HardcoreGamer has posted a new article asking the great question that most of us still can't agree on. The quesion I'm talking about is whether Fallout 3 or Fallout:NV is better.
More information.
Fallout: NV - Editorial @ HardcoreGamer
- Thread starter Couchpotato
- Start date
Depends. I enjoy Fallout 3 more than FNV because I don't care as much about the story and characters as I do about exploration and world design. New Vegas is dull as an exploration game; outside of Hoover Dam. I greatly enjoy both games, but I find myself replaying Fallout 3 more than New Vegas.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,836
Carnifex
SasqWatch
I have to agree, I'm a much bigger fan of 3 than of New Vegas. Love them both, but 3 has much more exploration and harder fights, imo. I do appreciate that at least they didn't make a clone of 3 when NV was done.
greywolf00
Keeper of the Watch
To this day, FO3 remains the only game in the franchise I haven't beat (including Tactics). I just don't like Bethesda's games as I much prefer story and structure to exploration. FO:NV on the other hand is, imo, the best RPG made in the last few years.
The author lost credibility to me before I had even finished reading the first sentence of the above quote. He's trying to sound as if he's stating an objective fact about something that's completely subjective.
... thus, trying to express his (subjective) opinion to us, hoping to convince us. Nothing wrong with that, this is what I call a meaningful argument
Anyway, on to the topic:
I have tried, REALLY, I have tried to love Beth's Fallouts but for some reason, I cannot truly appreciate'em.
IMHO, Fallout3 was kinda "pushy", it oozed a strangely arrogant attitude that Beth CAN EASILY rival the Interplay original with ease, AND MORE. (Cutting edge gfx! celebrity power! extreme gore! whatever!)
On the other hand, Fallout3 NW was kinda like a bastard son: as if it knew it was the better game in some way (say hello to interesting characters, meaningful C&C, and ... ohmygod... black humor!<gasp>), but it was underbudget (lack of QA and overall polish) and it could not cope well with FO3's encounter-oriented foundations (frankly, what I dislike in Beth's take on FO is the over-reliance on self-gratuitous combat)
Bottom line: gotta play FO2 ... again....
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 830
D
DArtagnan
Guest
I found FO3 to be much better overall, and I like C&C.
NV was sloppy and it's still full of visual glitches and has probably the least impressive visual aesthetic I've seen in a supposed AAA game.
Writing was good, even if I found the whole cowboy thing boring and uninspired.
Las Vegas was a mess consisting of way too many cells.
Nah, I'd rather replay FO3 than try NV one more time.
NV was sloppy and it's still full of visual glitches and has probably the least impressive visual aesthetic I've seen in a supposed AAA game.
Writing was good, even if I found the whole cowboy thing boring and uninspired.
Las Vegas was a mess consisting of way too many cells.
Nah, I'd rather replay FO3 than try NV one more time.
Hi Folks,
thank you very much for your opinions on this matter. Currently I'm waiting for the upcoming Steam Christmas Sale and Fallout 3 AND Fallout New Vegas are both on my list. Do I have to play Fallout 3 first or are they not story related?
thank you very much for your opinions on this matter. Currently I'm waiting for the upcoming Steam Christmas Sale and Fallout 3 AND Fallout New Vegas are both on my list. Do I have to play Fallout 3 first or are they not story related?
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2013
- Messages
- 33
Gulag, they're not related at all. Both games are very good. Fallout 3 is more about level design and exploration, with an amazing look at what a post-nuclear Washington DC might look like. Fallout New Vegas is all about factions and joinable NPCs, etc. Sandbox versus Story.
It is curious to me why Bethesda has never gotten serious about finding good writers. It's like they allow their programmers to write dialog, which is a hideous idea. Skyrim was a major improvement but they still have miles to go to come close to Bioware or Obsidian in the writing department.
Since I'm not dependent on a story to have fun, I can easily get by this lack, but I still don't understand why they have it. You can't find a studio that has more money than Bethesda, though I think the online game might take alot of cash away from them.
It is curious to me why Bethesda has never gotten serious about finding good writers. It's like they allow their programmers to write dialog, which is a hideous idea. Skyrim was a major improvement but they still have miles to go to come close to Bioware or Obsidian in the writing department.
Since I'm not dependent on a story to have fun, I can easily get by this lack, but I still don't understand why they have it. You can't find a studio that has more money than Bethesda, though I think the online game might take alot of cash away from them.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,836
ChaosTheory
Virtual Reality Hero
I got sooo sick of running through subway tunnels in FO3...
NV remains one of my top-5 favorite game of all time.
NV remains one of my top-5 favorite game of all time.
Yes, I second that. I guess this is because Beth is still a tech/design-driven game company -- hence the cutting edge presentation and amazing world building (that frankly, waned somewhat after Morrowind)
On the other hand, I think Bioware is way too obsessed by their "star" writers, who are, honestly, not that good (Cheesy romances and over-the-top detailing instead of true talented story arcs). They are notorious about their fiction in expense of the freedom (the story is sacred, the experience must be controlled)
I just wonder: how on bloody earth Richard Garriott managed to make the Right Thing with the Ultimas AGES AGO? I think these games (5-6-7) are STILL the perfect combination of storytelling, freedom and exploration.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2008
- Messages
- 830
It's funny. Garriot was destroyed by the anti-virtue Pride. His game tells of the terrible things that happen to those that fall to pride and yet Garriot himself became a victim.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,836
I've played FO3 three times and finished it twice; the third time I didn't bother because I'd already tried the different endings. Each time I played it I discovered new elements. I've tried F:NV twice, but it hasn't held my interest long enough to bother finishing. It was the better game technically, but it wasn't as much fun. There just wasn't much emotional impact in F:NV, there was less of a feel of exploration, and I didn't find the story all that engaging.
I really enjoyed the Dragon story. I loved the idea of the shouts and it was a hoot finding them all. I'm just programmed to love Bethesda games though. It's like they read my mind before making their games I'm an unabashed fan.
I'm an unabashed fan.- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 8,836
Got to go with FO3. I'm working on FO:NV, but I hate doing anything in Vegas. It's a hot mess. And the world outside Vegas seems small and cramped. I can almost see from one end to the other. Another thing I don't like is how armor affects damage in NV. Powerful weapons hardly make a dent in Legionnaires, seriously?
- Joined
- September 16, 2011
- Messages
- 791
I'm pretty much in the same boat. Fallout 3 is the only core Fallout game I haven't finished (not including Tactics or BOS). In fact, I have never finished a Bethesda RPG.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 791
I agree. Fallout 3 had a perfectly acceptable story. Skyrim…not so much. I've replayed Fallout 3, don't see myself ever going back to Skyrim. Haven't even tried FO:NV, which is kind of weird since all the people I know with "my" taste in games rank in way above most other games that have hit the market the last couple of years.