Has playing New Vegas changed your view of FO3?

[Petrovzzz]

Yes. I thought FO3 was the shittiest game of teh s***hole.

 

Now I LOVE IT :D

[WizardOfAtlantis]

Very interesting, all. I have to say I'm surprised by the poll so far. I expected more yes's than no's, but I guess that shows what I know! :wallbash: It goes to show once again that you can't know the perception until it's perceived!

 

On a more specific note, I haven't noticed much difference between Three Dog and Mr. New Vegas. For me, it seems that both took a while to come up to date with what I've been doing in the Wasteland, and then they got around to sharing the news. Regardless, I think *realistically* both of those guys tape some of their news segments and then play them in a slightly-changing loop. :thumbsup:

 

On a larger note, my feelings towards the games are tending towards understanding FO3 as grander and harsher, while I find New Vegas to just be more fun. It may be a simplistic reduction, but I think I've had more actual Fun playing New Vegas, and this has led me to understand the harshness of the Capitol Wasteland a little better.

[bushwackAR15]

I always felt compelled to play FO3, bugs & all. With NV I'm just tired & frustrated in messing with it much. For me a CTD every 1-2 minutes just kinda breaks it. Also I'm not crazy about how Obsidian has forced you to go in their direction. Everybody in town tells you not to go north, bad Ju-Ju. Then a stupid robot tracks you down to warn you you're going the wrong direction. I've also gotten into too many conversations with NPC's about subjects that I have no reason to know anything about at that point in the game, as I haven't triggered that quest yet. No, I think NV is a very broken game, from the start. I put up FO3 to play the STALKER series & I'm afraid that it spoiled me in many ways.

[Nihilisaurus]

Fo3 has the whole northern half of the map to just dick around in, shooting stuff in the head. This gives it some replay value at the expense of a bunch of (on the first timr you play it) involving stories. With FO3 it gives you some stuff to do and then goes "you know what? f*** it. You shot my questgivers in the head and then stole their outfits, you refuse to do the main story. f*** it. Go wander in this large box full of killable things with your precious weaponry... I'm out."

 

New Vegas goes "You shot a quest character in the head? Guess you didn't like him all that much, uh-huh? Well there's this other guy if you want... But you know STICK TO THE STORY OR I WILL KILL YOU WITH MASSIVE ARMOURED SCORPIONS".

 

I'm leaning towards NV, FO3 was great and all, and if I could put FO3 in NV as a mod I would, but on their own I prefer NV.

[KFK]

My first impressions of New Vegas were pretty strong: it came with many of the mods I had been playing with in FO3.

 

However, the more I explored the Mojave, the more I appreciated the Capital Wasteland. I'm absolutely shocked at the number of people who complain about the copy & paste metros, but not the copy & paste sand and cacti.

[Sinophile]

My biggest gripe with either game is the fact that neither you nor your enemies are able to utilize cover, this greatly takes away a critical dimension of gameplay. I am less inclined to play F03 now because of the lack of weapons, companions, and other things. However, I do miss FO3's homemade weapons, such as the shish-kabob, and stun darts.

As for stoyline, I liked FO3's much better, as I felt that there was more of an emotional involvement than "I can haz revenge on guys who shot meh"? Does anyone else find it interesting that both storylines revolve around water? If anything, NV simply felt like an expansion of FO3, rather than a stand-alone game.

All in all, if NV has changed my views on anything, it is the Southwest. I really want to visit the Southwest now.

 

My first impressions of New Vegas were pretty strong: it came with many of the mods I had been playing with in FO3.

 

However, the more I explored the Mojave, the more I appreciated the Capital Wasteland. I'm absolutely shocked at the number of people who complain about the copy & paste metros, but not the copy & paste sand and cacti.

 

It's somewhat hard to compare the two. I suppose it really boils down to a matter of preference. For me, it is rather psychological. The subways and Skyscrapers made me feel claustrophobic, whereas rolling hills and open sky of the Southwest made me a bit more relaxed, even if they were a bit redundant. All in all, both seemed to use pretty much the same graphics. At the very least, sand and cacti are easier to navigate subway tunnels, but I have a crappy sense of direction to start with.

[UnidentifiedFlyingTard]

New Vegas really made me realize that Bethesda does not understand Fallout and its Universe one bit, its like they got a hold of it and went "well crap, what do we do now? oh I know lets over do the 40's/50's vibe, put a crap ton of Supermutants in it, and lets put the BoS and Enclave at war, and to make sure the players know the enclave is bad give their helmets devil horns, also instead of making an original story lets just put Fallout 1 and 2 together, no one will notice"

 

I will gladly put F3 on my list of games I will never play again.

[criticalsynch]

Fallout 3 was the very first Fallout game I played. After beating the game I gave myself a try at fallout 2, but never got around to number one.

 

Fallout 3, while my very first Fallout, and true sandbox experience definitely did not have the same spark of pride in it as I felt playing Fallout 2. But Fallout did successfully what many other games in my opinion really failed to do successfully. For both the open world sandbox experience, and the apocalyptic aftermath experience blended well for me. Fallout 3 had it's own unique way of saying "we're still the same just very different." First stepping into the game as a rookie was almost euphoric as I got to experience a whole new world. One thing however I did not like was the 50's style world setting. As if the entire world stopped and stood in one place never to advance for the exception of military hardware.

 

Fallout New Vegas brought to me an entire new experience. I really feel today that if I went back to Fallout 3, I would be playing a game that really isn't worth playing anymore. There are a lot more options for game play in New Vegas that reviewers like IGN and Gamespot just did not cover, which I believed gave too little to the games full potential. I find that I just can not go back to Fallout 3 because the outdated features make it undesirable and when I can experience all that Fallout 3 was and more in New Vegas.

 

There was a time when I thought I would have left Fallout 3 behind for good. Before New Vegas came out many mods that altered the game functions such as realistic combat, the need to eat, sleep, and repair broken limbs more often really made Fallout 3 an entirely new experience.

 

Much like Fallout 2 was an entirely new experience. Although I played it after the release of Fallout 3 it did what New Vegas and FO3 did when I first stepped into the game world. I feel free of any disappointment with lore and story blend when it comes to transferring from one game to the next because Fallout 3 was really more of it's own unique rebuild of what was and still is an unbelievable game and because I never played the two previous games before the release of FO3.

 

So yes, New Vegas has definitely changed my views on Fallout 3. I sit here eagerly looking forward to the next title, whatever it may be. When that time comes I will probably leave new Vegas behind much like I have now left Fallout 3 behind.

[WizardOfAtlantis]

I suppose it really boils down to a matter of preference. For me, it is rather psychological. The subways and Skyscrapers made me feel claustrophobic, whereas rolling hills and open sky of the Southwest made me a bit more relaxed, even if they were a bit redundant.

 

I couldn't agree with you more! :thumbsup:

 

 

One thing however I did not like was the 50's style world setting. As if the entire world stopped and stood in one place never to advance for the exception of military hardware.

 

That's a difficult one, isn't it? A fine line to walk in terms of original development, I mean. Takes a lot more creativity to go somewhere no one's gone before and do it believably enough so that you don't lose gamers along the way and they start to wonder, "Just where the hell am I, anyway? Wasn't this supposed to be a post-apocalyptic US?"

 

I think they kind of went the safe route. Throw in Atomic Age Glitter mixed with Mad Max. It works on its levels.

 

Personally, I would have loved to see more of a Gamma World-type game. In Gamma World (old school GW, by the way), you have a much greater divide between the technological level of the people and the tech you find in ruins. Tech is much more rare, and mutations run wild as more time has passed. That, I think, is the truly glorious combination. Much more of an Age-gone-by, like walking through an ancient Roman temple, than visiting an Civil War battleground.

[zerrodefex]

While I'm not terribly fond of certain changes (namely DR to DT) I've found FONV more enjoyable than FO3 with all the DLCS combined, which is a bit ironic with all the bugs I've experienced in FONV thus far. You know something's working when people are willing to stomach so many issues (at least PC wise).

 

I don't see myself playing through Fallout 3 again after New Vegas, no matter how much I enjoyed the Point Lookout DLC.

 

It has, yes. It has made me realise how inferior certain aspects of FO3 were.

 

Most notably:

 

1. The long linear section at the start (growing up in, and leaving, the vault) during which there's little choice. This discourgages replayability. Doc Mitchell's diagnosis in NV is comparitively very short and typically done with in 10 mins. You don't even have to go see sunny and you're free to do what you want from there on.

2. The linearity of the storyline. NV has more endings, more paths, and in general more choice. thus is more replayable

3. The inferiority of the gameworld. Holy mandatory subways everywhere, batman! FO3 seemed to be full of copy and paste dungeons like subways and sewers, which just served to pad things out and were quite boring. Their necessity to navigate the ruins of washington were also a constant annoyance and it really hampered immersion that you couldn't just climb over that pile of rubble. By contrast, NV is a lot more open, and a lot more of the game is spent in the overworld, actually in the wasteland.

 

1. Agreed, I really started to hate that mandatory tutorial after the first couple times. New Vegas lets you out the door much faster and allows you to skip the tutorial entirely.

2. The multiple endings are a huge boon after Fallout 3's single ending and railroaded plot. I especially prefer how many of the sidequests in New Vegas actually affect the main quest and ending as well, compared to how in Fallout 3 the vast majority of the sidequests were irrelevant to the plotline.

3. The metro system and DC ruins just sucked in that regard. If it weren't for fast travel I'd never return to any of those locations and I still never figured out how to get to some of them. I got lost every time I tried to get to GNR and after a few playthroughs I just decided to forget about Three-Dog and went straight to Rivet City, at least it's easy to get to The Mall from there as the metro line runs from Rivet City to The Mall uninterrupted.