Fallout: NV - Editorial @ HardcoreGamer

Couchpotato

Part-Time News-bot
Joined
October 1, 2010
Messages
38,597
Location
Spudlandia
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.

It’s clear that Fallout: New Vegas is without a doubt the better game, but I’ll always have a soft spot for Fallout 3. Of course, an extremely iterative sequel like Fallout: New Vegas will usually win in a head to head matchup like this. Obsidian was able to take everything that was great about Fallout 3 and bring their own strengths to the table to create a game that is quite simply better in almost every way. However, if I think about what game I enjoyed more, it’s probably Fallout 3. Fallout 3 was a much more “important” game, being the revival of a classic series and the first game made in this style. The revelatory experience of playing Fallout 3 for the first time back in 2008 is one that could never be recreated. Playing Fallout: New Vegas for the first was much less of an event, it simply felt like a slightly improved version of Fallout 3. So, while the people that played Fallout 3 first (including myself) probably got more enjoyment out of it than New Vegas, there is really no denying that Fallout: New Vegas is the better of the two.
More information.
 
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
38,597
Location
Spudlandia
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
8,846
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
20,360
Location
Holly Hill, FL.
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.
 
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
831
Location
North Carolina, US
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
41,871
Location
Florida, US
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
New Vegas had choice and consequence and skills mattered.F3 was typical linear Beth.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
154
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,846
I have re-played Fallout: NV three times I believe.
And I replayed Fallout 3 two times 'only' :)
My choice goes for Fallout: NV !
 
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
228
It is curious to me why Bethesda has never gotten serious about finding good writers.

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
8,846
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.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2012
Messages
5,599
Location
Seattle
I thought the main skyrim story was actually worse than F3.
 
Joined
Oct 11, 2009
Messages
154
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
8,846
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
Jan 23, 2009
Messages
601
Location
Minnesota
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.

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 thought the main skyrim story was actually worse than F3.

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.
 
Joined
Dec 20, 2010
Messages
3,216
Location
Sweden
Back
Top Bottom