Why I think New Vegas is a MUCH better game than Fallout 3.

#1 Edited by Highsis (9 posts) -

I enjoyed great deal of both FO3 and other Bethesda games like Morrowind, Oblivion, and Skyrim. However, after having recently bought and played NV, I concluded that NV is a much superior game to FO3 in almost every regard. I'm dumbfounded that there are more people saying FO3 is a better game, because even if everyone is entitled to their opinion, I just don't understand why in objective standpoint of the two game's comparison.

1. Multiple ways to solve a quest.

The quest diversity in NV is literally dazzling. There are always multiple ways to solve a quest, be it a side quest or a main quest. In FO3, many quests and fetch quests and you are almost always given two methods and two choices to do a quest; the former choice of either to be stealthy or blast everything and the latter choice of either to be good or evil, respectively.

Take a side quest "Beyond the beef" in NV for example. You can persuade Walter Phebus down from taking a revenge. You can cure canibalism, you can endorse it, you can save Gunderson's son, kill him, replace him with another victim, offer your companion as a sacrifice, you can tell the son that WGS is behind the kidnapping, you can expose Mortier, You can eliminate Mortier, you can lie about WGS being innocent, you awake the cook's past psychological trauma... Gosh, there are insanely many number of Roleplaying possibilities compared to FO3. There is a similar quest in FO3 in which you deal with cannibal village. In here, your only choice is to search the basement and confront villagers, either by words/violence. NV is vastly superior in quests and better RP also gives better re-playability.

2. Balance

NV improved much on balance. In FO, VATS is too overpowered as you take 10% damage and all enemies are significantly slowed. As if that's not enough, Grim Reaper perk restores your AP upon enemy's death, letting you use 90% damage block and bullet time indefinitely. You have perks that enables you to have 10 SPECIAL(all 9 + bubblepop) and you can hit 100 in every skill in whatever builds you choose.

NV's vats doesn't slow down enemies as much other than targeted enemy, takes 75% damange in vats, and Grim Reaper restores only 20 AP. Skills are much harder to max, SPECIAL counts more(less useless stat). This is just few examples. NV in overall does a better job at balancing.

3. Level scaling.

NV reduced level scaling. In FO3, you can beat the main quest, kill the final boss, fight super mutants and deathclaws at level 1~3. Inflation is a bonus joke that comes along. What's the point?

4. Companions.

FO3 companions have no plot relevance and are flat characters. I shouldn't need to elaborate that NV companions are much more engaging and have deeper/dynamic background and personalities.

5. NPC interaction.

NV recognizes deeds you've done quite well. On the other hand, in FO3, you blow up megaton and the only character that comments on your deed is your dead and nobody cares. It's typical of Bethesda game as in Oblvioni where guards tell you "Behave yourself." when you've become the champion of Cyrodiil.

6. Dialogues

NV is objectively better written. FO3 uses fairly easy English and has much less dialogue options and choices. NV wins in variety, quality, use of swearing/dialect, and character's tones and habits in speaking.

FO3 dialogues are not really great. Recall when you persuade Eden, the AI president. You tell him "you are not elected." and it incurs logic error that starts self destruction process. I knew Bethesda was never good at dialogue, but still it was sometimes too much.

7. main quest

I am not going to argue which story is better because it's all subjective, but NV has much more variety and choices as opposed to FO3 where the choice is extremely limited and you make yourself look silly if you play an evil character.

8. Greyer morality.

NV introduces both the good and bad of various factions at different point. It's fun to ponder on.

9. Faction systems.

No need to say further.

10. Hardcore mode option.

Slow healing stimpack, crippling, permanent death of companions are all welcome feature to hardcore gamers.

11. much less presence of 'invincible' characters.

In FO3 you are not even allowed to kill many characters associated with *side quests* let alone main quests. NV, you are free to eliminate almost anyone, allowing you a better RP and freedom as you see fit.

12. More weapon/armor variety

13. unique models for unique guns

14. better and more diverse crafting

15. survival system

16. sense of realism

A town built around a radioactive bomb, a town relying on one or two Brahmin for food supply, a rich man wanting to blow up a metal dot on his scenery don't strike me as realistic and that's why I sometimes can't take FO3 seriously. I found New Vegas to be more realistic in both the environment (more Brahmins to support a community, hay sticks to feed them, food supply bags piled up for most settlement) and atmosphere. FO3 feels to black/white in character depictions.

17. Jsawyer.mod support provided by the gamer's lead designer.

FO3's only better aspects are more dungeons to explore and probably a better start because NV can tire you with lots of dialogues initially.

These are why I'm baffled when people and reviews say FO3 is a superior game. As an *Role Playing* game, NV is undoubtedly superior because you can't really RP in FO3 with such limited choices and petty dialogues. As an 'exploration' game, that's when personal tastes kick in. You may prefer FO3's post-apocalyptic environment or NV's semi-civilized wasteland with factions vying for power. However, beyond areas where personal preference determines the game's impression, I fail to see how FO3 is in any way a better game than NV. NV's initial release was a bug mess, I realize, but those bugs are mostly gone by now.

People should really give Obsidian the credit for what's they've done with NV in such a short time. If they had made Skyrim, you would probably be able to side with Thalmor, kill Ulfric and Talius as you want, play as a double agent, and etc with so many more options, though more frequent bugs and slow start are too expected.

Anyway, this is why I think NV is a much better game than FO3. I think FO3's only redeeming quality is that it built the base upon which NV was created, and that it has environment that suites post apocalypse setting that FO world is based in. Other than that, I don't see why FO3 is in any way better or equal of NV, especially why reviewers are downplaying NV compared to FO3. I've listed all these strengths of NV, yet I'm yet to see any reviewers mentioning these. I'm lucky if I come across a review that mentions the faction system of NV.;

#2 Edited by SoNin360 (5483 posts) -

I think New Vegas improved in several ways, most of which you mentioned, but when it comes down to it, Fallout 3 simply has a much more breathtaking atmosphere in my opinion. It's much better suited for what is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic game. I know New Vegas's situation makes sense in that much of its area is relatively untouched, but I didn't find most of its locations nearly as exciting to explore as those in Fallout 3. Furthermore, I found New Vegas to much more buggy and unstable than Fallout 3, remarkably enough. Yeah, timeframes and massive scope of the game and blah blah blah, but it was quite a mess and took several patches to somewhat clean up.

So, yes, I agree with you in that most of those aspects you mentioned are definitely done better in New Vegas, I still feel Fallout 3 did better in sucking me into its world. There are more nitpicks I have with New Vegas, though. I don't really feel like getting too much into this now, but I don't think it's crazy to feel that Fallout 3 was the better game. But I can also understand the opinion that New Vegas was actually the better game. In the end, both really awesome games, so you can't really be wrong.

#3 Edited by CTR360 (7087 posts) -

i love both games but i think fallout 3 its better game

#4 Edited by BattleSpectre (6153 posts) -

Sorry to disagree, but to me Fallout New Vegas didn't give me the same vibe Fallout 3 did. So much so that Fallout 3 sits at the top of my list at number 1 of my favourite game of all time. I sometimes wonder will another game give me the same experience, and ever take it's spot?

Yes, there is a game that might challenge it.... and that's Fallout 4.

#5 Posted by marcheegsr (2759 posts) -

For me Fallout 3 had a better atmosphere and was less buggy.

New vegas had better quests and guns.

#6 Posted by Mesomorphin (825 posts) -

I've always preferred New Vegas over F3, the game is more open and the variety of armour/weapons and quests is incredible! Alot of replay-ability!

#7 Edited by Planeforger (15733 posts) -

@SoNin360: "Fallout 3 simply has a much more breathtaking atmosphere in my opinion. It's much better suited for what is supposed to be a post-apocalyptic game."

Well..yes and no.

Fallout 3 certainly played up the "ruined cities just after the apocalypse" feel, but that made no sense in the context of the rest of the series, and it felt like nothing more than a theme park that could never exist as a real place.

Meanwhile, New Vegas actually felt like a Fallout game, and fit into the timeline well. By the time of Fallout 3 and New Vegas, civilisation in the wasteland had mostly stabilised and was expanding eastward from the west coast, creating the mix of developed cities/farmlands and wild west borderlands that made up most of New Vegas' locations.

It honestly baffled me why Washington DC was still a ruin with absolutely no developments, new food sources, or sensible towns springing up...when 75ish years earlier, San Francisco was remastering the art of space travel. Especially given all of the vaults and GECKs around DC.

Meanwhile, it was also nice that New Vegas actually continued the "story" of the first two games. Fallout 3 just felt like a weird spin-off title...or worse, a best-of mishmash of ideas from the first two games.

#8 Posted by mattykovax (22693 posts) -

New Vegas should have been better but two thing stop it from being.

One it is noticeably unfinished, two it was buggy as hell to the point that on 360 without internet at the time I tried it without patches it was literaly unplayable.

#9 Edited by faizanhd (256 posts) -

I think the worst aspect of New Vegas was that the desert is basically............................ an empty desert.

The landscape probably got tedious for many.

#10 Edited by marcheegsr (2759 posts) -

@faizanhd said:

I think the worst aspect of New Vegas was that the desert is basically............................ an empty desert.

The landscape probably got tedious for many.

It did, I used fast travel so much more in New Vegas than in Fallout 3 where I would want to roam the wastelands.

#11 Posted by intotheminx (692 posts) -

I didn't feel connected to the main plot in NV as I did FO3. I also preferred the atmosphere of FO3 over NV. I really enjoyed traveling in Fall out 3, but New Vegas felt kind of bland in that aspect. I couldn't even finish playing it.

#12 Posted by speedfreak48t5p (7896 posts) -

I agree. New Vegas is so much better than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 feels so shallow and boring.

#13 Posted by MrYaotubo (2694 posts) -

Indeed,Fallout 3 was quite the disapointment for the majority of fans of the series,Obsidian improved on that formula a lot and made a much better game that in some ways stands up well against the classic titles,unlike Fallout 3,though it was a bit buggier than F3 wich isn´t saying much considering F3 was pretty buggy as well and had much longer development time and budget.

#14 Edited by bussinrounds (2171 posts) -

I look at Fallout 3 as more of a spin off game, not a true Fallout game.

Bethesda just doesn't get the world of Fallout at all. I know a lot of ppl don't care about the quality of the writing/dialogs/quests or the reactivity of the game/world. (Beth fans) And I would say if the games had really good gameplay (which the new Fallout games/ES games don't really) that it wouldn't matter quite as much, or it could be overlooked more easily, because the gameplay would make up for it. But they don't unfortunately.

#15 Edited by gamerguru100 (10634 posts) -

New Vegas has a bunch of boring locations with nothing to do, really. Although it is fun to go around the Mojave and shoot things like a crap load of Lakelurks with a M1 Garand (This Machine).

However...

One thing about New Vegas that's better than in Fallout 3: IRON SIGHTS

#16 Edited by yngsten (218 posts) -

Characters and dialogue was better in NW, location and exploration was way more rewarding in F3.

#17 Posted by Blueresident87 (5339 posts) -

I really have trouble picking one over the other, with a gun to my head I'd choose Fallout 3.

#18 Posted by wiouds (5213 posts) -

The downtown of Fallout 3 is some much fun and feel like I was struggling to fight my way through.

NV feels like many other open world RPG.

#19 Posted by bussinrounds (2171 posts) -

@wiouds said:

The downtown of Fallout 3 is some much fun and feel like I was struggling to fight my way through.

NV feels like many other open world RPG.

Agreed. Navigating all those cut and paste subway systems in F3 was annoying as hell. Plus all the level scaling Bethesda does actually makes the exploration less rewarding.

#20 Posted by Behardy24 (4249 posts) -

I have invested hundreds of hours through multiple playthroughs in New Vegas. I have only able to play through Fallout 3 once.

#21 Edited by HipHopBeats (2897 posts) -

I have a hard time getting into New Vegas. The gameplay is better than Fallout 3 but the setting is so bland and boring it makes it hard to care about any of the characters (including my own) or retain much interest in what's going on. Picking perks every other level and the 'gain more X, but lose more Y' traits doesn't add to the fun factor. Unnecessary handicaps to make New Vegas seem more challenging. Over the top wacky characters like the lottery guy and the pointless Powder Rangers or whatever they're called.

There's no random factor in exploration. Run North of Goodsprings too early and you know exactly what you're in for. Creating ammo sounds better on paper than execution in New Vegas. I would have preferred to create my own weapons or mods instead.

Fallout 3 on the other hand was an instant immersion for me. Can't believe I had it wrapped in plastic, just sitting on my shelf for so long before I finally decided to play it. Epic intro, nothing beats starting out as a baby and seeing your character leave the vault for the 1st time.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt there's a quest in New Vegas that tops Tranquility Lane or even Tenpenny Towers from Fallout 3. Fallout 3 definitely has its flaws but exploration was way more fun and the setting felt much more apocalyptic than New Vegas.

#22 Edited by LittleMac19 (1638 posts) -

I played the PC version of both (took nearly 100 hours each to beat both) and it's really no competition. New Vegas runs all over Fallout 3. The story, sidequests and characters are just superior especially toward the end. The writing and dialouge is much better as well. Basically the only thing I can give to Fallout 3 is the world is slightly more atmospheric and the music is better but everything else? New Vegas wins in a landslide.

#23 Posted by livingundead (225 posts) -

@Planeforger:

The thing is, Fallout 3 IS a spin-off. Fallout 3 is all about your character. The whole game is based around you. The rest of the series is not based on your character at all. In FO1, 2 and NV it's more about the landscape and how the world adapted after nuclear war.

You don't need to create your own story it's written for you as soon as you start the game. I don't like one game more or less, however, there are parts of New Vegas that I dislike more than parts of FO3. The fact that New Vegas was in development for awhile, and the engine is the same, how is it so unstable?

I like the idea of factions, but I think they could have been implemented better. I never chose a faction because I didn't like any of them. Why would I want to join the Bombers if, after I risk my life to get across, they express displeasure in me being there, but allow me to stay only if I put my life on the line to help them after I just spent time running from missiles being fired at me, and oh, if you find anymore missiles bring them to us so we can use them to keep blasting random people.

I didn't like the main quest in New Vegas.I played it for about 200 hours and never felt like finishing it. I wanted to find out where the story for FO3 went. I didn't care about the New Vegas Strip of the surrounding area because the game was so unstable in that area I was afraid to go into it.

I really liked exploring the DC ruins. The scaling broke the immersion for me, though. Mao Guai and Death Claws should be confined to certain area. Same with robots, and the end-game soldiers.

Both games had fairly bland landscapes, but it worked a bit better for FO3 because 1/3 or the landscape was the ruins, so there was lots to do. New Vegas was fairly flat though, and besides the Strip there weren't a lot of interesting areas. I really liked RepConn , Helios One, Black Mountain, Nipton and Vault 22.

I liked to explore a lot more in Fallout 3. The cities mattered as there was always something to do in them. Boulder City? It's just there and is pretty much forgotten after the first pass-through.

Both Fallout Games could have been better, but when Obsidian was brought on for New Vegas I was expecting much more and it wasn't there for me. Still a fun game though.

#24 Edited by Highsis (9 posts) -

@HipHopBeats said:

Level scaling is not random factor in exploration. It's enemies voluntarily getting weaker or stronger to fit your level. Killing the final boss in the game and strongest enemies like deathclaw and supermutants at level 1: it's FO3 for you.

Getting shot in the head and being dug out of the grave isn't any less epic than being... born.

Tranquility lane? A quest in which you have two choices to either activate fail safe or do as Betty whims? In NV, every single quest, and I'm not exaggerating, gives you more choices, dialogues, creative ways to solve quests. For instance, White Globe Society *side* quest involves more than 5 choices and various outcomes with so many ways to solve the quest. I'm most certain 99% NV quests offer more choices and more dialogue branches; they are even more in quantity.

FO3's writing is bad, characters are blend, companions are paper clips, there is not many options in neither dialogues or choices, it's a horrible game to roleplay and I don't understand how it's even remotely more immersive. Before brotherhood of steel dlc, if you had asked Farkwas to go into a radioactive chamber since he is immune; he refused, saying it's your destiny. Tell Eden the president that he has no right to rule becuase he was never elected and it kills itself in logic error. This is absolutely pathetic. How could you, after seeing these shining examples of Betheda's writing failure, call NV characters over the top? HOW?!

I'm sorry if my assertions were made too aggresive. You are entitled to your opnion, but in mine FO3 is a badly written comical exploration game that can't possibly beat NV brimming with realistic characters and numerous Role Playing possibilities.

In a nutshell, FO3 doesn't let you choose dialogues; it doesn't let you make choices beyond good or evil and kill everyone or sneak; its quests are generic and in many cases fetch quests(NV quests: firing rockets/nuclear missile/standing guard/training soldiers/catching an assassin/taking an old bomber out of water/psychoanalysis/ etc.); it doesn't have quest variety and optional goals and paths; companions are blend and characters even more blend; It's not more immersive than NV. NPCs would comment in most deeds you performed even if it was a sidequest, and NCR soldiers even bow their head in respect when spoken if you have high reputation. FO3 has close to none NPC interaction in this regard.

Little Buster: "But with this guy, it might have cost me some bad burns or an ass-rape. I'm all for risking my life, but I'm a little sensitive about my asshole." From no-quest related NPC you come across in NCR camp. NV characters are a lot, lot more interesting and dynamic in general.

#25 Posted by darkmoney52 (4309 posts) -

I agree that New Vegas is better but I love em both. Fallout 3 does a great job with the setting and making you feel like a scavenger in the Wasteland.

New Vegas on the other hand has all those fantastic RPG elements you described. It gives you a fantastic, interesting world, and let's you decide exactly how you want to interact with it. It's especially funny, that despite being 95% less important in New Vegas they still make the Enclave and Brotherhood far more interesting. Seriously, the enclave were barely featured and still made much more of an impression.

#26 Edited by Lulu_Lulu (13218 posts) -

Uhm.... They both have terrible gameplay. Therefore they're both Bad games.

#27 Edited by PS4hasNOgames (1771 posts) -

its hard to say which is better, because NV learned from 3...but 3 had a cooler setting, exploring the train tunnels was addictive...i just know on both games I spent many nights exploring...only to see the sun come out and I would still be exploring. I need part 4

#28 Edited by TheShadowLord07 (22131 posts) -

those flies that shoot poison really killed it for me. I hate them more than I hate the flood from halo. other than the glitches of course.

#29 Posted by Threesixtyci (4287 posts) -

New Vegas is FO3 combined with user mods that Beth claimed as their own.
So, basically FO3+mods = NV.

#30 Posted by asmodeus_z (434 posts) -

Prefers NV to FO. NV atmosphere is much livelier.

#31 Posted by Jacanuk (4578 posts) -

@wiouds said:

The downtown of Fallout 3 is some much fun and feel like I was struggling to fight my way through.

NV feels like many other open world RPG.

I agree here

Fallout New Vegas´s map never felt as "post-apocalypse" as Fallout 3 did, and where i could spend hours wandering the wasteland in F3 there wasn't much in NV to explore the area was simply not big enough.

#32 Posted by Jacanuk (4578 posts) -

@Highsis said:

@HipHopBeats said:

Level scaling is not random factor in exploration. It's enemies voluntarily getting weaker or stronger to fit your level. Killing the final boss in the game and strongest enemies like deathclaw and supermutants at level 1: it's FO3 for you.

Getting shot in the head and being dug out of the grave isn't any less epic than being... born.

Tranquility lane? A quest in which you have two choices to either activate fail safe or do as Betty whims? In NV, every single quest, and I'm not exaggerating, gives you more choices, dialogues, creative ways to solve quests. For instance, White Globe Society *side* quest involves more than 5 choices and various outcomes with so many ways to solve the quest. I'm most certain 99% NV quests offer more choices and more dialogue branches; they are even more in quantity.

FO3's writing is bad, characters are blend, companions are paper clips, there is not many options in neither dialogues or choices, it's a horrible game to roleplay and I don't understand how it's even remotely more immersive. Before brotherhood of steel dlc, if you had asked Farkwas to go into a radioactive chamber since he is immune; he refused, saying it's your destiny. Tell Eden the president that he has no right to rule becuase he was never elected and it kills itself in logic error. This is absolutely pathetic. How could you, after seeing these shining examples of Betheda's writing failure, call NV characters over the top? HOW?!

I'm sorry if my assertions were made too aggresive. You are entitled to your opnion, but in mine FO3 is a badly written comical exploration game that can't possibly beat NV brimming with realistic characters and numerous Role Playing possibilities.

In a nutshell, FO3 doesn't let you choose dialogues; it doesn't let you make choices beyond good or evil and kill everyone or sneak; its quests are generic and in many cases fetch quests(NV quests: firing rockets/nuclear missile/standing guard/training soldiers/catching an assassin/taking an old bomber out of water/psychoanalysis/ etc.); it doesn't have quest variety and optional goals and paths; companions are blend and characters even more blend; It's not more immersive than NV. NPCs would comment in most deeds you performed even if it was a sidequest, and NCR soldiers even bow their head in respect when spoken if you have high reputation. FO3 has close to none NPC interaction in this regard.

Little Buster: "But with this guy, it might have cost me some bad burns or an ass-rape. I'm all for risking my life, but I'm a little sensitive about my asshole." From no-quest related NPC you come across in NCR camp. NV characters are a lot, lot more interesting and dynamic in general.

Somewhere i think your comments comes from that you simply just like New Vegas more than being that your complaints having any truth to them.

First the dialogue and options are almost the same in both games and if you think they bad in Fallout 3, you by common logic must also think they are bad in New Vegas, because in the end they are not that different. and talk about bland characters? in New Vegas you have 3 that is somewhat worth remembering, The Courier, Cesar and Mr.Vegas.

Who else is even worth mentioning? i cant find any.

Also you talk about more options, really because i found New Vegas highly limited in terms of content, we can take the ranger who ends his own life because you tell him something, which pretty much the only option, the jail, the "wife" and you complain about the ending of Fallout when New Vegas was even more A, B, C then Me3.

But in the end i enjoyed New Vegas and Fallout 3 but in terms of content, options, characters its clear that New Vegas is just a copy of F3 and its obvious that they worked on a much smaller budget.

#33 Edited by HipHopBeats (2897 posts) -

@Highsis: I haven't made it that far in New Vegas to experience most of what you mentioned due to a lack of interest to continue playing. I will eventually get back into it and finish at least one playthrough. The problem is, despite all of what you said, Fallout 3 immediately sucked me into immersion whereas New Vegas all I can notice is I am traversing a barren desert with nothing interesting worth exploring.

Tranquility Lane and Tenpenny Towers were 2 memorable quests that stood out to me in Fallout 3. Even when completing them, especially Tenpenny Towers, I had a debate with some friends about socialism from both the ghouls and the booshie residents of Tenpenny Towers perspective. Plus it was mad cool of Bethesda to make the whole quest a no win scenario for any player thinking helping the ghouls out was the right thing to do.

Even Tranquility Lane, I thought 'damn this guy is nuts, sad and lonely as hell to want to trap his coworkers in a virtual reality simulation to relive their deaths over and over in different settings. That dude just needed to get laid'.

So far, I have not experienced any memorable quests in New Vegas. Just a bunch of 'we need you to kill these group of people and save our town' bullshit quests.

For the record, I never said level scaling is a random factor. I said exploration in Fallout 3 was way better due to random encounters in the wasteland and always having something fun to explore. To each his own but exploration should be fun in an open world game period. In New Vegas it seems like all enemies are generically placed in specific locations and the desert is just a boring setting to explore with it's invisible walls. New Vegas is not a bad game at all. Just not as fun as Fallout 3 imo.