Fallout New Vegas is better than 3 in every single way. Yes, EVERY way, even atmosphere and exploration

Fallout New Vegas is better than 3 in every single way. Yes, EVERY way, even atmosphere and exploration.

can someone reply to my bait thread already

What did you say user?

But I actually agree with your opinion, user. Calm down.

Yes

>EVERY way
that's not saying much :^)

BREAKING NEWS

ALSO WATER IS WET AND THE SKY IS MADE OF AIR

...

...

Not hard considering 3 is a turd, but yes, New Vegas is a pretty good game.

>literally backwards

>Objective
lmao

how's that a bait thread? OP's right.


The
>FO3 HAD BETTER ATMOSPHERE & EXPLORATION
meme was forged by Beth fanboy crowd who were pretty desperate, seeing that even normies are starting to understand how much superior NV was. They knew they couldn't win, so they spout nonsense like this, based the fact, that 3's map appears bigger and has more even distribution of locations.

As for atmosphere - nu-fallout fans, who's first game was FO3 actually believe that fallout is about destroyed, pos-apo world, full of terror and horror, doom and gloom with rubble laying everywhere.
NV was much brighter, had consistent theme instead of being creature built from scraps of different, non-compatible stories and - shockingly - had much more civilization in it. It wasn't true fallout, it wasn't >muh postapo

>Retards will disagree with this objective list.
The state of Sup Forums New Vegas is about on the same level as fallout 4.

but Fallout 3 was objectively the worst of the main series.

4 is less of an RPG, but at least it has competent enough shooting mechanics and some interesting mods.

>FAWLLOUT THREE IS BAD REEEEEE
Why does people playing and enjoying good games make you mad?

>exploring the mojave
>finally find a building amongst all the dirt and rocks
>its only there for a sunset sarsaparilla star bottlecap

>tfw you pull more (You)s than OP
Truly based. Shows how thin skinned NVFags are. They rely on mob rule

But Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 are similar in that everything is fucked and doom and gloom.

2 and NV are very similar in how society is building itself back.

In Fallout 1 the only real safe place is The Hub, that's basically it, everywhere else is fucking shack town

I just played Fallout 1 last week and I'm currently playing Fallout 2.


3 is still shit for plenty of other reasons though

>average of subjective opinions
>objective

>People disagree with me therefore they are not objective.
Fallout New Vegas is just a mediocre game I am sorry to say Fallout 3 is the best fallout Experience.

/thread

one of these fucking threads again. go play the fucking game since its so fucking good instead of shitting up the board.

New Vegas doesn't have enough big dungeons to explore.

Sidequests are also worse in NV.

And radio was better in 3, even DJ is better.

>liking 3dawg over Mr. New Vegas
really

You literally cant even hear galaxy radio for a lot of the game and you are stuck witb enclave propoganda which is good for the first 15 minutes only.
At least new vegas had jingle jangle and radio new vegas can be heard from anywhere

Yeah, Mr. Vegas isn't memorable at all. Idiot from 4 at least made me want to end his miserable life.

Even President AI is better than Mr. New Vegas.

I sure do hope you are ironic
All what three dog does is suck BOS dick

>even atmosphere and exploration
nah

Is it better at being a shit game though?

The capital wasteland is just boring and all the action is in the south east.
And the world design is just horrible along with the pacing in FO3

Cause they're saving his ass and Wasteland in this game. He's loud and confident, like any good DJ host.

>unronically thinking the BOS is better than the enclave in FO3
>loud and confident
Thats literally Mr.new vegas if you switch the loud part with charismatic

Even 1 feels like humanity is attempting to get back on their feet.

BOS are good guys in f3, unlike in NV.

Three Dog is optimistically confident, Mr. NV is "i will fuck your wife tonight" kind of confident.

>Sidequests are also worse in NV.

The only great side quests in Fallout 3 are Tempenny Tower, Agatha's Song and The Power of Atom and all three of then pale in comparation with Beyond the Beef.

Can't you like both? I listen to Mr. New Vegas whenever hitting the road. I listen to 3dog whenever on my down time at home base.

>A lot of dialog options seem redundant and the plot is poorly written compared to Fallout 2 and New Vegas. Having a pre-existing father and mother and backstory kinda killed the RPG vibe
>The atmosphere seems like the bombs fell just last month even though it takes place 200+ years after the Great War. and everything is so fucking green. gross
>Options seemed way too dependent on Karma. Also the karma system was fucked. Even if you steal a fucking fork, the entire town comes to kill you. Also, it was easy to eliminate bad karma. you could nuke Megaton, but then eliminate it all just by giving the bum near Rivet City a fuck ton of water bottles
>Only two possible endings, and side quests don't really mean shit for the ending.
>some perks are OP as fuck. That one where you cause explosions just by being below 20 percent health. Also that one perk that boosts all your SPECIAL stats to 9
>Another negative thing: The Capital Wasteland and the West Coast are roughly the same age, yet the West Coast already has developed settlements and communities, while the Capital Wasteland has not changed at all since the bombs fell and is still struggling to rebuild civilization. The west has San Francisco, Vault City, Shady Sands after the foundation of the NCR, The Hub, New Reno, New Vegas, etc. The Cap barely has shit besides Rivet City and Megaton

>bethesdrones will attack this

As much as I love NV i believe F3 had better first ~1 hour or something

I feel like sidequests in F3 are crazier and stranger in general, while in NV they're mostly about some gang or fraction using courier to solve their problem.

i feel like first hour in F3 is worst hour. Fuck 101 and all inhabitants.

The beginning is fucking boring. The stat picking process takes AGES witb nothing meaningful hapenning
How the fuck is an opening in an enclosed space with 0 control over is a good idea for an RPG about chouce and freedom is good?
No wonder all big mods have an option to turn the ending off.
Wild wasteland? Ever used it?

I mean opening*

I preferred the atmosphere in 3 honestly. The world was a lot more interesting and down town DC was much more fun to explore and get lost in the metro system then popup somewhere unexpected, even now, if I turned off the minimap I couldn't find my way to certain parts of DC without quick travel, like trying to get to Takhoma Park for instance, I can't remember which subways and areas you need to go through to get there and that's what made it so much more fun to explore and walk through.

Now New Vegas was definitely the more polished better game, the world was more believable, the traders, factions and caravans all made everything fit nicely, but there were no large areas to actually go and explore, all you have was New Vegas and that was just Freeside, and the Strip, North and West Freeside should have been connected via sewers to the main Freeside, same for The Strip. Wish New Vegas had been much bigger though, would have been great if it had a load more areas connected via the sewers that you could popup in some which could have been potentially inhabited by fiends etc. New Vegas was just a gigantic pile of waste potential.

Wild Wasteland isn't the same. It's just bunch of silly easter eggs and you need to pay for them with one perk and special rifle.

Alien blaster>gauss rifle
Also thpse easter eggs are more well done than full fledged quests in FO3

Thats 18 months of development for you. Obsidian couldnt possibly put everything they wantes in such a small timeframe. Still they were able to put more quests and variety than FO3 and a bigger world with much MUCH more great locations to explore.

Maybe that's cause it was your first experience in the setting.
I originally thought 3 to be superior in terms of atmosphere cause it was the first I played and I was very wrong.

...

>Having a pre-existing father and mother and backstory kinda killed the RPG
Where'd all these folks who insist a RPG protag needs to be some unknowable stranger come from? It's a Role Playing Game. You play a role. Sometimes it's established sometimes it isn't.

Most experts do think (and i agree) that having a blank character where you can project yourself or anything you want on is much more fun than a pre-established role.

You say this as if it's not objectively and factually true. Nobody with a brain disagrees.

I love how the seperate decesions branch off at the top while they dont in the bottom. Also lets ignore hoe new vegas had triple the amount of sidequests.

>obsidian fags cant even spell a simple word like decisions
holy fuck

Good luck with ammo.

Also, those easter eggs referencing some obscure old movies and fucking crystal skull.

>MUCH more great locations

I disagree, there really weren't that many great locations, there were a lot of locations, but many consisted of little more than a single building or in the worst case a single building you couldn't even go inside.

The best locations were the vaults, Helios one and Searchlight. Most of the other stuff was pretty lacklustre like the H&H tools factory,Repconn Testsite (the R&D offices with the plasma rifle were good though) Biggest disappointments were things like black mountain and Nelis AFB, Hidden Valley could have had a lot more too, would loved to have seen some of the other destroyed bunkers been larger. Also the numerous animal caves and things were awful. All in all, I think the Mojave was a pretty awful place to set a game.

>resorting to typos rather than actually writing a good argument
Typical bethesdrone attitude

My only complaint was the lack of backstory for your character
>growing up in a vault vs some random courier with strange luck

>1 above 2

That's how you know it's a crock of shit

na

Should I get Fallout 3 or New Vegas? I'm new to the series

It depends. In a more streamlined RPG game an established character works better because it gives drive and a reason to want to move forward. They can also contribute more to the story. A blank in a similar situation can leave your motivation seeming lackluster or pointless.

In an open world free reigns kind of game a blank can be preferable since it allows for freedom and arbitrary action. However they also make it difficult to estabestablish complex relationships. Which is why a lot of blanks have Wander Into the sunset type endings to their stories

>I'm new to the series

Start with the first one then?

Start with 1, 2 and New Vegas. Do not touch 3 and 4, they're some of the worst games in years.

Play 3 first, if you play it after nv you'll hate it as it is missing a load of good things nv added to the mechanics.

It IS pretty hard to conserve it all but with good rationing and use in only important battles it's duable. Also the gauss rifle used 4 cells per shot which can burn dowm your cell reserves pretty quick unless you like fast travelinf everytime the hooverdam shop restocks and buying whatever you can find.
The ones you listed are pretty great but how many great locations did fallout 3 have? Little to none desu. There really are some great areas like rivet city,tenpenny tower,and the republic of dave but with the mixture of the bethesda narrative and limited options i find that they palw in comparsion with what mew vegas offers.

I would say if you wanna enter the series then you should play them chronologically. But if you are asking what is better then i must say it is new vegas. Still falloit 3 was an enjoyable experience.

A lack of a concrete backstory is what allows you to roleplay more effectively, and the game gives you options to hint at your past.

>its another "pretending I played fallout 1 and 2 first" episode

New vegas gave you a blank character AND the drive foroward. Dude literally shot you in the head so having your character pre established completely isnt the only way to give you a motive. Also this

Whoever did that is lucky obviously but playing them chronologically is the best way to introduce the player to the lore especially with the first 2 being small and really engaging.

It runs like utter shit, infested with bugs and crashes. Its borderline u playable without a plethora of fixes and patches. FO3 has significantly less so issues at the technical level.

It's not, though.
It's got a few more RPG elements and that's good, but the game is shit for the exact same reasons F3 is shit.

Sup Forums just hates bethesda, and since NV wasn't bethesda, it's automatically better. If you like NV, you'll like F3. The only reason you don't is because you're a neckbeard contrarian retard.

Eh what? No FO3 has the same problems especially on windows 10. Both games crashed heavily and i had tl resort to mods for the games to be playable and not crash once per hour.

dude that's so immersive...
the world is supposed to be dead
and all npcs are voiced by liam o'brien
and the animations feel and look like shit because uh... uh...
gotyay

1 and 2 are pretty short and pretty much freewares at this point.

Then you admit you only like 3 because bethesda ?

I like 3 for the same reason I like NV. They're more or less the same. The setting, the gameplay, and the feel, it's all there.

I'm saying I like both, and I'm saying they're both shit for the same reasons, so if you dislike one and not the other, you're just doing it be edgy and shit on a dev you don't like.

I couldn't care less if it was Bethesda, Bioware, or Valve, I only care about the game.

Right but that's a shallow drive. It's petty revenge. The complexity of your character or lack there of relies entirely on the players imagination. Which like I said is good in an open world game which gives your character multiple methods of expressing the character you want them to be

What? New vegas foxed everything in F3. Okay not everything but most stuff. For example you no longer sit through a tedious one hour section every time you wanna playm you go choose your states and you're out.the mutants,BOS,and ghouls are treated way differently than all other fallouts and their changes are great and understandable while not distracting from the mainstory which hosts the threat posed by an entirely new faction(because the devs can make new ideas) and their leader gives great explanations and even talks about the hegelian dialectics and gives a meaningful critiscism of democracy even though they were treated as completely unjustifiable fascists. Traits are back and the repair system doesnt suck anymore and VATS are imrpoved. The gunplay is handeled much better modtly due to crosshairs the world design is great and well paces because the devs actually put time and effort in it. I can literally go on for ages but you see the points

You can complete the game whitout talking to Benny at all.

>experts
What experts

agree op. Id even say its maybe better than 4.

4 is so boring. The settlements was the worst add to the game IMO.

this is what happened to me, i can enjoy fallout 3 for what it is but it is very dated, NV is too but not as much as 3

The entire game industry? If you take a look at interviews and most RPG's even to this day you can see that they go with the blank character option. Only recent RPG's like the witcher go with the pre established character

>maybe
>implying it's not a fact

Yes and the reasoning for that is entirely up to the player. It isn't a choice the story drives you towards. The game smacks you over the head with "go to vegas, confront Benny".

Isnt that what happens in 3? Go here go there then watch your father die then go there then stand watching liberty prime kill everything because he kills everything before you can have a proper fight simply because the game wanted to push the plot? And lets talk about how the final room was so badly written. He literally starts the conversation with "you again?"

>Tfw I actually like 3 genuinely because I like the world map design and exploration
>but i'll still get shit all over and called a bethesdrone for my completely honest, nonbiased opinion when I really don't give a shit about bethesda as a company and I really like new vegas too

though I think NV with all DLC's is superior to 3, I wish it had fucking random encounters and some wider areas with better distribution

I'm saying an established character isn't inherently bad, not that Fallout 3s story is good.

And yet the Witcher is praised.

Hey Sup Forums I made you a soup.

MOLTEN ROBOT BITZ
THE BREAKFAST OF MUTANT CHAMPIONS
NOW WITH 3000% OF YOUR DAILY IRON.

Yes it isnt bad and it opens up door for a much more engaging choice sometimes but it has to be incredibly well done or it falls short and unsatisfying

Cringe.

The Institute has to be THE worst faction to ever exist in a Fallout game. They have no real goal or philosophy for the wasteland. All they do is just evil shit FOR SCIENCE and that's it. It's like if Cave Johnson was supposed to be taken seriously rather than a funny, over-the-top idiotic CEO we were supposed to laugh at.

Despite being so technologically advanced, they for whatever reason can't build their Synths to not want to run away. This has been a problem since Fallout 3, which takes place A DECADE before 4, yet they haven't been able to figure out a solution. Literally all they have to do is figure out how to make Mr. Handy robots to do their chores for them, or just use the skeletal Gen 1 Synths instead, but they don't because...no reason. There is literally zero reason why they don't do that. There's NO REASON their butler robots need to be so advanced other than FOR SCIENCE.

Because Witcher games blow your average fantasy RPGs out of the water on other fronts, not because you're stuck playing Geralt.

T. Lowtest Normal

Fallout 3's map was better. It also had random encounters.

NV did not have any random encounters or respawning random encounters what-so-ever.

Random encounters are supposed to be standard for large world map RPG's. Wasteland, FO1, 2, Arcanum, all have random encounters. NV did not.

That doesn't mean blank characters are inherently better than fleshed out ones.