Fallout 3 v.s. Fallout: New Vegas

[RndmNumGen]

I have played Fallout 3 extensively, and while it was a fairly good game that I had fun playing, it really didn't seem that spectacular or outstanding. A worthy purchase, but not something that really broke the mold, you know? Of course, after my original playthrough I got the DLC in a combo pack and modded the game until it was barely recognizable to improve it's replayability and I even play it occasionally today.

So when I first heard of New Vegas, I originally wasn't too interested in it. It seemed almost exactly like Fallout, maybe a bit polished up yet essentially the same game. It might be worth playing, but for $50 there are plenty of other, new games out there. Yet today I was watching one of my friends play it, and it really did seem like they improved a lot of features and added a ton of cool new things. I'm still not sure if I want to buy it or not, though.

So I turn to the Playground. For those who have the game, what are your opinions on it? How do the two games compare? What are the major changes between them, and is it worth the price?

[fknm]

New Vegas is waaaaaaay better than FO3, if only because the dialogue writing isn't total crap.

[king.com]

New Vegas is waaaaaaay better than FO3, if only because the dialogue writing isn't total crap.

This. It is a far better investment and definitely resulting in a lot more entertainment.

[Dhavaer]

For me New Vegas is better, mostly in writing, both storyline and dialogue, and in choice of weapons. I think I prefer F3's armour system, though. Automatic weapons are nearly worthless in NV.
The main difference that's more up to preference is the environment. F3 is a brutal, grey ruin where people live hand-to-mouth, if at all, but morally characters are either at worst a rather grubby white or blacker than the blackest black, times infinity. New Vegas, in contrast, is a bright, colourful desert with a mostly functioning society, but a lot more shades of grey ethics-wise. I can see the attraction in both, really.
Also, it's always worth remembering that F3, being older, has a lot more mods out there. This is a Bethesda game, after all.

[Eldan]

Ah, yes. NV has been out for a while now, how is the modding situation? I told myself I would buy it as soon as some good patches are out and the prices has gone down to about half.

[potatocubed]

I played F3 to completion a few years ago, and I'm playing through NV at the moment, and I prefer F3.

I think my preference is primarily because the beginning of F3 hooks you into the game much better than the beginning of NV - once I'd finished up in Goodsprings (NV's starter town) I felt a bit like "Well, what now?", whereas I never felt at a loss for things to do in F3. Quite often in NV I feel like I'm just wandering aimlessly about.

As mentioned upthread, I also prefer the aesthetics and atmosphere of the capital wasteland to the aesthetics and atmosphere of the Mojave. (NV has a strong 'cowboy' streak running through it, which I don't really appreciate. YMMV.)

And I think Three Dog is infinitely superior to Mr. New Vegas, both in terms of on-air personality and music selection.

[Dhavaer]

Depends what you're looking for. They had a Fellout equivalent, invisible wall remover, mod manager, script extender and the obligatory nude patch up pretty much from day one.

[Eldan]

Well, yeah. But in the end, my Fallout 3 had about fifty mods, at least.

Well, I guess when I get it I'll just have to download half the top 100 list from the nexus again :smalltongue:

It can't be that hard to mod three dog back into NV, can it?

[Dragor]

If it's radio you're after, I heartily recommend the CONELRAD mod. Adds an excellent radio station which plays some very awesome tracks. http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=35061

Trust me, you'll have Bert the Turtle (Duck and Cover) in your head for weeks.

As for me, I prefer New Vegas. The writing is a tonne better, and whilst I found it friggin' hilarious to be a villain in FO3, in NV I just couldn't bring myself to do it. These people feel more like people than the caricatures of the Capital Wasteland. That being said, I still loved FO3, but NV just packs more of a punch for me, both in setting and writing.

[Wraith]

I think I might be alone in saying this, but although I thought the F:NV was the better game in terms of characters and story, F3 had a far, far better ending even aside the controversy?

Spoilers mostly for NV, but F3 is in here too if you don't know what happens:

In Fallout 3, although it proved unpopular with the fanbase, you get to make a supreme moral decision between (Good) becoming a martyr and sacrificing your own life for the good of the Wasteland, or (Bad) chickening out and making someone else do it to save your own scrawny hide.

A definitive ending to the game where your character shows their true colours and keeps with the theme laid down by your family throughout the game (Your mother dying for the greater good of giving birth to you, your father dying for the greater good of protecting you and the project, and so you die for the greater good of everyone else). It made sense (provided you had no companions with you, but that's another story....)

If nothing else, it gives you a reason as to why there's no post-game free roaming. You're already dead, or at least outcast by everyone who knows that you sent a hero to her death on your behalf.

In Fallout: New Vegas though.... You win. That's it. You either help the NCR, the Legion or Mr. House take over Vegas or you subvert them all and do it for yourself, and then.... fade to black.

The game is left open. There's so much more to do, so many more places to explore and so many more things left unanswered, such as how you get all of the factions to reintegrate and coexist (or not, if you choose so), but it just arbitrarily says "No more playing for you, go start a new game".

Again, it's probably just my own feelings but Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 all had the common theme of a bittersweet ending - you always suceeded in your mission, at great personal cost and usually tragedy. New Vegas is a double kick in the gut by 1) letting you win and 2) not letting you do anything about it.
It was very disappointing, and even more so knowing that the DLC is a different character with a different storyline, so you don't get to explore the new Mojave that you have created.

[Cespenar]

NV has better dialogue and a better story. That's enough reasons, for me at least.

[YeahThatGuy]

I really liked New Vegas but got bored with it very quickly. I never even finished it. I guess it was the bizarre mix of a linear path in an open world. I could go and do something... but if it wasn't the right something, it felt wrong.

From the beginning I knew exactly where and how Benny was travelling. Every NPC said that there's only two ways to New Vegas, and one of them is "too dangerous". So while going the "intended" there are many stops. Most have an NPC or two who will tell you which way to go ( continue straight down the hallway-shaped path ), sometimes for something in return. My favorite was Novac, due to how long-winded it was to hear "continue down the road".

After that I checked my SPECIAL stats and realized my Intelligence wasn't one, so I went straight to Vegas after that.

And instead of going through Freeside, I went the "hard way" because again, the intended way was dragging its feet way too much.

And then I created another character and went straight to New Vegas at level one or two and used two stealth boys to get past the dangers. This character had high luck, which is why I was so eager to get there. After getting kicked out the other casinos I went into The Tops and found Benny... and the following encounter was... bizarre. Especially gaining thousands of experience from just entering the casino and levelling up several times. All I did was survive a loading screen! And that got me more experience than if I had killed a bunch of Deathclaws... and at level one!

Of course, Fallout 3 -- and the Fallouts before it -- was the same but this felt so... jarring instead of a legitimate, "oh hey, what're the chances of running into you?"

And after doing that, I went to the shops with all of my money and could purchase... nothing. Silverrush? Gunrunners? Lint and a gum wrapper. Maybe one or two pennies. So I had to go all the way back to Goodsprings and go the "intended" way so that I would be a high enough level to actually purchase a ****ing gun. **** YOU.

Again, Fallout 3 wasn't much better when you look at their merchants' inventories and see that certain guns don't "exist" until you're a particular level... but at least they had something until then!

I also enjoyed Fallout 3's gameplay a lot more... once I stopped using VATS. And only then because it was too easy... to the point of feeling unrealistic ( read: unable to suspend belief ). I could targets in it that I couldn't even see unless I squinted. But I really, really enjoyed the scavenging aspect of Fallout 3. I know everyone else found it impossibly unrealistic for weapons to break after firing half a dozen times, but those constant repairs kept me busy and kept me poor. Which was a nice change of pace for an RPG, especially one from Bethesda where previously in their games you didn't have to try very hard to become a millionaire. Granted, you can still do it in Fallout 3, but you have to know the shortcuts to get there. New Vegas had item tiers, which resulted in some weapons and armor to cost several thousand caps. If you killed a few enemies with that kind of gear, suddenly you're very, very rich ( I wont count the casinos against them because the whole point of those is to win big or lose it all ).

I did enjoy New Vegas' voice acting more though. Mainly because the voices were not as... varied as in Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 if you heard a someone, you could identify who did it a mile away. In New Vegas it's still fairly noticeable but you ( or I, at least ) have to pay attention to it -- the mechanical underside -- rather than what they're actually saying. I also really liked the ideas of the weapon mods and the "hardcore" option, but they didn't turn out so hot. I do find the actual, hardcoded integration of these options more than the tacked-on mods for Fallout 3.

In the end I really, really want to say I like New Vegas more but find myself giving more positive points for Fallout 3. I guess New Vegas for me is like acknowledging an artist ( of any kind ) as being extremely talented, but would be classified as a genre you don't particular like.

[GungHo]

I liked that New Vegas NPCs called you "The Grim Reaper of the Legion" or whatever and had people really reacting to your choices along the way. Beyond Three Dog's radio messages, no one really reacted much to what you did three towns over in Fallout 3 except in special cases, like Little Lamplight reacting to what you did in Big Town.

The "metastory" was a lot tighter in New Vegas... all the factions had a plan, and they were going to execute them with or without you there, though if you're there they can use you to execute their plans. In contrast, Fallout 3 seemed like those people were all about to die if you didn't come along and show them how to make a sandwich.

However, beyond the "Hang 'Em High"-style storyline of a botched murder and and a quest for vengance in New Vegas, I never really understood why the hell you'd have done half the things you did on the way to Vegas. Why would I care to get involved with NCR or the Legion? Beyond the Legion obviously being a bunch of sadistic freaks, I don't really have any motivation to do anything but hunt down Benny. The Courier obviously has some sort of amnesia, and it's obvious that you're intended to invent his moral code as you go along, but beyond saying "I think my character would like to turn on this solar collector", the only driver is Vegas baby, Vegas.

You could say the same for Fallout 3, but it's clear that your father raised you to not be a callous jerk and in order to get anyone to help you figure out where your father went, you were going to have to provide some quid pro quo. You had to solve the mystery of where your father went and solve the mystery of his work, so exploring was encouraged. You were out on your first adventure.

[Name_Here]

In Fallout 3, although it proved unpopular with the fanbase, you get to make a supreme moral decision between (Good) becoming a martyr and sacrificing your own life for the good of the Wasteland, or (Bad) chickening out and making someone else do it to save your own scrawny hide.

A definitive ending to the game where your character shows their true colours and keeps with the theme laid down by your family throughout the game (Your mother dying for the greater good of giving birth to you, your father dying for the greater good of protecting you and the project, and so you die for the greater good of everyone else). It made sense (provided you had no companions with you, but that's another story....)

Honestly I never liked the dad's death. When I played as a fist fighter I had made myself a deathclaw gauntlet out of a Deathclaw that I had personally beaten to death with my own fists. No weapons, no allies just my skill and strength vrs. a freaking deathclaw. I had effortlessly cut through raiders, super mutants and even the Enclave for a few minutes to get up there. I was a whirling dervish of death and if he had opened the door I could have cut down the general and his body guards in a matter of seconds. But no blowing up his life's work was such a better option.

[Zorg]

I think I might be alone in saying this, but although I thought the F:NV was the better game in terms of characters and story, F3 had a far, far better ending even aside the controversy?


I see what you mean and I liked the end for 3, but I didn't have a problem with NV's ending.
Admittadly I played a roguish smart-ass who became a courier to see the world and explore (see also: meta reasoning for doing side quests). I sided with the NCR and at the end dialogue I was all "There you go General, now I'm going on holidays", or whatever it was exactly.

The End....?

I saw it as a slightly cheesy, pulpy movie type ending - the unlikely hero simply goes off and keeps doing what they do, despite just saving the world.

I'm also not sure how Fallout 2 can be considered to have a sad ending as you can save (most of) your village, stop the enclave, cure Jet, and get good results all round for the factions (except the bugged ones).



even more so knowing that the DLC is a different character with a different storyline, so you don't get to explore the new Mojave that you have created.

Dead Money uses your FO:NV character, but it is set away from the Mojave like the Pitt for FO3, and you don't have your companions, so it has little to do with NV really. But...
Veronica gets extra dialogue due to Father Elijah making an appearance, and her former girlfriend is probably in it (though it's not outright stated).

[Starbuck_II]

I think I might be alone in saying this, but although I thought the F:NV was the better game in terms of characters and story, F3 had a far, far better ending even aside the controversy?

Spoilers mostly for NV, but F3 is in here too if you don't know what happens:

In Fallout 3, although it proved unpopular with the fanbase, you get to make a supreme moral decision between (Good) becoming a martyr and sacrificing your own life for the good of the Wasteland, or (Bad) chickening out and making someone else do it to save your own scrawny hide.

A definitive ending to the game where your character shows their true colours and keeps with the theme laid down by your family throughout the game (Your mother dying for the greater good of giving birth to you, your father dying for the greater good of protecting you and the project, and so you die for the greater good of everyone else). It made sense (provided you had no companions with you, but that's another story....)

If nothing else, it gives you a reason as to why there's no post-game free roaming. You're already dead, or at least outcast by everyone who knows that you sent a hero to her death on your behalf.

In Fallout: New Vegas though.... You win. That's it. You either help the NCR, the Legion or Mr. House take over Vegas or you subvert them all and do it for yourself, and then.... fade to black.

The game is left open. There's so much more to do, so many more places to explore and so many more things left unanswered, such as how you get all of the factions to reintegrate and coexist (or not, if you choose so), but it just arbitrarily says "No more playing for you, go start a new game".

Again, it's probably just my own feelings but Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3 all had the common theme of a bittersweet ending - you always suceeded in your mission, at great personal cost and usually tragedy. New Vegas is a double kick in the gut by 1) letting you win and 2) not letting you do anything about it.
It was very disappointing, and even more so knowing that the DLC is a different character with a different storyline, so you don't get to explore the new Mojave that you have created.

Wait, you forgot:

If you used the serum, meaning there were three endings, not two.
Good: becoming a martyr and sacrificing your own life for the good of the Wasteland
Neutral: Chickening out and making someone else do it to save your own scrawny hide.
Bad: killing off everyone infected with mutations (including you since you like got Ant Sight or something from Quests).
Really, the neutral option is new.
In previous Fallouts you were good or evil in the ending.
Allied with computers or not (also there was the living president in Fallout2).
The only neutral way you added to ending was not killing Overseer at end of Fallout 1. I think it was a good deed if you did. :smallbiggrin:

[Wraith]

Honestly I never liked the dad's death. [.....] But no blowing up his life's work was such a better option.

I didn't particularly *like* it, in the sense that it was the only way that the story could have gone (it wasn't, there were a whole bunch of reasons you could have saved your Dad - I was playing a dedicated gunslinger, and could easily have shot every person in the room twice in the head in the space of nearly 2 seconds....) but I at least understood it.

It kept to a theme, it set up a lot of drama later in the story, and it interjected emotional importance to a game that generally has you detached from any kind of morality figure as you wander the Wastes alone.

In New Vegas, though? You just about achieve something that you should feel strongly about (you've killed all your enemies and have achieved supreme power) and then it's all over before you can do anything about it. What an anticlimax! :smalltongue:


I saw it as a slightly cheesy, pulpy movie type ending - the unlikely hero simply goes off and keeps doing what they do, despite just saving the world.

Oh I agree with you entirely. I get that from a storytelling point of view. However, that's only half the reason I bought F:NV - the other was the gameplay. Bethesda were greatly criticised because there was no Free Roam at the end of F3 despite a good reason within the story.

Not only have they done the same thing again - there's no free roam, which is a great pity - but this time they haven't even tried to justify it in some of their endings and have gone with the cheesy joke instead.
Again, I understand it, but I'd rather be able to go back and keep playing some more as there's no reason why I can't, being the single most influential person alive in the Mojave. :smallbiggrin:


I'm also not sure how Fallout 2 can be considered to have a sad ending as you can save (most of) your village, stop the enclave, cure Jet, and get good results all round for the factions (except the bugged ones).

For some reason, I'm remembering a different story - one where the Chosen One gets his family back, but can't return to a dull, primitive tribal life and heads back out into the Wasteland voluntarily.
Then again.... It's been many years since I finished Fallout 2 though, so I'm more than happy to take your word for it. :smallsmile:


Dead Money uses your FO:NV character, but it is set away from the Mojave like the Pitt for FO3, and you don't have your companions, so it has little to do with NV really. But...


That doesn't sound much like an improvement, to be honest. One of my favourite parts of the game was interacting with my 'party' and seeing what the various NPCs were up to at various points.
And, I reached the level cap with over a dozen hours of playtime left to go, so without my companions I'm not really going to get much achieved in Dead Money.

Don't get me wrong, I want to play it anyway, but it sounds like it could be better.


[spoiler]The only neutral way you added to ending was not killing Overseer at end of Fallout 1. I think it was a good deed if you did. :smallbiggrin:

I'm pretty sure it's an evil deed. I'd do it anyway, of course, but you don't execute the Overseer because you've spent the previous year saving puppies and cuddling kittens. :smallbiggrin:

[VanBuren]

For some reason, I'm remembering a different story - one where the Chosen One gets his family back, but can't return to a dull, primitive tribal life and heads back out into the Wasteland voluntarily.
Then again.... It's been many years since I finished Fallout 2 though, so I'm more than happy to take your word for it. :smallsmile:

I think you're mixing Fallout 1 and 2. Fallout 1 ended with the protagonist exiled to the wasteland.

[Wraith]

It's also entirely possible that I'm thinking of the movie 'Waterworld', another post-apocalyptic franchise that has the ending that I am thinking of. :smalltongue:

[Lord of Rapture]

A comprehensive video series about all the faults of Fallout 3 begins here (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=7926). Even if you like Fallout 3 (which I do), it's worth checking out if only because of how enraged the nerds get.

Incidentally, though I really liked Fallout 3 the first times through, I enjoy New Vegas far more overall.

Though I really wish I could start playing the game again after installing mods. The main menu screen won't show up (the words, not the title cards. Help would be appreciated.)

[Triaxx]

Fallout 1 ended with the protagonist exiled to the wastes. True. Then the protagonist went and founded Arroyo, from the second game. As the second game is starting, the Vault Dweller has left again. Thus the confusion.

Though the Chosen One did go and start a new settlement from the captured V13 dwellers, and Arroyo citizens.

[Gorgondantess]

There is one thing that FO3 has over New Vegas: Wasteland Edition. God, I love that mod. It brings back the terror in me.
New Vegas had its flaws, too, but was overall a superior game. One of my favorites, definitely.

[Gecks]

Definitely a NV man myself. I dig the cowboy stylings, and while FO3 had more of a post-apocalyptic feel, NV had much better writing, better characters, and more interesting quests. I am a fan of shades of grey and NV is all about that, with no faction completely "good" or "bad" (though the legion tries pretty hard at the latter), and many decisions involving choosing between different kinds of lesser evil, rather than just hitting the "good" or "bad" button and moving on.

Also, NV has much less of the world scaling to the player level, which I think is a vast improvement overall. I understand the game design reasoning of a scaling difficulty, but I have yet to see the concept really work in a complex, sandbox world like fallout. I know a lot of folks aren't fond of the "walls of giant scorpions" hedging the player into the pre-determined path at the start of the game, but personally I found myself getting drawn into the story much more than fallout 3, and it seemed I leveled enough to travel where I pleased at just about the right time to feel involved with the plot but not stuck on the railroad tracks.

[The Extinguisher]

I haven't quite finished NV, but at the beginning, I was pretty much only playing it to finish it. I enjoy the atmosphere in FO3 much more, and the Capital Wasteland feels so much larger than the Mojave. It wasn't until I hit the strip that I really got into the game, and at that point I had dozens of half-finished quests I still needed to do.