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

[Kendo 2]

Well, I guess it's what I get for being a greedy power-gamer and selling useless NCR crap. :biggrin:

[jukehero461]

Lotta fur flyin' about here.

 

*cracks knuckles*

 

Let's get down to it.

 

Best Parts:

 

Fallout 3, I believe, has Vegas beat in exploration, landscapes, and storyline. I love it's opening in the Vault, and I think Bethesda made a mistake by jumping so far ahead in the future to do that game...

Anyway, I loved to pick through the ruins in DC, loved picking through old buildings and getting excited when I found that old Chinese Assault Rifle, or when I found a cache of sensor modules.

The missions and quests I felt were better in most circumstances, though Vegas had a few good ones as well.

Also, the feel of the wasteland, how empty it was, was amazing. It made me really feel like it was a wasteland.

The scavenging was great too, and I feel that in Fallout 3 you had to conserve ammo and had to work to repair your stuff and get new equipment.

Also, Three-Dog beats Mr. New Vegas every bloody day of the week.

 

New Vegas, however, beat Three in characters (which was hard to do, since Three had Moira, Three-Dog and Mr. Burke), because a lot of the time the character of the NPCs were more detailed.

The companions were more than buddies you fought with, they actually had personality.

The faction system was also a great idea, though it needs some refinement.

Also, the gameplay was... smoother, though I couldn't tell you what was better about it. I also loved the cowboy theme, which made for a lot more drama in the right situations, and a lot of hilarity too.

Vegas was by far more funny, even if in a tongue-in-cheek way.

 

Problems:

 

Fallout 3 had some points where there was not too much to do. After a certain point the game kinda stopped. Oh you could wander around and flesh out the map, which was a lot of fun, but eventually you run out of stuff to do.

Also, there wasn't to much in the way of interesting characters, except for a few cases like Moira Brown or Uncle Leo or Three-Dog.

There also was not a major upscale of difficulty in later levels. The same is true in Vegas, but there the enemies scale up with you, whereas in the Capitol the muties are still easily killable.

 

New Vegas had a lot of locations, but few of them were really noteworthy.

The towns were not too interesting outside of Goodsprings or maybe Novac. There were a lot of places that after I was there for ten minutes I was feeling like I had seen it all.

The quests were kind of off in the way that a lot of them could be bypassed very easily with speech. Fallout 3's quests I felt allowed speech, but also made it so it was not a main requirement. What I mean by this is, I do not find a quest much fun if I can a good deal of content by having a silver tongue.

Also, the main story was... kind of off. I feel like it was just a way to show off the reputation system. Not starting in a Vault kind of disappointed me, especially after the extremely well used MacGuffin of Vault 101. The story was not nearly as interesting as Fallout 3's, at least not until some of the more end-game missions, and then it was still not as impressive as blowing up an Enclave base and watching Liberty Prime kick their collective cans. The Independent Vegas storyline was simply annoying, as it offered no real difference than Mr. House's agenda.

But by and far, what really killed Vegas for me was the sheer amount of bugs. I have had more CTDs with that game than with all other games I have ever owned combined. And that includes Oblivion so that's bloody impressive.

 

*pant* *pant*

 

Hooooo.... Okay, rant over.

 

All in all, I liked both, but I feel that Fallout 3 wins, not as much because it is flat out better than that it is less buggy, and that I expected New Vegas, a game taking place LATER, to be an major improvement, instead of a light rehashing.

 

I mean, they left out Dogmeat. That hurts.

But they gave us Veronica and her attitude, so that's okay.

Edited August 15, 2011 by jukehero461

[Kendo 2]

I have a CTD killer quick fix for NV but I don't recommend it for novices, as it jacks with things best left alone. In program files, right click the main Steam folder and go to Security. Change the permissions from OWNER/CREATOR to (yourname)/users by clicking the group. Bypass the Add, just click OK and let it run. You now own STEAM, and STEAM doesn't own you or your folders. I did this and I can play in off-line mode without issues. Now STEAM must ask permission to do anything.

 

narf narf

[Sepherose]

Well, I guess it's what I get for being a greedy power-gamer and selling useless NCR crap. :biggrin:

 

lol Yeah I did that my very first play through and had something similar happen, that's why I thought of it with my later character XD

[Rimland]

Arcane you made some good points:

 

i have to disagree with the exploring

 

i have to agree NV could have used more ruined houses in the wastes with loot to pick/find... but maybe since NV was saved by Mr. House that loot was found 100 years ago, unlike DC which seemed to have been utterly wiped out and still ripe for exploring...

 

gotta keep in mind 2 assumptions:

 

the underlying NV myth is that it was unaffected by the bombs relative to everywhere else, so less loot and fewer ruins and more developed...and the developers suffer from"we did that already in FO3 syndrom"

 

Consider for example: Why doesn't Lake Mead have sunken boats with loot to find? (a) because there are like 10 in FO3 ! "we did that already" !! (b) Mr. House saved the boats from the bombs!

 

However, the nail in the coffin is the lame ass ending:

 

But as Mr. New Vegas sums it up: the fun is getting there, not in the location (or whatever the stupid quote is, something like that)

 

Ostensibly: How to best Liberty Prime? More Vertibirds like in FO3? Giant Robots Again? Aliens in Space blowing up?

How to beat those in a sequel besides doing them again?

 

I don't know?

The Legion has a tank ?

Some kind of vehicle or robot you get to fight rather than watch (you know Liberty Prime does all the work!)

Vampire Frogs from Outer Space?

Nazi Ghouls... from China?

Literally fight 100 Legion on the Damn instead of 5 or 6?

Blow a hole in the Damn inevitably bringing an apocolypse to the Mojave that Mr. House simply delayed for 200 years?

 

NV Cons:

 

ending sucks

no random encounters sucks (there are 2 mods, but i get many CTD with them loaded)

 

NV Pros:

 

companion quests and dialogue

factions

 

 

Here's hoping for FO4 !!

Chicago maybe? Both FO3 and NV make references ! !

 

 

Or, (like Elder Scrolls and the various regions of Tamriel) which of the 13 Commonwealths have not been a central part of a FO game?

[marharth]

So many people are saying they "stole" ideas from FO3 mods.

 

1. Why does it matter if its a good thing to have?

 

2. I doubt they did, you seriously think the devs looked over all the mods for FO3 and took out ideas like that?

[arcane20]

1. Why does it matter if its a good thing to have?

 

You're missing the point. The point being made is that the new features aren't new. Personally I think it's a good idea for the dev to steal ideas. However you can't use these as reasons on why it's a better game because they're also in fallout 3.

 

2. I doubt they did, you seriously think the devs looked over all the mods for FO3 and took out ideas like that?

 

Click the link go to about 2:00

 

 

I think what Dominico10 was saying was pretty good.

all of this is down to taste so no ones taste is right.

[rarm47]

IMO

 

I really enjoyed F3 but FNV is way better. For me New Vegas has just better and more "realistic" and coherent world though less spectacular and postapo than DC ruins.

 

Let's look at Capital Wasteland.

 

No farms, ridiculous settlements, no military outposts to protect the towns. DC trading centre - Canterbury Commons has 5 inhabitatnts. Caravan merchants specialize in weapon, armos, chems and junk. And those merchants supply big Tenpenny Tower and Rivet City? Who sells food since there are no farms?

 

I mean in Vegas people do sth to survive - grow crops, keep animals, hunt, run shops, hotels and casinos.

 

I didn't see much of thoes in F3. And I think that was easy for devs to fix - add some flieds, some random npcs, show some hunters, create bigger trade copmany - sth like Crimson Caravan.

 

In FNV there are some farms, military camps and outposts, refugee camps. The settlements make more sense. I mean the game tries to build a coherent

world.

 

The characters are far more interesting than those in F3, and there are dozens of them.

 

The quests in FNV are also much better (and more of them).

 

The weapon are also better in FNV. In F3 I used almost exclusively mod weapons while in Vegas I just added Eli's Edge and Kabars.

 

So F3 - 8/10, FNV - 9.5/10.

[marharth]

To everyone saying the NV story isn't good, that's because the NV story isn't finished yet.

 

Lonesome road will finish the background for the courier, no one knows what the story will be like until that is out.

[Kendo 2]

To everyone saying the NV story isn't good, that's because the NV story isn't finished yet.

 

Lonesome road will finish the background for the courier, no one knows what the story will be like until that is out.

 

And therein lies another issue with New Vegas. People paid full game price for an unfinished game. Since Lonesome Road 'finishes' the story, I'll assume they are going to distribute it free of charge? Yeah, right. They are going to soak people for another 10 bucks for a crappy DLC that should have been in the game to start with.