DeepSoul Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 Hi, I'm new to Fallout 3 but I have played Oblivion and Fallout 2. I plan to start on Fallout 3 but I don't know what to play first, Fallout 3 or New Vegas? Which one is best and which one has the best mods? Can you recommend some popular mods that are considered standard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenstorm Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 (edited) Hi, I'm new to Fallout 3 but I have played Oblivion and Fallout 2. I plan to start on Fallout 3 but I don't know what to play first, Fallout 3 or New Vegas? Which one is best and which one has the best mods? Can you recommend some popular mods that are considered standard? Fallout 3. Don't take me wrong I like New Vegas but I feel Fallout 3 has more depth. And a way better story. And Enclave. And a more badass Brotherhood of Steel. And a LOT of quality mods. That's just my opinion though. Fallout fans (who played Fallout 1 & 2) apparently like New Vegas better as it follows the previous games. I was introduced to the series by Fallout 3. Edited August 19, 2011 by Glenstorm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeepSoul Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 I will follow your advice, because I like depth and I'm not a fan of the previous games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusmi Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I like Fallout 3 better, but New Vegas is closer to being a Fallout 2 sequel. Fallout 3 is set on the East Coast in the DC ruins, whereas New Vegas is in the Mojave and has characters like Marcus and Doc Henry. The choice is yours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSovieticus Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 I would play both, but start with Fallout 3. Fallout 1 & 2 are great, so I would actually start with those ones, but if you are choosing between Fallout 3 & NV, play the first one first. I cannot actually choose which one is better, since they both are great, but different. You will want to play NV more than once. But you need not start from scratch each time. I would avoid the strip for as long as you can, because the strip is the place where things become much more open-ended. So if you do not want to replay the game from scratch, then you will want to replay the game starting from just before you hit the strip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonsterMonkey Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 If like me,you are not fallout 1 or 2 fan go for Fallout3 it is better than newvegas, originally newvegas has got more improvements to the gameplay, but all these features are inspired by Fo3 mods so it does not left much to newvegas.And the storylines in NewVegas are pretty Simple-Minded and uninteresting to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSovieticus Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 Yes, well, actually, I do not see a huge difference in the quality of the storyline. I have seen much better, but mostly I have seen much worse. So the difference is not all that huge when you consider the wider range of human storytelling. And, for me, Fallout has always been about the setting, the atmosphere, the characters and creatures -- or, in summation, the universe in which the story is set. The story is good (very good, if you consider the quality of story telling in the majority of today's videogames), but it is really just designed to drive the action forwards. Very rarely does a videogame story outshine all other aspects of the videogame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frakle Posted September 15, 2011 Share Posted September 15, 2011 (edited) Hi, I'm new to Fallout 3 but I have played Oblivion and Fallout 2. I plan to start on Fallout 3 but I don't know what to play first, Fallout 3 or New Vegas? Which one is best and which one has the best mods? Can you recommend some popular mods that are considered standard? I like 3 better than New Vegas, because 3 has much more depth, and the exploration of the game is much better in 3. There's truly nothing like seeing the Washington Monument in Fallout 3. Seeing New Vegas in.. well, New Vegas, did not pack near as much oomph, and I was just like "ok, cool, where do I go for my quest" and when I saw the Monument in 3 I was like "omfg this cool". Plus 3 has FWE :biggrin: Edited September 15, 2011 by frakle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSovieticus Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 (edited) I think that maybe some of the bias in this thread has to do with the relative state of videogame technology at the time in which the two games were released. Obviously, when one considers how much videogame tech has advanced between the release of FO3 and the release of FNV, one would notice that FNV does not improve on the FO3 tech nearly as much as it should have. So, yes, FO3 was more powerful when we first played it than FNV was. But I have to wonder what would happen if someone played FNV first, or, especially, what would happen if the release dates of the two games were reversed (not in print, but in reality). I mean, if people were really so concerned about storytelling and depth, then they would appreciate FO1 & FO2 much more than they seem to. I do not mean to say that people here are only concerned about graphics and effects. What I think is that people here are mostly concerned with the impact that the fiction has on them, and it just so happens that the majority of people are affected most greatly by fancy effects, probably because they are looking for an escape. As a scientific socialist, I do not look for escape as much as I look for change, and this requires that I look at things scientifically, considering not just the object, but also the object's context, because the object is not really an object, but a part of a process (or set of processes) in motion. History is no less important than the present or future, so why should it be any less interesting? Now, it is true that FO3 is further in the past than FNV, but it is also true that the second play-through of either game has much less of an impact than the first playthrough. This is because each playthrough only differs to a certain extent, and so the illusion of escape can no longer be had, at least not to the same extent. And this is more or less what most people experience when playing FNV: it is almost as though it were another playthrough of the same game. But if it were viewed scientifically, as a part of a larger process, then the player would experience the evolution of the process (which, in our case, is the story and the universe in which the story is set), regardless of the way in which it manifests (new tech vs old tech). Edited September 16, 2011 by HSovieticus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusmi Posted September 16, 2011 Share Posted September 16, 2011 One of the big differences for me is how simple it is to play Fo3, which I like. another major difference is the type of survival involved. Fo3 has a lot of urban areas, there are ghouls all over the play, super mutants. NV was critters everywhere, and they start out at high level instead of leveling up with the player. NV didn't have have a city area, had buildings yes, but not a major mass like the downtown DC area with subways monuments, settlements and hiding spots One thing that really bothered me about NV was the ammo crafting system. I just didn't want to spend all day scaving for bullets. I ended up getting a ballistic fist and switching to melee. (Not all mods should be included in the sequel) these are some of the reasons I prefer Fo3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts