Yes, this is a rant. If you don't want to read it, then leave.

For everyone interested, I play on 360.

I have finished Fallout: New Vegas so don't tell me to give it a chance.

This game, compared to Fallout 3, is a huge let down. I enjoyed playing it, but it is really nowhere near the standard that Fallout 3 was at. Let me explain.

The Story:
The story in this was just awful. I mean come on guys, at least think of something exciting and something that's going to draw me in? I hate the fact that you have to side with one of the factions. It was so much more simple and enjoyable when you were working with one faction in Fallout 3. Also, I was confused countless amounts of times. Quests that start and fail immedietly? Quests that start then complete immedietly? Completing one quest then failing another? I had no idea what to do.

The Bugs:
The engine seems to be even more unstable than the one in Fallout 3. It seems like they just got the Fallout 3 engine, found all of the major bugs, then amplified them and made them even worse. On one of my saves, I can't go into third person view. This is usually the view I use while travelling. Then it's crashed about ten times while I've just been walking along.

The Ending:
This face should describe my feelings for the ending > ?.? It was ridiculous. And, *SPOILER ALERT* At the end when you have to fight the leigon (only done this in two endings, with Mr House and with Yes Man) How do they expect you do that!? I know I'm going to get a load of posts telling me I svck, but I had it on Very Easy and I was struggling. Fighting about 30 of the leigon who all take ages to die is ridiculous! It's almost impossible!

The Achievements:
On Fallout 3, I used the achievements to find the side-quests. On this, none of the side-quests have achievements! I have no idea how many there are or where to find them! Stupidity!

That's the end of my rant. Please leave your opinions/comments.

In short, you're saying that "baby school game > complex, challenging game"

While I respect your opinion I have to disagree

Thanks for the spoiler alert, I almost read it. :celebration:

:rofl: Are you serious? The story is way better, and it is better to find quests on your own, this is not a linear shooter game. Its an open-world RPG. Get used to it.

The only thing that I could agree with, are the bugs messing with your game. I respect your opinion, but it still amazes me that one could think FO3 better.

I laughed. :laugh:
and agree with this post 100%

That's fair enough. But I still stick with my opinion. It's a good game, don't get me wrong, but considering how amazing Fallout 3 was (I spent probably 300 hours or so on it) this is a let down.

Seconded.

story- FNV story is better because you can choose the path you want to take instead of being forced down 1 set route.

bugs- cant argue with you there, although i havent had any yet.

The ending- i had no problem with it. i didnt find it difficult at all. the ending cutscene was better too

achievments- if there were an achievment for every single mission, there would be a [censored] load of achievments in this game.

Despite the rant you could have some consideration when posting spoilers in the General forum, I had best move this to the correct place.

I agree about the bugs and the factions.

I don't agree about the rest, but can't comment on the end / story as I haven't finished the game... by the way, thanks for the spoiler alert, but you can also hide the spoiler with spoiler tags so no one inadvertently reads it.

FO3 was better cause it was original. This game is FOOK2-New Vegas.

I think they are pretty similar, and not just because of the engine and mechanics. Well, yes, because of that too. New Vegas had lots of things I found interesting, I liked the Perks more. Individual characters had more life and variety and the factions were done well but the main quest I thought kinda lacked for, not sure what word I want to use here, immediacy. I felt more invested in my character and the wasteland in FO3 than I do in NV. I felt like there was just more to do and see in the CWL than the Mojave. My main complaint about NV is how barren and boring the casinos are. There are hardly any people in them and for crying out loud, I can't get a lap dance? In Vegas? Really?

Personally I enjoyed both of them immensely. Grats to both Beth and Obsidian!!

hahahahaha as soon as you read 360 or PS3 you should know the person is about to [censored] about the game being to hard/complex.

Haha, "original."

A watered down re-hash of Fallout 2's story, a style of open-world environment that's been done in concept many times before, and RPG/FPS hybrid mechanics that have also been done before (and much better) pretty much throw your statement away.

I'll agree with you to a certain extent.

I prefer FO3, but not by much as this is also an exceptional game, and a true sequel to the first two.

Neither of your statements make any sense what so ever. Before you ask; yes I know what FOOK is.

I think that explains where you're coming from adequately.



So... You're saying that a complex and nuanced story, with scores of interesting and well-realized characters is inferior to a child's storybook-level battle of good versus evil with cardboard cutouts everywhere standing in for all but a handful of characters? Well, you have a right to think that, but you're in the definite minority here, and I think that's a good thing.



Some people have tons of bugs, some people don't. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to it, though this time around the 360 seems to have the most bugs.



What exactly was wrong with the ending?



You mean you have to... GASP... EXPLORE? Truly, my heart bleeds for you.

If you really need to be led about by the hand, just check out the vault wiki.

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3vFGAYqO8indg_Hc4grbVjYw4m0tklKKKtEcWYFzT1IKSviI&t=1&usg=__A8gkC9ZojpKvSToHDY7pg_jmvTo=

I spent maybe 800 on F3. I imagine that number will double for F:NV

Well, when the player starts with Fallout 3, what else do you expect from them? :shrug:

Kids these days with their dumbed down good vs. evil games.


Uh... no and no. First, Fallout 3 wasn't the original in any way. Go play Fallout and Fallout 2 if you really want to know and get a feel for what the original games are like. That is, if you're not shallow and can get past the dated graphics, isometric view and, le-GASP, TURN BASED COMBAT!!! :bolt:

Second, this game isn't a mod, nor is it a glorified expansion pack like every 12 year old on the forums seems to be claiming. The game has twice (and maybe even more) the amount of content that Fallout 3 has, and everything little part is better than Fallout 3 in every way. If anything, Fallout 3 is more like an expansion pack to New Vegas. It just, somehow, came out before the actual game.

Anyways, I really hope Bethesda considers having Obsidian work with them for creating Fallout 4. Have them write the story and make the gameplay mechanics (weapons, leveling, etc), while Bethesda makes the world (with some touches from Obsidian to make sure everything doesn't look to much the same,).

I didnt know disliking turn based combat makes you shallow. Learn something new everyday.

Im barely 20-30 hours into NV, and am enjoying it much more than Fallout 3. Finally my choices really makes a difference. I love the NPC's. They have so much more character. So do the compainions and thier extra missions give you more of a connection with them. I want to get a new companion, but I really want to find out about Boones wife more.

Considering all the new greeblies we get for FONV (alt ammo, repair/maintain, damage threshold, easily modded crafting, lots of others), I don't think I could go back to FO3...

Indeed you do. It's because most new gamers these days don't really think "turn based combat" when they think of RPG. They think of something like Oblivion, something real-time. Well, for western RPGs anyway.

Wow, tough crowd, but you did state it was a rant.

Surprised that everyone thinks that xbox360 = lesser opinion. I think it just clarifies the fact that there will be zero mods to change anything lacking in the game, and that the bugs experienced are particular to the platform, not necessarily the game.

I agree, I like FO3 more than FONV, but it's a close call. I found FO3 to be a great reimagining of the Fallout Universe although some of the design decisions were a bit contrived (BoS, I'm calling you out!). The main strength of FO3 was the completely non-linear style of gameplay. It really played out like a big sandbox with a MQ looming in the background if you so chose to follow it (I didn't for the longest time). Having scaling enemies allowed the game to grow with you, and keep you challenged until you became godlike at level 20.

FONV, is more true to the original games (FO1 and 2) and just goes about things differently than FO3. The enemies are setup so that you can't easily stray from the MQ, lest you stumble across enemies that you can't effectively fight. It kind of funnels you down a path, but the choices you make along that path have a more profound effect on your game experience. FO3, had a lot to see and do, but really not much cause and effect for your actions. It also helped that the D.C. area had a ton of locations, practically on top of each other, so finding things to do was pretty easy.

I can totally see why people think of FO3 as the better game. Really, it's just a matter of taste. Do you like a deeper, branching story, that has multiple endings tied to your decisions, and a more desolate environment? or do you like the well stocked, location laden, and open ended experience of FO3? And let's not forget that before the DLC, FO3 had a definitive ending that many did not like. I'm looking forward to the multiple replays of FONV.