Forum:Fallout 3 Is clearly better

After ten hours playtime in this glitchy, half baked mess of a game, I have concluded that Fallout 3 is clearly better. Here are my reasons...

> The story of NV is lazy. It's the sort of story that would feature in a crappy B movie starring a clint eastwood wannabe. It's nowhere near as good as that of Fallout 3. > The setting just doesn't work. > Glitches, glitches, glitches. Scorpions stuck in the ground, random freezing, floating rocks. Plus a modded Weathered 10MM Pistol appears as a giant red thing with an exclamation mark. I havn't played this game in a week, because I simply can't be bothered with the glitches. I'm waiting until it's totally fixed. > Bland character design and acting. > No real introduction. You're kind of just thrown into it... > Uninspired locations. > Very little to do. > Super mutants look like theyre from cartoons. > Game comes across a joke, as if it's a parody of it's own back story... > The graphics are actually worse in some cases. > Too many weapons means not enough detail in any of them. > The map is quite big, but is full of giant unclimbable rock structures that take up at least 30% of it. > It feels like an early build of the game was released as the final product...

I'm seriously disappointed in this game. Bethesda would have made it awesome...

Schneidend 19:39, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * 10 hours in you haven't even really touched the main story. It gets a lot better once you get back the Platinum Chip and all the major factions take an interest in you.
 * Fallout 3 was and still is full of glitches, especially radscorpions stuck in the ground and freezing.
 * Bland character design and acting? The character modeling is the same as FO3.
 * What more introduction do you need? You were a courier on assignment, somebody stole your McGuffin and left you for dead. Ron Perlman and Matthew Perry explain the whole thing.
 * I'll give you the locations bit. FO3 had a few more memorable places, but New Vegas has some interesting stuff like Vault 11, the Sunset Sarsparilla Headquarters, Vault 22, H&H Tools Factory, and Jacobstown. But, 10 hours in, you didn't have time to find these places.
 * Very little to do? Almost twice as many quests as FO3. Again, ten hours in.
 * Super mutants are from cartoons. They're made by "Science!" instead of "science."
 * Purely subjective and yet pretty baseless. NV's tone is actually very serious for much of the game.
 * If you say so. They look remarkably cleaned up in my opinion.
 * The detail of the weapons is fine, as all of the uniques are genuinely different in appearance this time around. The real problem is the lack of weapon mod variety. You can equip up to three mods, but most weapons don't even have three mods.
 * The places you can't explore were likely left barren so they could put DLC in those regions without having to magically transport you to a new area.
 * Works fine for me. No more buggy/glitchy than FO3's initial release.

I personally think that comparing the two games together is very hard. FO3 had a more isolated feel to it, I felt like it was more about my character. FO:NV felt more like it was about the faction my character joined. Also FO3 was made before FO:NV. That means FO:NV should have learned something about glitches. (BTY Bethesda, people DON'T like glitches.) FO:NV did have more glithces than FO3 and I have tested that on an XBOX, a PS3 and on my friends gaming computer. I personally thought FO:NV storyline was fine, FO3 storyline was fine as well. However one BIG thing missing from FO:NV was the sheer fact that it wasn't as memorable. In FO3 I remember looking up at the crumbled Washington Monument and saying, "Geez." Also there was NOTHING even close to the caliber of awesome that FO3 had during the nuking of Megatown. I did feel a little disapointed that FO:NV didn't do anything new with the graphics. I do thin I'll wait until all the DLC's have come out for FO:NV until I make a formal decision on which one I like better.


 * What I wouldn't give for a mod for the Dinner Bell >_<. Anyone who has issues with the detail perhaps needs to up their graphics settings. And to this I have to add in there's the fact that now your skills serve even more purpose than in FO3. More speech checks and more stuff to fix. Like Snuffles. Sometimes I go talk to that thing just for the sake of chatting with a molerat. And there are some excellent new perks. New Vegas is not Fallout 3 and people seem to be having problems dealing with that. Yes it's a different setting and no the storyline is not as engaging, but all the new stuff that's been brought in makes up for that. I went back to FO3 for a break before I start NV over again after 95 hours, and the only thing I miss about Fallout 3 is the sheer amount of stuff to kill. I could be crazy, but I swear the Mojave has less stuff to kill...Finding Deathclaw Promontory was like Christmas come early... Personworm 13:07, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

A "modded" weathered 10mm pistol with a giant red exclamation sign means you have a DDX texture file.

DDX texture file is associated with the xbox 360 version, just sayin' Wertoret 21:23, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

The reason the weathered 10mm does that is because you modded a unique weapon. For some odd reason, it slipped through the "Do not allow mods" listing.

New Vegas is way more stable than Fallout 3, which wouldn't even run on my Windows 7 machine unless I reinstalled the damn OS first. Also unlike Fallout 3 it hardly crashes at all, compared to Fallout 3 crashing 3 times in a single hour.

Here's what I think: It isn't about who's better or worse, it is about innovation. Bethesda took an idea and moved it elsewhere, something that hadn't been done in a true fallout game. Fallout was simply pushed to D.C., bringing with it a couple of the past factions and foes and bringing up new factions and stories. Fallout 3 was a let down at points, as we all know, such as with the over-rating of the size of cities and such, but this is a problem of the generation of gaming we are at. Games simply don't have an insane amount of NPCs as of yet. One day, but not today. As well as this, Fallout 3 had glitches, and some pissed me off beyond belief (like one where I had gotten stuck between a wall and junk pile and had to reload a save from TWO HOURS AGO). Fallout New Vegas has some very serious glitches as well. So far, these two games are tied, head to head. No I'll throw one in for NV. NV has more quests, more areas, more people, and minigames, which I love. Now, the take down. Fallout 3 was brilliantly original and innovative and creative beyond belief, as was FNV, but FNV is from a higher era, a more modern era where MORE greatness is expected and MORE quality is required. Matching a game from the past won't cut it. But, I digress. As of now, New Vegas is superior, but as a generational ranking, meaning how great something is for its time (such as the camera work of Citizen Kane, brilliant at the time, average in ours), Fallout 3 is superior.

I know several people who didn't like FO3 because the plot, while engaging, was too railroaded, and so much of the game was about the main plot. They missed the old freedom of F1-2, heck, even stuff like running straight from Arroyo to Navarro for that MkII Power armor. One of the best parts of F:NV is the return to this more open storytelling. Some think it's a downside because the plot doesn't have such a strangle grip anymore.

I like Fallout 3 More, cause first of all the quests were cool , the area was fun to explore , the story is much better than people make it out to be (really i dont understand this .. why is water a lame storyline ?) the weapons were fun , the charecters were funny , i dont really give a flying fart about voice acting but well thats just me :) , Now Fallout New vegas , i found the Story Boring and uninspired , the main quest would have actually been better if it was a side quest , the Map is filled with rather unexciting places BUT i will say it still has a few cool places , there may have been more quests but it felt like i was doing the same thing over and over again , in fallout 3 the quests were cool and had fun Backstorys behind them , in Fallout New vegas there were so many quests they coudnlt put enough work into making them intresting , they got rid of some cool weapons and armor ( the CSA doesnt make you invisible in FNV??!) and they Barely ever made any mention of charecters from Fallout 3 , and another thing that annoyed me was the fact that there wasnt really that much Destruction in new vegas , and that kinda put me off playing even more cause ,i was really looking forward to how they would Make Vegas in a destroyed form , but they took the simple road and left it intact , and the surrounding area was already a desert and still is , which really isnt Intresting to *Adventure* through , it felt more like one of those Trips that you dont want to go on but you have to so you can keep your freinds happy or something , im not gonna judge it on Graphics cause i aint the kind of guy who cares about that stuff , And i dont like the Fact that they Make mention of the Vault Dweller and Chosen one , But its as if the Lone wanderer never existed , so my final opinion is that fallout 3 was a really cool game , and Fallout new vegas is an Above Average game , But still Pretty cool but no That much :) ..

ok this is my stand on the game, it clearly had to much hype and the designers over at bethesda clearly got lazy

1. the main quest line is just god awful 2. what happened to the BoS in fallout 3 they are incredible but in this one they are pissing themselves because the ncr got helios one 3. what happened to the enclave yea they had the remnants but just because adams air force got blown up dosent mean that the entire enclave magically died i mean i understand that with the oil rig and navarro gone that would of set them back but i think by about roughly 80 years the would of rebuilt 4.caesers legion is the worst peice of garbage faction ive ever scene 30 year old men who dress like the romans 5. dead money was just pure garbage it was lazy and boring and i didnt get anything out of it 6. again the story line sucks i mean your a courier who lives from a shot to the head what the hell thats impossible 7.the companions are awful i mean a robot dog? if they can do that then why not just rebuild the wasteland ten lily the grandma nightkin its a joke raul i hated mainly because its like in fallout 3 i get charon the 7 foot tall bad ass with a shotgun and now i have raul with a revolver who can fix stuff and charges me caps for it? i saved his sorry ass from super mutants. 8. black mountain and jacobstown the only supermutant places and one of them is freindly WTF! i looked forward to fighting some crazy ass super mutants and i get this? i mean how lazy could they get 9. ok the ncr is to big they clearly would get killed by the brother hood and they cant even take the legion i mean really? 10. ok this is what gets me really mad in fallout 3 i get to explore the D.C ruins and they actually talk about the prewar and acknowledge it but NV they have las vegas lights and casinos imean in fo3 people had to rough it. ok ill rap this up but 1 last thing before i go ive never played fo1 and fo2 but i am sure that them and fo3 clearly are better than this lazy un thought of uinspiring story line i am mad i am relying on add ons as i speak i am playing fo3 and i have NV sitting right here beleive me i was dissapointed but i understad they were trying out new ideas at bethesda and thats ok but please just go back to the twisting turning story of the original fallouts.

Not to be a wanker or anything, but the last guy obviously does not quite get the brotherhood of steel, or the fallout story on the west-ish coast in general. I need to clear some things up.

1. That is opinion. Personally I like the main quest in New Vegas, it was very dynamic in that you could choose to help the NCR, Legion, Mr House or make Vegas your own. But that is all subjective.

2.The Brotherhood were formed in the west coast, and their main goal was preserving technology for "their" use. The brotherhood seen in Fallout 3 were an offshoot of the brotherhood, who decided that protecting the people there was more important. the Outcasts were a good reason why they weren't supposed to. After fallout 2, the Original Brotherhood of Steel had a war with the NCR, which is the reason they were hiding in a bunker during New Vegas.

3.The Enclave were decimated in the west coast, and they were decimated in the east coast. Chances are they are not ready at all anymore to take france if france was populated entirely by white flags. Frankly with the amount of resources they have lost from both fallout 2&3, they aren't going anywhere fast.

4.Ceasers Legion, well they do seem wierd, but its more that they modeled themselves on an old civiliastion, perhaps in delusions by ceaser himself, who declared himself ceaser, son of mars. Cant really explain much, but its more that he wants power.

5.Well, seeing as I am a PC player I havent touched dead money yet. But soon *Sigh* :). From what I heard, the story is that the treasure courupts the human mind, but the real treasure was the sierra madre himself, dedicated to the founders lover by the Founder.

6.It "is" possible to get shot in the head and live. One, the old world itself is based off a strange alternate future, and also, headshots are only lethal in certain parts of the brain. Also, benny probably missed all of the sweet spots and basically grazed the top of your head.

7.The robot dog was a pre-war K-9 police dog unit. So they cant do that without pre-war tech. The grandma nightkin was an interesting idea in my opinion, as she keeps trying to reach out to her past, which she cannot, and its wreaking havoc on her mental state. Raul has lived a tough life, and is the oldest ghoul in any fallout game.

8.The supermutants are the remnants from the Masters army, from fallout 1. Marcus was in Fallout 2. The thing is, the west-coast supermutants are different from the east coast, especially since Marcus and other supermutants that retained intellegence realised their wrongdoings and seek acceptance in the new world. And you do get to fight crazy-ass supermutants. they are called nightkin. AFAIK there were no supermutants that could go invisible in F03. Also, since you fight supermutants in a lot of the game in fallout 1, and there were only 2 friendly ones in Fallout 3, I find the friendlier super mutants a refreshing change.

9. What you failed to realise here is the the NCR is massive. Massive. They have the entire west coast of the united states (well, california anyway. US geo isnt my specialty, Im a New Zealander living in Australia). The Brotherhood on the west coast are reclusive bigots. They have lots of tech, power armour, lazer rifles, you name it, but technology is nothing against manpower and persistance. The reason why they retreated to the Hidden valley bunker is because their hold at Helios one deteriorated to the point that they would all be dead within a short time. The NCR is only struggling with the Legion in Nevada, but of course they cant uproot ALL of their military positions just to fight for the mojave desert. That would be strategic suicide for their non-legion fronts. Its also political. They cant just go willy nilly into enemy territory. It might upset the locals.

10.You missed the point again. Mr house had defense mechanisms that disabled or destroyed most of the nukes that headed towards the Mojave. The Hoover dam is intact so thats where they get most of their power.

And about fallout 3. Fallout 3 had its problems too. I did enjoy Fallout 3, in fact I had played it before I had played fallout 1 and 2, but my interest was perked by it so I gave the first a try.

But upon my research into the game, I found many problems with the story in Fallout 3. The story, despite a few funny characters, lacked a lot of the sarcastic charm the the first 2 games, and even new vegas had. fallout 3 tended to take itself a bit too seriously, when Fallout was always throwing in elements of satire to explain the bleakness. I also did not like the fact that the raiders were all from one tribe, not from multiple tribes like in the first 2.

I cant really say much more about it. For one, its late for me and I have school tomorrow, and im tired, but I think I have said enough.

It saddens me that people don't appreciate this game as much as they should. Also, New Vegas is fronted by some of the people who worked on the original 2 fallouts. If you properly look into it, this game's story actually is far superior and more of a canon continuation of the first two fallouts.

And another thing about the Lone wanderer not being mentioned. This is the inner west coast. Fallout 3 takes place on the East coast. It would take too long for him to reach the region, and there is no real reason for him to. The fruits of his labour lie in the potomac river. 5t3v0 10:34, February 8, 2011 (UTC)

i loved fallout 3, and as for new vegas i loved the weapons since they had unique skins and everything else, which explained more strength/effectiveness, but fallout 3 i always felt that the only big annoying bug was that it froze up a good amount, while in new vegas i may have some lags but pft, that's hardly having to reload a older save or auto save, and in fallout 3 the story was more intricate because you actually saw your character grow up, while at the same time got to shape your character as you go so you had the back story, AND the all around control over your characters story 2, while in new vegas your flung into the action by being shot in the head and waking up and then stumbling into chaos, i loved scouting the decaying citys, watching out for super mutants at every turn and knowing your gun is NOT strong enough for you to wade out into that sea of super mutants outside the museum, so your probably safer sneaking by instead of leeroying into the fray, while in new vegas if u find a anti material rifle you can pretty much walk around with ease knowing any deathclaw with the cajones to take u on will likely have his head explode, and granted in fallout 3 u could just stumble upon the experimental merv and use it till u run outa ammo, but the thing is a good number of these unique guns are hidden well, meanwhile in fallout new vegas few of the hard to find guns are really much better than the ones u can get by walking into some cave and stumbling upon something, meanwhile the story from fallout new vegas just seems like a side quest, which does tell you to explore more, but then after an hour of walking around you've been over 1/4 the map and the rest of it looks like the 1/4 you've been in, why cant i explore around the continent outside of the legionares camp? because i might find the main bosses camp? pft just make it inaccessible, all in all id say new vegas has more quests, but there kinda bland some, and at a certain point you stop caring about the story because all its going to do is lead you towards some boss fight where after its over, its totally over. while in fallout 3 exploring was more intriguing, granted 3/4 the buildings were inaccessible for no reason and the weapons were more bland, really it'll all come down to the remaining dlcs for new vegas, i know no more continue after u beat the game, but hell half the fun in fallout 3 was all the dlcs, so ill hold out on any decision till i play them all. Sounga 00:38, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea that Fallout 3 is more intricate because you watch your character grow up. Granted, that is a good thing too, it gives some sense of attachment to your character FOR SOME. Personally, I did not feel too much of a connection with my character in fallout 3.

I felt a bigger connection with my character in New vegas, I gave him my name, and I made him into someone like me. I gave him a high guns skill (like my real life interests), Gave him relatively high intelligence (because I like to think I am just that smart ;) ) and I made him wear glasses. Despite the fact that there was no growing up involved, The character felt like me. I imagined that he grew up in a family similar to mine (albeit, probably more war torn) and I felt like he was me.

Now, nerdy as it sounds, I liked it better than having your entire life planned out for you at the start. I like the sense of freedom the lack of the prior explained story gave me, but hearing that there will be more explained will not hurt. I think what we have to agree on is that both ways are intricate in their own right, but are different and cannot really be compared. Thats just my opinion anyway. 5t3v0 08:00, February 10, 2011 (UTC)

I have played Fallout New Vegas for over 100 hours and it is by far the best game i have ever played. Fallout 3 was awesome but it was glitchyyy.. while wondering through the wasteland a car came flying from no where and landed on top of me. Nothing had ever happened like that to me in FNV. There are also over twice as many quest as there is in fallout 3. The reason there is no Enclave is because the NCR destroyed them in fallout 2. The reason Brother Hood Of Steel is getting there butts kicked is because the NCR has more numbers. Also there are far more weapons then in fallout 3 like the Anti Material Rifle. Some of the glitchy problems might be caused because you are running on a PC and not an Xbox 360. If so you should try to update your PC.

Actually I have heard more bug complaints on the 360 version. Im using the PC version and aside from a few NPC clipping problems, a slightly broken quest (we will all go together) and a few crashes once in a while (which I get from many games anyway) There were hardly any as described by others. 5t3v0 20:50, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

SergeantDornan: I like NV better then FO 3, but there are aspects of FO3 I liked more then in NV. I liked the isolation. I did want MORE settlements in FO3, but NV is a bit over the top for me. I understand it takes place in an area that was not hit has hard as DC, but damn...you can't travel for 15 mins without running into a settlement of SOME kind. IDK, I would like them to return to a more ballanced population, like the FO1 and FO2 games. Sure, there were many settlements, but they were more spread out with large open areas of wild wasteland. GOD I loved that.

Whoever said FONV is LESS glitchy then FO3...I have no idea how you come to that conclusion. I've had more bugs/freezes/glitches with NV then I ever had with FO3, excluding the damned GOYT addition. I really wish Bethesda would get their quality Control people to work. WTH are they doing over there?

All in all, Fallout NV is much better then 3, and it bridges the gap between FO2 and 3, as it is closer in gameplay wo the other games. Actually, NV, it has a very FO2ish feel to it, and I love that. I can't wait to see what they do with the next game in the series.

I like both games. I haven't had too many problems in terms of bugs. I have both FO3 and FO:NV for the 360. I have had bug issues myself. As frustrating as they are, we shouldn't let problems like those keep us from playing the game. FO3 has a great story. But just because it has a story doesn't mean that you have to play it. Since both games are free roaming(meaning you can go anywhere and do whatever you want), you can go off and do some side quests before continuing the main game. FO:NV has a good storyline. I hear that the courier is supposed to have a past that will be explored more in depth in a future DLC. I spend most of my time in FO:NV hunting fiends, and wandering about the Mojave. Each game has their pros and cons. In FO3 you have more random encounters, whereas in FO:NV, you can mod your weapons. As for the bugs in the game, not every single game that is released for any system is guaranteed to be 100% bug free. I don't think it's fair to scream and yell at Bethesda's QC people and accuse them of sitting on their hands and not doing their jobs. None of us here can claim to be experts in game development. If Bethesda didn't care, they would not be releasing patches for the games. Bethesda, like any company, does the best they can.--Ryker6100:37, March 25, 2011 (UTC)~5:36pm 3/24/2011

I have played both games for around 50-100 hours each. I won't compare to define one "better" game over the other since our world and the Universe in general isn't like that (except for choosing your soulmate, but even then for some it's not enough.. lol). In terms of depth, lore and ergonomics I like both equally. Even though they use the same game engine (a visual evidence apart from knowing about the GameBryo engine "fueling" both games), they are very different in terms of experience. NV'S factions are much more developed, and I liked the fact of choosing sides, or even playing some double agent in favor of one faction over another. I liked that, it gave me a feeling of having more control over the evolution of my character. However this also brought oddities and bugs if not "by design". For example, IF I side with the NCR and trigger the quest where I must kill Mr. House (For the Republic part 2) BEFORE entering The Tops to recover the chip ("The House Always Wins" part one has started but isn't yet completed), THEN I cannot get into The Tops, the game *always* crashes whenever I activate its door (which is why I'm here writing this post while looking around for a solution). I could say that I prefer NV in terms of RPG experience because more quests are intermingled (at least it feels like it), but this also seem to lead to more bugs and oddities. The real drawback is that we could legitimately expect a less crippled game than its big brother Fallout 3, however it's the opposite, as if the game was running over a brand new engine that still needs some work (or on an old version that was found in Bethesda's back office)! That was my biggest deception with this game which leaves it behind Fallout 3 in my mind : even though it's a complete Overhaul of Fallout 3 (and nothing more than that, it's NOT like a "new" game worth 60$), it looks that Obsidian only developed that game as if it was a new MOD or expansion, leaving all the bugs (and adding some) we could experience in Fallout 3... which in my humble opinion is unacceptable, not worth the money. I did not finish the game because I'm stuck thanks to an undocumented above-mentioned bug. And I don't think that I will invest more of my leisure time into that game (even though I'd like to) since I pass more time trying to make the game work and advance over all the glitches, instead of fully enjoying some IMMERSION... Some other reviewer focused about gaming experience, stating that NV was a "must" if we don't analyze its technical aspects. Well I think that such appreciation is pure con : when the game crashes or freeze here and there for no reason, have your inventory modified when you load or when dealing with some merchant, or obliging you to wear an old cowboy hat just to not have a game crash when entering the strip if some cowboy has been killed but his hat blablablabla (how can one guess about this one, where do they hire their developers, in a strip joint?)... The user experience is directly involved, since the VERY POOR technical aspects of the game has a direct impact over the gamer's experience (DOH!)... To cite another reviewer on another web site, this game is a technical embarrassment, and no serious company should publish to the market a product which still feels like a beta project (do they test their products?). Imagine if we built bridges, sold cars, whatever else, in such a poor quality with a guarantee of having it break during your first tryout, or obliging you to get out the car and then back in to make your breaks and accelerator function... Some judges and lawyers would have a job for a life time! My conclusions for NV : even though I find that the GameBryo engine is just great for all those modders because of its openness, OBSIDIAN'S New Vegas is just A TECHNICAL EMBARRASSMENT, especially considering the use of an engine that has been there for a while and that could have been debugged (to a minimal acceptability) before public release... Come on guys, you're making a pile of money, so go hire competent developers or more of them, some debugging the engine, others developing the game scripts, and most of all some TESTING the product BEFORE release... Else your business don't have any meaning for our world, sucking out cheap production (judged by the results) while asking for premium pricing... EMBARRASSMENT!

Fallout 3 is trash, how can anyone say NV story is lazy then praise Fallout3's stupid story? Bethesda couldn't write a good story if one bit them in the ass. NV is infinitely better than that crap fest known as Falloout3 in EVERY way possible. The person above me should learn the wonders of paragraphs instead of posting a wall of text. Fallout 3 GOTY edition was far worse than ANY version of NV.

Let's see here... environment we will start at. Fallout 3 had more of the post-apocalyptic feel to it, more of a warzone and more of danger, although being 200 years AFTER the war would make this seem improbable, while New Vegas is a bit toned down and less memorable but still gets across its goal of being desolate and safe in various areas. Combat: New Vegas for the win. More guns and better ones, more exciting fights and villains, and iron sights, which was annoying in 3. Story: New Vegas you can pick where you go, which is cool as an rpg, but it also limits the feel you can have for characters, although playing through 3 seven times I just want to side with the Enclave. The motivation of family is more dramatic than revenge depending on who you are. On one hand, I might wish just to reason with Benny and not kill him, and on the other hand I may hate my father and never want to see his face after I leave 101. They both have something to be desired, but New Vegas less of one. Acting: 3 wins. Easy. New Vegas it was like "Oh my god. The killed my family. I'm portraying anger here. aaaaa." And 3 was like "Fuck you bastards! I will mess you up, you fucking freaks!" I could sense the rage in 3, but there was none in New Vegas besides a select few (Matthew Perry was good as enny). GLitches: They both sucked in this field. Not gonna lie.

Now for subjective shit. I felt that in Vegas caps were plenty but worthless, but in 3 they were few but valuable. Go in with a thousand caps in 3 and you are a king, a thousand in Vegas ain't gonna buy you a bus ride home. And I hate the NCR. They are so...normal. They aren't interesting whatsoever. I love the Science! aspect of Fallout, which is why I love the BoS, but the NCR are so typical I just want to shoot them. I thought that Caesar was a good idea but in practice they were the big emphasis on being the bad guy. When you can't play for the bad guy you want to, but when you can it makes you out to be a dick. I hate playing as the Legion, and I hate the NCR. I love HOuse, on the other hand. Very interesting. And the Kings. And the Followers. But the big two, the ones who are supposed to be the best, they are just shit. NCR is too bland and Legion too evil. They should have given NCR more identity and the Legion a more morally gray stance with more missions and settlements. Show me the good of it before I go risking my life for it.

All in all I feel New Vegas was better. Lacking in very obvious elements, but better. It is an acquired taste, and some just haven't gotten used to it yet. Sombar1 23:41, May 14, 2011 (UTC)

Actually I like Fallout New Vegas better because it takes lore more from previous games with a little of Van Buren thrown in I mean who wouldn't want to see Marcus.The only thing Fallout 3 had was the vaults described in the Fallout Bible.NV had that AND Van Buren chips but they should of finished Van Buren in these dlcs. New Canaan will not be in Honest Hearts.68.229.224.66 06:24, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

I must be one lucky SOB, because I have yet to experience this glitch fest people always describe. I mean, yes I’ve seen a scorpion that spawned in the ground on occasion, and every now and then the game will freeze when loading, but good god its not THAT bad nor does it happen often.

Typically when I play Fallout, I play for hours upon end, and it MIGHT freeze on me once in that time. Hell all games do that! I play on Xbox and the only thing I really notice is that after several hours of play the game does slow down when loading, it wont freeze but it will take a couple of minutes to walk out a door. All I do is shut the game down and restart it and that goes away.

I think there are some problems with the game, but the ones I notice are more poor design rather than glitches. The VATS as well as the attack damage system is too random, I know its meant to be that way but sometimes its just makes no sense. At times you will drop a guy with one shot from 100 yards, yet other times the guys 10 feet in front of you and you’ll pump five rounds in VATS into him and he’s still standing afterwards. That makes no damn sense whatsoever.

While playing Honest hearts I snuck up on a sleeping White legs, I was no more than 2 feet from him, pulled out my rifle and put a round right in his head. The only effect it had on him was to wake him up, he sat up and no damage at all had been done.ReapTheChaos 08:13, May 21, 2011 (UTC)