But what does New Vegas give you? A ~ three minute long video consisting of fixed images that tell you about the state of Fallout's world and all the different fractures. That's it, then it let's you start off as a courier whose hands are tied together and you get shot in the head from like 15 feet away... and you survive... yeah, sure, is this supposed to be 'Obsidians superior writing' I keep reading about?
And then the story. New Vegas' story is just about that 'mystery' of the chip you were supposed to deliver. After you meet Benny and find that out it's basically just about what fraction you'll choose and what fractions you will destroy as a result of this. But it feels irrelevant to me since it just determines who's gonna win the final battle at the Hoover Dam. A battle with no consequences since you can't play after the ending credits which is a huuuuuge letdown. Again, all you get is an ending with fixed images, great.
Fallout 3's story on the other hand starts out with the typical 'where did my father go and why did he leave in the first place'? But the longer the play, the more the story unfolds. Soon it's not about just finding your father, it's about the Brotherhood of Steel, the Enclave,Liberty Prime (fighting along his side was also another epic gaming moment for me), Tranquillity Lane, Project Purity, Fawkes and the GECK etc. etc.
And then the part that is almost as important as the story to me: the world. While you have all these historic landmarks such as the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, the White House (or at least the place where it used to be) NV gives you pretty much.... desert. Of course I don't blame Nevada for being covered in sand mostly, but come on, there are really people saying that NV is also better in that regard. And frankly, that's nonsense in my oppinion. NV is just incredibly boring to explore in my oppinion. Plus with all the sand and all the 'bright lights' the strip- stuff it doesn't feel very post apocalyptic to me. Exploring was so much better in F3 plus the atmosphere was way better. Another two magic moments for me were wandering around in a pitch dark subway and all I hear were nearby ghouls making creepy noices, It felt so horrifying and nightmarish. The other one was entering a house in Minefield. I walked upstairs to search for useful stuff and I walked into the bedroom and I saw these two skeletons laying on the bed. Then I'd walk into the child's room and noticed a children's skeleton on the bed as well. That was just repellent and almost disgusting.
And yeah, maybe NV has more sidequests, but I was just fine with 3's. I never play too many sidequests anways. And btw I thought that 'Blood Ties', 'Reilly's Rangers', 'Oasis', 'Stealing Independence', 'The replicated Man' (Always felt like a damn good mystery' and many others were pretty damn good.
Of course NV has a few gameplay improvements, but that should be naturally since it came out two years after Fallout 3. But still it has the exact same engine, the same exact graphics, the same exact graphic assets, the same exact bugs and so one. How incredibly lazy is that? Is this EA or Obsidian?
And btw, speaking of bugs: Until this day I never could finish that quest on the strip where you are supposed to investigate about these cannibals (I suppose they are cannibals) in one of the casinos because when I enter a door in there (and there's quite a few of them) the game crashes 9 out of 10 times.
Nah, New Vegas is way better.
OK. Fallout 3's intro was amazing, and its main quest where I took a giant smack talking capitolist robot and killed commies that was great too.
in a one-off sort of way.
Fallout 4 was pretty barren.
try replacing the autosave with CASM if you are having that issue.
If the next one is called, because of his MO, the underwear bomber, you'll know I'm on to something. Calvin Trillin June 16, 2006.
If you haven't played the side quests, you haven't actually experienced a fallout game
New Vegas is the best fallout game, hands down.
no it isn't
Click here for JoJo: http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/1150-za-warudo
I have neither the time nor the inclination to nibble on this bait.
"Too many people have opinions on things they know nothing about. And the more ignorant they are, the more opinions they have." - Thomas Hildern
fallout 3 was too movie-esque in the story, but not even a good movie. a movie you might love, but loving something doesn't make it great. and when you hear someone hate on that movie, you say "well yeah okay that part was stupid, but that's not what makes it good, it's __________" ad nauseam
http://creativegametheory.com/ Tower Defense Game ~ Greenlit on Steam!@~!
Every Fallout game has their pros and cons. I prefer the story of 3, the setting of NV, and the gameplay of 4.
That being said, if you mod them properly, they are all great games and equal in my eyes. Now if we can just toss in FO4 into ToTW...
Intel Core i7-3770K Ivy Bridge 4.5GHz | 16GB Samsung RAM DDR3 1600 (11-11-11-28) | eVGA GTX 980 Ti 6GB VRAM | ASUS 27" Monitor @ 2560X1440
Fallout 3's got its flaws, but at least it doesn't have Obsidian gimping stealth in the DLCs because they can't actually balance it or putting invisible walls up in the main world area where there's no logical reason for them to exist.
Logic is the antithesis of faith, else why is it that faith defies logic while logic denies faith?
New Vegas is better in every way than both 3 or 4, even looking at just the base game itself, not delving into mods. It has a lot more charm going for it and way more (And better) features than 3 did and... really, the only thing Fallout 4 did well was the quick-looting system. Everything else was s***. But, New Vegas improved upon 3 in every way; as far as I am concerned, Obsidian has made the only really good FPS Fallout game, Bethesda merely paved the way for it with 3. They should outsource the next Fallout to Obsidian again if 4 is the s*** they think passes for Fallout.
Obviously, this is comparing only the FPS Fallouts, not the classic games.
Add user to Ignore List after reporting