Should I get Fallout 3 or fallout new vegas?
Fallout 3
37.8% (156)
37.8% (156)
New Vegas
57.1% (236)
57.1% (236)
some other game
4.6% (19)
4.6% (19)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should I get Fallout 3 or fallout new vegas?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Funkysandwich:
New Vegas is much better if you played Fallout 1 & 2. Hell, I'd even go as far to say get Fallout 1 & 2 over 3 and New Vegas, they are much cheaper and less buggy then the new ones.

Your not going to far out on a limb there saying that 1 and 2 are better than 3, they're not even in the same stratosphere.

New Vegas feels more complete.

recruit00:
From the choice of either I would choose New Vegas. Fallout 3 is good but no where near as immersive as New Vegas and is so empty. From what I've seen, the DLC for New Vegas is far superior and not as game breaking *coughAnchoragecough*.

Hehe, stealth? I'm invisible, bitch! Combined with the Perforator from The Pitt, perma-stealth field from the Chinese Stealth Suit just gets really silly.

Though not game breaking, the Shoulder Mounted Machine Gun from The Longest Road was a bit overpowered. It chewed through just about everything. Red Glare was fun, but always bugged for me and did no damage.

Oh, and special mention to the Medicine Stick doing more damage with Hollow Points than Armor Piercing Rounds on heavily armored targets.

OT: I voted New Vegas. It just felt better overall. The story was intriguing, the companions were fun to have around, and the variety of guns made things more interesting. The DLC was a bit hit or miss for me. I wasn't a fan of Dead Money, but I really enjoyed The Longest Road. Also, Black Mountain Radio. Also also, Boone is the shit.

What's with all the people touting that New Vegas has an interesting story? I found it boring as shit and full of your standard-ass Obsidian pretentiousness. I'm not saying Fallout 3's plot was any great work of literature - far from it - but I really feel that most of these statements stem from butthurt Fallout fanboys who found Fallout 3's setting too far removed from what they experienced in the previous games. I entered the series at 3 and it's nowhere near as horrendous as these people make it out to be.

I'll freely admit, however, that I myself am biased against New Vegas because its setting is so different from Fallout 3 and I found it difficult to immerse in as a result. I tried the earlier titles via the Trilogy collection, but what held me back there was a distaste for the gameplay, and it's hard to grow attached to a story if you hate the means to proceed. I have no connection to the original setting, is all I'm saying.

All I really want to tell the OP is to take the "oh X is better, hands down" statements with a grain of salt. Choose the game based on the more informative ones... the ones going "This has this, that has that; pick the one that appeals more based on said criteria".

It basically comes down to what atmosphere do you prefer, wild west or post apocalyptic. I prefered 3's atmosphere and spent over 300 hours on it but New Vegas' atmosphere got a bit boring after 50 or so hours and I still haven't finished it.

I'd say go with New Vegas. I liked the story better, the characters better, the gameplay better (especially factions... dear lord I LOVE the factions), and it seemed to be generally more fun to me. The only problem was being horribly buggy even for a Bethesda game on release.

It also had better DLC the Fallout 3 in my opinion. I absolutely adored Dead Money. The way it revamped the system and made it different and unique compared to the rest of the game was nice. And then there was Old World Blues which was funny and added a good new area with funny story to the mix. But the biggest thing is that the DLC has an overarching plot to it. All of it focuses on a strange courier who seems to know you.

Fallout 3 had The Pitt, which I liked. It also had Point Lookout, which a lot of people loved but I didn't care for. Other then that... buggy out of place space mission (I say out of place because it seemed to be going for silly like Gangsters In Space in a more serious game), Buggy linear army simulator (Think Call of Fallout in a way) which seemed fairly pointless, and furthering of the main story in a way that I frankly can't remember much about beyond letting you play beyond the end.

Of course those are just my preferences. You can get both for $60 on steam.

EDIT: Thinking about it a bit more, I remembered a bit of the main story extending one. It wasn't bad, though it was a bit buggy for me.

I'd also like to add another thing I liked about New Vegas; Hardcore mode added an interesting challenge that made the game a bit more fun on the second playthrough. I also found the companions much more interesting in New Vegas. That doesn't sound important, but when you have them following you and begin caring for them and you're playing on Hardcore, then they stay dead when killed. It was enough to make me feel bad... well, when they weren't running directly into enemy fire. But that's just one of both game's problems.

Maybe Fallout 3 has a better plot and that is a huge maybe but Fallout NV has much much better weighting and characters. I think Arcade and Veronica where so so much better then any charter in Fallout 3. Maybe I am bias because I played NV first but I never played a Fallout game before hand.

Kapol:
Of course those are just my preferences. You can get both for $60 on steam.

Just to clarify this point for the OP, he means $60 total: $20 for Fallout 3 GOTY, $40 for New Vegas Ultimate.

Captcha: "1789-1801 IteRuss" ...sounds like a vintage drink.

Fallout 3 GOTY edition with all DLC included is $20. By the time you've beaten it (and if you really liked it) you would have probably easily saved up the $40 for the Fallout New Vegas Ultimate edition (all DLC included), pending further price reduction from sales or age.

The atmosphere of 3 kept me enthralled for much longer than I expected...NV was good, but didn't have the same effect.
As for the DLC, I prefer 3's assortment. Favourite being 'The Pitt', such a dark area, with brilliant rewards too!

Despite the name and the mechanics there is an almost phillosphically difference between the two.

3 is about survival, it's very similar in tone to the Road, where one guy just survives the bleak world (shut up I know there was a father and son in the movie). You really get the sense that the nuclear war was a tragedy, it was horrible and that you still feel the legacy of it today. Most groups are hostile and shoot on site and the few friendly groups are scavengers, eking out survival in the ruins of past glory i.e one of the lragest town is in a battleship. There is a far greater emphasis on exploration and well scavenging.

some people say the plot is moronic but honestly, I liked it. It's kind of biblical in whatever you will be an agent of good or bad. The morality is clear. Now occasionlly it does suffer from the problem of making the bad choice stupid but it's alright.

New Vegas is different in that the game is much more centered around civilisations that are going to battle to control an area. Yeah the apocalypse wiped the slate clean but the same animating vigous of making from the basest desires to the most noble are still present and still inform societies. The game has much more on a focus of working with people and often choosing which people to work with.

The plot is better but there is somewhat of a clumsy transition from your personnal quest into deciding the wider political cicrumstances of the Mojave. You know it is coming but it could of done better IMHO.

I prefer New Vegas but would shadow everyone else in reccomending 3 first. They are both really good games so it shouldn't really go that wrong,

F3 by a long shot. while New Vegas offered a mildly longer story, F3's world seemed to have more substance and its story was more influential.

I came across 10x the bugs in New Vegas, and I played F3 for nearly 3 times as long.

I kept coming across dead end conversation options in NV's branched missions, making them feel more linear.

Voice acting was better in F3, but more voice actors in NV.

F3 has quicker loading screens, and less of them even though both games were roughly the same size.

F3 never crashed on me, FNV did - several times.

Music, NV.

Graphics - identical other than facials, where NV wins again (just).

Companions? NV

Perks and levelling? F3

Exploration and misc. stuff with a more believable feel? F3. Exploration and misc. stuff that's just crazily unlikely with a less-believable feel? NV. So basically get F3 if you want a more believable post-apocalyptic game, and NV if you want a significantly less believable post-apoc. game (on this front).

F3 was just overall more immersive and engaging. I like to side with "graphics are not too important" but with NV I could see clearly the markings on the side of mountains distinguishing floor mesh edges because of dramatic texture changes, and floating details on surfaces that should've been on them; and invisible wall and floors were EVERYWHERE. I rarely saw any of that in F3.

Overall, get both - they're pretty piss-cheap these days but get the DLC packs with then. But if you HAVE to chose between them, F3 is a much cleaner, open, influential, immersive, enjoyable experience.

(Xbox 360)

For me I loved Fallout 3...but I absolutely ADORED New Vegas. There's something about it that keeps making me come back to it. I have no idea why. It might be the branching storylines, the dozens of interesting quests, or the dialogue/story that is miles better than 3.

Go for three. I don't know why, but I HATED New Vegas. There was no reason, but it was just so terrible! I couldn't force myself to finish it. It was too cramped, and New Vegas the city, because of only having certain entrances, felt like there was this giant blank spot in the middle of the map that I couldn't traverse. Plus, the world felt so much smaller than 3, and I had no reason to go out into the wastes. Why check at the edge of the map? The only cool things I found were The One, and a downed Vertibird.

I don't know, but that's how I would go.

Wow, I'm really surprised New Vegas was the winner in this. New Vegas is absolutely the better game, it's possibly even the best RPG there is. I mean, they're generally not exactly classics in the first place, so don't expect too much, but it's really a good game.

artanis_neravar:

stringtheory:

stringtheory:
Well I've never played a Fallout game before

this is not to say that I've no exposure to the universe, I had have some through the longer-then-War-and-Peace My Little Pony crossover fan-fic Fallout: Equestria, which I think is a crossover of Fallout 3 (not sure though)
*braces self for possible anti-brony hate*

I'm gonna chime in again and say that you (unwittingly?) stumbled into the greatest debate with Fallout Fans. I prefer New Vegas, as I said, and I wanted to add this to my earlier comment

I knew the debate probably existed (it's the internet of course it exists) and even said in my OP that I was sorry if this topic devolved into a flame war

Fallout 3. Both are great games and i think you should play both. The thing is, while i prefer F3's atmosphere, world and overall structure, NV makes some really good gameplay changes. If you played NV first and later played F3, you'd miss some of these in F3, which might hurt your enjoyment of the game. Play F3 first, and you can enjoy them both fully.

i found fallout 3 a bit too..grey

so NV is my answer

as you can tell there are lots of different opinion as to which is better. i like them both. fallout 3 feels like the war has just happened while new vegas follows fallout 1 and 2 and shows a world thats recovering.

i love fallout 3 but it feels empty

They are both bloody awesome. Buy both, ignore the souless husks who don't like it because it's popular. Bloody hipsters.

Unfortunately, I can't offer a direct comparison since my F3 experience is pretty limited. But, I will say that as a fan of F1 and F2, I really liked New Vegas. Also, all the other diehard Fallout fans that I've talked to have recommended New Vegas over F3. And, finally, Obsidian, who developed New Vegas but not F3, is based around the core team from Black Isle. So, it's a game from the original Fallout crew, instead of the fans at Bethesda that made F3.

Fallout New Vegas improves upon the gameplay mechanics of Fallout 3, so it is the better one in that regard.

However, Fallout 3 provides a better introduction into the world of Fallout (you really don't even need to know Fallout 1+2). And since both games are not too far apart in quality I definetely recommend Fallout 3.
And just in case you are German: Stay the hell away from the german low violence version of the game. Either get the austrian uncensored version or the english original altogether.
The german dub sucks and the censored violence takes away much of the athmosphere.

I say New Vegas it incorporated the really good Fallout 3 mods and the mods for NV get pretty awesome. Also if your a story guy I wouldn't suggest 3 as you're sure to figure out why from this thread.

New Vegas.

3 was written by Bethesday, so you get mediocrity.

New Vegas was written by Obsidian Entertainment (KOTOR II, Alpha Protocol, Planescape Torment). I think the choice is pretty clear.

tacotrainwreck:
I was a huge fan of the original Fallout series, and New Vegas has more ties to it, and, in my opinion, a more involved, player-driven story. Also, Obsidian didn't turn any classic characters into trees. Always a plus.

i am also a fan of the original Fallouts (i do realize the OP hasn't played them), but i played Fallout 3 and loved it. didn't play NV because i didn't really like the factions from Fallout 2, i really don't like playing all sides like that, i'd rather just be a good or bad guy and explore and hunt super mutants in bad-ass armor. (plus it was cool to explore the ruins of DC :D)

i liked that in Fallout 3 i could just wait on the main quest and just explore. my recommendation if you choose Fallout 3. ignore the DLC, explore the wasteland, slowly get through the main quest, but save the main quest end until you're about to be lvl 20 (the non-DLC cap). once you're more or less done with the wasteland, finish the main story (saving first), then install the DLC. you won't get the 'cheap' DLC weapons until it doesn't matter too much and have fun with it all.

and that classic character was already growing a tree out of him, it only made sense for it to keep growing.

Tayh:
Fallout 3/New Vegas is kinda mediocre, unless you're already familiar with, and like, the setting.
Mods go some way to fix this, but only to some degree.

I hear Kingdom of Amalur is a pretty solid choice, though.

Your avatar is suddenly a very confusing choice. :)

New Vegas. Good story, good characters, improved gameplay, much better DLCs. The only thing Fallout 3 might have going for it is the landscape - I think people really dig the whole "blasted city" thing. I prefer the desert.

OP has probably found his answer by now and made his purchase but...

Fallout 3 in my personal opinion is a much better game. It's very fun to play and has many qualities similar to The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim. There's a quality to the world, the characters you meet and the adventures you have. It may not be by the guys who made the old games, but that is a poor standard to judge a game by, who makes it. If the work is good -- it is good, it doesn't matter who made it.

A lot of people don't even try FO3 and just play NV -- indeed many in this very thread have suggested that you do just that -- but in my opinion, this is because of fan-loyalty and personal bias. The fallout series was a sore spot for its core fan base for a long time, because the 'real' Fallout 3 never got to see the light of a release. That's why many people claim that the actual Fallout 3 made by Bethesda Softworks, has "terrible writing" and that you should play New Vegas made by the "old Fallout team" in reality, Fallout New Vegas wasn't entirely made by the same exact team as the old games, and it shows many missing qualities. Not to mention that it borrows extensively from Fallout 3's engine itself. It seems silly to not even give FO3 a chance.

Anyway, now to my personal opinion on New Vegas.. I didn't like it. It's for a start, the first Fallout game to not have you start out as a vault dweller or have atleast some relation to vaults.. you're just some average joe. Now, in my opinion that right there is poor writing. Not giving the fans what they expect -- or wanted for many years. A game that goes alongside what we loved in the old games. NV changes all that and turns the Fallout world into a wild west cowboy romp with enemies from the Fallout universe just lazily tossed in and randomly placed about. You'll fight end game enemies right outside the starting town for the beginning of the game. You'll find invisible barriers that never existed in the game series before, you'll see a lack of play testing in the gameplay that's readily apparent and you'll encounter a lot of frustrating bugs that pin you into a single type of gameplay. Using guns. I encountered repeated crashes and freezing issues when using melee and unarmed special attacks (playing on a console, no less! the easiest system to rid of bugs!) that were there in October 2010 and still exist. Buyer beware... they haven't so much as touched the game since it's release, it remains a very glitchy game. One more complaint I have about the game is every, single, person, you meet, is bland and monotone. "Like a cowboy", they all talk in the same accent and they all have no real personalities. The only characters that stand out are big name actors that were paid to voice dialogue for certain characters, but this doesn't happen until very late in the game (if you excuse the beginning cutscene) and it doesn't really feel that special after talking to 205 boring monotone characters that repeat the same boring lines "Patrolling the Mojave almost makes you wish for a Nuclear Winter". Go ahead, youtube that line to get an idea of what I mean.

Wall of text, awayyyy!

Them's my opinions. Take 'em with a grain of salt... but know that I love the Fallout series, but not to the point that it blinds me.

New Vegas has Mr. New Vegas and Radio Utopitha. It's a far funnier game for one thing, especially if you play with Wild Wastlander turned on.

Astoria:
It basically comes down to what atmosphere do you prefer, wild west or post apocalyptic. I prefered 3's atmosphere and spent over 300 hours on it but New Vegas' atmosphere got a bit boring after 50 or so hours and I still haven't finished it.

I would have to agree. Don't pay attention to the poll results because it depends on what your priority is. The main story was better in New Vegas but the world wasn't as interesting a place to explore: the map is all cluttered and while there are more locations, many of them are completely meaningless - one's just a sheet-metal lean-to. The only location in New Vegas that came close to being as interesting as your average Fallout 3 location was Vault 11.
I liked Fallout 3 more because the world you explore is a lot more interesting and really feels like a wasteland and each location was more intricate & had interesting little stories of it's own that you put together. However, the main story in Fallout 3 was pretty pedestrian.
The DLC in Fallout 3 was also a lot better.
The other thing is that most of the improvements made to New Vegas were originally mods for Fallout 3. So since you're playing on the PC, I would definitely go with Fallout 3 and just get some of the mods.

Fallout 3 also runs better.

ultrabiome:

i liked that in Fallout 3 i could just wait on the main quest and just explore. my recommendation if you choose Fallout 3. ignore the DLC, explore the wasteland, slowly get through the main quest, but save the main quest end until you're about to be lvl 20 (the non-DLC cap).

If I was to get Fallout 3, I would get the GTOY edition because it's the same price as the base game with no DLC ($20) and I don't want to pay $20-30 for content I could have gotten in the GOTY version for the same price as the base game, and I don't think there's anyway to not install the DLC with steam

Tough choice. There was more of Fallout 3, with more interesting settlements and characters, but New Vegas took the biscuit for setting and story.

stringtheory:

ultrabiome:

i liked that in Fallout 3 i could just wait on the main quest and just explore. my recommendation if you choose Fallout 3. ignore the DLC, explore the wasteland, slowly get through the main quest, but save the main quest end until you're about to be lvl 20 (the non-DLC cap).

If I was to get Fallout 3, I would get the GTOY edition because it's the same price as the base game with no DLC ($20) and I don't want to pay $20-30 for content I could have gotten in the GOTY version for the same price as the base game, and I don't think there's anyway to not install the DLC with steam

hmm. i bought the PC GOTY disk off of amazon irrc, but when i loaded up the game i remember being able to select which DLC i wanted activated. it wasn't a big deal when i activated them all at once when i reloaded my last save right before the end of the main quest.

might be the same through steam.

On one hand, I think you should get Fallout 3 because I'm sure you'd enjoy both games and would eventually buy New Vegas, and going to Fallout 3 to New Vegas would be more preferable than going from New Vegas to Fallout 3 because it could be seen as an upgrade of sorts (several mechanics are added or improved in New Vegas, which I feel make it better as an RPG). On the other hand, New Vegas is simply a better game. Take that as you will.

Fallout NV has a more fun world to walk around in. But if you want to feel like your actually in a post apocalyptic world Fallout 3 hands down. I just walked around for hours in fallout 3 trying to find out what awesome thing would happen next. Also NV has SO many more bugs then fallout 3. I saw three lizards all walking in the same centimeter of space in a rock. It was really easy to shoot them though.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked