Hello. We've all been playing new vegas for some time now, and what i am gathering is that some people prefer fallout 3 and others fallout new vegas. Here are my thoughts. Fallout New Vegas has more guns, but you have to be a high level to actually obtain them. Fallout New Vegas has more endings, but you have long, enduring missions in order to achieve them. Fallout New Vegas has more voice actors (or so to say, the voices seem less repeated) however the quality seems diminished. Overall, I believe that obsidian could have done a much better job on the game. of course, it is still one of my favorite games of all time, but i enjoyed Fallout 3 more. The story in fallout 3 was a bit weak, but it was very much enjoyable. Fallout New Vegas also seems to be not a beginners game. You have been an expert in order to play, and the only reason im not confused by all the history is because i read up on all this stuff pre-release. Fallout New Vegas has a...um...larger landscape, i guess, but they screwed us over by giving us this massive map and then there being huge plots of land cut off. And I dislike how they put up invisible walls to prevent getting stuck in areas. True, it is an easy way to prevent getting stuck, but i believe they could have thought of something else. Fallout 3, you knew how big the world was, and you knew where things were, and that made it fun and happy. In Fallout 3, the cities are smaller and less abundant, but you know that if you go to a city, you can stock up on supplies, sell the stuff you don't need, and then head out to the nearby dungeon-like facilities and take down some foes. In New Vegas, the cities are big, true, and they have lots of peeps, but when you go there, you're unsure whether you will be able to get anything or not. I have constantly gone to a vendor that i visited about nine game days ago and find they have everything i left them with. if this is an entire player-run economy, it means i can only but what i sold? that would limit my supplies dearly, and id be left with tons of scrap. in my home, i have about 45 guns that are totally useless becuase no one has enough caps to buy them. And i had believed that ncr dollars were going to be actual currency, bot simply things you can sell like prewar money. i am disappointed. in scope, fallout 3 was much better. Sombar1 10:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Oh yeah, in addition Mr. New Vegas sucks. Three Dog kicks ass and I miss him. Just throwing this out there. Sombar1 10:25, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
The "scope"(though I think another term should be used in this context) in Fallout 3 was unrealistic and made far less sense than New Vegas, and some of these complaints were present in FO3. From what I gather, the younger crowd likes FO3 and it's Bethesda inspired "cool stuff" and easier play. This is more of a continuation of Fallout 2's storyline and the writing and options are greatly improved, lending itself to being a more solid RPG than arcade shooter which was the bread and butter of FO3. As a fan of the original series, New Vegas is more along the lines of what Fallout 3 should have been from a development standpoint. FuBi0 11:24, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
Vegas offers so much more than 3. 'Nuff said 18.104.22.168 08:46, July 19, 2012 (UTC)
I've been playing Vegas for a few hours (up to level 10), and so far I don't like the game as much as Fallout 3.
I didn't hate Fallout 3 and felt it was a passable game on its own merits, but as a Fallout game it seemed ridiculous. As I said in another thread, it didn't feel like a sequel, it felt like a spinoff - as though someone had grabbed every game element they could from the Fallout series and stuffed them all awkwardly into a new game to make it as 'Falloutish' as possible, coming up with contrived reasons for things to be that way after the event. The Capital Wasteland seemed almost comically lethal, with every force of evil from Fallouts past returning to terrorise the wasteland in a big ol' clustersnafu, and the idea that any civilisation at all could exist in such a place felt laughable to me. The wasteland of the original Fallout wasn't one tenth as deadly, and that game took place 80 years after the bombs fell, not 200. The storyline of the Fallout 3 also felt weak to me, with the end game goal being eclipsed by just about anything else that was going on in the wasteland at any given moment - who in the world cares about a water purifier when there are mutant death squads around every corner that no one ever takes seriously? It was like a subversion of the plot from Fallout, where you begin with the relatively pedestrian quest and end with the grander one. In Fallout 3 you were fighting deadly enemies every step of the way to achieve something pretty shrugworthy. Yay, fresh water, now I only have to worry about the 300 mutants per square kilometer waiting to eat my guts. Ah well. I found Fallout 3 enjoyable enough when I switched my brain off, but New Vegas was much more engaging to me, better as both a Fallout game and as an RPG in general.
The thing that makes New Vegas better for me is this wiki. I played FO3 when it first came out and only knew about the Rivit City run, I played the rest blind. When I got FONV for PC, I had already spent a few weeks on this wiki learning how to "game" the game. What Benny said before he shot me was true, the game was rigged from the start. Squalor (talk) 15:53, August 3, 2012 (UTC)
Honestly, I perfer NV. Sure, it has it's problems (PS3 issues, still very few good unarmed weapons, Cazador's), but from a lore perspective, it makes significantly more sense than most everything after Vault 101 over on the West Coast. Avg Man (talk) 05:41, August 15, 2012 (UTC)
They are both really good and both have their own good and bad points I could never say which one I preferred they are both equally good.