Did you like Fallout 3 better or NV?

Azureth

Azureth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 29, 2008
Messages
5,323
My friend swears by FO3. He says that NV area is much to tiny and FO3 had a bigger world and more things to do.
 
I like the gameplay & story of NV. FO3's story felt quite drab & depressing. If I'm going to play a post-apocalyptic game, I'd like to have some hope built into the story.
 
New Vegas was a better game, nearly every part of it was superior. Yet, I liked FO3 better for some reason.
 
Derangel said:
New Vegas was a better game, nearly every part of it was superior. Yet, I liked FO3 better for some reason.
Click to expand...

Ditto. I think it was the excitement of FINALLY getting to experience a new Fallout world for the first time.
 
I enjoyed NV more because of its many references to Fallout 1/2. That's not surprising, since many of the staff on those games worked on NV.

3 wasn't bad though. It was a great game in its own right, but nothing like 1/2.
 
I liked Fallout 3's beginning more than NV, and I think Megaton is a lot more memorable that most towns in NV. But NV does have a lot of great things going for it.

I'll play one over the other depending on my mood.
 
According to Obsidian, NV's map is "roughly the same size" as Fallout 3's.
 
I was a far bigger fan of New Vegas, and I reject the notion that NV was "tiny" in comparison to the first game. I thought they were roughly the same size, and yet I got more satisfaction out of exploring New Vegas. Getting into the Strip was a far less laborious task than getting into DC...which was a nightmare walking for hour upon hour around huge walls of impassable rubble trying to figure out how to get in.

Additionally, I liked the gameplay additions brought into New Vegas, like with ammo reloading and weapon mods. If those features could be added to Fallout 3 I'd play it all over again(for about the 12th time at this point).

Ultimately, I loved them both, and I can't wait for 4.
 
Loved both

F:NV was my favorite though. I thought the gameplay and story was much more diverse.
 
Fallout new Vegas is way better. The world seems more believable. the story is way better, and it doesn't have that Disney save the world make it all better cap from the first one. your just some dude or dude'et who got screwed over and your picking up the pieces. and it seemed like there was way more to do. i put about 200-250+hours into it and never got around to beating it.
 
shifty68 said:
Fallout new Vegas is way better. The world seems more believable. the story is way better, and it doesn't have that Disney save the world make it all better cap from the first one. your just some dude or dude'et who got screwed over and your picking up the pieces. and it seemed like there was way more to do. i put about 200-250+hours into it and never got around to beating it.
Click to expand...

NV was better as making it a story about different factions, and not just "good guys" and "bad guys". The brotherhood was supposed to be fairly brutal too.

I'm actually dissapointed that you didn't see much in the way of new construction in either games. It's 200 years after WW3, you'd expect there to be some places that have new buildings instead of most survivors still huddling together in burnt out buildings. Hell, Fallout 2 had Vault City (I never played through the first one, so I can't comment on it).
 
For me, Fallout 3 definitely saw a lot more of my gaming hours. Mostly because like most people said, we were all dying for a new Fallout experience at the time etc.

Honestly, I spent more time modding New Vegas than I did actually playing it. Which is a real shame because your talking to a Fallout OG.

Fallout 2 on my first PERSONAL computer of any kind back in '98-99.
Pentium 166
64MB SDRAM
STB Velocity 128
15" CRT with a nice green tint lol
(I literally assembled this machine by calling up every mom-n-pop shop in my area asking: "Got any spare parts for a young kid to make his first computer with?" Lol. Being 15 and broke sucked balls.)

*REPRESENT*
 
This is a tough one. I really enjoyed Fallout 3 when it came out and played the shit out of it. But I got a bit disappointed with some of the DLC (Point Lookout, wtf is up with super strong/tough hillbillies) and it seemed like they made no effort of hiding that they didn't even try with the enemies anymore. They just took the previous toughest enemy and added 1k or so health and some damage. (Was especially retarded with the ghouls). But overall I really did enjoy it.

Fallout NV was fun too but I think it was a bit tougher to get into at first. I felt like I didn't have anything to do at first/was kinda clueless on where to go, but it turned out to be really fun.
 
For Me Fallout 3 and Fallout NV were the same game. But since FO3 came first I put more time and hours into it thus liked it more.

I played all the add ons for FO3 and point Lookout was AWESOME. Killing hillbillies has always been a passion of mine.


NV I didn't play any of the add on's and only passed it once. Kind of got tired of the formula so I didn't play it nearly has much as FO3.


But over all I'd say FO3 = NV. If I would have played NV first I'm sure I would like it more.
 
stevedave said:
For Me Fallout 3 and Fallout NV were the same game. But since FO3 came first I put more time and hours into it thus liked it more.

I played all the add ons for FO3 and point Lookout was AWESOME. Killing hillbillies has always been a passion of mine.


NV I didn't play any of the add on's and only passed it once. Kind of got tired of the formula so I didn't play it nearly has much as FO3.


But over all I'd say FO3 = NV. If I would have played NV first I'm sure I would like it more.
Click to expand...

I'm a sucker for the post-apocalyptic scenario, so I've played both several times. I like some aspects of each. Megaton, the city-ship (can't remember the name) the Springfrield (or was it Springvale?) school, the police station, and the Deathclaw areas (oh, and Harold) and the beginning in Vault 101 really defined Fallout 3 to me. It's what made the game interesting. I liked the first town in NV, but it didn't strike me the same way as the Vault or Megaton. But, the Strip, the missions, the story and the weapon system in NV really made me happy. I loved the conflict between the NCP and Caesar, the pockets of brutality and little events you run into on the way. I think they really made NV just a little more fun to play, to me.
 
Honestly, I would get both and play them. They are both deserving of a play through.
 
I liked the setting of fallout 3 better.. but liked the story better of new vegas.
 
I feel that New Vegas is the overall better game when compared to Fallout 3, more bells and whistles. But they are both great games.

I will say that Fallout 3 is superior on the console over New Vegas over the fact that it doesn't crash all the fricken time. I was able to beat F3 GoTY & DLC on 360 with maybe 2 or 3 crashes while New Vegas crashed at least once every hour or two after you get far into the game.
 
New Vegas was a much better game. It was much more true to the Fallout lore, the story telling was significantly better, the faction system was much more interesting, etc.


I liked Fallout 3 too. I was super excited when I found out they were rebooting the fallout franchise. Fallout 3 was a good game. It is just New Vegas did everything better.
 
It's a difference of setting. If you want a more desolate wasteland setting then FO3 is for you. It also seems larger because of this. New Vegas for example has comparatively huge settlement type locations and large parts of the map are comparatively heavily populated with what you would pass for civilization in that type of situation.

Basically it's a what setting/story/characters you prefer type situation. The overall basic structure of the game is essentially similar with NV having slightly more features.
 
I liked the environment/atmosphere of FO3 better than NV ( big fan of the retro-take on the nation's capital, less taken with the south west ), but I dumped obscene amounts of time into each game.

Now, were someone to ask me where they should base Fallout 4: New Orleans. What a great location for a fall out game. I know it probably won't be, but it *should* be.
 
XOR != OR said:
I liked the environment/atmosphere of FO3 better than NV ( big fan of the retro-take on the nation's capital, less taken with the south west ), but I dumped obscene amounts of time into each game.

Now, were someone to ask me where they should base Fallout 4: New Orleans. What a great location for a fall out game. I know it probably won't be, but it *should* be.
Click to expand...

Anything other than desert would be fine with me. It would be cool to have multiple location accessible through Nuka Train. Maybe LA, San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle
 
We've already been to San Francisco in FO2, but it might be fun to visit some parts of N Cali.
 
Sadly I haven't gotten to New Vegas yet... after all these years I just finished Fallout 3 GOTY last week!! lmao.. damn back log of games!! I'm anxious to see how New Vegas is in comparison. Fallout 3 was cool since it takes place in the area I live, so a lot of the locations I can relate to. Although I can honestly admit I was let down with the Pitt. Didn't get very indepth with the city of Pittsburgh, so that was disappointing.
 
XOR != OR said:
Now, were someone to ask me where they should base Fallout 4: New Orleans. What a great location for a fall out game. I know it probably won't be, but it *should* be.
Click to expand...

+1 this. :)

Swamp locations, mutated gators... bring it on! :D
 
I'd love to see a Fallout game mimic my far Northern California hometown (130 miles from the California/Oregon border) which has a decommissioned nuclear reactor just a few miles down the road. I figure the reactor would make a great ghoul base camp. :D

EDIT: The town just up North would make a great location for hippie ghouls. :p

LeninGHOLA said:
We've already been to San Francisco in FO2, but it might be fun to visit some parts of N Cali.
Click to expand...

Even with all the content in NV I still prefer to play Fallout 3. With all the various mods available replaying Fallout 3 is a new experience each and every time. Never gets dull. :)
 
Last edited:
The real question is, FO3, FO:NV or the original games. The original games would win hands down, for me, despite the newer games being damn fun to play. Neither of the new games really captured the feel of the originals, although (IMHO) NV comes closer, and even eclipses the originals in some areas.

That and bethesda still can't make a game that doesn't crash a lot.
 
Ive enjoyed both games since they came out. One of the very few games I buy on first day.

I will say I play FO3 more than NV but find them both very entertaining.
 
NV gameplay was superior in every way except. Just think of the combat mechanics alone, there was so much added in NV. Nevermind characters and story which Obsidian really excels at.

There seems to be three reasons why you might pick FO3, the rest of all possible reasons point to NV being superior. But if you liked FO3 then it must be on or more of these reasons:
1) You like green better than orange
2) You like the Washington DC area better than the West
3) You played FO3 first. "First time's a charm." After that the novelty wears out.

CrimsonKnight13 said:
I like the gameplay & story of NV. FO3's story felt quite drab & depressing. If I'm going to play a post-apocalyptic game, I'd like to have some hope built into the story.
Click to expand...

Though, if you play the NV DLC's, they felt even more dark than FO3. They just weren't drab.

DPI said:
NV = Skyrim with guns, amirite?
Click to expand...

FO3, not NV since Bethseda developed FO3. Actually, it felt a little more like Oblivion + guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top