugs n' Glitches = :sadvaultboy:

Fallout: New Vegas Future DLC (Exclusitivity..) = :angry:

Fallout: New Vegas reference to first games = :mohawk:

The End.

We, need, MOAR smileys.

I would say I like them both the same, but New Vegas gets the edge with hardcoe mode, now roleplaying really means something.

Yes, We do..

I could some up every major plot point in the series with smileys..

:celebration:

Really?

Well then, I'd love to see you do it.
I'll give you five internets for it.

if they make more fallout SMILEH FAICZ, Or i find any, i will do this just to add to my e-peen.

lol.

It was a slower start, but I find Vegas's world just makes more sense. People are running farms and bars and factories in a dust bowl, whereas in Fallout 3, they had all that stuff just lying there, and everyone went and lived in corrugated iron sheds and ignored the industrial machinery just sitting there saying "yup, just another day in the cold, unforgiving wasteland. Better eat my radroach and talk about radiation , cos, you know, apocalypse".

If Goodsprings had been in DC, it would have been three shacks besieged by an army of pleb baiting supermutants, instead of a living working trade settlement. The world just feels so alive and isn't that the message at the heart of Fallout, that life goes on?

:laugh:

I agree completely. I could never figure out how anyone survived in FO3. They didn't farm, after 200 years all of the preserved food would have been long-gone, and they didn't trade. Heck, it seemed like most of them had no contact with the outside world at all. For all intents and purposes they were still living in vaults. Vaults made of incomplete storytelling rather than concrete and steel.

On the point of believeablilty (not a real word) I'm going to take the liberty of copy-pasting something I wrote in another thread here:



Maybe I'm just more willing to suspend my disbelief, but not once during Fallout 3 -- nor any other game I have ever played -- did I worry about the plausibility of the world. Present me with a town full of people and I start looking for quests or interesting characters, not wondering how a shop and a restaurant are supposed to provide employment opportunities for an entire town alone. Just give me the edited highlights of your world, I'll fill in the gaps.

(I hasten to add that I'm not knocking those who do look for this sort of thing, nor do I think it inherently undesirable, just that for me it's way, way down my list of priorities.)

It's something I don't understand, either, but they probably don't understand our point of view. :shrug: Personally, I think games exist to be played, not anolyzed for flaws in believability, but that's just me, and Fallout was never very believable to begin with, in my opinion.

FONV and F3 are both imo good and worthy of copious amounts of time!

Absolutely not.

No, I can't say I do.

This is something that's going to vary widely from person-to-person. First of all, in my mind there's a big difference between something being realistic and something being believable in a fictional setting. Realism isn't necessary in a fictional setting provided the setting is sufficiently believable within its own fictional context. The intended application of the setting is also relevant to me. In your example, I don't expect the setting of Mario 64 to be all that believable, much less realistic, because the themes integral to that setting and the gameplay don't require it. It's not the type of game in which I feel a need to be immersed in its setting.

So, I don't really care, for example, that magic isn't realistic. Within the context of, say, a TES game I'll accept the fact that a person can shoot lightning out of their fingers all day long. It doesn't break my immersion because I've already accepted magic as part of that fictional setting. If you take that a step further and explain to me, within the context of the fictional setting, why magic exists, how it works, what kinds of rules it's governed by, and how a person might come to learn how to shoot lightning bolts from their fingers it becomes even more believable to me...again...within the context of the fictional setting.

In a role-playing game a significant chunk of my enjoyment comes from feeling immersed in its setting. One of the major themes of the Fallout series is survival. As such, when a settlement is trying to eek out an existence in the harsh post-apoc wasteland it's nice if it's evident by looking around and talking to NPCs. Fallout 3 did this. People did live in makeshift huts and destroyed buildings, ate odd foods, talked about surviving, etc. Outside of that, though, there wasn't any evidence of them trying to survive. They didn't farm, they didn't trade, they didn't scavenge, etc. These are all things that would have added additional dimensions to the theme. Additional dimensions and justifications solidify a theme within the setting...make it more believable...and therefore add to my immersion in the setting. I'm not saying that a game that doesn't do this is bad so much as that a game that does do this is doing a better job of making me believe in its setting.

Apply the same concept to conflict, which is another recurring theme in the Fallout series. The factions in FO3 rarely interact or even talk about one another. There were subtle and not-so-subtle clues that these conflicts were occurring, but the opportunity to add additional dimensions to this theme were ignored or missed by not showing more evidence of it in the world, giving more back-story, allowing the conflict(s) to evolve and have an effect on things, etc.

I could keep going on themes like politics, technology, faction storytelling, etc. Again, I'm not saying that a game that doesn't pay attention to these things is bad...just that a game that does is doing a better job of making me believe in its setting. My opinion, of course. There's no right or wrong.

I prefer some parts to it, but I love most things in NV..
Then again some things in FO3 made me feel antsy, and some things in NV make me gnash my teeth, just like every game I play.

I do like the view of the factions and their emergence in the Mojave though.

In my opinion you may not understand our view but we can understand your view, for roleplayers suspension of disbelief can be difficult, for those just playing a game then the background is not so important as the game mechanics, I not knocking anyone here, we each get our entertainment in different ways.

REALLY!??!?!

I thought New Vegas was like a upgrade of fallout 3. I can honestly not think of anything fallout 3 has that fallout new vegas doesnt.

Im still on my first playthrough of new vegas and im reaching 60 hours of gameplay and still havnt beat the game, and i still have stuff to do.

When i played fallout 3, i could beat the game, do all the quest, explore everything that is important, and im pushing 30 hours of gameplay. My fallout 3 character that has beat EVERYTHING, and explored everything, is at about 55 hours.

New vegas gets a big ol A++ in my book.

I have a character in 3 who's clocked up over a hundred hours and hasn't progressed the MQ beyond repairing the radio mast for 3-Dog. He has the biggest collection of hats in the whole wasteland though.

@softnerd: ty for the thoughtful response, always interesting to hear another perspective.

i think my biggest problem with nv is i don't feel like it's a post apocalypse game and more of a western, which i tier of much easier. im tiered of going around small random farms, i want to go back to a huge destroyed city with monuments and subway stations. i do love new vegas but i can't help but miss the old atmosphere.

This may not seem obvious but after reading some of these posts I've come up with an idea. If you prefer Fallout 3 to Fallout: New Vegas, why not just go play Fallout 3?