Game will probably drive me back to FO3 too.

not for any stupid "i think ones better in ways than the other" reason,but simply because they both have the fix of wasteland,its just finishing FO-NV means FO3 will make me forget FO-NV for a while so it can be replayed again.

i only judge a game if its totally crap and a waste of money,if a game fills a void and entertains then judge it for the money spent,and this ones been worth every penny.

go check arcania and mafia 2 if you want a yardstick,what a pile of brahim [censored] they were,and cost five times more than thier worth.
these days of 8 hour games we should all kiss Obsidians and Bethesdas arses for dropping these in our laps.

to be blunt who the feck could have the nerve to critique them ?
and i was one of the ones who thought they couldnt turn fallout into a modern day game and take it away from iso-format.
so so glad they proved me wrong.


whooppee,heres my bethesda paycheck......oops did i type that out loud ? :whistling:

I'm guessing you've never been to the actual Mojave desert (staying in a Vegas casino doesn't count). It's called the "high desert" for a reason.

You've got -

Avawatz Mountains
Bare Mountain
Black Mountains
Bristol Mountains
Bullion Mountains
Cady Mountains
Calico Mountains
Calumet Mountains
Castle Mountains
Cerbat Mountains
Chemehuevi Mountains
Chuckwalla Mountains
Clipper Mountains
Cottonwood Mountains
Coxcomb Mountains
Cronese Mountains

And that's just A-C.

Heck, Las Vegas itself is 2,000 feet above sea level, and it's in a basin surrounded by mountains.

I doubt I'll play Fallout 3 anytime soon the game would be too easy when compared to New Vegas. Plus who wants to do a boring main quest where your father dies and you can't ever join the enclave.

While I like FNV, I have to admit I had more fun with FO3. I thought there were more random funny happenstances, better characters, and a more appealing story among other things. I liked the small, closeknit group of the brotherhood and wish we had more options with them in FNV. Much of my time was spent fostering a relationship with the brotherhood only to have to wipe them out or else not advance with NCR (got rid of McNamara). And FNV seems just as glitchy and sluggish as FO3, which is another disappointment. You would think they'd be able to fix some of the major issues. Still, I love both, and wish they'd release 1 and 2 for the ps3.

People are spoiled from Transformers.

When the endgame doesn't have huge explosions and big robots it's labelled as 'lame'. :flamethrower:

i think for me this game is better..but FO3 had the landmarks..not being american..was more big places not just small townships..the quests are better in new vegas just miss seeing the landmarks thats all

House should have hide Liberty Prime Mk.II under Lake Mead;)

I concur. This is what the box says:

"...If there's anything you want to do before you enter the battle, do it now-before you cross the point of no return."

Then there are two options:

#1- I'm not ready yet= Let's you continue about your buisness.

#2- Let's do this!= Starts the endgame.

I got this from a youtube video walkthrough of the game and the guy says this: "That literally says the point of no return, so...that's the end of the game." *selects the not ready option, makes a new save before going back to start the battle* "All right, the point of no return. We have crossed the point of no return!" He probably has heard a lot of complaints like this as he discusses how it's the point of no return for a full minute.

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=dsdude1107#p/u/16/CoCWKcUKA-U
3:53 mark

Agree completely.

I've enjoyed both games, even if I do enjoy one more than the other. Different games with different styles from different developers. I think there are a lot of valid points brought up in this thread, but I just chalk that up to the differing styles and suggest playing them for what they are.

That said to those who constantly throw around hyperbole of "far far better this" or "so so much greater that" and drone on and on and on about how much "FO3 svcked" and "how this is the real FO3" and so on and so forth all I can say is :facepalm: If you liked FO1 and 2 that much and feel that Beth are such horrible developers, go hang out on the Black Isle forum.

Oh wait......

FO3 svck as a "piece of electronic art". But as a reboot product of the whole franchises, it is great.

Pretty much this, when I sided with Yes man he told me to check on the 'tribes' of NV and say what do you want to do with them.

This encourages you to go out and find them and have misadventure on the way there.

I'm chiming in late to this thread, but what they hey.

I mainly agree with the OP.

I love the technology / game play / strictness changes with FNV. That is my number one love for the new game. I like the tighter skill points, I like the fewer perks, I like the changes to Speech and Repair, I like the companion wheel, I like hardcoe mode (tho I'm not sure I'd use it) and I really dig caravan.

Other than that, however, I give the nod to FO3.

I think most people agree that, in terms of exploration and dungeon running and world size, FO3 is bigger, better, and more sandboxy.

After that, dissent seems to come with quests and roleplaying and story.

I do feel that FNV is perhaps a bit better written.

Otherwise, though, I find both main quests equally un-interesting. I feel more of a personal tug from FO3, but both are largely un-interesting.

I also kinda feel the side quests in FNV are rather lack-luster, and dont have a lot of replay value. I mean, I like them fine, and there are more of them than in FO3, but I guess they don't motivate me much.

Also, my own personal inclinations make any depth to multiple endings in FNV more or less irrelevant. I have a lot of room in my brain for differences in personality in my character for different play-throughs, but still none of them could ever side with House or the Legion. So for me it just comes down to Yes-Man or NCR. Even then, I don't see going pro-NCR in terms of main endgame control. All the character concepts I'd play, from Vengeful Drifter to High Tech Brawler to Mean-Tempered Ornery Lucky Cowgirl, well they still would largely respond to most things the same way, because they ways in which they differ don't interact with the options presented. So most of them. given choice A, B, C or ignore, are always going to do A or ignore. Never B or C.

Also, even if I were the type to play a comic book evil character, just because a few of the choosing sides quests are different at the end, still the slide show is just faction A, B, C, or D won, with some side notes on how your Karma impacts it and on how other factions turned out.

But, I dunno, somehow, I just don't *care*. I'm interested to see most of whats out there on playthrough #1, but my second and third playthroughs (alternating between them) have been pretty much just about the builds.

Also about FNV having moral shades of Grey, I dunno. Powder Gangers are Evil. Legion are Evil. House is Evil. NCR citizens and soldiers are Good, but the leadership is corrupt. But when it comes down to individuals, they are basically Good. Perhaps that makes them "Grey" but not any more than, say, the USA. So that makes any moral "Grey" in the NCR feel mundane/typical. The Followers of the Apocalypse or whatever they are ... Good. Wacky but Good.

The only group I view as having an interesting morality or "in between" would be the Brotherhood of Steel. Helping people by protecting them from technology, all while making themselves more capable through said technology. Definitely a 2-sided sword there. I think whether that is more to the good or more to the bad comes down to Cult of Personalty and how the commander of a group decides to roll (as presented by FNV).

But generally, FNV morally grey? Nope. I see almost every faction as one way or the other.

So I guess in the end, I find FO3 more compelling, simply because the factions don't really interest me a whole lot in either, the side quests arent super compelling to me in FNV (even if there are more of them), the main quest is more or less equally uninteresting in both, but the FO3 one is a bit more personal to me than in FNV. The moral complexity, due to my own ethics, is roughly equivalent. This pretty much leaves it down to "feel of the setting", "exploration potential" and "game technology". Feel and Exploration go hands down to FO3. Game Tech goes moderately to FNV. All other issues (main quest, morality, side quests, game-ending options) are strictly a draw. This leaves me leaning to FO3 for sure.

I love both games tho, and for sure my next month will be all about FNV. However, I'm certain that next time I get urges, it will be FO3 that I return to. If only FO3 had the tech changes and gameplay changes that FNV has. Imagine hardcoe mode and drinking out of toilets underground in DC. That'd rule.

Animation: your post just confirm the theory about people don't like NV because of nostalgia.

It looks to me NV bring you out of your comfort moral and day to day life which you felt alienated.

I can't play Fallout 3. I tried playing it again a few months ago and couldn't. It's nonstop shooting. You find a bandit nest and you shoot them. You find a house, you shoot what's inside it. You find a sewer, ghouls to shoot. This is the content of Fallout 3.

New Vegas? I found the fiend hideout and I bluffed my way in. I disguise myself and sneak into enemy camps. Fallout 3 was simply 99% combat.

I feel the opposite, F3 gave you set friends, and a set family at the beggining, which can influence your choices if you're playing as that character. In FNV all you know is you're a courier, you fill in the rest, so I felt more realism. I have to find my own reasons to do something for someone. So I prefer quests this way.

Dude, I runned and gunned it and still took 45hrs...?

Fo3 however took me 2 hours for the main quest line and had hardly any real decisions to make.

"Do I kill or save my friends... Hm...."

I dont understand your post. I dont have nostalgia for the other games. I can compare them, but I don't feel nostalgia.

As for NV bringing me out of my comfort zone, you have it backwards. I find NV very comfortable, in that my own morals give me a definite opinion on which factions I prefer. The only way NV would take me out of my moral comfort zone is if I was REQUIRED to play something out of my moral comfort zone. However there is plenty of room for both with no problems. My opinion is that BOTH FO3 AND FNV have good and evil, and that most of the moral grey others perceive in FNV, I still find it easy to classify as either good or evil.

So to me FNV and FO3 are equivalent in terms of morality and my comfort zone. Same for my level of interest in the main quest and side quests. Therefore the determination of which is better comes down to Environment, Tone, Exploration, and Game Mechanics. Overall I give the nod to FO3 for my personal tastes.

For people with different tastes, a different preference will surely occur. There is no right or wrong here on which is better. There are just preferences, reasons, and discussions.

I'm always abit confused about these threads.
Allthough i respect the OP's decision - everyone has different expectations and no game can fulfill all of them - i have to ask;

How is F3 more replayable than F:NV?


After you've done the vanilla quests + the DLCs, what is there to do? And building further upon that; take away the DLCs for F3, does F3 really award exploration better than F:NV?
The Behemoths are only fun the first time you find them, the lvl 30 "super" mobs (albino scorpion, Mutant, Reaper) are just annoying in F3 and you allready know the ins and outs of every dungeon.

If exploration is what you seek while still maintaining the level of surprise of discovering something new, i really don't see how F3 can be better than F:NV.


I'm gonna go on a limb here and state, that the majority of all these threads about prefering F3 over F:NV, is based on the initial expectations of the player.
With F3, you didn't really know what to expect, so you got massively surprised when playing the game. And ultimately this also adds to the feel of F3 being better and having more replayabillity.
With F: NV however, you knew on beforehand, how the game engine would work, how the basic gameplay would be, which opponents to encounter etc. Everything down to the bartering window, was known and experienced in advance, so naturally the game didn't hit with such a massive surprise as F3 did. Furthermore, F3 was more streamlined in the sense that it directed to on a specific path. Some like it while other's dont, but the fact of the matter is, that it had less freedom than F:NV has and all this freedom can seem confusing and become discouraging.
This freedom is shown in the main quests; F3's MQ was pretty straightforward and dragged you along whereas F:NV's MQ offers more choices in both decision making aswell as "walking" path, but overall you're still dragged along to most of the bigger quest hubs in the game. Because of this i really don't get why you think the MQ doesn't take any detours as the MQ in F3. It could possibly be that the MQ is better written. Or perhaps you're abit afraid of the freedom you have, so you're naturally excluding alot of the sidequests. But think about it; Goodsprings has a pretty good showdown with the Powder's, Primm has a pretty good quest for the new Sheriff, which sends you to Mojave Outpost, which in turn gives you more sidequests that lead you to your next MQ destination, Novac has two bigger quests and a few minor ones. In fact the only MQ area that lacks content, would be Boulder City. Freeside and eventually the Strip has tons of sidequests and alot more are openened up once you take care of Benny - even the MQ opens up here.

Add to this the fact that NPCs, animals etc. are "unlocked" in the wasteland as you level up and as the story progresses and i really can't understand why some people value F3 > F:NV.


Honestly i think people are biased because of their initial expectations for F3 and the way the game hit the playerbase. Not to mention it's extra content in terms of DLC's and mods.
Personally i'm playing on very hard + harcore. Modded the game with the Hardercore mod + various eyecandy mods and i'm not even considering F3 being better than F:NV. I love how it's alot more in line with F1/2 aswell as the different characters being better made (Liam Neeson and 3dog was the only two "properly" made NPCs in F3 imo).

But to each his own as they say.

I like both games equally, but love Fallout3 simply because I have been living with it for almost 2 years straight and in my eyes Bethesda can do little wrong at this point. I do think both games have about the same amount of content, FNV has like 2-less encounter areas than Fo3 does according to the game guide. The world in FNV is more condensed and only uses about 70% of the map area, leaving alot for Mods and future DLCs right on the main game map.

I could go on and on about my per-feature-feelings as has been done here, but I will suffice to say that I'm likely to be in FNV more now because I'm modding there, not because I like one over the other. FNV has newer technology in the engine, fewer bugs in the engine (from my own experience) and some interesting new features that modders will chew up. Also its new, I know the DC wasteland better than the forest in my back yard, and have committed much of the game and it's mechanics to memory. As such the Newness of FNV content is nice, envigorating, inspiring.

On the question of Leaving New Vegas for Fallout3; I find the question meaningless to me - I plan to play both, again and again over the years as the urge arises. As one poster put it, playing one for awhile will dull memory of the other and allow for some fun play-throughs again. So I'm not "leaving" either game, I've simply adopted New Vegas right along side of Fallout3 in my mind as among the great games - and leave it at that.

Miax

The DC Wasteland is in my backyard (well, not quite a wasteland yet) As such, it's one of the reasons I like FO3 better than FNV. Home field advantage aside, FO3 just felt more open ended, and I enjoy simply playing in that sandbox. New Vegas has a lot more thought put into the story and giving a definitive end to said story, but the sandbox just isn't quite as fun. Don't get me wrong, I'll be playing FNV for months to come, but I can see where the OP is coming from. Having some of the newer features (hardcoe, new level up mechanics, and other tweaks) added to FO3 would be the best of all worlds, but at the end of the day, I'm satisfied with having two great games to play. I'll probably give a couple more play throughs in Vegas and then go back to one of several of my characters in DC. I'm still systematically pacifying the Raiders via Mesmetron with one character. I might finally get tired of FO3, but FNV is a nice break from it.

I think you just don't understand yourself

You have a definite opinion on NV factions because you have closed your morals. And from your post I found you feel lonely because there isn't a faction that agree with your closed morals.

Environment: FO3 have lots of non-threatening hostile for you to butcher at your leisure; NV have dangerous wild creatures and fractions that would take revenge if you gone too far.

Tone: In FO3, you follow the footstep of your father but find yourself killing endlessly for his dream. In NV, you are involve in a conflict that would change the post-apocalyptic America (or the entire world), and you are given the power to steer it.

Exploration:Places in FO3 just paint with a shroud of death, even Riven City. In NV, Community varies in believes, social value, living standard; some places also showcase difference between pre and post war.

Game Mechanics: I am going to be very personal about this - Broken Steel hit my left cheek with crappy perks and excessive skill points, then Point Look Out hit my right cheek to make melee/unarmed unplayable without CSA.

One could argue that both in FONV and FO3 have a lineair main quest.

FONV : Find/Follow benny, make a choice about the factions and fight the main battle.
FO3: Find/follow you father, make a choice about the FEV and fight the main battle.


NV does allow you to bend the line a little when it comes to the MQ, but the end of the curbe stays the same, you just get a different slideshow at the end(wich FO3 did aswell). Being able to bend the line of the main quest isn't really important to me. I can't say that it adds to the fun of RP-ing(for me personally), i value other things more in an RPG .

The only thing that kind of bothers me in NV is that i'm just not getting the same satisfaction from being evil as i got when playing FO3 (and i'm not even gonna try guessing which variable causes this, there are just too many).

Wait wait wait, you're comparing one choice to the host of choices available to you in New Vegas? :huh:

That's a pretty over-reaching claim. I think we are just two different people with different criteria for preference.



There are several factions I would sympathize with if I were actually in the FNV world, though in different areas. I often agree with the Followers of the Apocalypse, though they are flaky. I somewhat sympathize with and assist the regular NCR soldiers. The characters I'm *personally* most interested in are merchants and traders and the prospectors. They aren't among the winning factions, but so what? I also really like the Religious Space Zombies and the Mutants at Jacobstown.

I dont know what you mean by "closed my morals". I am certainly capable, however, of playing an evil character. What I am trying to say is that I dont find FNV to be "grey" but rather due to my own opinions, none of the factions are morally grey except maybe the BoS. To me, FNV is as morally stark, and therefore as limited, as FO3. But I can certainly play an evil character in either setting. I just dont find the factions and options in FNV to be subtle or shaded for me. They all fall squarely one way or the other. Therefore, FNV and FO3 tie here (for me).



I play both games the same way, in terms of which circumstances propel me into violence. I mind my own business unless attacked. When attacked, I fight back. I also side against those who torture and [censored] or are cruel to innocents. Usually. Now my characters might be VERY different from one another in other ways. One might be greedy, one might be altruistic. One might be aloof. One might be charismatic. Whatever. But how I react to enemies is largely the same.

Ultimately that means that for me, I'm either ignoring people, being shot, or shooting back. Some groups in both games inspire me to initiate violence, but largely there is no difference in the games for me.



In FO3, you don't have to follow your father's dream at all. My first character didnt. I played through all the quests I happened to come across IF they interested "my character" and it just so happens that the main quest didnt interest my character. In my second playthrough, I had an idealistic young girl who did follow the main quest. In NV, you are also killing endlessly for someone's dreams. If nothing else, House's dreams put you in a situation where you kill and kill and kill no matter what direction you take. Even if you are as speech-oriented as you can be, you still kill tons of people in FNV all for someone else's dreams. Also in FO3, your actions will reshape post apocalyptic america even more than in FNV. Drinkable water that isnt irradiated.

So again, these games are the same here. What you get out of either one is up to you, but both offer motivations, and killing is to be had in either whether you like it or not.



Even if that is true, and why not (it makes sense that DC would be a more grim setting universally), so what? One isnt better than the other objectively. Only subjectively. I prefer the intense decay and survivalist feel of DC. Either way, I enjoy exploration in DC more. I still have yet to see about 1/3 of it.



For my personal tastes, Game Mechanics is the only place that, for me, FNV is a clear winner. Even in this area, the game mechanics you are concerned with never even bothered me in the least, so even here, our opinions are vastly different.

All I can say is that there is no universal answer to which is the better game. I love both, but I prefer FO3 (currently). It could change, who knows? You prefer FNV. Fair enough. I think our preferences are far enough apart that we wont be convincing the other they are wrong, because we have entirely different standards by which to judge.

Cheers!

I'm just wanted to point out the similarities in the questline, and that NV has a lot of lineairity in it aswell.


Comparing choices and "freedom" is different story