Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Still using that "argument"? God, you're a broken record of nonsense.
And so similar? Only the gameplay is similar. New Vegas destroys Fallout 3 on everything else.
Which Fallout Was Better? (2018)
- Thread starter Brycen
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
And so similar? Only the gameplay is similar. New Vegas destroys Fallout 3 on everything else.
mfkndggrfll
Still Mildly Glowing
Roughly 75% of the game is the same. And that argument actually makes a whole lot of sense. Its like socially acceptable and well recieved to bash 1 game to praise the other.
People who are objective will rank either game above the other but not by such a large margin. One thing NV didnt do better is the wasteland, it was flat and brown. It still has worse level design and quest design, less polish overall.
People who are objective will rank either game above the other but not by such a large margin. One thing NV didnt do better is the wasteland, it was flat and brown. It still has worse level design and quest design, less polish overall.
Here he comes talking shit out of his mouth. Once he does something like TTW, he can talk about how the games are or not the same (spoiler alert: They aren't).
He just proves that he can't comprehend the deep changes that FNV has in relation to FO3. Even the engine is more polished and stable in FNV. Just for that the game is already superior from a technical point.
FNV also got rid of the tree LOD, while making trees have object LOD, which is way superior and way less broken.
I could write a giant wall of text comparing everything that is different between both games and the engines, but why do that. Even if he reads it, he will just deny it anyway
.
If 75% of the game was the same, TTW wouldn't be taking almost 10 years to be worked on by some of the most knowledgeable modders around. It would have taken a couple years or so.
He just proves that he can't comprehend the deep changes that FNV has in relation to FO3. Even the engine is more polished and stable in FNV. Just for that the game is already superior from a technical point.
FNV also got rid of the tree LOD, while making trees have object LOD, which is way superior and way less broken.
I could write a giant wall of text comparing everything that is different between both games and the engines, but why do that. Even if he reads it, he will just deny it anyway
.If 75% of the game was the same, TTW wouldn't be taking almost 10 years to be worked on by some of the most knowledgeable modders around
. It would have taken a couple years or so.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Except you are saying people are just preferring New Vegas over Fallout 3 because Bethesda made the latter. Your arguments are so bad that you don't know what you posted just a page ago.
Uh, you said you never played New Vegas because you said you were playing every Fallout game and still hadn't played the first two and New Vegas. So, how can you say that? Oh, wait you can't because you haven't actually played the game. You're most likely basing things again from the wiki, specially for the things i'm gonna say below.
Worse level design? Yes, seeing nothing but destroyed buildings, grey and greenish blue everywhere and copy and pasted, poorly designed metros is somehow better than a world that looks like it's recovering from the bombs. Oh wait, it isn't.
And worse quest design? Are you fucking serious? The quests in New Vegas are a million times better than the quests in Fallout 3. Most of Fallout 3 is nothing but fetch and kill this quests. New Vegas quests actually have different outcomes and a lot moral ambiguity. The fetch and kill this quests are a minority unlike Fallout 3.
Less polish? That's why i very rarely got any bug in New Vegas and crashed maybe three times in nearly 200 hours. While in Fallout 3 i had several bugs, including bugs in quests and the game crashed several times in just a single playthrough. And both versions were the ones with all the updates.
Just admit it, you're a zealous, fanboy of Fallout 3. Because that's why you say the game is flawed but when we criticize it, you just dismiss every single valid argument. That's what fanboys do.
Last edited:
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
Is that 12 year old still running around this website trying to get attention? Jesus, just put him on your ignore lists until his parents take away the computer. He isn't worth anyone's time.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
I see where you're coming from but its not about dev names. The games do play very similarly. But the key difference is what they do with the lore and world. 3 recycles as many ideas as possible going so far as to contradict many simple lore points just so it's, very poorly written, story can even exist. Whereas, rather than destroying what the originals built, new vegas further adds to it in unique and interesting ways. Hell fallout 3 didn't even have farms and features a town built around a bomb, not by a cult mind you, and then placed that town a hop skip and away from and actual for some reason almost completely abandoned town.
Basically one is poorly written garbage with shit world building while the other is the complete opposite. If bethesda had writers on the same level even on the borderlands clone that is fallout 4 then I would accept it. Because gameplay isn't what makes fallout. It's what the writers do with the world within the confines of its universe. Which is why new vegas is the best.
Uhhh...
Fallout 3: go here get this come back.
New Vegas:
Last edited:
Kohno
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
No, you wouldn't.
I was being a bit hyperbolic with what I said on purpose. Of course you can list the features that all look good on paper, and for what its worth, it works for what New Vegas tries to achieve. But the issue remains that the gameplay is underwhelming for insisting to keep with the Fallout 3 design.
What did you expect a "wasteland" to look like?
Here's some real life images to give some perspective:
Where New Vegas could be faulted is that it insisted on Bethesda's map style where they couldn't depict proper wasteland without it feeling boring to play (for some), and not depicting it would've felt just as out of place as Bethesda's mockery of a "wasteland" where there's life, activities and sightseeing opportunities all over the place (i.e. not a wasteland at all, but peculiarly and purposefully placed rubble and trash to produce an illusion that doesn't even try to cover up being one).
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
Yeah, I see what you're saying. They don't show you half the shit in the original games because there is supposed to be nothing to see.
Boggins
First time out of the vault
Okay, "mfkndggfall" or whatever was fun at first, but now he's derailing threads. This shit's getting annoying.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
He hasn't derailed this thread. We're still weighing the merits of each entry. Besides we don't have enough fallout 3 fans here. What we got like 2? I like the game just fine as a game but as a fallout game? Lol no.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Oh, he will derail this thread. Any criticism of Fallout 3 and he'll come to its rescue. Then he'll dismiss any criticism of the game either outright or saying we "hate it because it's made by Bethesda". And no amount of compelling, well founded arguments will convince him otherwise.
He already spent like 25 pages of a thread trying to convince people that Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2 by default because it's more a Fallout game. And another trying to convince to people that Morrowind is factually the worst one in the series (and only played 10 hours of it) and Oblivion is a better Elder Scrolls game.
Practicat
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
If Fallout 2 didn't have fourth wall breaking I'd rank it over New Vegas, even with the right gameplay mods for the latter. FNV's inheritance of undesirable mechanics of F3 like always taking at least 15% damage no matter what attacks you and lack of different damage types like normal, fire, laser, plasma, electricity diminishes the appeal of its mechanics compared to F2's. The F3 (and consequently FNV) engine also had to do away with skill rolls and modifiers and hiding skill checks with the aim of making the game more accessible.
TerminallyChill
Be excellent to each other.
Do yourself a favor Boggins, click his avatar, and hit ignore. Thank me later. Doesn't help for all these other people that are still replying to him, but it's a start.
I like Fallout 3, but that doesn't mean I go into threads baiting Fallout 2 fans into arguments and dismissing people as "haters" after they spent time writing their opinions. His combative behavior is juvenile and beneath this community. I'm amazed it's been allowed to continue this long.
What is everybody talking about right now? Which Fallout game is the best? Or some belligerent preteen fanboy who's probably hyped up on too much Monster in his dad's computer room? It's already started. This is what he fucking wants because now this thread is all about him.
Fourth wall breaks, like anything, can be ok if done well. Vigor tester machine? But yeah, the 15% damage thing is total bullshit. Power armor should be near impenetrable. I'm still very on the fence about the skill checks, though. On one end, I don't like developers holding players' hands. On the other, I also dislike when developers hide technical and calculation information from the player. It's a conundrum for sure.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
New Vegas has a completely different set of design values than Fallout 3.
The Engine and Assets are the same, but the entire way the world is constructed, the lore of it, the attitude towards the first 2 games, the RPG mechanics, the way the world treats you, are entirely different.
They aren't getting ranked because of a dev name, they are getting ranked differently, because they are different.
Because this is a series with multiple entries, and you can like any entry you want?
75% of the game?
I don't think a game with an entirely new set of content is 75% identical to a game with a different set of content.
And Fallout 3 has those damned subway tunnels, and is oversaturated with locations, to the degree that I gave up exploring buildings after finding 90% were shooter dungeons.
Both have fairly crappy map design, New Vegas isn't objectively worse.
Last edited:
Boggins
First time out of the vault
No, it's too late for me. I'm like a meth addict; I started because I thought it would be fun, and it was. But that's not the case anymore. Now I don't have a a choice. I have to keep doing it. I have to keep watch on everything this guy posts. Because I'm addicted.
...
...
... okay, fine, I'll ignore him.
From worst to best;
Fallout 4: Awful Fallout game, pretty okay game, actually decent survival game.
It's not great and pissed off for the longest time, but time has relaxed me a bit. I can now look past it and say 'it's okay... I guess'
Fallout 3: Really hasn't aged all that well. But as a game... It's okay.
Not my goto Fallout game, but it has its decent moments and some (such as the Dunwich Building) transcend the rest of the game. Also Point Lookout is better than the base game.
Fallout 2: The Worst of the Best.
A great game, but I feel it drags on way too much. It got a tad boring after a while, but the overall game is still a lot of fun. Has many improvements over the first, but it feels like a organised chaos.
Fallout: An amazing game which has a lot more focus than probably any other game in the series.
You could tell there was a lot of time and care and love poured into this game and it shows.
An overall great game that could standalone as its own project.
Fallout New Vegas: The best of Fallout 1&2. Honestly, there's so much I like about the game I can literally write an essay about it. It takes all the problems with Fallout 2&3 and makes something... Beautiful out of it.
It has good themes which almost have a meta flavour to them. Honestly, just an amazing game.
Fallout 4: Awful Fallout game, pretty okay game, actually decent survival game.
It's not great and pissed off for the longest time, but time has relaxed me a bit. I can now look past it and say 'it's okay... I guess'
Fallout 3: Really hasn't aged all that well. But as a game... It's okay.
Not my goto Fallout game, but it has its decent moments and some (such as the Dunwich Building) transcend the rest of the game. Also Point Lookout is better than the base game.
Fallout 2: The Worst of the Best.
A great game, but I feel it drags on way too much. It got a tad boring after a while, but the overall game is still a lot of fun. Has many improvements over the first, but it feels like a organised chaos.
Fallout: An amazing game which has a lot more focus than probably any other game in the series.
You could tell there was a lot of time and care and love poured into this game and it shows.
An overall great game that could standalone as its own project.
Fallout New Vegas: The best of Fallout 1&2. Honestly, there's so much I like about the game I can literally write an essay about it. It takes all the problems with Fallout 2&3 and makes something... Beautiful out of it.
It has good themes which almost have a meta flavour to them. Honestly, just an amazing game.
Pretty much this. Can't decide if Fallout 3 or 4 is the worst. Fallout 4 has some good ideas that almost redeem it, but everything is so lazily executed...
NV might be based on the same technology as F3 and reuse a lot of assets, but in terms of writing and gameplay they are very different. NV added so many improvements to the gameplay it's not even funny anymore.
/edit:
As for the desert in NV being boring and brown... Well, yeah. As others have pointed out, it's how it looks.
https://imgur.com/gallery/Qa9J8
I agree to some degree, though, F3 had a more enjoyable wasteland. It was puke green and the settlements didn't make sense, but damn if Bethesda doesn't have great artists. Really nailed the architecture.
Last edited:
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
It was a desert.
*Seriously... it was a desert, that's what deserts look like. IRRC the lead developer went on a motorcycle trip into that desert to see what it was like—and that's what it's like.
ironmask
A Smooth-Skin
I think I'm in the minority when I say that I don't like fallout 1/2 combat that much. I like the games a lot, the characters, the lore, locations, quest, and dialogue in fallout 1/2 are amazing but combat is the weakest part for me. I prefer NV combat over 1/2.
0wing
Все умрут, а я волномут
I think it's worse when developers show that they could do things right if they care but they clearly don't to the point of outright showing off their disdain for the audience, both Fallout fans and their own. And sales don't matter, Bethesda's reputation alone could sell a true RPG the same 12 million copies. New Vegas sure did, Zenimax' disdain for Obsidian doesn't matter. TES fans saw this a mile away when Skyrim and it's DLC packs released. At least in F3 case you know it's shit and the team is not up to snuff for developing video games.
If anyone after this magnificent piece of Emil's spoken mind ever pick F3 or F4, those people sure deserve to be treated like shit.
Last edited: