NV and Fallout 3: A qualitative comparison

[olafreinhardweyer]

In the beginning. I followed the mainquest as far as Novak. I found a few places inbetween but nothing that knocked me off like it happened so often in FO3. I've completed Primms Sheriff problem and did all Novacs quests. The Ghoul quest i found to be the most entertaining so far, even if i found it a bit unreallistic. It kept me WANTING despite the Ghouls goal not being in my own heart. I didn't feel for those Ghouls like i felt for the Ghouls in Underworld. I guess it was my thirst for real longer lasting quest that kept me going. It was also nicely intervined with happenings in Novac. I would have preferred Novac to be the start of the game in fact.

 

Well, enough about that, i only wanted to point out, i am not THAT far into the game and that i might be in error with below judgement. I won't be however if the Desert gets less filled with stuff like it is arround Novac. Thinking of it, Novac would be damn fine replacement for FO3 Arefu (Aerfu), the only place in F03 that really bored me.

 

But i promised to go on:

 

NV and FO3

 

I won't judge NV on game mechanics, balance or the like because i always found modders like the FWE team (with no console on their mind) to do a better job, perhaps only because they have no production time constraints.

 

What i like about Obsidians work, is, that dialogues tend to be longer and you can learn a bit more about the characters. The Reputation System is a great addition and influences my gameplay considerably. The Reputation changes could be more gradual.

 

I have always thought that NPCs and how refined they are was the ONE thing that matters most in an RPG. I was wrong. The ultimate NPC is the gameworld with it's varied places. It is the most important NPC and he needs to be a very varied and surprising character. He should scare me, baffle me, anger me and should make me laugh. He should fall "out of character" yet must be varied. I am sorry to say it but Bethesda did a better job on this important character.

 

The ultimate 3rd person RPG Game regarding regular NPCs is for me Gothic 2 even without the addon. If you look at Gothic 2's gameworld it's not that exiting and varied but the regular NPCs totally make up for this. I don't feel the same way about NV with has above average NPCs development and a rather big gameworld. It first thought it was a matter of balance. I thought, if NPCs have a certain variety and are "deep" the gameworld must too.

 

But its not so much a matter of balance, it's much more simple and perhaps this should be in every game developers handbook. I any game, whatever keeps the player the most occupied, that must be have the most developed, varied and entertaining features.

 

In both Fallout 3 and NV the most time i spent with is the gameworld, simpy because it's so BIG. Has NV given the gameworld the rendition it needs? To me it hasn't. Has Bethesda with Fallout3? Absolutely! Surprises arround EVERY corner. And beyond that (very important) a freeform terrain to wander about with the obstacles forcing you to wander in the same direction on a different path instead of not going there at all at the time. Bethesda did right. Bethesda picked a terrain (Washington DC) made it an interesting, varied place and than filled this place with INSTANCES for happenings revolving arround the mainquest. More developed NPCs and factions and relationships or not, NV can't compete with Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 the mainquests is almost neglitable. You don't need the mainquest at all to enjoy the game and i mean this in a 100% sense. For NV it is true for perhaps a 30%. I think even the advertisments for both games reveal this: Bethesda puts much effort into selling a post-atomic world. NV wants to be a seller because of its mainquest and the necessary associations with factions. Washington as a Fallout game setting is intersting because its nuked. Bevore i bought NV, canon aside, i was concerned Vegas and surroundings weren't. Vegas as Vegas is believed to be interesting enough. But i have yet to even get there. I spent a lot of time out of Vegas. This is Die Hard Part Five with Bruce Willis showing up only after the second halve of the movie. Do i need to rush through the movies story (mainquest) to at some point finally get the movie i bought my ticket for? Fallout 3 promised me a nuked Washington DC and i got the right from the start. The game teased me for the Washington outside all through Vault 101. NVs desert keeps me on hold too, but there is not enough inbetween. Though i see New Vegas from Goodsprings, getting there seems like an empty promise. I am not so hot for finding Vegas anymore. Why, because emptiness and lacking variedness of the inbetween are no good teasers at all. If i am not teased about Vegas then at is enough happening that makes forget about Vegas? Ah, but the emptiness ...

 

Back to F03. The DLC that comes closes to FO3 stressing the environment is Point Lookout. But Point Lookout is lacking. As a terrain it lacks the variety of Washington DC. Filled with more interesting NPCs, making it a more cramped place in regarding NPCs would have made up for the lacking variety in the place. The same is true for Mothership Zeta. DLC The Pitt has not enough of either. And DLC Anchorage sucks because there is a rather big terrain with not much variety and zero NPCs of any interest (here it is a question of palace). Anchorage and second next Zeta are teasers to the eye only that get boring very fast. Is Washington DC only a teaser to the eye? Hardly. Are the NPCs that few or that bad? Hardly. Its a ubervaried terrain-gameworld-npc with okayish too good NPCs.

 

So far my thoughts.

[olafreinhardweyer]

I don't do this to thrash NV. I am trying to figure out why it doesn't entertain me as much as Fallout 3. I try to analyze. I don't find NV to be bad game. I find F03 however to be an excellent game i can't turn off once turned on and i want to understand the reason. With my post i am thinking out loud. I want to know if i am all wrong or if i am right.

 

Fallout3 and NV are more than just related. Some people have it just because they had a great time with FO3. But this is not to ultimately favor one over the other. That i talk about Gothic 2 should make this more than clear.

[BooneoftheWasteland]

NV makes me 'feel' like a true wastelander. I prefer the open land concept over the metro system of FO3 that always ugh me when I have to go through that to continue the MQ. I also find more depth with the NPC's in the NV world then I did with FO3. As NV progresses for me the more I like it.

 

I'm interested to see the future mods as well.

[JimboUK]

In the beginning. I followed the mainquest as far as Novak. I found a few places inbetween but nothing that knocked me off like it happened so often in FO3. I've completed Primms Sheriff problem and did all Novacs quests. The Ghoul quest i found to be the most entertaining so far, even if i found it a bit unreallistic. It kept me WANTING despite the Ghouls goal not being in my own heart. I didn't feel for those Ghouls like i felt for the Ghouls in Underworld. I guess it was my thirst for real longer lasting quest that kept me going. It was also nicely intervined with happenings in Novac. I would have preferred Novac to be the start of the game in fact.

 

Well, enough about that, i only wanted to point out, i am not THAT far into the game and that i might be in error with below judgement. I won't be however if the Desert gets less filled with stuff like it is arround Novac. Thinking of it, Novac would be damn fine replacement for FO3 Arefu (Aerfu), the only place in F03 that really bored me.

 

But i promised to go on:

 

NV and FO3

 

I won't judge NV on game mechanics, balance or the like because i always found modders like the FWE team (with no console on their mind) to do a better job, perhaps only because they have no production time constraints.

 

What i like about Obsidians work, is, that dialogues tend to be longer and you can learn a bit more about the characters. The Reputation System is a great addition and influences my gameplay considerably. The Reputation changes could be more gradual.

 

I have always thought that NPCs and how refined they are was the ONE thing that matters most in an RPG. I was wrong. The ultimate NPC is the gameworld with it's varied places. It is the most important NPC and he needs to be a very varied and surprising character. He should scare me, baffle me, anger me and should make me laugh. He should fall "out of character" yet must be varied. I am sorry to say it but Bethesda did a better job on this important character.

 

The ultimate 3rd person RPG Game regarding regular NPCs is for me Gothic 2 even without the addon. If you look at Gothic 2's gameworld it's not that exiting and varied but the regular NPCs totally make up for this. I don't feel the same way about NV with has above average NPCs development and a rather big gameworld. It first thought it was a matter of balance. I thought, if NPCs have a certain variety and are "deep" the gameworld must too.

 

But its not so much a matter of balance, it's much more simple and perhaps this should be in every game developers handbook. I any game, whatever keeps the player the most occupied, that must be have the most developed, varied and entertaining features.

 

In both Fallout 3 and NV the most time i spent with is the gameworld, simpy because it's so BIG. Has NV given the gameworld the rendition it needs? To me it hasn't. Has Bethesda with Fallout3? Absolutely! Surprises arround EVERY corner. And beyond that (very important) a freeform terrain to wander about with the obstacles forcing you to wander in the same direction on a different path instead of not going there at all at the time. Bethesda did right. Bethesda picked a terrain (Washington DC) made it an interesting, varied place and than filled this place with INSTANCES for happenings revolving arround the mainquest. More developed NPCs and factions and relationships or not, NV can't compete with Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 the mainquests is almost neglitable. You don't need the mainquest at all to enjoy the game and i mean this in a 100% sense. For NV it is true for perhaps a 30%. I think even the advertisments for both games reveal this: Bethesda puts much effort into selling a post-atomic world. NV wants to be a seller because of its mainquest and the necessary associations with factions. Washington as a Fallout game setting is intersting because its nuked. Bevore i bought NV, canon aside, i was concerned Vegas and surroundings weren't. Vegas as Vegas is believed to be interesting enough. But i have yet to even get there. I spent a lot of time out of Vegas. This is Die Hard Part Five with Bruce Willis showing up only after the second halve of the movie. Do i need to rush through the movies story (mainquest) to at some point finally get the movie i bought my ticket for? Fallout 3 promised me a nuked Washington DC and i got the right from the start. The game teased me for the Washington outside all through Vault 101. NVs desert keeps me on hold too, but there is not enough inbetween. Though i see New Vegas from Goodsprings, getting there seems like an empty promise. I am not so hot for finding Vegas anymore. Why, because emptiness and lacking variedness of the inbetween are no good teasers at all. If i am not teased about Vegas then at is enough happening that makes forget about Vegas? Ah, but the emptiness ...

 

Back to F03. The DLC that comes closes to FO3 stressing the environment is Point Lookout. But Point Lookout is lacking. As a terrain it lacks the variety of Washington DC. Filled with more interesting NPCs, making it a more cramped place in regarding NPCs would have made up for the lacking variety in the place. The same is true for Mothership Zeta. DLC The Pitt has not enough of either. And DLC Anchorage sucks because there is a rather big terrain with not much variety and zero NPCs of any interest (here it is a question of palace). Anchorage and second next Zeta are teasers to the eye only that get boring very fast. Is Washington DC only a teaser to the eye? Hardly. Are the NPCs that few or that bad? Hardly. Its a ubervaried terrain-gameworld-npc with okayish too good NPCs.

 

So far my thoughts.

 

Some interesting thoughts. I think peoples opinions will vary with what they think are the most important features of an RPG. FO3 felt more open, you could leave the vault, sell all the stuff you lifted from the vault in Megaton and then just wonder off and do whatever you like. I put in hundreds of hours without bothering with the main quest just because it was more fun to just go exploring and picking fights with anything that moved. As much as I dislike level scaling one of the its advantages is it gives the player more freedom to explore, the downside being no sense of danger. Where NV falls down is not the lack of scaling but the way mobs have been placed, in the early parts of the game you're basically forced to follow a linear route, deviate too far from that and you die. For exploration FO3 wins hands down.

 

I think where NV does do a lot better is the depth of the gameworld, the politics of the various factions add an awful lot to the game. FO3 lacked anything like it, recruiting companions was about the only thing affected by your behaviour (karma). With this game you really do have to think before you act because chances are your actions will have consequences. Something also important to me in an RPG is dialogue, this is where Bethesda fall flat on their faces. NPCs in FO3 are just not believable, people do not speak like that, the NPCs appear to be addressing a small child. Bethesdas dialogue reminds me of a what Harrison Ford said to George Lucas... "You can type this s***, George, but you sure can't say it.".

 

Both games have their pros and cons, I prefer NV personally but I can understand those who don't.

[NuclearDestination]

In the beginning. I followed the mainquest as far as Novak. I found a few places inbetween but nothing that knocked me off like it happened so often in FO3. I've completed Primms Sheriff problem and did all Novacs quests. The Ghoul quest i found to be the most entertaining so far, even if i found it a bit unreallistic. It kept me WANTING despite the Ghouls goal not being in my own heart. I didn't feel for those Ghouls like i felt for the Ghouls in Underworld. I guess it was my thirst for real longer lasting quest that kept me going. It was also nicely intervined with happenings in Novac. I would have preferred Novac to be the start of the game in fact.

 

Well, enough about that, i only wanted to point out, i am not THAT far into the game and that i might be in error with below judgement. I won't be however if the Desert gets less filled with stuff like it is arround Novac. Thinking of it, Novac would be damn fine replacement for FO3 Arefu (Aerfu), the only place in F03 that really bored me.

 

But i promised to go on:

 

NV and FO3

 

I won't judge NV on game mechanics, balance or the like because i always found modders like the FWE team (with no console on their mind) to do a better job, perhaps only because they have no production time constraints.

 

What i like about Obsidians work, is, that dialogues tend to be longer and you can learn a bit more about the characters. The Reputation System is a great addition and influences my gameplay considerably. The Reputation changes could be more gradual.

 

I have always thought that NPCs and how refined they are was the ONE thing that matters most in an RPG. I was wrong. The ultimate NPC is the gameworld with it's varied places. It is the most important NPC and he needs to be a very varied and surprising character. He should scare me, baffle me, anger me and should make me laugh. He should fall "out of character" yet must be varied. I am sorry to say it but Bethesda did a better job on this important character.

 

The ultimate 3rd person RPG Game regarding regular NPCs is for me Gothic 2 even without the addon. If you look at Gothic 2's gameworld it's not that exiting and varied but the regular NPCs totally make up for this. I don't feel the same way about NV with has above average NPCs development and a rather big gameworld. It first thought it was a matter of balance. I thought, if NPCs have a certain variety and are "deep" the gameworld must too.

 

But its not so much a matter of balance, it's much more simple and perhaps this should be in every game developers handbook. I any game, whatever keeps the player the most occupied, that must be have the most developed, varied and entertaining features.

 

In both Fallout 3 and NV the most time i spent with is the gameworld, simpy because it's so BIG. Has NV given the gameworld the rendition it needs? To me it hasn't. Has Bethesda with Fallout3? Absolutely! Surprises arround EVERY corner. And beyond that (very important) a freeform terrain to wander about with the obstacles forcing you to wander in the same direction on a different path instead of not going there at all at the time. Bethesda did right. Bethesda picked a terrain (Washington DC) made it an interesting, varied place and than filled this place with INSTANCES for happenings revolving arround the mainquest. More developed NPCs and factions and relationships or not, NV can't compete with Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 the mainquests is almost neglitable. You don't need the mainquest at all to enjoy the game and i mean this in a 100% sense. For NV it is true for perhaps a 30%. I think even the advertisments for both games reveal this: Bethesda puts much effort into selling a post-atomic world. NV wants to be a seller because of its mainquest and the necessary associations with factions. Washington as a Fallout game setting is intersting because its nuked. Bevore i bought NV, canon aside, i was concerned Vegas and surroundings weren't. Vegas as Vegas is believed to be interesting enough. But i have yet to even get there. I spent a lot of time out of Vegas. This is Die Hard Part Five with Bruce Willis showing up only after the second halve of the movie. Do i need to rush through the movies story (mainquest) to at some point finally get the movie i bought my ticket for? Fallout 3 promised me a nuked Washington DC and i got the right from the start. The game teased me for the Washington outside all through Vault 101. NVs desert keeps me on hold too, but there is not enough inbetween. Though i see New Vegas from Goodsprings, getting there seems like an empty promise. I am not so hot for finding Vegas anymore. Why, because emptiness and lacking variedness of the inbetween are no good teasers at all. If i am not teased about Vegas then at is enough happening that makes forget about Vegas? Ah, but the emptiness ...

 

Back to F03. The DLC that comes closes to FO3 stressing the environment is Point Lookout. But Point Lookout is lacking. As a terrain it lacks the variety of Washington DC. Filled with more interesting NPCs, making it a more cramped place in regarding NPCs would have made up for the lacking variety in the place. The same is true for Mothership Zeta. DLC The Pitt has not enough of either. And DLC Anchorage sucks because there is a rather big terrain with not much variety and zero NPCs of any interest (here it is a question of palace). Anchorage and second next Zeta are teasers to the eye only that get boring very fast. Is Washington DC only a teaser to the eye? Hardly. Are the NPCs that few or that bad? Hardly. Its a ubervaried terrain-gameworld-npc with okayish too good NPCs.

 

So far my thoughts.

 

Some interesting thoughts. I think peoples opinions will vary with what they think are the most important features of an RPG. FO3 felt more open, you could leave the vault, sell all the stuff you lifted from the vault in Megaton and then just wonder off and do whatever you like. I put in hundreds of hours without bothering with the main quest just because it was more fun to just go exploring and picking fights with anything that moved. As much as I dislike level scaling one of the its advantages is it gives the player more freedom to explore, the downside being no sense of danger. Where NV falls down is not the lack of scaling but the way mobs have been placed, in the early parts of the game you're basically forced to follow a linear route, deviate too far from that and you die. For exploration FO3 wins hands down.

 

I think where NV does do a lot better is the depth of the gameworld, the politics of the various factions add an awful lot to the game. FO3 lacked anything like it, recruiting companions was about the only thing affected by your behaviour (karma). With this game you really do have to think before you act because chances are your actions will have consequences. Something also important to me in an RPG is dialogue, this is where Bethesda fall flat on their faces. NPCs in FO3 are just not believable, people do not speak like that, the NPCs appear to be addressing a small child. Bethesdas dialogue reminds me of a what Harrison Ford said to George Lucas... "You can type this s***, George, but you sure can't say it.".

 

Both games have their pros and cons, I prefer NV personally but I can understand those who don't.

 

These threads are completely pointless because they ALL 100% of the time turn into childish bickering and arguing eventually. Fallout 3 and New Vegas comparison threads shouldn't be allowed. We have all read a thousand of them anyway, we don't need more.

 

With that said, I believe New Vegas is a vastly better gamer than FO3. Do I like the world map better? Well, I think it's a much more detailed/unique world and much more memorable than Fallout 3's map.

 

Buuuuut with that said, I really liked the openness of Fallout 3's map and wish New Vegas kept that. No doubt they will expand upon the original map in upcoming DLC along with adding extra areas so I'll be happy then.

 

I still think New Vegas is a much better game all around. Fallout 3 seems to be preferred by shooter fans/people new to the series where as New Vegas is for true fallout fans/RPG fans.

 

I know I'll be playing Vegas a lot longer than I did FO3 :)

[cerebus23]

one thing that fo nv thumps fo3 over the head and beats them to a bloody pulp is the consistency of voice acting. fo3 and oblivion all suffered form the voice director having the actor record their lines over the course of a few weeks, hence you get accents and voice tones that were way off for the character that they are voicing and may only be for one of two lines of dialogue in a entire conversation. fonv you do not get that much only the 'Hellos" and "goodbies" seem to wander off the proper tone for the convos, "later" and the old womans teary "goodbye" seem to be the most glaring examples you can find in the game of dialogue lines that seem way out of place for the chracter or the context of the conversation.

 

another thing this game thrumps any bethesda game over is the fact that your choices matter, you cannot run around in new vegas being a homacidal mainiac and not exepect that the vast majority of normal people will not shun you or shoot you on sight. were fo3 it did make a spits difference other than the radio chatter and slightly different voice over at the end.

 

nv feels more like a real world, where fo3 felt like characture of a world, where your behavior did not matter, where npcs were just rock stupid. and any number of endless things that took me out of the game world at any given time.

 

and nv has some nice touches that really add to the belief in the world, when you wander into freeside you see the kids chasing a super rat around, you shoot it they start eating it raw. later you do some of the quests in freeside and improve the streets get food and medical going in that part of town, the rats will return but the kids do not have to chase it for food anymore so it just scampers around. little things like that that you might miss if your not paying attention is way make nv really shine.

 

and count me among those that hated sewer diving to get anywhere in fo3, gods we had dynamite and high explosive clear some of the gdamn side streets.

[CarlCorey]

I'm kinda enjoying F:NV but I don't think I'll play it through 6 times like I did FO3. Only one of those FO3 characters followed the main quest and, once I work through NV, I'll probably go back for 7ths on FO3.

[soot00]

In summary people who played Fallout 1 and 2 prefer New Vegas over Fallout 3. Those that did not prefer Fallout 3.

 

Nothing more nothing less.

[myrmaad]

Probably can't say that authoritatively.

 

I'm enjoying New Vegas tremendously and I played and like Fo3, something about New Vegas seems more enjoyable to me, but I haven't played it all the way through yet. I enjoyed both games and accept them at face value. I never played the Interplay Fallouts.

[soot00]

I do agree with another poster who stated these sorts of threads are pointless. Continue to type out a 100 page pro con comparison list if it makes you feel better. In the end, try as you might, you won't change the mindset of the playerbase that loves New Vegas. You also won't change the mindset of the playerbase that prefers Fallout 3. And you also won't change the mindset of the playerbase who enjoys both games equally.