Why do people seem to prefer Fallout New vegas to fallout 3.

[CoreXion]

I enjoy both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, since they both contain elements that I like or grew up with. For a few years now I have lived in the DC Metro area, so playing a game with landmarks and other places that I have actually seen is very interesting, and can make things fun. With New Vegas, it reminded me of the western movies that I enjoyed as a kid, putting me more in mind of the ones Clint Eastwood use to do, such as "Two Mules for Sister Sarah", "A Fistful of Dollars", and others. The inter post apocalyptic world also reminds me a great deal of the Mad Max movies, and since the game has references to the movies themselves it is no wonder that it does. Fallout 3 feels more like "The Roadwarrior" and "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome", since both movies take place far from civilization and where it is basically tribal settlements trying to survive. New Vegas on the other hand is closer to "Mad Max", the first movie in the series, where there is a large organized government trying to grow from the ashes of the old world and you are caught up in it, after a while going out for revenge for a wrong done to you.

 

So far I have played both games without the use of mods, and have replayed them a number of times because I enjoy going through and finding small things the developers did that I may have missed before. There is also some jump scare factors in the game that make it replayable and enjoyable, since you can't really remember everything. One such moment that gets me every time is when I open a bathroom stall and a skeleton just happens to have been loaded in it in such a way that it jumps out when the door opens. I don't know how many times I shot the thing and it got my heart racing.

 

I've seen a lot of posts talking about the storylines for the games, and the endings, and I have to say that everyone has a valid point in what they have said so far. Fallout 3 does have the one storyline, where it forks into where you can save the Capital Wasteland or destroy it with the modified FEV, as well as other side stories where you have you can be a hero or a villain. New Vegas on the other hand has multiple ways that the game could end, with various factions in play trying to gain control and interacting with one another. I think that the differences in gameplay and storylines have to do with the evolution of the company making the game more then anything else. At the time that Fallout 3 was made, there were a number of other games that offered only two choices of endings really, such as "Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic" and it's sequel, where you could play and join either the Light side of the force, or the Dark Side. In the years following those games releases however, more games came out that offered a variety of options and New Vegas actually stepped things up a notch by adding multiple factions and endings, allowing more freedom for the player to determine the outcome of the game and what happens to their companions. Considering Obsidian was one of the developers working with Bethesda on New Vegas, it is no wonder that they put such a thing into the game play, since it is something that they put into KOTR and KOTR II.

 

Both games are great, and are different enough that they keep things interesting. Where as Fallout 3 focused on either saving or building a civilization, Fallout New Vegas has you determine which pre-established civilization and government should survive, the only difference being more then one to choose from. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing what happens next to the Capital Wasteland after the game ends, since there are some hints in New Vegas as to things, which if you have not unlocked or found those out yet I shall not let them slip and let you discover them for yourselves. C:

[dannyjackson]

Fallout 3 had sub-par writing, zero replayability, a bunch of uninspired DLCs and suffered from the post-2006 Bethesda philosophy of treating the player like an idiot and showering him/her with gadgets that give significant permanent skill/stat bonuses.

 

New Vegas offers infinitely more interesting characters (especially the companions), factions, a proper wasteland setting, no copypasted subway stations and DLCs that are actually worth getting.

 

Pretty much this. The inclusion of "vampires" (The Family), Megaton and Little Lamplight pretty much killed whatever interest I had in the game, not to mention the game's plot being saddled with unbelievable elements and inconsistencies.

 

I think Brother None's review hits the nail. To my knowledge, people who prefer FO3 have different expectations from those who prefer NV. For example, if you're the sort who prefers to find powerful equipment and look for places to go, monsters to kill (kudos to first person who can give me the source of this reference :D), as well as being less concerned with suspending disbelief, then maybe FO3 is more right up your alley. Personally, I prefer characters who are not cardboard and/or inane, and with a compelling plot with multiple choices and consequences. I find it difficult to buy into a world where there's only good or evil, and where characters have signs on their foreheads that relegate them to either side.

 

However, I did find Dead Money and OWB to have far superior writing to NV's. Not surprising given the scope of NV demanding more people to work on individual parts of it. NV is really good on the main plot, but some of the sidequests are not fully developed, sadly. I'm looking through the GECK now and I'm finding so many lines of unused dialogues that should have been in the game, but wasn't, either due to oversight or a lack of time (I'm guessing it's the first)

 

As for the gadgets they can and have been fully customised with the GECK.

 

I think he's referring to the bobbleheads, which don't make any sense whatsoever. Of course you can remove them with GECK, but out of the box it defines the direction that Bethesda had planned to take the Fallout series into, and only serves to highlight the ridiculousness of the setting in general. Removing it isn't "fixing" it, so to speak. The flexibility of GECK of course allows for players to impose their demands accordingly into the game, but even barring the "this is artificial" argument, the greater concern is that it represents what kind of vision the developers had in the course of developing the game, and to call it a continuity of a series that was very different in terms of quirky, grimdark humour and knew when to, and when not to, take itself seriously.

Edited August 4, 2011 by dannyjackson

[Bottletopman]

Ohh yes an annoying companion interface just to reduce realism >.> thanks for that.

 

The Fallout 3 companion interface was just plain horrible. The companion wheel is so much easier to navigate and use, and if you wanted the standard, complicated and troublesome interface, just open up your companion's companion wheel and talk to them. And reduce realism? I'm pretty sure that when you talk to someone the whole world around you doesn't freeze.

Edited August 4, 2011 by Bottletopman

[soot00]

Fallout 3 > New Vegas

 

Fallout 3 has a good back story to draw the player in. Post apocalyptic land mass > Vegas

 

From the beginning of the game you see your character being born as opposed to New Vegas where you are plopped in the middle of a small town ......

[soot00]

With New Vegas, it reminded me of the western movies that I enjoyed as a kid, putting me more in mind of the ones Clint Eastwood use to do, such as "Two Mules for Sister Sarah", "A Fistful of Dollars", and others.

 

It did? Aside from the western background music I didn't get a single sense that I was a cowboy in New Vegas

 

Want real cowboy action in a western genre, Red Dead Redemption is the one. Too bad it's console only, amazing game!

[documn]

One reason I prefer New Vegas is because of the choices you can make. In New Vegas you have no backstory and the dialogue and quest branches let you define your character to a much greater extent than FO3 does. Not to say that the FO3 story is bad, but when comparing the two games, I found that I prefer NV's freedom.

 

I also like how New Vegas feels more like a wasteland. There is a lot of open space that isn't filled with monsters, which makes a lot of sense to me. Fallout 3 had way too many monsters and gore bags. If I wanted to shoot stuff all the time, I would play a proper FPS.

 

I like the weapon variety in NV.

New Vegas companions are much more interesting (but I still choose not to use a companion most of the time).

[falloutperson416]

From my experience, I seem to see people liking Fallout 3 more than they do New Vegas. :confused:

[CoreXion]

With New Vegas, it reminded me of the western movies that I enjoyed as a kid, putting me more in mind of the ones Clint Eastwood use to do, such as "Two Mules for Sister Sarah", "A Fistful of Dollars", and others.

 

It did? Aside from the western background music I didn't get a single sense that I was a cowboy in New Vegas

 

Want real cowboy action in a western genre, Red Dead Redemption is the one. Too bad it's console only, amazing game!

 

Unfortunately I don't have Red Dead Redemption, but from all the reviews and game play footage that I have seen it does look like something that I would enjoy greatly.

 

What I meant by my comment of reminding me of the western movies that I enjoyed as a kid is the storyline and characters in the game. "A Fistful of Dollars" had the main character being able to play three sides, the two families fighting for the town and the towns people themselves. "Two Mules for Sister Sarah", help someone and get pulled into an even larger ordeal. Heck, even "Hang'em High" and "The Outlaw Josey Wales" come into play also, with the courier being left for dead only to come back for revenge, and parts of Ulysses back story that has been reveled is similar to Josey Wales. Going to the ranch that Ulysses is said to have worked at you can find two graves, and artwork that I have seen of Ulysses seems to show some scars on his face, similar to the deaths of Josey's family and the scars on his face. I might be over thinking things a bit, but the little things in the game like that put my ol' brain on a nostalgia trip.

 

Might be that I play the game a bit like a cowboy also. Going around in a sheriff's duster and using standard weapons more then energy ones. ;)

[Shantih]

The only thing that ruins FNV is Steam and I'm sure more people would enjoy it if we didn't have to cope with Steam to play the game. Don't get me wrong I have little love for Games for Windows Live but Steam is even more intrusive.

 

That being said I've played Fallout 3 for a long time and to me FNV is definitely the better game. Gameplay has been improved quite a bit (I'd take DT over simple DR anytime) and the writing is much better.

 

The direct references to Fallout 1 and 2 make FNV a better game. Fallout 3 is trying too hard to be seen as a Fallout game and it shows. A case in point is Harold ending up in DC. To me that was a major WTF moment when playing Fallout 3. Seeing Marcus in FNV didn't seem weird at all as he had a reason for being there.

 

I could go on and on about that. Truth is I've enjoyed Fallout 3 (especially with mods) but IMO FNV is the better game.

 

Besides the western setting was definitely part of the appeal of the original Fallouts.

[billyro]

The only thing that ruins FNV is Steam and I'm sure more people would enjoy it if we didn't have to cope with Steam to play the game. Don't get me wrong I have little love for Games for Windows Live but Steam is even more intrusive.

 

That being said I've played Fallout 3 for a long time and to me FNV is definitely the better game. Gameplay has been improved quite a bit (I'd take DT over simple DR anytime) and the writing is much better.

 

The direct references to Fallout 1 and 2 make FNV a better game. Fallout 3 is trying too hard to be seen as a Fallout game and it shows. A case in point is Harold ending up in DC. To me that was a major WTF moment when playing Fallout 3. Seeing Marcus in FNV didn't seem weird at all as he had a reason for being there.

 

I could go on and on about that. Truth is I've enjoyed Fallout 3 (especially with mods) but IMO FNV is the better game.

 

Besides the western setting was definitely part of the appeal of the original Fallouts.

Pretty much everything I was going to say, although I'm pretty sure I've already posted in this before.

 

Steam is the ONLY thing I hate about New Vegas.