FO3 or FO: NV?

Which 'un?

  • Total voters
    134
Makta said:
1. A single person is harder to find than a settlement. And there is only 2 working houses with her included.
2. The BOS got a member from the pit and several initiates like Reddin and Jennings alltho there passt is never mentioned i think? You are thinking of New vegas/Fallout 1 BOS.
3. They don't have to raid the ship when there are caravans going all around the wasteland. And the raiders aren't 10x as many as the settlers/wastelanders.
4. "I do pay attention to what is written, I just can't recall all the facts all the time." = I don't know if what i'm saying is right but i will use it to prove a point.. Not the brightest idea huh?

Oppen said:
Makta said:
where the kids comes from
Click to expand...

When mom loves dad too much...

:lol:
Click to expand...

Stork >.. Learn basic's! :twisted:
Click to expand...
1. Good point, didn't thought about that. Anyway, you actually said there were raiders nearby, so they shouldn't have a hard time finding nothing, I'd rather just invade the homes and check if there is something I can use. Then, finding Silver is pretty easy for them.
2. Yeah, I recall the member coming from the Pitt. I'm almost sure DC BoS members tell you they have a closed doors policy. Maybe I'm just confused, like you said, with NV.
3. Good point. Doesn't say nothing about the raiders:settlements ratio, though.
4. No, that's not what I try to do (but I do get confused sometimes), but to refute based in common sense, you only need to know what you are trying to refute. And for that, you only need to read it.

5. I was too lazy to search for the word in english. Since it's not my main language and I do not explain too often how babies come, I didn't remember the word :P
 
Regarding Point 4; that's not really true. If you're addressing everyone like we're the YouTube community, then absolutely, yes. That line is a common cop-out that they use when really it means "I don't actually know, but I'm going to assert this BS as if I do."

Most, however, DO pay attention and learn/observe, and what they glean from their attentiveness forms an opinion. They have those reasons backing that opinion. Over time, that opinion is reinforced, while its origins become clouded with time. Eventually we assert our opinions without recollecting exactly what facts we had that formed them in the first place.

Happens. To. Everyone. All. The. Time. Doesn't mean we should disregard what other people say when they have good reason to say it, but don't remember specifically what. Just inquire into the details.
 
WOW this is a tough one for me. If I HAD to choose one of them, I'd say I like FO3 better, even though admittedly FONV is closer to cannon.

Why? I like the atmosphere of FO3 better than I do NV. I like being able to explore the wasteland without running into a friggin settlement of people every couple of in-game miles.

I also like TRUE random encounters. It added a strong sense of danger, knowing you could run into a deatchlaw or Guai at any given moment. I really missed this in FONV, as if I wanted to avoid cazadores and deathclaws, all I had to do was stay out of their respective areas.

That said, NV boasts superior gameplay. There's the traits system which brings back another element of character creation that was lost with FO3. There are weapon modifications--another element of FO2 that was missing from 3. Iron Sights is HUGE for me, as I'm a sniper at heart, who only uses vats for close range combat. There's the crafting system, a very nice touch to the FO series, and one I wish was present for FO2. Finally, I like the HC mode that NV offers, which FO3 does not.

That said, I still enjoy the atmosphere and exploration of FO3. That, combined with true RANDOM encounters, gives FO3 the edge for me, though both are really fun games to play. So a message to Bethesda/Obsidion/whoever the effing hell is making FO4: LEARN FROM BOTH FO3 AND FONV! Also, stay true to cannon this time :)
 
FOvet said:
WOW this is a tough one for me. If I HAD to choose one of them, I'd say I like FO3 better, even though admittedly FONV is closer to cannon.

Why? I like the atmosphere of FO3 better than I do NV. I like being able to explore the wasteland without running into a friggin settlement of people every couple of in-game miles.

I also like TRUE random encounters. It added a strong sense of danger, knowing you could run into a deatchlaw or Guai at any given moment. I really missed this in FONV, as if I wanted to avoid cazadores and deathclaws, all I had to do was stay out of their respective areas.

That said, NV boasts superior gameplay. There's the traits system which brings back another element of character creation that was lost with FO3. There are weapon modifications--another element of FO2 that was missing from 3. Iron Sights is HUGE for me, as I'm a sniper at heart, who only uses vats for close range combat. There's the crafting system, a very nice touch to the FO series, and one I wish was present for FO2. Finally, I like the HC mode that NV offers, which FO3 does not.

That said, I still enjoy the atmosphere and exploration of FO3. That, combined with true RANDOM encounters, gives FO3 the edge for me, though both are really fun games to play. So a message to Bethesda/Obsidion/whoever the effing hell is making FO4: LEARN FROM BOTH FO3 AND FONV! Also, stay true to cannon this time :)
Click to expand...

Get FWE and it fixes most of those things :P Alltho the crafting is far worse from NV even with the mod.. /shrug I don't think i crafted more than 2 items in my last 3 runs. And there might be iron sight mods out but i havent thought about it untill now.. I guess i'll be swimming in mods by tomorrow >>
 
I own both FO3 and FNV, and I definitely say with certainty that FNV is better.

The atmosphere is excellent, the weapons are awesome, the perks are top-notch, and its just better in every way than FO3.

I mean, F03 was fun, but it did get a little boring at times.

With FNV, and especially with the dlcs, it never gets boring.
 
Ai, I've finished NV about 5 times, and would still play it for another 5 times.

I've finish Fo3 once, and tried to play it again. I lost interest shortly after starting.
 
Fallout 3. Not only did introduce me to Fallout (never was a PC gamer, not to mention the originals came out when I was like 6), but it also had the advantage of not taking place in A FUCKING DESERT. I loved the NV DLC, especially OWB & Honest Hearts, and loved the crafting, modding of guns, iron sights (not to mention moar gunz) and basically every improvement they made on Fallout 3, I just didn't like the locale; they should have made Vegas like it is today with warehouses and residental areas instead of all that desert. The urban environment just makes it more evident that the world has gone to hell and I love that.
 
It's always the tiiiiiiiiniest things that shape a person's outlook on something. "I love 80% of B, but I prefer A overall." I always find it curious.

Besides, that poll won't be "one-sided" until it's 900 to 30. At least then it would appear to have reached "the average audience".
 
I would have to say that New Vegas is better. "Fallout" 3 got me started on the series and I definitely enjoyed it, after all if I didn't I wouldn't have gone looking for 1 and 2. What makes me think New Vegas is better though has to be that it brings the series back west where it belongs and the already mentioned flaws of Fo3.
 
Ziegler629 said:
it brings the series back west where it belongs
Click to expand...
The series belongs wherever the story is most interesting; be it North, East, West or South. As long as its in the States and the story is good, I honestly don't care where Fallout 4 takes place, but to say it 'belongs' in the West because that's where the first 2 games took place is just absurd.
 
The series belongs wherever the story is most interesting; be it North, East, West or South
Click to expand...

I enjoyed exploring the Capital Wasteland it just felt like the series should have stayed closer to where it began instead of the opposite side of the United States in my opinion. I suppose the story could only stay in the west coast for so long though.
 
When they set a Fallout game in a different part of the continent, it should have different story and character elements. I like the Brotherhood of Steel as much as the next Falloutphile. But, Fallout 3 should have had people, mutants, and factions that were indigenous to the DC area to make it distinct. I can see the Enclave having a base in DC since they were supposed to be a remnant of the US government/military. But the Brotherhood, super mutants, centaurs, etc. were out of place.

Fallout 3 was a fun game in it's way, but the events and factions of New Vegas fit the setting much better.
 
Fartmonkey said:
fo3. I mean, you got to walk around ruined DC and mountains and a skyscraper and so many super cool places, but all the places in nv were either bland and boring or unbelievable (the strip? puhhhhlease :roll: )
Click to expand...

At first I was going to say New Vegas. But after I read this post I thought about it, and thought to myself "which one did I enjoy more"...

Fallout 3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top