Am I the only one who thinks that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas?

Am I the only one who thinks that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas? FO3 felt a lot more like Fallout 1, which world I love, and it even improved the apocalyptic atmosphere upon it. NV feels too much like Fallout 2, which is basically a boring spaghetti western clone with more wacky stuff. I don't get Fallout fans who say that FO3 is too apocalyptic, DC looked like it had more radiation concentration and mutant population than East Coast, it would be hard to build anything there.

Fallout 3's level design felt more comfortable for exploration. Building interiors seem more logical. NV had too many confusing and tedious corridors. FO3's open world, despite mostly designed like a semi enclosed maze, is still better than NV's boring wasteland cluttered with invisible walls.

FO3 is less politically oriented than NV. I do love the choices that NV offers so much, but I really was not interested in anything that happened in the world there, and NV forces you to pay attention to events lore like it's the "War and Peace" of video game. Classic Fallout games weren't even as rigid and political as NV, I think this crappy political stuff is what makes NV truly inferior to the other games. FO3 lets you ignore the story, because there was barely any story outside the main quest at all, and enjoy the game in your own way.

And lastly, FO3 simply has better aesthetics. Everything is rotten, radiated, and corroding. In the other hand, NV failed at delivering the old western aesthetics it aimed for. I'm a huge fan of Spaghetti Western, I love Ringo, Django, Sartana, and Sabata. I can tell that NV did a really poor adaptation of this Italian western aesthetics, whereas FO3 was pretty successful in capturing a post apocalyptic aesthetic.

Other urls found in this thread:

nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/48511/?
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Yes, you're the only one.

>am I the only one

Stopped reading there. You have autism.

Alright?

Personally I prefer New Vegas, but Fallout 3 in my mind undoubtedly did some things better than NV.

I like Fallout 3's world layout and locations way more than New Vegas. The ruins of DC was this really cool hub with a ton of interconnected areas, and the Capitol Wasteland had the perfect balance of explorable locations and wide, open areas. New Vegas felt really deserted (I mean, yeah, it is the Mojave Desert, but that's no excuse for a lack of fun locations to explore).

Fallout 3 had a ton of world-building and side stories through placement of items, positioned skeletons, and terminal logs that made the world feel real. Meanwhile New Vegas really doesn't have that much in terms of little side stories and world building.

Like you said OP, Fallout 3 kept the same aesthetic and atmosphere throughout. New Vegas felt like it was in an identity crisis and couldn't decide between a western, a 1950s crime story, or a sci fi adventure.

NV has the same problem as Fallout 2 regarding the atmosphere, really. It wanted to be everything, but in the end it's good at nothing.

fallout 3 has great atmosphere, but everything else is trash. new vegas has very strong role-play and quests, but feels like a wierd western with robots.

new vegas has better building exploration. in fallout 3 it's too easy to find everything in your first playthrough. in new vegas i would return to buildings i've been to several times and find a room i haven't seen before.

I don't like how NV forces you to follow specific routes across the Wasteland because the story wants you to go there first
So many fucking invisble walls, platforms I can clearly jump to but the game won't let me
There was a lot less exploration and a lot less cool hidden places/easter eggs

Also I really hate the way you have to navigate Freeside

>new vegas has very strong role-play
That's not quite true. FO1 and 2 are examples of strong roleplay due to the ability to play as a retard who saves the world. New Vegas only lets you play as a cardboard pistolero. NV's dialogue and karma system is pretty poor at shaping your character, they lack personality. While it has more roleplaying than 3, it's still not particularly strong at all.

I remember an episode of Roster teeth where they booed the guy who brought up fo3. so no, but thats not a good thing and its faggots like that allowed todd to get away with it

Every room in NV looked the same to me, even more so than 3.

I don't agree with you there. I think NV did a good job at locking a certain areas by putting high level enemies, but the problem is, the world isn't interesting looking at all.

Fallout is more of Emil's game than Todd's.

"the story" is just trying to do you a favor and lead you to your first house. fallout 3 did the same thing with lucas simms automatically engaging you in conversation when you enter megaton.

Having a shit ton of Cazadors and Deathclaws in certain locations is fine, that's not what I meant though

The line of untraversable mountains in the middle of the map that force you to take a certain path to that southern town attacked by the Legion about halfway through the game is the biggest example of this
By that point I wanted to go exploring, but nah
and even after beating the game and just trying to have fun wandering around, I can't because half the time I can't just walk up a slight angle before the game stops me

You could just install TTW and play Fallout 3's campaign in New Vegas but I think NV is the better game for the following reasons

1. Fallout 3 although has more things to look at, New Vegas is easier on the eyes, especially when it gets dark

2. New Vegas has FAR less assholes to deal with, hostile or not

3. Courier has little to no ties to anything in the Mojave compared to the Lone Wanderer so there's less heartache by the number when someone close to him dies or forces him out on his ass

4. Courier gets laid more often than the Lone Wanderer, can even form relationships

5. More companion variety, they're also a lot more interesting

Yes, I agree. Fallout 3 is MUCH superior to that New Vegas trash

there's only one mountain in the middle of the map, black mountain. everything else is small hills that can be easily traversed with some jump spamming. those hills are actually designed to lure you into the nuclear test site and get fucked up.

>New Vegas is easier on the eyes
Also less interesting imo.

>3. Courier has little to no ties to anything in the Mojave compared to the Lone Wanderer so there's less heartache by the number when someone close to him dies or forces him out on his ass
Courier is also a cardboard. I like vault dweller's open ended relationship with his dead mother better, you can choose to care or not to care about her.

>5. More companion variety, they're also a lot more interesting
I agree, but again, most of their personality is revolved around political plot and views. The psychological emotional personality itself is pretty shallow. But still better than FO3's lack of personality.

i like the f3 dlc better point lookout and the stuff in the north was pretty cool
honest heart and dead money where really cool too though
FO3 had more wacky stuff like the cannibal town the ghoul in the tree the gary vault the music vault
FNV was way more story and faction focused

What? Fo3 has awfully huge buildings/metros with same rooms, same supermuties, same trash loot.

Vegas is just a reskin of fo3
Only difference is you can aim and the map is filled with NOTHING and is boring

The developers didn't even try to create an original game
Its all the same

The problem with Fallout 3 is that it tries to force the whole 'muh family' story on you, I couldn't care less about Dad, I couldn't care less about the mom, and I killed every single one of the vault's residents on my way out.

Funnily enough, the moment I stepped out of the vault, I lost completely all interest in the game.

New Vegas is hands down better for edgelords, it even has a faction based around it.

You're the reason why Fallout just keeps getting worse and worse

Nice strawman.

No you're not, but Sup Forums seems to jerk off to NV for reasons unknown.

NV was the glitchiest pos ever released, Obsidian completely blew their chance on it.

What you mean is that you had more fun with F3 than NV, which is fine.
But NV is objectively the better Fallout game.

They only had 18 months and it's still a better game than any other release from Bethesda lmao

> lmao

Get out.

I liked both of them.

..but running into invisible walls in NW really killed a lot of my enjoyment in exploring random places.

I really liked the hotel quest in 3 (the one where you work with the mercs, not the tenpenny tower one). I just wished 3 had more quests like that.

nexusmods.com/newvegas/mods/48511/?

>Fallout 3's level design felt more comfortable for exploration.

You mean the bajillion metro tunnels that never had anything in them and weren't even properly connected?

So while I agree with Fallout 3 having a more interesting world in terms of level layout, Fallout games have never really been about "exploring the post apocalyptic wasteland".
Theyre games about the societies that have come about as a result, every area in F1 &2 was populated with NPCs you could talk to, it wasn't straight up dungeons like F3 did.

As much as I like F3, we just dont have daily thread about it like we do with NV, people were right in the end, it really is Oblivion with guns.

i think fallout 3 is better than new vegas too.
fallout 3 have a clear and strong objective,
to find ur father.
and you can find clues of your father in each city.

while NV have a weaker objective.
too much side stories make the game lost it's focus.

It has been explained time and time again why the lore rape, nonsensical "let's settle next to this here nuke", metro crawling simulator with a green filter called Fallout 3 is hot garbage.

Fallout 3 is my favourite game of all time. However, trying to be objective about it, I'd say that NV is overall the better game.

F3 has a great atmosphere, exploration, environmental story telling and radio songs. NV has the superior quests, characters and dialogue. The only thing I can't make my mind up about is the ambient soundtrack.

Also, NV has superior DLC.

DM > LR > TP OWB > PL > HH > BS > OA > MSZ

>I don't get Fallout fans who say that FO3 is too apocalyptic

Because it's 200 years after the war and the ground is still covered in rubble, nobody has even attempted to build anything more advanced than propping some corrugated metal up in a rough box shape, and everyone somehow survives off scavenged food from pre-war grocery stores which has lasted for 200 years without spoiling and also not run out even though that's apparently been the only source of food for literally every human for 200 years

inb4 hurr durr it has mutants it doesn't have to be realistic

The Reilly's Rangers one?
Fallout 3's quests actually weren't that bad. All the named one's usually involved varied situations, only issue for me was that there wasn't enough of them.

>am I the only one

nah, maybe 3 other ones.

>be a country boy shitter
>only ever played baby's first vidya on n64, ps2 and internet browser
>mum finds a new man
>he's an engineer
>watch him play big boy stuff
>his boss gives me counter-strike during a dinner one day
>discover gmod
>somehow get my hands on fallout 3
Had never seen or heard of a role playing game before, it was fucking amazing.

>being this new
:^)

>fallout 3
>role playing game

Yeah that one. Most of the quests are good, just not enough of them like you said. There are only 17 sidequests in 3.

While I don't necessarily disagree with your statement, I don't thinking using Japan is a good example. Those areas were devastated by nukes but as a whole the country is still functioning, and even received help from the country that bombed them in the rebuilding effort. If the entire world was glassed there wouldn't be anywhere near enough resources or people to properly build things back up in a comparable amount of time.

>there wouldn't be anywhere near enough resources or people to properly build things back up in a comparable amount of time

ok but fallout 1 and 2 established that there were enough resources to at least rebuild more than 3. in 3 it looks like there wasn't even an attempt.

People give NV a lot of shit because of how "bland" the world and stuff is but on replaying F3 I kinda felt the opposite. Of course F3 had a lot less to work on and the novelty got it quite far, especially with going balls deep with the retro style, but these days it just feels so bland since NV, and 4 to some small extent, does the same thing but adds some personality on top of it making it feel a lot more colorful and interesting.

Yeah it's still dumb that everyone is living in shorty hobo tier shacks but some people seem to believe that because Japan was able to get their shit together in roughly fifty years that the same rules should apply to a fully post apocalyptic world.

You definetly have a point here.

Fallout nv is very flawed and incomplete.
Obsidicucks are to blame for accept such a shitty contract.

It is still more enjoyable than most of the other garbage out there.

Fallout 3 excelled in some areas more so than NV, and NV excelled in some areas more than 3.

Depending on your priorities and aesthetic preferences, you might like one over the other.

It’s the KotOR debate in Fallout form. Fitting that NV and KotOR 2 were both made by Obsidian.

The East Coast was bombed much harder than the West. In Fallout 3, the radiation was probably only starting to disappear and newcomers from the West Coast were only starting to appear. Only the mutants could survive decently. The population of tame ghouls was too few to actually build anything. Even the Brotherhood was only there for 30 years or less.

4 has better design, I do agree, but NV isn't so. More characters than 3, but the environment design is pretty inferior. NV's personality is colorful but much less focused. It's like comparing Fallout 1 to 2.

I agree with your points, but I would add that it was also the first modern Fallout game as well, and carved out an exciting and rich world. It drew millions into a previously dead franchise and rejuvenated the whole western RPG genre.

What kills Fallout 3 for me is the severe lack of guns. They didn't even bother to make unique textures for unique guns. And the combat shotgun will never fail to piss me off.

>muh lore
>muh metro
Every time.

>let's settle next to this here nuke
The construction of Megaton was aided by Children of the Atom. Of course they chose to live there.

>4 has better design
Eh, It's pretty damn bland as well, but still more interesting than 3.
>but the environment design is pretty inferior.
That's where we disagree. Again, NV pretty much has all the stuff 3 had apart from DC, which I always kinda hated, but it added some motifs to the boring dusty wasteland with a shitty color filter over it instead of just being Mad Max with funny looking toasters.

Like there is nothing in Fallout 3 that stands out to me. When I think of F3 I think of a generic post-apocalyptic world and that's about it.

Thanks for the pasta, have a (You)

NVfags are obnoxious yeah.
I think the fact that NV feels more like a full price mod or expansion pack of FO3 hurts it a bit.
I would like to see what obsidian could do with a better engine and assets. I think "new vegas 2" was said to be in development, and I really hope the environments are more interesting and the models higher quality.

Same problem as in 4, so many gun mods but you only end up using 2 or 3 guns the whole game.
I really missed reload animations like this from 4

>I think "new vegas 2" was said to be in development, and I really hope the environments are more interesting and the models higher quality.
It isn't. At least not by Obsidian. They are more or less a tiny indie dev these days, they don't have the resources to make a full scale FPS RPG. Few devs could.

...

>Am I the only one who thinks that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas?
Yes, in the history of mankind there has never been another person who has shared this opinion.

Funny thing is that apparently the individual bullet loading with lever-action rifles and revolvers took Obsidian a great deal of effort to get working properly because Gamebryo is so fucked. Todd and the gang didn't bother to code it in Fallout 4.

>damage floaters
>that god awful lighting/ENB watever
>darnified

TRIGGERED

>Eh, It's pretty damn bland as well, but still more interesting than 3.
4's environment is the most varied of the bunch.

>NV pretty much has all the stuff 3 had apart from DC
But they were put together rather sloppily. What kind of motifs? The Strip? It was an utterly failed attempt at recreating New Reno. Apart from the strip, there are the Quarry, Airfield, NCR camps, they're all dull to me. They have a few memorable moments, yeah, but aesthetically bland. Fallout 3's "generic post-apocalyptic world" looks better and the size is more suitable for interesting exploration.

>Am I the only one who thinks that Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas?

No, everybody thinks that except contrarian hipsters.

sup todd

The even funnier thing is that modders got it working in Fallout 4

>4's environment is the most varied of the bunch.
True, but again it's lacking in anything sort of unique and has no real character to it that stands out is what I meant.
>But they were put together rather sloppily.
Maybe, but so was F3 to be fair.
>What kind of motifs?
The western motif and the sort of post-post apocalyptic motif focusing more on the emerging cultures rather than just "grimy survivors trying to survive"
> Fallout 3's "generic post-apocalyptic world" looks better
It really doesn't. It looks about the same.
>and the size is more suitable for interesting exploration.
That I think is fairly valid.

Yeah, Obsidian didn't expect how much work it would be. In the final game the reloading animations still are a bit fucked, if you dick around with them you can go fast as shit.

>no pissfilter is "god awful lighting"

Replacing it with a with some over saturated, almost blinding thing isn't better.

Use Fellout or something, damn.

Seriously, how the fuck does this thing work?

That is how the Mojave desert looks.

I love Lucky. High fire rate and great reload animation.

>True, but again it's lacking in anything sort of unique and has no real character to it that stands out is what I meant.
Well, the character is post apocalyptic theme where people build houses out of trash. What else do you expect?

>Maybe, but so was F3 to be fair.
FO3 lacks asset variation, but IMO the available assets were put together quite well, especially compared to NV.

>The western motif and the sort of post-post apocalyptic motif focusing more on the emerging cultures rather than just "grimy survivors trying to survive"
I've told you that I'm a huge fan of Spaghetti Western, and NV is the most bottom of the barrel imitation of it. At least FO3 has a decent post apocalyptic atmosphere and stayed true to it's premise.

>It really doesn't. It looks about the same.
FO3 has ruins all over the place. NV has a huge wasteland with a few ruins in between. Not quite similar, unless you're talking about Lonesome Road.

And it looks like shit, good thing it's a video game and not real life.

They probably though it's a good idea to combine pump action shotgun with a drum magazine.

>What else do you expect?
Nothing really. I'm just saying it's bland as fuck and I like that NV tried to do something to alleviate that and it's a shame that so many people say it was the one that was bland which I've always found it to be the opposite.
>FO3 lacks asset variation, but IMO the available assets were put together quite well, especially compared to NV.
Fair enough. I will give them that.
> and NV is the most bottom of the barrel imitation of it
I'm not saying I wanted a full on western game, but it taking a lot of aspects from it made it stand out a bit and not feel as generic is what I meant. Now it isn't just Mad Max with funny toasters, it's Mad Max with funny toasters and cowboys.
> At least FO3 has a decent post apocalyptic atmosphere
Again, I feel they are about the same only NV managed to add more stuff on top of it.
>NV has a huge wasteland with a few ruins in between
Pretty much in every direction you look you will find a ruin though.

...

The main difference: plot, characters, choice. I agree the setting is better in fo3 but NV has much better values.

Fallout 3 fags btfo.

...

>it's bland as fuck and I like that NV tried to do something to alleviate that
>I'm not saying I wanted a full on western game, but it taking a lot of aspects from it made it stand out a bit and not feel as generic is what I meant.
It's good for them for trying, but they sacrificed consistency to do that, like what Fallout 2 did. Does that make the world seem less repetitive? I don't disagree with that, Fallout 2 was also less boring than Fallout 1, but it's all over the place yet good at none.

>I feel they are about the same only NV managed to add more stuff on top of it
NV doesn't feel like a post apocalyptic world at all to me.

>Pretty much in every direction you look you will find a ruin though.
Not the torn down concrete jungle you find in DC. It's a flat wasteland with some stuff scattered around.

NV is longer, more replayable, and has more mods and crafting. FO3 is the kind of game you finish once or twice.

it doesn't try to force it in you at all.

You don't need to give a shit about your dad. Since you can place finding him at the bottom of your priority list and insult him at every turn.

FO4 is the one that forces it on you.

>FO3 is the fans you finish once or twice

Funny. I did seven playthroughs, making a different build each time.

>FO3 felt a lot more like Fallout 1
How can you be so wrong.

>you will never spend a good portion of your childhood in Little Lamplight

Yes, Todd. Yes, you are. There are whole videos dedicated to proving that lump of feculence you call an opinion wrong. So I'm just gonna call you a faggot. Faggot.

>good portion
Little Lamplight would be fucking dead in an actual Fallout world. Unless it was a European release

FO3 was polished, but the main story dragged the whole game into the gutter

I'm going to add to your post that dungeon crawling was better in 3.

Love NV all you want, but you can't deny that it's "dungeons" are rancid shit.

Fallout 3 felt too regressive, while New Vegas came off as more thematically fitting.
3's not really a purely loathsome game, it's more like a fanfiction though. If not through production values, then through its plot and themes. It mashes together concepts and characters from the first two in a a big, epic "cinematic" storyline, with less regard for how they work separately. It's very much based on"what would be cool", instead of the design tenets and inspiration of the original game.

New Vegas was comparatively more of a "Fallout 3", since it continued the story of the original two games, while raising it's own themes and ideas without falling back on iconography like the Brotherhood. Plus it's designers used their earlier Fallout 3 project for inspiration.
>wanting to eat mushrooms off the walls
One of the control vaults in a bumfuck state would probably be safest and comfiest.

Story never really mattered in the Fallout games. It was always about making your own story by doing the side content.

NV is the only one with a good story.

>New Vegas only lets you play as a cardboard pistolero.
It really doesn't.
>the ability to play as a retard who saves the world
Well, you don't have to play as a savior of the world in NV. Makes it better, no?

>Story never really mattered
In the first one, it created a sense of urgency.

But in FO3, I have to pretend that I care about christcuck "dad" Liam

I have the same opinion.
FO3 felt more compact and fleshed out, on the other hand NV felt like an endless desert full of dirty people doing mostly nothing.
I had fun exploring in FO3, but NV just feels like a discount STALKER.

>I have to pretend

No you don't. Read >it created a sense of urgency

It also made exploring less fun. They removed the feature from FO2 for a reason.

>and it even improved the apocalyptic atmosphere upon it

Yeah let's not count for the fact that the picture your showing was hit by two nukes and after the war united states went and helped the nation they bombed.

Fallout universe however the world was in a THERMONUCLEAR WAR where LARGE SUMS OF NUKES WAS THROWN ALL OVER EARTH ESPECIALLY HEAVILY ON THE UNITED STATES AND CHINA which adds up to the fact that shit will not be back to pristine condition with butterflies and green forests and a thriving society because shit is literally hard to regrow and rebuild a society after a fuckhuge amount of nukes was launched everywhere and no outside powerful nation to come and help your blown to shit land out.