227 réponses à ce sujet

[Commander Rpg]

They're both great in some ways, but New Vegas is great in most ways.

Those most ways are less significant to me.

[Simfam]

The writing in New Vegas does a very good job with the 'background' stuff. Fleshing out the minor characters, the background world, the past events, stuff of that sort. But when it comes down to it, the central conflict isn't done particularly well, the ending is outright bad, and the characters (as in, the companions) are...ehh...better than mediocre, but worse than good.

 

Your opinions are as bad as your name.

[Jehuty]

I prefer New Vegas because of more weapons, more armor, more factions, and the fact that the DLC is better and I just feel more at home with it and there's more to do. That being said, I like 3 as well. They both have their ups and their downs. Fallout 3's wasteland honestly felt better and more wasteland like than the Mojave wastes. 

[Simfam]

Those most ways are less significant to me.

 

We already know you're a bore who wouldn't rule the world with an evil aspiring toaster.

 

[Liamv2]

We already know you're a bore who wouldn't rule the world with an evil aspiring toaster.

 

*snip*

 

Toaster is best character.

[Simfam]

Toaster is best character. #bestgirl

 

Simed that for you.

[Liamv2]

Your not wrong.

[Simfam]

Your not wrong.

 

Indeed.

[This is the End My Friend]

We already know you're a bore who wouldn't rule the world with an evil aspiring toaster.

 

 

[Simfam]

 

Cried more than LOTGH episode 82

[Jehuty]

Nooooooooo!

[Decepticon Leader Sully]

Neither it is Fallout Brotherhood of Steel. 

[AventuroLegendary]

That toaster has more personality than all of Skyrim's vanilla cast combined.

[FlyingSquirrel]

I prefer FO3, but they really have very different strengths and weaknesses.

 

FO3: Better atmosphere, more freedom to shape your character, exploring is more unpredictable
FONV: Better fictional society, more interesting NPCs, factional system & hardcore mode makes it a little more complex and challenging

[Funkcase]

New Vegas is probably the better game overall. It certainly has better writing, better quests, and is a better made RPG altogether. However, I will say that the exploration in Fallout 3 is far superior to that of New Vegas. Other than having better settlements, there wasn't really anything to see in New Vegas outside of the settlements. I have also noticed that Fallout 3 is the better entry game into the Fallout series (I know some people who started with New Vegas, and they were pretty confused). 

 

A minor criticism on my part for New Vegas, I really disliked the whole cowboy thing. I felt that it was far more prominent in New Vegas than all previous Fallout games. 

 

OP, if you like RPGs for their story, characters, and mechanics, then go with New Vegas. if you want something with better exploration, but simpler mechanics and a good introduction, then go with Fallout 3. In truth, both are excellent games despite their problems. If you like one enough, then you should probably purchase the other one at a later date (if Fallout 4 hasn't already been released by the time you are finished with your first choice). 

[Br3admax]

 

 

FNV is I Am Bread prequel confirmed. 

[Patchwork]

I recently finished FO3 and I'm midway through FNV, both games have strengths and weaknesses, I much prefer a reputation system to a karma one but I struggled to connect with my character in the beginning.

 

The MQ said go do this thing and all I could think was- why would I? Better to count myself lucky and get out of dodge.   

 

While FNV might be the superior game ita that FO3 is the better introduction to the series. You learn about Vaults by personal experience, the Capital Wasteland looks post nuclear war and there's a personal connection to the MQ, he's a lying liar who lies but he's still your father and he's trying to do something that will make the world better. 

[vometia]

I preferred FO3 overall, though my priorities tend to be ambience and exploration. I found NV to be much more stable, however, and it has ED-E. But honestly, I don't think you'd be making a mistake with either choice.

[Cyonan]

While FNV might be the superior game ita that FO3 is the better introduction to the series. You learn about Vaults by personal experience, the Capital Wasteland looks post nuclear war and there's a personal connection to the MQ, he's a lying liar who lies but he's still your father and he's trying to do something that will make the world better. 

 

He's also oddly forgiving about you having nuked a town, if you chose to do so.

[Iakus]

New Vegas.

 

Better characters

More connections to previous games

More useful companions (more interesting too)

Wider variety of weapons

Actual factions

More stable game (at least to me)

 

and of course

Wild Wasteland trait

[ObserverStatus]

Depends on what you want to get out of it. New Vegas has far more quests and characters, while most of Fallout 3 was deserted. New Vegas had better character interaction, Fallout 3 had better exploration. New Vegas was the better RPG, Fallout 3 was the better first person adventure.

[Eternal Phoenix]

[UltimaBACON]

The one that is actually a real Fallout game (New Vegas).

 

Oh, and exploration is overrated. There's no point to exploration if all you're discovering are the same basic lame quests with the same basic lame structure and the same lifeless generic characters with the same five lines (e.g. every Elder Scrolls game and Fallout 3).

[Giantdeathrobot]

New Vegas, not even close.

 

Fallout 3 is a typical Bethesda playground. Sure, you can be whoever you want and do whatever you want (so long as you're a 19 years old that becomes a superhuman after coming out of a Vault, tht is). Just don't expect it to actually matter one bit.

 

New Vegas is pretty much the best Fallout game after FO1, and one of the best RPG in recent years.

[BabyPuncher]

What troglodyte put together that abomination of a chart?