Fallout 3 > New Vegas

[Muagan_ra]

I've been playing NV ever since Christmas, enjoying myself, but I've come to a conclusion and decided I needed to vent it - "but where?" I asked myself. Then I remembered this charming forum that I've neglected for so long.

We could argue the pros and cons for ages, but for me it comes down to three things;

(1) Fallout 3 had style, panaché. There is nothing even approaching the feeling of stalking the national mall, Minigun rounds whirling overhead, with one errant shell igniting a nearby bus. No random events, becoming enbroiled in a three way street fight between Talon Company ne'erdowells and Uglies, only for an Enclave kill team to land on a Vertibird on the nearby overpass and joining the fray. Nothing to match the excitement of a Behemoth appearing from no-where, with you a still a piece of human swiss-cheese from the previous battle. By comparison New Vegas is surprisingly linear, in my experience, it dosn't have the aesthetic style or the chaos that made me love Fo3.

(I should also note that Fallout 3 had a contrast of utter horror and outrageous humour, both of which New Vegas lacks.)

(2) The map is too small, and only less than 2/3's (or perhaps even less) is explorable. Those invisible walls in the middle of the gaming world really irritate me. There may be more quests, but you encounter the majority along the main story, and most of them (that I've seen) are pretty basic.

(3) Most importantly, I think the story is awful. In Fo3 I had a motivation: you go to find your Dad, then some naughty fella's kill him, then you hunt them down and destroy them doing a little good in the process. In NV you're just some guy who becomes suddenly embroiled in a war, and the way you have to "pick sides" is so arbitrary. The ending, which was supposed to be a big selling point of the game and justification for the more linear gameplay, left me very dissapointed; it was violent and fun, of course, but the entire game offered just the same. Give me Liberty Prime any day!

In summary, it all feels rushed and unfinished. There are good points, and I'd be glad to indulge you, but my gut instinct is just bored with this game already.

So, while I'm glad I've played it, after I finish this "wild card" game, I'm heading back for the Capital Wasteland. I've never even played Mothership Zeta.

[the_mango55]

Incorrect on all counts.

1) Fallout 3 was bland, and the world didn't make sense. There was no farming anywhere in the world and everyone apparently lived on food from 200 years ago. None of those things were random events they were all scrpited.

2) The map in NV is smaller but better populated. Most of Fallout 3's map was worthless, especially the northern and western parts. New Vegas had a variety of believable settlements (2 houses on a broken overpass is not a believable settlement).

3) Cannot possibly disagree more. Fallout 3 was a linear tale about a bunch of goody two shoes knights in shining armor vs mustache twirling bad guys, not to mention they basically just lifted the plot from the first two fallouts and mashed them together without bothering to make it make sense.

And the ending was like night and day, in Fallout 3 you have a single paragraph that barely changes no matter what you did (not like there was that much variation in what you could do anyway) then a bunch of 2 second screenshots of places you visit. In New Vegas there are multiple endings for every major settlement and person in the game.

[Eneru112]

Incorrect? It's an opinion lol. Anyhow, I agree with OP. For one, NV isn't grim enough. Now I'm no graphics whore but let's be honest, a post-apocalyptic video game with no grim is like swiss cheese with no holes. It's eatable, but not quite as unique and awesome. There is too much unnecessary humour in New Vegas which kind of killed the game for me. I've come to the realisation that Metro 2033 is the best post-apocalyptic game ever. Let's hope Fallout 4 will be similar(although I doubt it). And now that I think about it, NV doesn't even look post-apocalyptic.. like, at all. New Vegas itself is way too small and crappy so the whole "untouched city" thing makes no sense. At least in Fallout 3, only 1/4th of the city was visible and visitable which created atmosphere and a sense of realism. No comment on the story. Never finished it and never will.

Fanboy nostalgia storm incoming!

[Muagan_ra]

Yes, an "incorrect" opinion, curious! But what the hell, I'll take your (the_mango55) points as they are;

1) I won't metaphorically stand here and argue that the Capital Wasteland makes perfect sense, nor was I even trying to. I was talking about the flair, the aesthetic style and the attachment that one makes with that - I'll assume you can't marshal a critique of that point. You must know that FO:NV simply dosen't have anything to match the sheer spectacle and "wow factor" that FO3 has, the impressiveness of which was not down to technology or graphics but simply the imagination that Bethesda has and Obsidian does not.

2) Further, the Mojave wasteland may have a lot more civilisation, but come on, you can't honestly tell me that you truly think it isn't boring? Those brilliantly designed towns are small, with only handfull of generic, unnamed NPC's. Compare that to Megaton, or even Arefu (as you are referring to) which are populated by named individuals with unique things to say. Named individuals unrelated to quests of any kind, who are only there to have a bit of a chat. New Vegas pales in comparison. The Capitol Wasteland was a bit desolate, of course, but it is a radioactive Wasteland you know, Domino's don't make home deliveries there.

3) I'm not sure the Fo3 plot is that simple, but I guess you probably wanted to choose sides more, which is fair enough. But if that had been the case, I think we would have experienced those unrealistic, arbitrary decisions I earlier talked about. I would even propose that FO3's story is eminently more believable than that of FO:NV - it's about motivation, in one game you have it and in another you do not. Besides, I think Fo3 for it's horror has a very humane story, Project Purity is a noble enterprise which makes perfect sense in the context of living on a tidal basin in a radioactive, post-Nuclear world. And I just liked it.

As for the ending, I think New Vegas is like a faked climax. Lots of effort, little reward; no biscuit for you, soldier! I was expecting something big, something fascinating, what I got was both easy and more of what I've already seen.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

Incorrect? It's an opinion lol. Anyhow, I agree with OP. For one, NV isn't grim enough. Now I'm no graphics whore but let's be honest, a post-apocalyptic video game with no grim is like swiss cheese with no holes. It's eatable, but not quite as unique and awesome. There is too much unnecessary humour in New Vegas which kind of killed the game for me. I've come to the realisation that Metro 2033 is the best post-apocalyptic game ever. Let's hope Fallout 4 will be similar(although I doubt it). And now that I think about it, NV doesn't even look post-apocalyptic.. like, at all. New Vegas itself is way too small and crappy so the whole "untouched city" thing makes no sense. At least in Fallout 3, only 1/4th of the city was visible and visitable which created atmosphere and a sense of realism. No comment on the story. Never finished it and never will.

Fanboy nostalgia storm incoming!

You do realize F1/2 were full of humor too, Fallout isn't supposed to be unendingly grim, it's supposed to be a retro-futuristic pastiche of 50s American culture.

[the_mango55]

Incorrect? It's an opinion lol. Anyhow, I agree with OP. For one, NV isn't grim enough. Now I'm no graphics whore but let's be honest, a post-apocalyptic video game with no grim is like swiss cheese with no holes. It's eatable, but not quite as unique and awesome. There is too much unnecessary humour in New Vegas which kind of killed the game for me. I've come to the realisation that Metro 2033 is the best post-apocalyptic game ever. Let's hope Fallout 4 will be similar(although I doubt it). And now that I think about it, NV doesn't even look post-apocalyptic.. like, at all. New Vegas itself is way too small and crappy so the whole "untouched city" thing makes no sense. At least in Fallout 3, only 1/4th of the city was visible and visitable which created atmosphere and a sense of realism. No comment on the story. Never finished it and never will.

Fanboy nostalgia storm incoming!

New Vegas takes place 200 years after the bombs. New Vegas is about civilization returning to the wastes.

So yeah, New Vegas felt more like a western than a survival horror post apocalyptic game, but that's a good thing because it fits the setting more.

Yes, an "incorrect" opinion, curious! But what the hell, I'll take your (the_mango55) points as they are;

1) I won't metaphorically stand here and argue that the Capital Wasteland makes perfect sense, nor was I even trying to. I was talking about the flair, the aesthetic style and the attachment that one makes with that - I'll assume you can't marshal a critique of that point. You must know that FO:NV simply dosen't have anything to match the sheer spectacle and "wow factor" that FO3 has, the impressiveness of which was not down to technology or graphics but simply the imagination that Bethesda has and Obsidian does not.

2) Further, the Mojave wasteland may have a lot more civilisation, but come on, you can't honestly tell me that you truly think it isn't boring? Those brilliantly designed towns are small, with only handfull of generic, unnamed NPC's. Compare that to Megaton, or even Arefu (as you are referring to) which are populated by named individuals with unique things to say. Named individuals unrelated to quests of any kind, who are only there to have a bit of a chat. New Vegas pales in comparison. The Capitol Wasteland was a bit desolate, of course, but it is a radioactive Wasteland you know, Domino's don't make home deliveries there.

3) I'm not sure the Fo3 plot is that simple, but I guess you probably wanted to choose sides more, which is fair enough. But if that had been the case, I think we would have experienced those unrealistic, arbitrary decisions I earlier talked about. I would even propose that FO3's story is eminently more believable than that of FO:NV - it's about motivation, in one game you have it and in another you do not. Besides, I think Fo3 for it's horror has a very humane story, Project Purity is a noble enterprise which makes perfect sense in the context of living on a tidal basin in a radioactive, post-Nuclear world. And I just liked it.

As for the ending, I think New Vegas is like a faked climax. Lots of effort, little reward; no biscuit for you, soldier! I was expecting something big, something fascinating, what I got was both easy and more of what I've already seen.

You didn't state your thread as opinion but rather fact, so yeah it can be declared incorrect.

1) I can't critique your tastes, you think the Capital Wasteland was better, I think the Mojave Wasteland was better, neither of us can be wrong about that. I can only critique the setting itself, where New Vegas makes a lot more sense and thus becomes more immersive, since it feels more like a real place. Can't say anything about the "wow factor" since they were both pretty impressive.

2) Honestly, yes. New Vegas has both better cities and better citizens. New Vegas does have more unnamed NPC's because they have more populated cities, they are added for atmosphere and they work well. There are plenty of unique and interesting minor characters in New Vegas' larger and more interesting settlements. Easy pete, no-bark, Marcus, Jack & Diane, Mean Sonofa, Old Ben, Sarah Weintraub and Michael Angelo, and many many more.

Not to mention companions, which are SOOOO much better in New Vegas.

3) Indeed, freedom of choice is a very important thing in an RPG. The only choice you had in Fallout 3 was to poison the water, which was stupid and suicidal (since you're not actually from the vault in case you forgot, so you would die as well). I can't speak to your motivation, I didn't see any difference between the two, but a story of conquest vs independence in new vegas seemed much more believable than one of good guys trying to save the world and bad guys trying to destroy it. And I was serious about merging the plots of the first 2 fallouts, play them or read the summaries and you will see.

The ending tells you the results of your choices and actions, it's the ending Fallout fans all wanted for Fallout 3 but were denied.

[Armfelt]

Fallout is a post-post-apocalyptic film, it isn't about humanity loosing itself in the nuclear destruction, but about finding itself after it - and ultimately rebuilding.

[Eneru112]

Bethesda tried to revive Fallout and make it actually good.. how a post-apocalyptic game should be(stalker, metro etc.) but obsidian went and destroyed all the hard effort Bethesda put into this crappy franchise. Oh well.

[the_mango55]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/772/772285p3.html

[Tom Crooze]

Yeah, in the end, New Vegas is better, IMO. I mean, it's really loyal to the Fallout lure, with a lot of humour, but it still takes itself serious, and at times is dark, but not depressingly dark. Fallout 3, on the other hand, was trying to be STALKER clone, with a half-assed plot and half-assed characters. And in NV, your PC isn't just some whiny-ass kid looking for his daddy, your a guy saved from death, looking for revenge, and to actually take power. You could argue environment, and gameplay, but plot wise, New Vegas>Fallout 3

[Armfelt]

Bethesda tried to revive Fallout and make it actually good.. how a post-apocalyptic game should be(stalker, metro etc.) but obsidian went and destroyed all the hard effort Bethesda put into this crappy franchise. Oh well.

It isn't post-apocalyptic, and many people find it much more interesting because of it. Not to say that STALKER or metro are bad games, but in dynamic and open RPGs with a huge amount of dialogue human society is pretty much a necessary component, and its realism is more immerse than the capital wasteland ever could be. I still maintain the opinion that seeing how civilisation is formed and societes organised after a nuclear disaster is much more interesting than seeing a bunch of people fight in panic for their survival immediately after the nuclear fallout, sort of how like Mad Max was a movie but Mad Max 2 was good.

[Brain_in_a_vat]

delete post

[MrMofo]

Yeah I thought FO3 had a more linear plot. I felt parts of the map were partitioned off. There were bad guys i simply wasn't ready to deal with yet if i entered certain areas. NV is essentially one big open spot and you can go anywhere, discover everything right from the start, often in no particular order to make anything make sense.

[Muagan_ra]

@MrMofo

Are you sure? You can't head north from Goodsprings at the start of the game, I don't care how skilled you are, you will end up a feast for Deathclaws and Cazadors. And since you mention "partitioned off" areas, you do remember that almost half of the NV map is either water or unscaleable mountain ranges, and the paths you can take within the playable area are often arbitrarilly cut off by invisible walls. A glaring example is Hoover Dam, the only way to access which is to follow the road, despite the tiny ledge that you should be able to climb except for said invisible wall.

You didn't state your thread as opinion but rather fact, so yeah it can be declared incorrect.

Sorry, I was under the assumption that conversation is just an exchange of opinions...

Anyhow, I don't really understand your assertions that New Vegas settlements are more lifelike, unless you're playing a completely different game from me. There is nothing in this game that compares to Megaton or Rivet City, even New Vegas itself fails to impress.

I remember the first time I entered Megaton, it was an incredible place, with style and flair, imagination. Primm, Nipton, Novac? I could count the number of unique NPCs in all these places on my fingers.

[Shaio]

^ The town you have to find the sheriff for is atleast as big and as populated as either rivet city or megaton. New vegas is well and truly much bigger and better populated then anything in fallout 3.

asto cant go north after goodsprings, i did on my first playthough, although i spent most of my time climbing along ridges being terrorized, heck i ran away from cazadors everytime i came across them, even once id maxxed out my char, those damn giant flys were well and truly most scary things in the game... They seemed horribly overpowerd to me, after first few times they raped my party i just ran away and let them kill my companions, deathclaws are comparatively very easy to kill.

I never came across any invisible walls myself, and i did alot of climbing mountainous areas.

half of fallout 3 was just empty wastes with enclave stronghold at far reaches, almost everywhere i went in new vegas had something or people, usually they all had something they wanted me to do.

asto lifelike, well in new vegas there were farms... there weren't in fallout 3

[Tom Crooze]

@MrMofo
Anyhow, I don't really understand your assertions that New Vegas settlements are more lifelike, unless you're playing a completely different game from me. There is nothing in this game that compares to Megaton or Rivet City, even New Vegas itself fails to impress.

I remember the first time I entered Megaton, it was an incredible place, with style and flair, imagination. Primm, Nipton, Novac? I could count the number of unique NPCs in all these places on my fingers.

You think there'd be giant cities everywhere, even 200 years after the war? No. You honestly think they could build giant cities out of broken buildings and scrap metal?

And, lets look at the main factions in both games games:
NV Factions:
Caesars Legion: They're "bad guys", but they're not two dimensional. Some characters say that they've made Arizona safer, and they've built a steady empire.
NCR: They're the "Good Guys", but they aren't perfect. They have faults, people complain about it's organization, and say that it doesn't have a strong hold in Nevada.
Mr. House: He's a benevolent dictator who doesn't want to be crossed, but he wants to help the people.

Fallout 3 Factions:
The Brotherhood of Steel: WE'RE THE GOOD GUYS WHO ARE TRYING TO STOP THE ENCLAVE FROM SABOTAGING PROJECT PURITY!
The Enclave: NAZIS MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Muagan_ra]

@PeasentsSuck

... If you want to commit errors of omission and gross over-simplification, I guess I can't stop you. The information was there in FO3 to get an understanding of the various factions, unlike in New Vegas where you have pick a name out of a hat and arbitrarilly support one side or the other. Having a complicated story is all well and good, but it's all for nothing if the story itself is crap.

I don't think complication equals intellectual superiority - I thought Inception was a terrible film.

[Tom Crooze]

@PeasentsSuck

... If you want to commit errors of omission and gross over-simplification, I guess I can't stop you. The information was there in FO3 to get an understanding of the various factions, unlike in New Vegas where you have pick a name out of a hat and arbitrarilly support one side or the other. Having a complicated story is all well and good, but it's all for nothing if the story itself is crap.

Are you kidding me? During my first NV play through, I was going to support NCR, then I switched to Mr. House, then Yes Man!
And, "The story is crap"? So, a story about a guy who gets shot in the head, ends up as being an important part of a clash between 3 large empire is stupid? Riiiight.

I don't think complication equals intellectual superiority - I thought Inception was a terrible film.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Maybe you weren't smart enough to understand it

[Muagan_ra]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh no you didn't!

No man, I'm sticking to my guns, FO3 has a far better story. The characters make sense, my motivation as a player makes sense. Some guy who suddenly becomes the single most important person in the Mojave is not a credible plot device.

[Tom Crooze]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Oh no you didn't!

No man, I'm sticking to my guns, FO3 has a far better story. The characters make sense, my motivation as a player makes sense. Some guy who suddenly becomes the single most important person in the Mojave is not a credible plot device.

Sure, the plot device isn't relistic, but it's better than: "Where's my daddy, I want my daddy! Oh no, the Nazi's Enclave killed him! Now I must begin my journey just because my daddy is dead!"