Hi, Titan357 here.

I feel the need to tell the op, I do not agree with anything you said. N.V is what fallout 3 should have been. Its closer to 1 and 2 then fallout 3 ever was.

This game is better IMO. I have my reasons.

Kthxbye!


P.S

FO-3 was OK, only after I modded it.! FWE+MMM+EVE+other mods= semi fun fallout 3.

N.V is great right out of the box.

I'll requote my post from just a few before yours:



tl;dr - I don't replay FO3 for the crappy, shallow MQ. (to the point that four of my six FO3 plays, I've ignored the MQ) I replay FO3 for the random unmarked stuff out in the wasteland.

FO:NV (Obsidian) does the Fancy Plot? better.
FO3 (Bethesda) does the Random World Detail? better.

I have trouble understanding "moral grayness". In FO3 there were some serious moral issues to deal with FO3, like Tenpenny Tower or Harold. I have not found this type of problem in F:NV. It like who carries and shoot any way. In F:NV I am at the dam and it is getting old to be NCR lab dog but there is no way out, unless I want to join Caesar. The only people I care about is the people of the Mojave. That means the game is over for me. Were as in FO3 I did not care about the physical areas but the people I met or did not wish to meet, well unless.... :nuke:

I loved both FO3 and FNV both in different ways but I'm hardly unbiased, I prefer New Vegas alot. As far as bugs go both of these games released with glaring bugs and countless problems so I can't hate one or the other over that.

FO3: I loved Fallout 3 because I hadn't really experienced anything quite like it before and it was a breath of fresh air. I loved the player crafted weapons, the depth of locations, and the general size of the wasteland but I didn't like that there was no real attempt made to even act like the east coast had even attempted to rebuild after it was destroyed. I liked the general feel of the game but I didn't like being forced to serve the Brotherhood and the fact that none of the sidequests or your actions not related to the main quest get any mention in the credits. The storyline seemed kinda mindless to me and too black and white: Enclave bad! Kill! Once again I had alot of fun with this game but really didn't feel like my actions mattered much aside from the main quest and even the choice you're given doesn't have much effect aside from the credits calling you a [censored] or saying you were a super good guy for not killing everyone.

FONV: I love that skills have a much larger place in this game than in FO3, I love that you can make more decisions that effect the endgame and that companions and sidequests get mentioned. I enjoy the fact that you can prepare food/poisons and reload ammo as well as there being multiple types of ammunition for each weapon. I like that I can build a reputation with different factions and they treat me differently depending on my standing with them. I enjoyed the companions being much deeper and being able to give them orders more effectively. The fact that there were tons of weapons and modifications for each of them was nice but some of them could've been expanded further. I don't like that none of the locations are developed quite as deeply as those in FO3 and I don't enjoy that you can't really build many custom weapons. hardcoe mode was a huge plus and one of the main reasons I bought the game, I really enjoyed this aspect.

All in all each game has its problems but both of them also have areas where they shine. I prefer NV mainly because of the larger amount of weapons, modifications, the ability to prepare food, and hardcoe mode. I can't ignore how long I played and enjoyed FO3 though, it was also a great game just very different.

I see that you never looked in Benny's room.

To madmonk. I played thru doing little for the NCR, it was no problem, I was not liked by both NCR and the Leagion. I took out the dam with the securitrons. Then at the end when the NCR general tried to take control I killed him too. You can play without being anyones labdog,

For me New Vegas plays more like a DLC of Fallout 3. Compared to FO3 I find it a bit less entertaining so far. Much of this was due to the DLC's and avaliable mods for Fallout 3. Also New Vegas uses the same game machine as Fallout 3 with the same limitations. It is a dated machiene and needs a complete overhaul. I notice it only uses one core of my 4 core machiene, and the CPU usage is very high. This may explain the random crashes. The frames jump more then they should. It has the same problem of quests getting blocked by other quests, when it centers on the same charactor. There are a lot of minor issues with things floating, sinkng or moving inside a wall.
It seems a bit less imagiative and memoriable then FO3. The Ten Penny Tower Quest, Lucy West, The Country of Dave ect. still stick well in my mind. The Final battle in FO3 was so much better then the Dam Battle of FO NV. I can't think of anything in FO NV that really stands out as memoriable.

I still find FO NV to be a lot fun but a little disappionting at the same time. FO3 was truely epic, FO NV is not. I think they will need to come out with some great DLC's if they want to keep sales up.

At the end of the day its personal preference, I really adore New vegas, Its true what some folk are saying, Attention to world detail isnt a strong suit in this game like Fallout 3 was.
Fallout 3 was set in DC, Lots of little things you would find interesting due to the place being a bombed city, Lots of forgotten secrets and other things really gave it awe, And it was great.
New Vegas however is in a desert, There isnt much detail you can put into it, No bombs hit it, There is little civilization there due to it of course being a desert, It is however a warzone due to the fighting between Caesar's Leigon and the NCR over Hoover dam, But where world detail fails, It adds up with the factions, All of them vieing for power, Your choices effect what your path of progress, Thats what Fallout 3 was lacking.
dont get me wrong i loved Fallout 3, But Vegas gave me that feeling again that i have been pineing for since Fallout 1 & 2.

You're just looking back at Fo3 with nostalgia glasses, New Vegas is better than Fallout 3 by any objective measure.

Ok I'm really really not understanding this argument about "attention to world detail" that people seem to claim F3 had.
I found it the opposite. I found 3 as having almost no attention to detail.
But when I hear this I don't think, what fallout names carried over and were re-used. Or how much text was entered into a computer console.
I think WORLD detail. How are the areas around this map connected. What is their relationship with each other? And F3 had none.
Heck one building didn't know what the other next to it was doing. Pretty much every location in F3 was disconnected from each other. They were just little areas in and of themselves that left more questions than answers.
A simple example are the stores. You just don't need them. Really you can make it through that entire game easily without buying a single item from a store ever. Because stuff is everywhere.
Which then makes me wonder how they stay in business. Why are they needed? If it is so dangerous out there, how come I have so much and the stores which have been operating out there longer than I have have so little?
How come the Enclave and everyone is all of a sudden so interested in a project that has sat dormant for the last 16+ years? What's the rush?
How come I've already killed more mutants in 30 minutes and made more headway than the entire BoS has in ten years?
Where is the food for any of the towns coming from?
Sure F3 had some clever little bits, but that is all they were, just clever little bits shaken all over the landscape with no connection to each other. That is NOT world detail. That just shows no thinking to how the world actually functions and gets along and has gotten along.
You should be making a difference in the world and helping to shape it, but it should feel like something will happen and something has been happening before you came along and even if you were to never come along.
F3 felt like the world just has been sitting there frozen waiting for you to show up...and willing to keep waiting until you get around to doing something. Not saying that Vegas changes over time actually, just that it "feels" like it will go on with or without you. New Vegas feels like you have walked into a much deeper, more thought out, living breathing world that doesn't actually need you.

It is also a game, with a plot, with a main quest. Not a simply live in a bad setting sim. Which means it is not a strength that you can ignore the main plot in F3, it is a weakness. In fact it shows how disconnected everything is from each other.
The final battle in Vegas was a bit disappointing but so was 3's final battle. In fact it was more so to me. I ran ahead to clear out troopers only to find they wouldn't die and there was an invisible wall blocking me from getting too far ahead. Which is still too far ahead because then you have run back to trigger everyone to move forward some more. Having to control my character walking through a scripted sequence is not a dramatic final battle.

The moral choices in F3 were anything but...and that should be plain as day.

Sure, you know, maybe, just maybe, if you overload F3 with mods it might come out being a bit better. I don't know. But the game by itself, as it shipped is basically what should be compared. And the F3 world just falls flat and generic with some "Fallout" terms thrown all over it.

One of the things about Fo3 that pisses me off is the "random wasteland crap"s lack of variety. Seriously, how many:

Skeletons in bathtubs/on beds/on the ground surrounded in drugs
Skeletons with rifles and radios
Skeletons in beds
Skeletons with dried blood and guns next to them

Did you find in the wasteland? Seriously, it was like 4 or 5 different flavors of "random wasteland crap", and none of them tasted that great. I like the IDEA of telling a story, but they were ALL THE SAME STORY.

Someone mentioned some random raider camp in a barn, and how it had a story. Yeah, that story being "after the war people did bad things. some of these people banded together and did alot of bad things. then they found this place and made it the Bad Thing House. the end." I like FNV's raider stories better, example being the great khans. Rather than being unnamed nobodies who attack on sight, they have a past and a interesting history. They're people, whereas raiders in Fo3 are monsters.

While in general i am pleased with the discussion that this topic has created, there is some silly squabbling of "the game I like most is better." When really the essence of my post was to say I really enjoy both games, but in the end I feel Fo3 (right now) has more enjoyment due to the exploration. Sure, F:NV has various endings, but that's just it they are endings - once you've done one, you know the others are going to be just the same except you're on the other side of the fight.

F3 will feel devoid of towns and people after FNV... I like FNV simply for the feeling that it's actually occupied. The exploration also feels better in FNV. F3 there was hardly anything blocking your path to and from an area. In FNV you think your headed in the right direction but then have to trek around a mountain or lake which takes you to more areas. F3 has less areas, less quests, (at least it did before all the DLC). Plus most of the side quests in F3 were not lead to.. There wasn't anything that lead you to Agatha or Oasis or Girdershade or The Republic of Dave.. There were entire area's of the map left completely undiscovered if you did nothing but follow the main quest.
I hit most of the areas just by doing side quests on my way to New Vegas.. 112 hours in and I still haven't entered New Vegas. 92 areas explored out of 186.. 32 Quests done out of.. what 100? (some I obviously can't complete because I've chosen to ally myself with whomever I deem as "good").. Just so many more possible ways of playing FNV than F3. And although I've hit the level barrier already at least my character still has some fun flaws in her build that prove to be a challenge.

I went back to 3 because all the damn problems I had. (I noticed that once my save file on FONV got to a certain size my game just started having all sorts of problems and i have endured some lagging and some freezing problems on 3 but not as much as I have on NV)

Not reading all other replies but.....


It seems that FNV was overhyped, and while everyone is admitting that it's good, it doesn't catch you like F3 did, scine F3 was completely different than any pther game most people have played. Personally, F3 was a big surprise, I wasn't much of a gamer back then, so I didn't really look into any games, but when I got my hands on it, it surprised me so much and drew me in. People wanted Fallout NV to fix everything F3 messed up, and to some extent it did, but most people don't have that feeling that they originally got for fallout 3 becuase they are very similar, but not to the extent that FNV should be called an expansion pack, which is just bullsh**. That is like saying MW2 is an expansion to MW....

Well that was my 2 cents.

New vegas kinda svcked. traded it for fable 3

The worst thing about New Vegas are quests. If Bethesda made this game all these people would be saying "yet another mediocre Beth game filled with mindless fed-ex quests", but hey since it's Obsidian it's okay.

Worst thing about these quests are godawful rewards. Like I need 200 caps when I already have 5k. In FO3 you'd get lots of exp, perks, unique weapons and armor, you know, exciting stuff. Eventually I stopped doing them because they're all the same and I coudn't care less what happens.
Like I need to go to some [censored]hole to help some moron for virtually nothing.

Also, why can't you bypass some stuff? Why I have to go to those artillery shooting pyschopaths and then have no other option but to do their mundane tasks?

Still, it's a good game.

.

Ditto on this.