Bugginess aside – only talking story, gameplay, and characters – I'm wondering whether there's any relationship between players' reaction to Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas based on the creative teams behind them or previous familiarity with the Fallout universe. The polling technology here doesn't really allow me to ask the question I wanted to ask (i.e., one poll for previous Fallout games you've played and another one for preference between recent games, with a correlation between answers ... so sue me, I was trained in survey design...). Hopefully this approximates it, though.

Feel free to vote before reading on and letting my opinion bias you one way or the other...



Personally, my introduction to Fallout was through Fallout 3. I like a lot of the improvements of New Vegas in terms of gameplay, and occasionally, I found the dialog a bit more snappy, but there were some things that felt like major changes to the setting to me that went without explanation. I can't get into too many examples without veering into spoiler territory, but let's just say for instance that FO3 made a big deal about the rarity of coherent supermutants, and New Vegas introduces some like it's something the player would already know is relatively common. It's just one of a number of things that made me ask: Is this a thing from earlier Fallout games that the player base was expected to know? As such, I personally felt like Fallout 3 felt like it stood more capably an introduction to the series, and New Vegas felt like something that expected you not only to have played its immediate predecessor, but even more games before that.

With regards to your mutant problem, the answer is yes there is a good reason for mutant being the way they are in Vegas. You'll hear them going on about the Master a lot - that's the plot of Fallout 1 and it explains why they're different to the stupid mutants in 3. Same with a few other things that are different in Fallout 3 - things are different on the east coast but the differences are all explained in previous games. This is probably one of the main reasons other than the changes in gameplay that old school fans hate 3.

Me? I was there in the old days but I can reconcile Bethesda taking liberties with canon and gameplay. I'm just glad we have new Fallout games to play.

Though I don't have any hope a thread like this will survive long, nothing against you it's just that flame wars tend to start in threads like this, I figured I'd go ahead and share my opinions concerning this matter.

This is a statement I posted on the GSC Forums concerning how the majority of people from almost all audiences perceive New Vegas:



I come from the group that started with the original Fallouts, so I'm pretty much with the choice of started with Fallout 1 and 2, liked Fallout 3 but felt it was lacking, enjoying New Vegas and it basically isn't lacking at all compared to the originals (Fallout 3 changes aside).

I was actually introduced by Tactics when turn base strategy start to die out in flavor of RTS. Then go back to 1 and 2 for more story, play 10 minutes of BoS back in the days when there is independent video game store...

Anyways, FO3 is more of a fixer while NV is like a Slasher (before future games anyways....)

My option isn't up there. I played FO3 and FNV and love them both.

I like FO3 and FONV equally, but for different reasons. I loved the epic feel of roaming the Capital Ruins while listening to Three Dog. Or going beneath the Capital through the dangerous metro tunnels. I loved helping Elder Lyons and the Brotherhood of Steel fight the good fight.

I love the western twang of FONV. I love all the improvements made with weapons, crafting, skills and perks. I love that FONV feels a lot more dangerous, you feel open and vulnerable, especially to a person use to having towering ruined walls for cover. And I love the myriad of well written NPC's the game has.

Long time Fallout fan from the originals. Actually, I even dabbled in Wasteland, which Fallout 1 was sort of an unofficial tribute to. Just on a side note, we speak of bugginess in FO3 and FNV, but FO2 had several game breaking bugs, and in fact I never finished FO2 due to save file corruption.

I'm the odd bird that's a fan of the first two, but actually loved FO3. Sure, it took some massive liberties with the story and canon, but it brought a whole new style to the series, that I welcomed whole hearted. The best part of FO3 was the feeling of exploration and freedom to just enjoy the world, that the orginal games couldn't capture. There was a limit to what you would find that would be reached early in those games. In FO3, I found myself stumbling across things I hadn't seen, and tended to just wander the wastes for new things to see and do. There was also some cool things you could do that really weren't part of the game design, like pacify the Raiders via Mesmetron.

Onto New Vegas. Obsidian refined the gameplay and added a lot to the game with minor tweaks. The addition of hardcoe mode made the act of exploring the world and living off your salvage even better. The dialogue options and ability to use other methods of solving quests than combat is great. The story was a bit better crafted and the return to themes from the originals was a definite improvement to FO3.

So why do I choose FO3 over FNV? Well, FO3 just felt more rewarding when you didn't follow the main quest. Hanging out in the Capital Wastes is just more fun than New Vegas. FNV is a great game, and has lots of replay value, but it's just not as rewarding to hang out and adventure on your own. After a couple of playthroughs, there just doesn't seem to be much draw to explore. It's close but I give the edge, slightly, to FO3.

I started out by playing FO1 in '97, (has it really been that long ago lol), then I went on to FO2, Tactis, and got half way through BoS before given up on that knock-off.
For me FO3 was great. Hey who doesn't love gunning down enemies and blowing stuff up :flamethrower: But the questline was abit lame in FO3, well written in some places but lacking. Meanwhile, some of the side quests were great, or at least funny. I just couldn't care enough about the main quest, it was just something you had get through before you could really start playing the game. After awhile, I didn't even bother with the main quest at all. At the most, I'd get Dad killed at Jeffersom Rotundra so I could active the Enclave. Or I'd just use a mod to start the Enclave. Then I'd play to see how many caps I could amass and how much stuff I could fill my Megaton house with by level 30.
In FONV, I actually do care about the main quest because what I do, effects the outcome. (FO3, it doesn't matter what you do, when you complete the main questline, the ending remains the same.) Although in FONV, you do have to do some research on FO1 & FO2's story, so you can understand the background to FONV.

Only played FO3 and NV, like NV better


I didnt even have a PC when F1 & F2 were released. I didnt get a PC until well after they were released, i didnt have an internet connection until 2001 & so i could only rely on what local shops sold at the time, and i dont 100% recall seeing Fallout(i may had done), but i was playing games like Gangsters, Cutthroats, System Shock, Thief, Half Life & Deus Ex.

Played FO2, FONV better than FO3.

Played FO2 a long time ago. I loved FO3 (it's in my top 10), and it was a great landscape to explore, but I felt it lacked something in the RP department and the main quest was disappointing. New Vegas has everything I want in a Fallout game, but more than that it has everything I want in a good quality RPG too.

One is always better than the other.
Maybe just by a tiny notch, but one is always a little better.
It's not to say you don't love them both.
But which one do you love just a teen weeny bit more?

Just to say, I played FO3 first, I never heard of fallout before it, Last year or 08' i got Fallout 1 and 2 (yay combined games!) and i have to say FO3 compared to those games, Was AWFUL.

And ever since, I've loved Fallout.

Just not FO3 anymore.. But I also love NV.

Waaaaay more than FO3..

I've only played FO3 and NV, and I definitely prefer NV. FO3 was a really good title for sandbox adventuring, probably slightly better than NV in all fairness. However the quests, dialogue, imagination, atmosphere, etc, in NV I find to be substantially better written, not so simplistic.

I suppose the roots of the two developers clearly show in the two games. Obsidian are know for intriguing story based games, with rounded and often amusing characters, whereas Beth are known for sandbox, do as you please games, however their titles are often lacking in interesting plot and storylines, or are very simplistic black and white.

Whilst I'd prefer a little more exploring (and a lot less bugs!) in NV, to my tastes it's a much more interesting and intriguing game. Not that FO3 was bad, I enjoyed it an awful lot, but this one has grabbed me and pulled me into the quests and dialogue more, and there seem to be an awful lot more quests in NV.

As a first venture into sandbox style games like this I'd say Obsidian did a fantastic job, and haven't sacrificed their ability to weave a good story and create interesting plots and characters, which was a concern I had before launch.

We have a similar topic already open for this discussion and comparative study:
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1139377-is-it-just-me/page__st__60__p__16665242__fromsearch__1&#entry16665242

And we sure don't need a topic pitting members against members as this thread is doing.