Reason I'm going back to Fo3 : Fallout: New Vegas

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:46 am

The game simply doesn't have the level of detail that Fallout 3 had, and it starts to detract from the world.

I disagree most strongly. The game has vastly more detail in the world. Right down to them actually explaining how all this prewar technology is still powered after all this time, where people get their food and water, where the guns come from...

What it doesn't have is random dungeons filled with random raiders to shoot.

After the quests, there isn't much to do in NV, while exploring in Fallout 3 yields rewards and interesting locations. I've discovered 2/3 of the locations in NV, and done 2/3 of the quests. The locations and quests simply aren't as engaging as Fallout 3's. Are there more? Definitely. Are they better? I don't think so.

I don't really agree. Most of Fallout 3's "interesting locations" can be counted on one hand if they aren't quest related. Most of the other ones are only "interesting" because of what you get to shoot at in them. Take Kaelyn's Bed and Breakfast. It's a generic burnt out building that's only there to provide a respawning location for raiders who you can shoot.

EDIT: Not to mention New Vegas doesn't have any of the little things Fallout 3 had, the little details that made environments fun to turn inside out. You can read my thread if you want examples.

Is there a link to this thread somewhere?

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:36 am

Thank you, I'm aware of that.

It's ridiculous how much I have to say this. It's not just the amount quests/locations that make the game.

The game simply doesn't have the level of detail that Fallout 3 had, and it starts to detract from the world. After the quests, there isn't much to do in NV, while exploring in Fallout 3 yields rewards and interesting locations. I've discovered 2/3 of the locations in NV, and done 2/3 of the quests. The locations and quests simply aren't as engaging as Fallout 3's. Are there more? Definitely. Are they better? I don't think so.

EDIT: Not to mention New Vegas doesn't have any of the little things Fallout 3 had, the little details that made environments fun to turn inside out. You can read my thread if you want examples.

I have realized for some reason that there are people who feel adamantly compelled to defend F:NV even though you or I are not directly bringing it under fire. I understand what you mean, there are is just a certain underlying difference that Fo3 brought to the player that F:NV doesn't seem to have. It is not to discredit NV, because it has its merits over Fo3, but again watch out for the seemingly overbearing fandom, makes you wonder if the devs paid posters to defend it to the bitter end (I jest - F:NV is a great game, i just enjoyed the experience I had with fo3 better)

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:57 pm

I have to agree with this i just cant get really into this game im only finishing it for the sake of finishing it and seeing what happens
The storyline was well written and its a great game with crafting and slp food h20
But the only reason im running around to every location is so i can hit level 30
I enjoyed the companion quests as well those were well written
I dunno yet but can you join or do quests for the main part of the great khans

Spoiler

it only seems the only thing you can do with them is get them to not join the legion

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:13 pm

Fallout NV: Better quests with multiple branches and complex interaction between quests and factions.
Fallout 3: Better dungeon crawling, less annoying inventory management (NV really means to separate the ammo crafting stuff from misc)

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:09 am

/snip

You could have just clicked on my name, and that would have brought you to my recent threads. But http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1129135-feels-a-bit-empty/page__p__16556994&#entry16556994

I'm not talking about the enemies in the game. I'm talking about little things the developers went out of their way to put in, down to skeletons with blood coming out of their head and a pistol beside them, or sillier things like the Plunger Room of Death. New Vegas doesn't have the same level of detail put into the environment. Yes, there's better writing, I'll give that to NV. But talking to NPC's is but a small part of a sandbox styled world. If the environment isn't fun and interesting to go out and explore, I don't have the same compel to keep playing. I'm still finding little things in Fallout 3 after countless hours of play. But I almost feel like I've seen everything there is to see in NV already.

Kaelyn's Bed & Breakfast is actually (to me) a prime example of why Fallout 3 is better than NV. While it isn't big and flashy, it's obvious that the devs put care into even that. The way they positioned the sniper up top, and the fenced in Brahmin field behind them. There's obviously a story behind the place, and it's nice to come across something even as simple as that.

EDIT: And I fully agree with everything you've said, KizuStrife.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 12:27 am

I find myself at a crossroads between the games. I like FO3's atmosphere,immersive quests, and game world better, and yet I love the new gameplay content and the overall technical side of FO:NV.

In NV, I honestly got lost in the story. Once I got to Vegas, I got spammed with all the faction quests and the Wild Cards, and I was like, "what the hell do I do? Who is this quest for?" and so on.
Im also not a big fan of the desert theme. I would much rather see the Capital wasteland than the Mojave.

However, the gameplay itself of FO3 seemed lacking and mundane, but in NV the new mods, weapons, and overall gameplay is very much improved.

It's hard to say which I prefer.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:31 am

Thank you op! While I disagree with you in that I like NV more than FO3... we need more threads like this! Civil (mostly) discussion about the pros and cons of the game rather than blatant flaming and trolling (not to mention the ridiculously fanatical fabnoys*).

Now to get on topic:
While it's hard to pinpoint exactly what it... is I feel the atmosphere and storytelling is far superior in New Vegas compared to FO3. The main story and it's goal in FO3 was very direct and made it clear what you were trying to do, but I just didn't feel it. Why should I care about my dad when every other smuck in this wasteland doesn't have a family either. Why is the enclave here when they were destroyed in FO2? What's with the backwards ass BoS? WHY CAN'T THE SUPERMUTANT WITH ME JUST PRESS THE DAMN BUTTON AND BASK IN THE RADIATION LIKE IT'S A MILD SUN TAN???
New Vegas leads you into the storyline with a believable motivation. This guy shot you in the face so go get some wasteland justice! Do note though that I have not finished the main story yet and I am 55+ hours into the game with plenty of quests left to do.
To sum my opinion up into a more simple list:

Pros of NV
- More immersion and believable story, characters, and motivations
- Multi dimensional factions (Not everything is black and white)
- More endings and required specialization of characters makes for more enjoyable replays (You can't do everything on one character)
- It's harder. A pack of deathclaws or Cazadors actually make me stop and say 'Can I take these guys?'

Pros of FO3
- Better dungeon crawling. I do get a bit tired of finding locations in NV only to see it's just an empty shack.
- Better combat. Not sure why, but it just feels like more of a shooter than New Vegas does.
- Possibly more variations in exploration and stuff to see? (The exception IMO being the vaults)

*Edit: Didn't realize that word was censored...

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:06 am

I believe that the lack of compelling content is due to the moral greyness of all the factions involved in the game (maybe not the fiends....). I have always enjoyed having a line drawn in the sand, where there is no question who is good, and who is evil. All this moral ambiguity is just not as motivating or immersive even. For example, I like the fact that the NCR is generally regarded as a power hungry democracy. I think its safe to assume that the "NCR path" is as close to the good path that we can get in FO:NV. I just don't like the fact that there is no way for the main character to change/eliminate the bad parts of the NCR, and/or change the power hungry motivations that drive the NCR. Well, I suppose your COULD, by joining Caesar, but the fact that this game obviously tries to drive the player towards supporting the NCR (proven just from the sheer number of quests from the NCR as opposed to any other faction) is contradictory.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable game, don't get me wrong. I just like the line between good and evil do be more distinct. If I want to support Mr. House, but he wants me to kill my buddies over at the BOS bunker even though i tell the guy that I can talk them into aiding him, that's when I start to say: "hey this house guy is misguided, I need to take him out." So I do take him out, and get bad karma for it? Come on. This game is filled with choices that people don't like to make. Which produces this so called lack of immersion.

I think obsidian is obsessed with this moral ambiguity....kotor2 anyone?

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:55 pm

I believe that the lack of compelling content is due to the moral greyness of all the factions involved in the game (maybe not the fiends....). I have always enjoyed having a line drawn in the sand, where there is no question who is good, and who is evil. All this moral ambiguity is just not as motivating or immersive even. For example, I like the fact that the NCR is generally regarded as a power hungry democracy. I think its safe to assume that the "NCR path" is as close to the good path that we can get in FO:NV. I just don't like the fact that there is no way for the main character to change/eliminate the bad parts of the NCR, and/or change the power hungry motivations that drive the NCR. Well, I suppose your COULD, by joining Caesar, but the fact that this game obviously tries to drive the player towards supporting the NCR (proven just from the sheer number of quests from the NCR as opposed to any other faction) is contradictory.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable game, don't get me wrong. I just like the line between good and evil do be more distinct. If I want to support Mr. House, but he wants me to kill my buddies over at the BOS bunker even though i tell the guy that I can talk them into aiding him, that's when I start to say: "hey this house guy is misguided, I need to take him out." So I do take him out, and get bad karma for it? Come on. This game is filled with choices that people don't like to make. Which produces this so called lack of immersion.

I think obsidian is obsessed with this moral ambiguity....kotor2 anyone?

This is one of the top reasons I enjoy this game. Life is not black and white, and neither is Fallout. I would argue the game is more immersive because of it, not less. I have said it in other posts and I will say it here: Fallout 3 was a step away from the franchise by making everything 'good' or 'evil'. Fallout 2 was one of my favorite games of all time because it had a lot of moral grey areas and dark humor. Fallout New Vegas is just bringing us a step closer to the spirit of the original games.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 5:02 am

Alright, so I am planning on returning to Fallout 3 after i get all the NV Trophies. And here is why...

I initially enjoyed Fallout: New Vegas, and essentially still do. The game fixed a lot of the problems I had with Fo3, such as making the game a bit more difficult, adding some factions to join, and improving the writing. However, i enjoyed my experience with Fo3 significantly better. If you have played F:NV to some length you will know that the main quest is relatively short, while there maybe many possible approaches to the main quest (as far as resolutions) the fact of its length leads to the most crippling (IMO) feature of the game. This requires a bit of explanation, so hold tight. The problem lies in immersion - in Fo3 the main quest is your guiding force (so to speak) but on your way you stumble across those in need or points of interest. For instance, as you travel towards Rivet city out pop Bryan crying that the monsters are after him - I instantly felt compelled to help. It seems that every side quest in Fallout 3 felt essential, and would be something the LW may stop his main questing for.

Now, in F:NV it started out that way, helping the good folks of good-springs with their gang problem, or getting some khans out of a tight spot. But before you know it you are in New Vegas and have spoken to MR. House - now the main quest begins drawing to a close (after you decide who's side your on). Then the side quests seem like you are just running errands for various factions. Sure, the companion side quest are fairly compelling - but I think most found a companion and stuck with them, or maybe just switched once. Anyway, the point is once i reach Benny - The courier is ready to make his decision on who to side with and after a few quests the main line is over. I just don't feel compelled to seek out the various factions and do their errands - I think that is where the immersion seemed to die for me.

I'm not sure if this made any sense...and really I am not trying to complain, F:NV was fun for a while and it made me appreciate Fo3 - who knows their may be a DLC that gets rid of the definite ending, which i see as a fix for this problem. If the courier is allowed to continue than he would likely be looking for work and seek out those factions to make some money...but for now he has found his answers and made a decision on the fate of the Mojave, no need to turn back for now.

Well hey i really hope you have fun. But you do relize there is 100+ more hours of missions in this game (Yes just missions alone) This is not like fallout were you just play it straight threw cause the only other thing to do is explore pointless land. Stop just playing the main story, wich i think is actually as long as fallout 3 main quest. And go and play the side quest (only a few are short).

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:30 am

I believe that the lack of compelling content is due to the moral greyness of all the factions involved in the game (maybe not the fiends....). I have always enjoyed having a line drawn in the sand, where there is no question who is good, and who is evil. All this moral ambiguity is just not as motivating or immersive even. For example, I like the fact that the NCR is generally regarded as a power hungry democracy. I think its safe to assume that the "NCR path" is as close to the good path that we can get in FO:NV. I just don't like the fact that there is no way for the main character to change/eliminate the bad parts of the NCR, and/or change the power hungry motivations that drive the NCR. Well, I suppose your COULD, by joining Caesar, but the fact that this game obviously tries to drive the player towards supporting the NCR (proven just from the sheer number of quests from the NCR as opposed to any other faction) is contradictory.

This was a thoroughly enjoyable game, don't get me wrong. I just like the line between good and evil do be more distinct. If I want to support Mr. House, but he wants me to kill my buddies over at the BOS bunker even though i tell the guy that I can talk them into aiding him, that's when I start to say: "hey this house guy is misguided, I need to take him out." So I do take him out, and get bad karma for it? Come on. This game is filled with choices that people don't like to make. Which produces this so called lack of immersion.

Karma does not matter in this game. The reason you get bad karma is because his plans were to restore the U.S to its former glory. He even thought to leave for a new planet and try to rebuild life. So by killing him you prevent, probably the only way the wasteland will ever be cleaned up.

Trying to change a goverment that is 10000000x bigger then you is unrealistic. I like the fact that you can't really see directly who is good and bad. I saw NCR as good, but the BoS as bad. I saw Mr. House as Evil, but also i saw Ceaser's Legion as evil.

The only true good can come from Yes Man. Because with him, you rule, you do as you wish, wether you save new vegas, or you destroy it under your powerful grip.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:03 pm

I don't play the game for the Main Quest. In fact, I would be perfectly happy if there was no main quest. There simply isn't enough of something to keep me playing, and, like I said, I really don't know what that something is. It's just lacking.

Are you brain dead... This game improved every aspect of Fallout 3.... EVERY! More SIDE quest, More People, Factions, 2x+ Weapons, Mods, Companion wheel, new companions, your own suit that you can keep your companions at, More.... More... More Armour, Disqueses, and more more more!

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:45 am

Well hey i really hope you have fun. But you do relize there is 100+ more hours of missions in this game (Yes just missions alone) This is not like fallout were you just play it straight threw cause the only other thing to do is explore pointless land. Stop just playing the main story, wich i think is actually as long as fallout 3 main quest. And go and play the side quest (only a few are short).

I'm afraid you must have stopped midway in my post in order to respond. I never discredited the fact that F:NV has a lot to do. I am saying that the main quest does not take detours until you must choose sides, so the side quests seem...well "pointless." At least those for various factions.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:40 pm

Are you brain dead... This game improved every aspect of Fallout 3.... EVERY! More SIDE quest, More People, Factions, 2x+ Weapons, Mods, Companion wheel, new companions, your own suit that you can keep your companions at, More.... More... More Armour, Disqueses, and more more more!

I agree with you to some aspect, there is indeed much more content, but at what cost? I believe that the quality of some things were lacking. A good example would be Modern Warfare 1 to 2. A fps contrast to an RPG i know, but still. CoD4 was amazing! and so was MW2 but the immense amout of extra content just bogged down the game and made it less skillful and more luck and nooby and quality suffered to to the hands of balance, hackers, and glitches galore.

Please don't troll me about my choice of anology, just see the concept.

I still don't know which game I like better, FO3 or NV.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:12 pm

FONV>FO3 and most peeps that like FO3 over NV have never played FO1 or 2 so maybe they just don't understand NV does bring it.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:44 pm

I think what people are trying to get at here is that the QUESTS are more replayable in FONV, but the whole game itself is more replayable in FO3.

FO3's map area is just so much bigger than FONV that I feel the people saying FO3 has more replayability have a definite point; the exploration aspect is far stronger in FO3 and that is the most important part of making a game replayable.

There's just so much more map to explore in FO3; NV has a lot of redundant locations or locations that are not explorable.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 11:59 am

I agree with you to some aspect, there is indeed much more content, but at what cost? I believe that the quality of some things were lacking. A good example would be Modern Warfare 1 to 2. A fps contrast to an RPG i know, but still. CoD4 was amazing! and so was MW2 but the immense amout of extra content just bogged down the game and made it less skillful and more luck and nooby and quality suffered to to the hands of balance, hackers, and glitches galore.

Please don't troll me about my choice of anology, just see the concept.

I still don't know which game I like better, FO3 or NV.

Well that aint a good combo, i hate MW2, tooo unreal. Thats why im afraid to get black ops and is renting it.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:03 pm

I will also be going back to Fallout 3 soon(ish), but for a different reason than you. I've played NV for about 40 hours now, and now that I've done much of what there is to do, there simply isn't much left. Fallout 3 has tons of re playability. I'm always finding something new to do. But I've found NV to be lacking for some reason. Just not as much to do. I still have ~10 side quests to do, I have to finish the main quest, and I've got about 50 locations to discover/explore. But once I'm done with all that, I don't see much reason to keep playing.

I explained the best I could in my earlier thread, but I'm just not getting the same enjoyment and sense of "what's over the next hill" that I got with Fallout 3.

EDIT: After taking a quick look at the wiki, I have quite a few more quests to do than I thought. That's good, I guess.

New Vegas has significantly more, and better, quests than Fallout 3. The main quest is longer, better written, and has far, FAR more replay value than the choice A or B Fallout 3 main quest.

I think that all of these complaints stem from pure nostalgia. That "what's over the next hill?" feeling you speak of, well, I can answer that pretty easily in regards to Fallout 3: Nothing. Nothing at all. No interesting quests, no believable people to talk to who have interesting dialogue.. nothing at all. Just raiders, toxic waste cans, and super mutants.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:58 pm

New Vegas has significantly more, and better, quests than Fallout 3. The main quest is longer, better written, and has far, FAR more replay value than the choice A or B Fallout 3 main quest.

I think that all of these complaints stem from pure nostalgia. That "what's over the next hill?" feeling you speak of, well, I can answer that pretty easily in regards to Fallout 3: Nothing. Nothing at all. No interesting quests, no believable people to talk to who have interesting dialogue.. nothing at all. Just raiders, toxic waste cans, and super mutants.

Even if there were no interesting quests or characters over the next hill in FO3 (which is very much a subjective matter and we're all going to have different opinions on that) the fact remains that there is still significantly more "next hill" to explore.

NV doesn't have random encounters and the map area is much smaller; regardless of what you may feel about characters and locations, FO3 unarguably has NV beat in sheer distance you can cover while exploring.

And speaking from a purely subjective viewpoint, I found there to be many interesting NPCs and quests in Fallout 3. Maybe not as many as NV has, but there's still quite a few near and dear to my heart.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 6:08 am

@the turniator

Yes some belive this, but i think the reason it seems smaller is cause it apears smaller on pip boy. Notice when traveling from location to location in FO3 your arrow moved alot faster, but in FNV your arrow seems to slowly move. They just zoomed it out to much, making the map seem small. They are all about the same size, except FO3 felt to square and box like... (Dont get me wrong i loved FO3). This game feels more like, well it might just be me but i love the moutains, it makes me feel like im not just in a flat plain place. Yes FO3 had cliffs and giant rocks and a few hills. They did not have red rocks (If they did then WTF bethseda that don't go there), giant moutains, creatures that inhabbit certain areas.

Deathclaws are ussually found near the rock quarry or some kinda crater surrounded by rock.
Casadors are ussually found on moutains
Coyoties are ussually below the moutains on hills
etc.

The map feels bigger to me, maybe you should get the explorer perk, there are alot of areas you probably don't know about, with that perk you can see em all.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:57 pm

@the turniator

Yes some belive this, but i think the reason it seems smaller is cause it apears smaller on pip boy. Notice when traveling from location to location in FO3 your arrow moved alot faster, but in FNV your arrow seems to slowly move. They just zoomed it out to much, making the map seem small. They are all about the same size, except FO3 felt to square and box like... (Dont get me wrong i loved FO3). This game feels more like, well it might just be me but i love the moutains, it makes me feel like im not just in a flat plain place. Yes FO3 had cliffs and giant rocks and a few hills. They did not have red rocks (If they did then WTF bethseda that don't go there), giant moutains, creatures that inhabbit certain areas.

Deathclaws are ussually found near the rock quarry or some kinda crater surrounded by rock.
Casadors are ussually found on moutains
Coyoties are ussually below the moutains on hills
etc.

The map feels bigger to me, maybe you should get the explorer perk, there are alot of areas you probably don't know about, with that perk you can see em all.

No, the FO3 map is much larger. Coming from the devs themselves, the map areas are about the same. Since roughly a third or so of the New Vegas map is impassable hills, this means FO3 has much more explorable area. Running cross-map on FO3 would take a lot longer than it would in NV.

And I did get Explorer, that was my favorite perk from 3.

I do like the terrain, I just wish that it didn't necessitate that so much of the map be inaccessible. Still a great game, but the exploration aspect doesn't measure up to FO3. It has FO3 soundly beaten in many other areas though so you win some, you lose some.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 3:09 am

Even if there were no interesting quests or characters over the next hill in FO3 (which is very much a subjective matter and we're all going to have different opinions on that) the fact remains that there is still significantly more "next hill" to explore.

NV doesn't have random encounters and the map area is much smaller; regardless of what you may feel about characters and locations, FO3 unarguably has NV beat in sheer distance you can cover while exploring.

Like i said the map is zoomed out more, so it feels smaller. And even if the other one was bigger. It was just a rock here, a rock there, another rock there, a mole rat there, then eventally... a destryoed building there!

I would much rather good dialouge, good quest, and good story, over just random crap to make it so it takes you two hours to get to a hole in the ground were you will die. There were only a few characters that i really liked in fallout 3, not one companion did i like, except dogmeat.

Boone, Veronica, All 1st Recon, Colonel Boyde, and Hsu, Yes Man, etc. These were all some of my favorite people, now obviously i have more, but these are those who stand out.

The locations might not be "As Detailed" but they are more intresting. There are 40+ places that i found interesting, While in FO3, it felt like they just used the same buildings, and places over and over again. The only places i liked in FO3 was... Dunwich, Megaton, Tenpenny, Rivit, and... uhhh i don't know anymore, i guess the subways and the mall district.

o, and the random encounters only happen if you pick wild wastelander trait now, this is for the serious minded people who hated those weird things happening, so now its in a small package.

Now i know what i like about the exploration thing more then FO3. In FO3 some of the buildings/locations didn't feel like they fit. I would be walking in a completly no vegetation area... and right in the middle... a Giant oasis.... i was like WTF, it defenatly took away from emmersion. I don't explore much in this game tho, only if i want to get a weapon, so maybe your right.

My favorite activity is taking boone, and rex, then stocking on ammo for snipers, Get my Anti material Rifle, Mysterious Magnum, and E-Cluds C-Finder.
Then we head off to a Ceaser's Legion camp, Ussually that cotten woods place or whatever. Then i sit on the cliff and pick off Legion. It's great Target Practicing.
They freak out, but can't find me, so they run around wildly.

I just wish C-4 did not cost so much!!

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 10:47 am

No, the FO3 map is much larger. Coming from the devs themselves, the map areas are about the same. Since roughly a third or so of the New Vegas map is impassable hills, this means FO3 has much more explorable area. Running cross-map on FO3 would take a lot longer than it would in NV.

And I did get Explorer, that was my favorite perk from 3.

I do like the terrain, I just wish that it didn't necessitate that so much of the map be inaccessible. Still a great game, but the exploration aspect doesn't measure up to FO3. It has FO3 soundly beaten in many other areas though so you win some, you lose some.

The only thing i think i really miss from FO3 that i didn't get in this, is a better begging. I love the story and how you get shot in the head, but the tutorial felt bland and rushed. I loved the grow up in vault tutorial. Bethseda is known for those things.

Somtimes i would make a new character in FO3 just to be in the vault again.

» Wed Mar 09, 2011 1:36 am

Are you brain dead... This game improved every aspect of Fallout 3.... EVERY! More SIDE quest, More People, Factions, 2x+ Weapons, Mods, Companion wheel, new companions, your own suit that you can keep your companions at, More.... More... More Armour, Disqueses, and more more more!

So I'm brain dead for having a different and explained opinion? I'm going to spell this out for you. More. Content. Does not. Make. The game. It's the quality of said content that makes the game.

Oh, and it's Disguises.

EDIT: And I don't understand how I can be nostalgic about something I was playing less than two weeks ago. I have a vivid recollection of Fallout 3, and I found the world to be more engaging and detailed.

» Tue Mar 08, 2011 9:59 pm

I'm surprised no one mentioned it, but if they did my bad. People seem to forget is the difference in the amount of time Fallout 3 was in development compared to New Vegas. Obsidian had to use the engine from Fallout 3, because they didn't have enough time. I think they had a year and half to make New Vegas. New Vegas feels like a continuation of Fallout 2, Fallout 3 feels like something else entirely different, but just as enjoyable.