We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → Games → Fallout 3 or New Vegas?
| 32 | 3974 |
Heya everyone. So I found both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas for the same price and I was wondering which I should buy. I know these games are both years old and I have kinda missed the boat on these games but hey, haven't played them and they're on my hit list. So what do you think: Fallout 3 or New Vegas?
- 32 Replies
I would have to agree with xNightwish I do like the moral stuff and like i said I could just be opinionated but I dont like the overall layout of New Vegas. I liked that you started out as a baby and everything in Fallout 3. It just seems like Fallout New Vegas has nothing to do with the Fallout 3. And it might just be its new author but I know if it was all only Obsidian then the game wouldn't look like Fallout 3 and Bethesda said they bought Fallout to create many Fallouts like they did with the elder scrolls so i don't think they would just allow obsidian to take over so easily.
Bro you know only fallout 1 and 2 have something to do with each other, I thInk what they want to do is show the unique parts of post apocalypse America with some interesting stories along the way
There is Operation Encourage, Mothership Zeta, The Pitt, Broken Steel and Point Lookout.
Blergh, Point Lookout. I remember it now. Namely that trash-mouthed ghoul.
I should probably mention this is also for PS3. NOT PC. I don't know how much this changes the opinions if at all, but some games just don't run well on console.
It probably shouldn't matter that much what system you play it on as long as that is the game system you commonly play.
Not too much differnece between consoles. Can't get the GECK on consoles, but thats no problem if you're not into making your own stuff and editing.
Massive spoilers ahead. So if you haven't played the game(s) and want to keep everything a surprise, then skip this.
As for the moral issues, I think New Vegas is superior to Fallout 3. Its just to black and white in Fallout 3. Side with the Enclave, who want to kill everyone in the world, or side with the Brotherhood who want to save everyone in the world. We're told that the Brotherhood is heartless, and only cares about technology, but we fail to see that in Fallout 3. Hell, they're giving out water for free at the end of the day. So you've got an obviously evil faction and an obvioulsy good faction.
With New Vegas, you've got three factions that are all good and bad in their own aspects. The NCR brings stability, but at the expense of beauorcracy and ignoring the general populice. Several NPCs I talked to whined about how the NCR doesn't ever do much. Case and point, the correctional facility. Why didn't they wipe out the Powder Gangers? Huh?
Then theirs Caesar's Legion. In my opinion, the most bad-*** group in the entire game. They bring civilization and order to the waste, but at the expense of possible slavery. But the thing is, Caesar has a legitmate reason to do what he does. If you ever ask him about Hegalian Dialectics, he'll go on about how the NCR is too big for its own good, and he has arrisenm naturally to take over and actually fix all the problems. Granted, he's a bit weird calling himself the 'Son of Mars', but if it floats your boat, go with it.
Then theres Mr. House. Dunno too much about him really, but he seems to want to restore everything back to the way it was. Reading his obituary (if he dies), the message given off seems to be 'Without me, you all are f*cked.' So with his army of Securitrons, he can achieve this unless you decide to intervene (Either with Yesman or Caesar).
In Fallout 3, it just all seems forced. Really President Eden? You're trying to convince me you're the good guy while telling me to poison the largest water supply in the area? Really Elder Lyons? You're trying to tell me the Brotherhood only cares about technology while you support the little guys? Either it was poorly thought out, or a thinly veiled and poorly executed attempt at making the black and white of it all into a seam of grey. They got it right with Point Lookout and The Pitt, but only after getting it wrong in the main game.
Spoilers are over.
So really, New Vegas is better. I've got 300 hours invested in Fallout 3, and only 40 in New Vegas, and I still think New Vegas is better. Bigger Maps, a greater Challenge, and more diverse weapons makes New Vegas superior.
I wouldn't have to agree with you that its just plain black and white seeing as you can have like 3 different endings and the game has multiple cause and effect scenarios. I think the real decision is, do you want a newer game or older game. Keeping in mind that the newer game comes with newer features. Or you could decide to play the older game first, knowing that by the time you beat it you can probably buy New Vegas. And you might want to take price into consideration. Which i can't tell you the price at this moment.
Price isn't the issue, I found both of them for the same price .any major complaints about either of the games? tech glitches, game mechanics etc?
Fallout 3 is about eight dollars, and New Vegas is about 14 dollars. Dunno how much the new edition of New Vegas with all the DLC is though.
Mr_Sand: I never said their wasn't a cause and effect with your actions. What I'm saying is that the right and wrong choices in Fallout 3 are much easier to discern. For example, if I wanted to be good in Fallout 3, I'd side with the Brotherhood, I'd blow up the Enclave, and I'd give Elder Lyons the FEV. Its not so cut and dried with New Vegas.
As for the moral issues, I think New Vegas is superior to Fallout 3. Its just to black and white in Fallout 3. Side with the Enclave, who want to kill everyone in the world, or side with the Brotherhood who want to save everyone in the world. We're told that the Brotherhood is heartless, and only cares about technology, but we fail to see that in Fallout 3. Hell, they're giving out water for free at the end of the day. So you've got an obviously evil faction and an obvioulsy good faction.
But by moral I meant karma sorry. In FO:NV you don't need to watch your karma except if u want a achievement. In FO3 you need to watch it if u want a certain follower.
Price isn't the issue, I found both of them for the same price .any major complaints about either of the games? tech glitches, game mechanics etc?
In both of them you can count on a lot of them
It just seems like Fallout New Vegas has nothing to do with the Fallout 3
it hasn't thats why it isn't called "fallout 3: new vegas"
I know if it was all only Obsidian then the game wouldn't look like Fallout 3
they used bethesda's own work to create soething new.
they were alowed to make this game aslong they keep to the formula of the fallout serie. so that it keeps worth the name fallout.
if they didn't bethesda would simply not publise it.
also isn't bethesda the only copyright owner of fallout.
the originel guys whu made the 1st 2 games whit interplay are now working on fallout: online
like they did with the elder scrolls
bethesda didn't buy anything it's their creation.
the guy who wrote the story and made the world etc. does actualy have a contract whit bethesda. (atleast untill morrowind, havn't heared much about him whit oblivion and skyrim)
---
still i find it kinda ignoring that you have such views on a game and want to spread these views while you havn't realy played the game.
i only wonder, why?
But by moral I meant karma sorry. In FO:NV you don't need to watch your karma except if u want a achievement. In FO3 you need to watch it if u want a certain follower.
In New Vegas, you only get an achievement for reaching level 10, 20, and 30. It doesn't matter what your Karma is. But yeah, totatlly with the Karma. I think the only follower who'll leave you in New Vegas is Boone, who'll get mad if you join with Caesar's Legion.
Dunno about Lily, Rex, or Cass though. I suppose the same applies to Cass, seing as shes rather pro-NCR. I dunno.
they were alowed to make this game aslong they keep to the formula of the fallout serie. so that it keeps
Not quite. Obsidian still retains many of the developers who worked on Fallout 1 and 2. The most prominent of whom are - Chris Avellone, Feargus Urquhart and Tim Cain. In addition to that, the reasons for why Bethesda had outsourced F:NV are all speculations.
the originel guys whu made the 1st 2 games whit interplay are now working on fallout: online
Nope. Read the above.
havn't realy played the game.
Beat fallout 3 bad and good beat mothership zeta. Tried the Pitt tried the other DLC. I don't know of any DLC for New Vegas so if your looking for hours of gameplay and want the DLC then I suggest Fallout 3. Can't say anything about New Vegas. But yeah Fallout 3 was awesome and I liked that. So in either case you should just get both and play Fallout 3 then play New Vegas. Pretty fun games and you get 2 who would've thought lol.
I don't know of any DLC for New Vegas
because you havn't played the game.
-Dead Money
-Honest Hearts
-Old World Blues
-Lonesome Road
and 2 item packs
-Courier's Stash
-Gun Runners' Arsenal
so if your looking for hours of gameplay and want the DLC then I suggest Fallout 3.
new vegas can provide the same. it's only because you did not play new vegas that you do not suggest it. but instead indirectly want to say "don't play new vegas"
You must be logged in to post a reply!