At least according to this guy.
I do agree with a good bit of what he's saying, there are some things I don't agree with however.
How do you feel?

http://nexus404.com/Blog/2010/11/05/the-top-six-reasons-fallout-3-is-better-than-fallout-new-vegas-after-playing-both-i-discover-six-reasons-that-fallout-new-vegas-just-cant-surpass-fallout-3-yet/

I'm not even going to go into the reasons why I think the guy who wrote that is an utter moron. How can replay value to see multiple endings be a negative point?

According to one guy in the comments the game is supposed to be a shooter. Choices are too interrupting.

Anyway; It's better because in your opinion it's better. You get more joy out of it than New Vegas, blah blah opinion can't be disproved with logic. I might as well find my original argument and save it to notepad.

I don't think I agree with any of it. Fo3 and NV are pretty much apples and oranges. Sure, they run on the same engine but they truly are different experiences. If you are going into NV and expecting it to be like FO3 then I suppose you will be disappointed.

Oh yay, another of these threads.

The moment he threw out lack of Roswell/Area 51 as some sort of valid complaint, the microscopic shred of credibility he had with me went right out the window.

:facepalm:

Fallout started out as an RPG, which involves choices, multiple endings (if it's a good RPG) and replay value.

My issue with FO3 (which btw I love, I just love FO2 and FONV more!) is that it was obviously marketed to get FPSers into the franchise, and they loved the game as much as I did - the problem is that they then want the franchise to satisfy FPS credentials rather than the RPG credentials it ought to have.

People who want FPS games have an exciting new release every couple of months if not more, whereas RPG fans are lucky to get one a year - if people don't like FONV because it's more RPG than FPS (and more RPG than FO3) I'm fine with that, just stop bloody whining about it and go play the latest FPS release instead, there are plenty of them - so hands off our RPGs!.

I love New Vegas but I can't help agreeing with this guy.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

You tell it!

I cant agee with that guy, but the bugs do kill the experience. also one thing that i prefer in FO3 over NV is the way speech is handled. i love its used more but i hate how in NV its either pass or fail, but in FO3 you had a % chance to get it

Multiple plot paths are a BAD thing? Jeez, go and play the latest mindless COD corridor bore fest.

The only thing he MAY have a point about is the plethora of insanely high speech checks. Who wants to waste 60-75 points on speech? (Unless you're RPing a gossipy old woman). At least give an alternate approach.

theres other ways to finish quest without speech..... they jus dont end as well compared to going the speech route (a quest in jacob's town for example)

Agrees with Epona. It's pretty silly to say, "Well, I like a game that I only play once, see everything, and then sits on my shelf looking pretty..." Dumb dumb dumb

It was way too easy to game the speech checks from FO3. Just save in front of a character, and keep reloading until you hit that 20%. In FNV, if you want to reap the benefits of playing a diplomatic character, you have to invest points in the speech skill.

We really really do not want another of these comparison topics, no matter where it comes from. Firstly this is in the wrong forum and secondly there is an ongoing topic already. http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1138539-new-vegas-comapared-to-fallout-3/