New Vegas. It's just far more like the fallout games of old and the DLC is far more enjoyable.
I hated the Capital Wasteland, its design made no sense, its been 200 years not 10 years, and it looks like it was barely touched by the war, it looks more like Urban Decay.
so yeah, New Vegas for me.
I liked how the quests seemed of more depth in NV, but there was a lot more action in 3 and the DLC was a lot better. All in all, I guess I prefer 3 over NV.
I'm sorry but Fallout 3's DLC was mostly just terrible, out of the 5 they made for it only 2 of them are good.
The Pitt and Point Lookout, everything else was garbage.
So far NV's DLC has yet to disappoint me.
I love them both. The Capital Wasteland is bleak and desolate becuase so many people want to control it due to it's pre-war relevance, but it's always good to visit Vegas. Since no bombs fell, it's more inhabitable.
Basically, I can't decide.
I like them both as equally.
New Vegas definitely.
People talk about how its somehow inappropriate for a post-apocalyptic game to have settlements and functioning governments and all that kind of stuff, but I think the New Vegas setup works perfectly well - there are plenty of games that show what it'll look like when civilization ends, I want to see what it'll look like when civilization starts up again.
and Fallout 3 was a huge step back compared to Fallout 2 which was fairly civilized.
[QUOTE=Angry Pineapple;32379288]I liked how the quests seemed of more depth in NV, but there was a lot more action in 3 and the DLC was a lot better. All in all, I guess I prefer 3 over NV.[/QUOTE]
I enjoyed all of Fallout 3's, but Dead Money on NV was really bad IMO. The newer ones are ok though.
Another thing that I really liked with FO3 was that I usually just only followed the storyline during 10% of my time playing it, and spent the rest exploring or just jerking around
When I played New Vegas, i ended up following the story most of the time
In NV, it also frustrated me a bit that they provided alot of options on who which side you wanted to be on, but there were more sides than options, in FO3, it was basicly the good and the evil
In NV, I ended up trying to help the Brotherhood of Steel, but the storyline kept forcing me against them
[QUOTE=UnidentifiedFlyingTard;32379279]I hated the Capital Wasteland, its design made no sense, its been 200 years not 10 years, and it looks like it was barely touched by the war, it looks more like Urban Decay.
so yeah, New Vegas for me.[/QUOTE]
This is what i mean when i said that the Mojave made sense. The mojave was always just desert with small towns and buildings spread out.
The capital wasteland, felt like the apocalypse just happened, it was like playing through the dc levels of MW2. Plus DC is a very populate urbanized area, more than half the city is inaccessible, and the out lying areas are very VERY suburbanized which is not what dc is like. Too much "nothing" was going on.
I felt New Vegas fixed everything that was bad/done wrong in Fallout 3, but patrolling the Mojave does sometimes make you wish for a nuclear winter.
[QUOTE=LCBADs;32379383]New Vegas definitely.
People talk about how its somehow inappropriate for a post-apocalyptic game to have settlements and functioning governments and all that kind of stuff, but I think the New Vegas setup works perfectly well - there are plenty of games that show what it'll look like when civilization ends, I want to see what it'll look like when civilization starts up again.[/QUOTE]
The reason why New vegas was great was that it was showing the world stabilizing. It was showing the ncr still trying to unify the tattered settlements of the old states under one name and country. I love the idea of that, humans reforming to the old standards in a radical new world of vast new landscapes and opposition.
[QUOTE=healthpoint;32379452]patrolling the Mojave does sometimes make you wish for a nuclear winter.[/QUOTE]
Actually, maybe if they'd have got, what, 4 more sentences and it'd be slightly more tolerable?
That seriously annoyed me - it was fine the first few times, but hearing that 100 times an hour and I sided with Caesar just because it was less annoying.
It also made sense historically and went back to the alternate timeline of fallout in that everything was the same until about the end of 50's which is when things started to skew off into a new timeline. This is evident mostly in the weapons like the CAR-15 and the M16A1.
[QUOTE=Tobba;32379447]In NV, I ended up trying to help the Brotherhood of Steel, but the storyline kept forcing me against them[/QUOTE]
That was pretty much deliberate. It was to stop the people thinking they were the Boyscouts of Steel.
You can save them, though. NCR only.
I don't get why people hate Dead Money, it was really interesting, great writing, great voice acting, amazing atmosphere, plus some damn good loot.
just a great DLC.
I find it funny to see that almost every single person on FP has been playing Fallout.
Its a popular series.
I just could not get attached to the main character in new vegas, on fallout 3 you play with lonelly wanderer since baby age and your main quest is to find you lost father. On New Vegas the main plot felt so random and lacking creativity, looked like a bad kill bill.
In my opinion, Fallout 3 was much better than Fallout: New Vegas.
My first reason for saying this is the environment. Fallout 3 takes the cake on this one. The Mojave wasteland was extremely bland in some areas, and didn't have enough foliage to keep some of the more bland areas a bit more interesting. There's also the fact that the water wasn't irradiated, which is unrealistic. I didn't play on Hardcore mode, but even in just plain old Fallout 3, the water was irradiated. In Fallout 3, the landscape was a bit more interesting. Broken highways covered in semi-destroyed cars, old factories, buildings turned into hideouts. And that was just outside of the city. In the city, there were destroyed buildings and such that actually made it feel like it was after the apocalypse. In New Vegas, there was really only one city, and it had been mostly restored.
Gameplay wise, I prefer Fallout 3 as well. Though the companion wheel was very nifty, I found that other added gameplay elements such as the varying ammo types, confusing card game, and weird skill system were rather annoying rather than adding to the game. In Fallout 3, I felt as if everything were more solid, but in New Vegas they were dipping their feet into the water, but didn't actually get in.
I personally liked the characters in 3 more as well. Except for Boone. Boone is still one of the best. I like how the Brotherhood of Steel weren't assholes in 3. I was kinda meh with how they acted in New Vegas, but I think the introduction of the NCR made that disappointment subside easily.
Lastly, the story. I am indifferent as to which one's better, due to how differently New Vegas was done to 3. I liked the story in 3 very much, but not nearly as much as getting to choose how I wanted to end the game in New Vegas. I eventually [spoiler]fought Ceaser's legion on the dam after getting everyone possible to help me. Shit was epic.[/spoiler]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
