Are people who prefer Fallout 4 and 3 to New Vegas actually inferior people?

Are people who prefer Fallout 4 and 3 to New Vegas actually inferior people?

I'd say so. Definitely if they prefer 4, that's just nonsense.

Yes.

Not really, 3 has better exploration than New Vegas and that's all that counts in an open world rpg.

>muh quests
>muh main story
>muh companions
Just no.

>better exploration

There's nothing to explore in Fallout 3. The game is filled with empty buildings.

FO3 has the best atmosphere and world out of the three but New Vegas is the better and richer game in gameplay, story, content and choices.
Fallout 4 is a cancerous heap of shit and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence.

Thank God Obsidian will never touch Fallout ever again.

There is literally NOTHING on this board I hate more than NVfags. I can smell them from behind my monitor, they stink of pretentiousness, of faggotry. You just know that they think they're doing their due diligence as epic Sup Forumscore "Gaymurs" by picking the obscure Fallout title by their least popular system to boost their fragile RPGbabby egos.

>Fallout 2? Too ubiquitous!
>Fallout 3 and 4? It's made by Bethesda, it's casual!
It's embarrassing the mental gymnastics that these retards go through to justify their edgy opinions, New Vegas is simply the worst 3D Fallout.

>B-b-b-ut muh aesthetic, muh comfy!
"No". It looks like a music video directed by McG, the saturation is ugly, the controls are wonky and unresponsive. The level design? Simply abhorrent, repetitive and creatively bankrupt. The reputation is a tedious mechanic that have little bearing on the world. The world itself, either too empty or too crowded.

>B-b-b-ut muh music
Country is for fedora wearing retards and the Nevada shit is trite. Fallout 3 and 4 are far better in regards to music and if you suggest otherwise, you are being willfully ignorant or are completely aesthetically challenged.

>Whatever man, just like lay off and let me have my opinion

You FUCKING FAGGOTS have gone on too long without being challenged on your like for this piece of shit game. You revel in this title's mediocrity like a badge of honour.

I only ever played about 3 hours of FO3 and FO4 each
Htaed both because of the giant open world that is pretty much empty except for dungeosn marked on the map
Is NV better? Is it more of an RPG?

Nah its all opinions. I love shandified, convoluted detailed RPGs, some people just want something they don't have to think that much about and can pick up and play.

Its rue that 4 was a disappointment in one way or another based on the 3 crowd and NV crowd saying so in various places. "Fo4 has good gunplay" is quickly becoming the "The water temple is hard" of the age. They felt like pop guns, toys to me.

I myself just want some RPG mechanics back

Fallout New Vegas is the equivalent of modern art where someone takes diherrea and period blood, splatters it on a canvas and people call it a masterpiece.

It's great in terms of RPG elements. You kinda need mods to fix some stuff and be willing to play a game that felt outdated even when it came out. If you get into it then it's a good time

There are a lot of hidden Easter eggs, unmarked quests, audio logs, vendors and strange encounters in a lot of these areas. NV has basically no content outside of settlements, has a world map with linear progression, and also has the worst dungeon design in the series.

Where it not for BoS, 4 would be the nadir of the series, I can agree with that.

People preferring 3 to NV however, I can understand. First of all, it’s mechanically identical to NV, and second of all 3 strives to be a sandbox RPG whereas NV strives to be a more conventional one- It’s just a matter of preference.

Anything that is specifically horrible? I'm usually fine playing outdated stuff, I played Morrowind only with mods that fixed the worst bugs

I don't really understand people who play Fallout 4. When do you have fun? Are mods fun? Is it worth playing if you give women giant tits and give yourself a Link costume? I just don't get it.

>I like this 3D fallout more therefore I'm superior

no, people who like 3 and 4 are well adjusted and normal

people that like new vegas are basement dwelling faggots

If you're somebody that gives a shit about that kind of thing sure.

Otherwise, of course not.

Nah nothing too bad. Anti-crash mod and shorter load times was a blessing for me who went from 360 to PC

Maybe you shouldn't think about it so much, it can't be good for your mental health.

Also, I forgot to add that both 3 and NV give you a good amount of options when it comes to role playing and tackling quests. A pacifist run is possible in both games (while it isn’t in 4) and pretty much every build is viable due to quests accommodating it. For example, you can get through many locked doors by either lockpicking, hacking, pickpocketing the key, bartering for the key etc.

Yeah you right. It's probably pretty relaxing to play at least

Man, if there's one thing I play RPGs for it's exploring corridors and empty land.

>(while it isn’t in 4)
I'm pretty sure I read about someone winning FO4 by just using the surrendering mechanic that you get with speech

Thing is that 3 is more fun when walking between locations while NV is more fun when you're at the location

I usually get excited about doing a modded play through with a character that looks great then remember there’s nothing to do in the game and I have no reason to do it

I prefer 3 to NV, but I still think that it's because I played 3 to absolute death. I played through Fo3 multiple times on 360, PS3, and PC. So when I got to New Vegas I was just fatigued at that point.
I did like the weapon mods but overall NV just felt more unfinished to me, Idk if it was the constant bugs at launch or since it was a desert it had an overall "empty" atmosphere. But it just felt like a really ambitious Fo3 mod that stopped updating 85% of the way through.
I recognize it did some things better but overall I'd say I was able to get more enjoyment out of 3.

>muh atmosphere/exploration
every single thread

3 most definitely had a more interesting setting due to more variety in the environment. You had urban areas, industrial areas, mountainous areas and ruined farmlands. NV is just desert and Vegas itself.

Dungeon design is also much better in 3, since you have multi-floor dungeons with multiple entry points and exits, with some of them even having optional bosses at the end. The comic book factory stands out to me since it’s not only filled with traps laid by the boss, but also acts as a shortcut from one end of the DC ruins to the other.

It's almost like a game focused entirely on exploring a post-apocalyptic wasteland would depend heavily on those two concepts.

Those are still just subjective feelings, not objective matters like the amount of locations, quests, weapons, armors, choices in quests, things actually making sense, etc

I’d argue that NV focused so much on making sense that it came to the detriment of the game. Locations where boring, and a few crop fields isn’t going to change that.

3 briefly implied an answer to the “what do they eat?” question by having hunters hunt for food in the wasteland and by having the Mirelurk slaughterhouse unmarked quest. Locations where more interesting and mysterious for it.

What the fuck is with this kinds of "oh its more fun to explore" shit. All fallouts from the start had boring overworlds.

And Bethesda couldn’t attempt to fix that because...?

Fallout 4 is my first fallout game.
Never played the original 2 fallouts because I didn't like their genre.
Skipped fallout 3 because I wrote it off as being just a case of a shitty attempt at resurrecting a game series by people who had nothing to do with the original games.
Never played NV because I never liked any of obsidian's previous games due to how obviously unfinished and overthought they were.
And the only reason I have been playing fallout 4 is because a preorder of the VR version came with my Vive and I currently have nothing better to play on the damn thing besides the payday 2 VR beta.

you're absolutely right, but a game doesn't become objectively better just because it has more things than the previous one.
More Quests means nothing if they aren't fun to play.
More unique locations means nothing if they aren't interesting to explore.

At the end of the day whether NV>3 or 3>NV is a completely subjective question, but people keep trying to say that it is an objective one.

>I’d argue that NV focused so much on making sense that it came to the detriment of the game
Yet its one of the aspects of both games that people praise more than 3 for. Both are kinda boring to walk on just like a wasteland, both games got that going.
3's overworld is nonsensical with no substance, with most places placed there just for the heck of it.
>look at this kids silly thing kids hyuk hyuk

>locations were boring
To me, the vaults were 10/10 and more interesting than any location in 3. Jacobstown, even Novac had some kind of a charm to them that I never felt while playing 3.

F3 is just filled with random themepark locations that usually have no relation to the outside world besides that exact location. It's just that with boring wasteland inbetween.

but NV is objectively better than 3.
All the things they say to make 3 stand out falls short when comapred to NV.

>Tried to play NV five or six times
>Every single time, against my wishes, my interest starts to peter out around the time I get to New Vegas and find Yes Man
>Don't play for eight months, come back, can't get back into the groove with my old save, so I download a few mods, roll a new character and repeat from the top

The constant crashes don't help, mind. Maybe I should just grit my teeth and force myself through one of my Vegas saves until I start having fun again. I still want to play the DLC, at least. Or maybe I'm just a born brainlet and finishing FNV will forever be out of my grasp.

Mods are kinda fucky with NV, especially ones that adds meshes.
As for interest for getting back, its better to have a planned path for your character, since much of the intrigue is probably lost on you now.

one thing Bethesda has done better in 3 and 4 than Obsidian did in New Vegas is making looking around inside buildings and shit interesting via environmental storytelling shit using random props and shit.
it doesn't matter whether it is a mounted brahmin head decorated with tons of shit in a party loving dudes house or just a tedy bear or gnome with some random objects placed around as if a random raider was bored and fucking about with them it made stopping to take a look actually interesting.
where as New Vegas had fuck all shit like that and like 60 to 80 percent of them was forced into being wild wasteland only, there was no furniture or object placement which told you a little more about whoever lived there because they loved to just spout it all at you in exposition form

>3 has better exploration

Fallout 3 has a lot more hidden corridors than NV.
The entire city of Washington isn't some giant open landscape, you have to go through set areas to get to where you need to go, same with the underground sections.

>environmental storytelling
skeletons placed in wacky positions*

They prefer fun instead of invisible walls and a dead world with no random encounters or combat.

>is making looking around inside buildings and shit interesting via environmental storytelling shit using random props and shit
uh-huh. NV has those as well but unlike 3 and 4 they don't lack context based on where you are at, from dead corpses in random shacks, the assortment miscellaneous items horded in one places, worldspace items, etc.
Or did you mean the non-consequential visual gags and references? Because 3 and 4 has does aplenty. Look, i like 3 too, but lets not grasp at straws.

No, I don't think so. Let me put it this way. Both fallout 3 and new vegas have different things to offer. New vegas has the better rpg mechanics, better and more weapons, different ammo types, better dialogue, better mods, etc. Fallout 3 has better exploration, more combat, random encounters, some fun quests, and a few other things. The solution? Tale of two wastelands. I enjoy both fallout 3 and new vegas. As for fallout 4, I don't know, that game is shit in every way except gunplay and power armor. Also, if you like porn mods I guess it has that too.

the problem with NV that is that half the time they have places like the dinky dinosaur in Novac is that the interesting places where you are almost guaranteed to have someone tell you before hand "we have fucktons of dino toys laying around" and it takes away the impact of discovering that shit yourself and putting together the facts since you are then expecting to find the thing and the game puts two and two together for you
and the other half of the time Obsidians environmental storytelling is too bland and predictable, making almost all of those random shacks and things forgettable as hell since its exactly the type of thing what you would expect to find in a location like that so you end up just moving along without really making a note of it

>Muh dead money
>Muh old world blues
>Muh honest hearts
>Muh bull and bear

Hahahaha Far Harbor is better than all of them and it's Fo4, put that in your pipe and smoke it fedoralords

>almost guaranteed to have someone tell you before hand
No you are bullshitting. The dinky souvenirs are a topic you can ask as it is related to the giant dino as a tourist attraction, they don't tell you upfront you have to ask and ofcourse it makes sense for the character to do so.

The vendor tells you that the mini-Rocket is the best seller, but if you lockpick the closet behind him, you'd find crates of it, signalling that he is lying. There are tons of other places in NV that has no NPC's nor written info dumps from Cayote Springs, Mesquite mountain crater, the police station near primm, The areas on New Vegas east that tells you what they are about the moment you notice the details.

>Far Harbor
Eww, the people who like those are like the inbred mutant mongoloids in that DLC.

You ever see a baby run?
YOu know how you start as a baby,possible to jump out of the play pen.
Saw a youtube where the baby maxed unarmed so you get to see a baby murder punch a deathclaw. Pure novelty,but a fun watch.

Fallout 4 is objectively just a poor mans fallout 2

>Goodneighbor is a poor mans New Reno
>Vault 81 is a poor mans Vault city
>Diamond City is a poor mans shady sands
>The institute is a poor mans SHI HQ
>The Prydwen is a poor mans enclave oil rig
>Sanctuary is a poor mans Arroyo
>Far Harbor is a poor mans Redding
>The Nucleus is a poor mans Cathedral from Fallout 1
>Acadia is a poor mans broken hills
>Vertibird transport is a poor mans highway man
>Nuka world gangs are poor mans new reno families
>ADA is a poor mans skynet
>Valentine is a poor mans Cassidy
>Piper is a poor womans Miria
>Strong is a poor mans Marcus

Why is everything in Fallout 4 a cheap fallout 2 rip-off?

Average new vegas quest:

>Talk to NPC
>Hear long winded dialog about their problem
>Warp to different NPC and talk to them
>quest complete

Repeat 100 times

They all have their advantages and disadvantages over each other. Fallout 4 can be enjoyable for just running around killing things, or building settlements. As an RPG it's awful, but it's a fun murder/building sandbox. Building robots with the DLC is fun as well.