Forum:Let's End This Here and Now

I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC) I'm tired of the constant Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas debate. We need to stop this, otherwise we will be divided further and further, not just as gamers but as different groups among the different groups of gamers. We have to stop this before it gets out of control. I hereby initiate a several month long vote. Fallout 3 vs. Fallout New Vegas. Place your votes, declare your evidence, and get ready for the trial and the judge and jury. Let's do this. Sombar1 23:35, December 2, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas for weapons and story, FO3 for wasteland. Epsilon616 01:03, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

A noble idea, but ultimately flawed. Fallout attracts Geeks, Geeks argue over the canon of their favourite universe seemly divided until their universe is badmouthed by a group of fans of another world. FO3 Vs New Vegas debates will continue, just as FO3 vs FO1/2 Tactics Vs Anything and even FO1 v FO2 continue today. If you want to unite us you need to give us a common enemy. Agent c 01:08, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Twilight? AngryNorwegianDude (Talk) 07:39, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear, hear! *joyfully blasts Edward in the head with a Gauss Rifle and the Bloody Mess perk* Thecrystalcrow 10:37, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * NO! The Zap Glove works so much better! CLEAR! *ZAP* MoonshadowDark
 * Heavy Incinerator FTW. Agent c 22:38, December 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 New Vegas of Honour - Black Ops is the best game ever! Gunner Bill 21:02, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you trying to accomplish? YuriKaslov 21:06, December 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently he wants to get beat to death with a crate...
 * That was not funny. Beat him with that crate. MoonshadowDark

Hmm, to unite against a common enemy, it shouldn't be a book or a fps. We need a shitty rpg. Any suggestions? Sombar1 04:20, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy. Which one, you ask? All of them. The Captain (radio) 18:12, December 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be talking about Sephiroth. You're asking for a chest impalement. Here's a shitty RPG. Star Wars: The Clone WarsMoonshadowDark

Lol, yeah, Final Fantasy. and star wars games besides the lego ones generally suck, so I'm with you there. hmm, what else is there? Or maybe we should unite against COD or Assasin's creed or something like that. Sombar1 22:35, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

I loved Final Fantasy, but I agree with you about the Star Wars games. How about WoW? I hate grinding out levels. *yawn* Thecrystalcrow 23:22, December 4, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a poll to determine which of these franchises the peoples democratic republic of the vault should declare war on? Agent c 00:11, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Or, we could just attack every other game cuz they're all inferior to Fallout. our warships will beach at WoW, then our land troops will take the cities of COD while our airforce bombs Halo and Final Fantasy. It will all end with a final showdown with Mass Effect and Dragon Age with our entire force. Sombar1 03:33, December 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Woah woah woah! Mass Effect is fun. What other game allows you to pull hot alien ass like that? MoonshadowDark
 * Oh, man, I was joking. I love Mass Effect and stuff. I was just saying Fallout is better. I love all the games I listed (except WoW and Dragon Age, those I'm just Okay with). Sombar1 03:45, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the constant debates are really fun to watch, and I disapprove of this attempt to stop the madness. Nitty Tok. 03:46, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Im in if we cant beat the shit out of FF13.--Kevin the Otaku 05:11, December 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, XIII was a major disappointment, especially after so long a wait. :( Thecrystalcrow 13:40, December 12, 2010 (UTC)

Anytime there is a new Fallout game I don't argue about it, I am too happy they made it.

Looking back I think F3 was rather plain compared to FNV. F3 really needed gun mods, which alone makes me like FNV much better. Also I got soooo sick of rooting through gigantic vaults in F3, and I'm VERY happy FNV doesn't have many. Mcvtec 09:15, December 13, 2020 (UTC)

I like the look of Fallout 3 better then Vegas. Though it is what 100 years in the future? The desplation of D.C. was just breathtaking. When i walked out of the Vault for the first time and my eyes adjusted, The first thing i saw was devistation. I was an outsider on my first adventure. In Vegas you have been traveling the "Wasteland" since im assuming you could walk. I know that as players we asre finding each location as new, but now I see a town, i put my weapon away untill i see red lines. Where as in 3 i never put the hunting rifle away. The Lone Kobold 22:32, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 3 vs Fallout: New Vegas

Companions:

NV wins, hands down. In FO3, the companions are keyed to player karma, and the first one you can acquire throught the normal course of play is Jericho. You must be evil enough for him to join you, a handicap for white-knight types. Charon is the only companion that can be acquired without meeting a karma requirement. In NV, Boone is the first easily acquirable companion, and he has enough firepower to make him very worthwhile to players early in the game as well as throughout. Companions in NV also have more depth, and the specific companion quests are well written and interesting. The only thing lacking in NV is Dogmeat, as Rex is cool, but he's just not Dogmeat. However, factional requirements are more diffficult in NV, as some companions will not work with you if you choose to support Caesar's Legion.

Character Customization:

NV wins again, with a highly customizable player character as opposed to FO3. It is more difficult to make a total powerhouse as you could in FO3, however, but as the player reaches higher levels, there are no issues taking on any enemies that are encountered, unless the player character is a melee specialist-this will always be an extra challenge.

Weapons:

NV has it again with the various weapons and modifications available, with decently powered weapons easily acquired early enough in the game to make a difference. Weapon mods could have been better, as it would have been nice to be able to apply more than one modification to each weapon. Rare and/or special weapons are also easy to acquire.

Radio:

FO3 wins this one. New Vegas' radio offerings are few, the music more repetitive than FO3, and the sole announcer, Mr. New Vegas, is bland and boring. The latest patch does have him commenting on your recent exploits, which is a bit of an improvement.

Dialogue:

I have to give this one to FO3. There was much more humor in FO3 as compared to NV. New Vegas takes a different direction, with darker themes and more difficult morality choices that make it a much more seriously minded game for the player. Personally, I prefer some humor interspersed with my gaming, and FO3 had me laughing out loud in several places, where in NV the dialogue is a consistant litany of woe from everyone you meet.

Gameplay NV is much more extensive than the CW, which a huge area to explore. That being said, the quests drive your explorations, with many of the quests being fetch/carry/return types. This is standard in RPGs, but I believe NV went too far, as every quest seems to have the player returning to the initiator several times to effect completion. Almost every location has a quest tied to it, with something you have to find and return with an item or information to the originator. Personally, I find this extremely boring. The fun of discovering a new location and exploring it thoroughly is taken away by having to return again and again for meaningless “make work” delivery quests. In FO3, the main quest was linear and therefore limited, but the side quests were much more interesting and less repetitive, with the only “return and return” type quest being the Wasteland Survial Guide, which you could avoid most of and receive the Dream Crusher perk.

I realize that this is my opinion (and we all know what is said about opinions), but I personally find that I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, since to me, the game felt more fun and less like a chore. That being said, I still love to play NV, and am waiting for the DLC for more post-apocalyptic adventure.

Thecrystalcrow 00:56, December 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree on some of these points..Companion comparison is kind of moot. While NV's are an improvement, they're still not..good. Other than being pure damage and item storage that is. Gannon: We're in combat! *pew pew pew pew pew* Courier: Uhm..Gannon, we're taking heavy fire..Could you do something like fall back, take cover, or otherwise do anything of strategic value? Gannon: NO! *pew pew p- [Arcade Gannon has died!] [You lose the Better Healing perk] Courier: /facepalm Mr New Vegas isn't bland or boring per se, he just isn't meeting the radio personality of your preference. His character fits well considering the setting, and the VA played the role just fine. I know that Three-dog was supposed to be inspiring and encouraging for the Capitol Wastes, hence the gratuitous enthusiasm. Pitting the primary radio personas against each other doesn't much accomplish anything as they're playing to different kinds of charm to fit in their respective game worlds. They're both accomplished rather well, and they're going to have contrasts, as they should. If "Four-dog" was in NV instead, people would then be playing the One Trick Pony complaint, as well as it being kind of awkward considering the huge difference of circumstances in NV.  Lack of humor? Sure, you might not have little kids cussing you out...But did you miss the gang of Elvis impersonators? The endless pools of snark that are Veronica and Gannon? (and to a lesser extent Raul and his sarcasm, but he admittedly suffers from poor writing and line delivery) Black Mountain Radio? There's even a conversation with Yes Man that goes like this: Selection: "The Chip was supposed to activate an army of Securitrons at the Fort, but I blew it up." Yes Man: "You... blew it up? It's just funny, because that... army... seems like the secret weapon that was the whole point of... you know? I really admire how you stack the odds against yourself! Yeah, make things challenging! It's great. Really. Yeah."  Point is, NV isn't really lacking elements from FO3, they're just implemented in different ways, and so each game has it's own charm to it. I think rather than try to find ways to objectively favor one, with reasons that can only be subjective, we should be respecting and recommending both games for their strengths, as they're both great. Voltaic Volition 11:18, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, neither FO3 or FNV were "better". They were just different! It's like FO1 and FO2, they're both amazing and great games, but they also have bad things about them that causes the disputes. These games aren't better, worse, or at the same level. They can't really be compared because they are different. I think the only thing that matters is that both games were fun. 67SunsetStrip 12:14, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The new guy's gonna weigh-in (just for the fun of it) with a pro-and con list...

Fallout 3: Pros (in no particular order)

1) Roots: You get to play through your childhood (well, some of it anyway).

2) Seldom-used main plot: "[Insert authority figure here] told me that the world's been destroyed and there's nothing left outside our bunker, but I (or someone I know) have been outside and seen the truth. Now I'm persecuted by the authorities and shunned by friends and family, so I have to leave the bunker and embark on an exciting adventure." Not exactly original, but I've only seen this formula twice in print (Philip K. Dick's "The Defenders," Jack Vance's "The Pnume"), and rarely in film ("THX 1138," "Logan's Run," "The Matrix," and to some extent, "Repo"). I've never seen it used as the backstory for a video game.

3) Awe-inspiring visuals: The D.C. skyline, the inside of Oasis, the fireball over Megaton as seen from Tenpenny Tower... I could go on.

4) Non-stop discovery: There's always someone to talk to, something to see, something to loot, or something to fight around every corner. I actually *avoid* fast-travel for this reason, and even after five playthroughs, I'm still finding new people and places.

5) D.C. actually *feels* like a city: I'd guesstimate it at about a mile across from the National Guard depot to the Jefferson Memorial. Nothing compared to the *actual* city, but pretty big for a video game.

6) Flavor: The Capital Wasteland abounds with characters, places, objects, and notes that tell the story of postwar Maryland and the numerous and varied attempts to build a new civilization on the remains of the old.

7) The ultimate taboo...nukes: The "Megaton" bomb (which has an actual yield of around one kiloton, based on the blast and crater dimensions), the "Fat Man" launcher, the "Highwater Trousers" satellite, and the "Bradley-Hercules" satellite are all player-controllable nuclear weapons. I've *never* encountered a video game which allows the player to deploy nuclear warheads against human targets.  Never.  Even today, 19 years after the end of the Cold War, popular culture depicts all nuclear weapons, regardless of type or yield, (and often nuclear powerplants as well) as "so-powerful-the-world-will-end-if-it-is-ever-activated" weapons of ultimate doom.  Because of this, "good guys" are only allowed to use nukes against aliens or inanimate objects.

8) Making myself useful: The majority of side-quests in Fallout 3 make the player feel as if he's actually accomplished something by completing them, and some offer interesting non-monetary rewards.

9) Retro-futurism: Pre-war military technology is exactly like what Smith, Heinlein, Asimov, et. al. predicted for the 21st century. Powered armor, orbiting nuclear battlestations and even a computerized commander-in-chief.

Fallout 3: Cons (also in no particular order)

1) Men (and women) of few words: There definitely aren't enough conversation options for NPCs.

2) Shedding the mortal coil: Companions can (and do) do this more often than I'd like.

3) Friendly fire: Companions also tend to walk into my line of fire more often than I'd like, leading to #2 above.

4) Les Enfants Terrible: Children in F.O.3 are unkillable witnesses to the PCs crimes, who turn everyone else in their faction hostile.

5) No climate change?: Other than overcast skies and an occasional haze in the air, the weather never changes. Doesn't it ever rain in Maryland?  Doesn't the Potomac ever freeze in the Winter?

6) You can't take it with you: ...So why do I get dinged for stealing if I loot an NPC's house after he's dead? And why do some locations have clearly owned objects that are green (okay to take), and/or clearly unowned pieces of trash (i.e. empty bottles and cans on the floor) that are red?

New Vegas Pros (still in no particular order)

1) Handloading and cooking!!!: Two of my favorite things to do (besides shooting and eating, that is). Only downside is that you're limited to a few pre-set recipes for each caliber (and where *does* the Courier get jacketed bullets for reloading?).

2) Damage Threshold: To a gun-nut like me, this makes *worlds* more sense than the old Damage Reduction system. I don't have the time or space here to explain projectile penetration and terminal ballistics, but suffice it to say that while some armor may only slow down some rounds, other rounds won't penetrate it at all. So reducing damage from *all* hits by the same percentage (as the DR system did) makes no sense whatsoever.

3) Food heals over time: This makes a *lot* more sense than an instant health boost. Would make even more sense if it took tens of hours and required rest and proper hydration as well, but some of that is touched upon in Hardcore, so I can't really complain.

4) Faction reputation: This makes more sense than karma. It also allows you to truly take sides in the game's final conflict (you burn your bridges behind you, just like real life).

5) More interesting conversations: More in-depth conversation options (at least for companions).

6) Friendship has its priviliges: Companion quests and perks are definitely a plus.

7) Friendships that last forever: Immortal companions let you spend more time playing and less time babysitting.

8) Two new varieties of Nuka-Cola: ...Because everything goes better with Nuke!

9) Reinforced armor: New looks, better protection levels; what's not to like?

10) Thousands...will melt in the whirlpool of light!: Okay, so it's not Zeon's Solar Ray weapon, but Archimedes II rocks just the same.

11) Friends in need: Friendly factions aid you in the final battle, making faction reputation that much more important.

New Vegas Cons (no, I don't mean the Powder Gangers)

1) Tabula rasa: Cue Cyndi Lauper ("we have no past / we won't reach back...").

2) Revenge fantasy: Yep! The same old cliche plot used in *every* western and 80s action movie.  "Someone wronged me and I'm a-gonna track 'im down!"  Give me a break!

3) A whole lotta nothin': The Mojave Wasteland seems to consist of isolated pockets of life separated by vast reaches of empty terrain. It really breaks-up the action of the game (unless you've already visited your destination, in which case fast-travel can prevent a *lot* of boredom).

4) Cowboy up?: A historically accurate single-action revolver with smooth wooden grips, loading gate, and single-case manual ejection is a poor choice for self-defense, and it's also *very* expensive compared to a modern automatic. So why is it that everybody in F.O.N.V. seems to have one? And where did they get those cowboy outfits?  Are they all card-carrying S.A.S.S. members or something?

5) Morte Las Vegas: What happened to Sin City? I know the game devs have to scale-down cities to fit the game map, but the real Las Vegas is actually bigger than Washington D.C., while New Vegas is actually much smaller than the D.C. Ruins from F.O.3...what gives?

6) Les Enfants Terrible, part deux: Children are *still* unkillable, but there are fewer of them, so they don't see as much.

7) Endless Summer: The weather in the Mojave never changes at all.

8) NPCs pick up and use consumable items (applying the effects to the P.C.).

9) Not in my backyard!: No nuclear weapons. But Archimedes II pretty much makes up for that, so this "con" doesn't really count, I guess.

Yes, that was a long list. In my defense, I did cut it down a lot before posting it.

My 2 cents... PandRNframe 05:40, December 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, you actually smash New Vegas for being a proper RPG and allowing you to write your own backstory for the character? And praise Fallout 3's juvenile carefree approach to nuclear weapons, while claiming that no other game allows you to use them against humans? I have to assume that all your references to movies and sci-fi novels are taken from Wikipedia, since if you really were so well versed in science-fiction, you'd know that the Command & Conquer series, in nearly every installment, permit the use of nuclear weapons against your enemies. World in Conflict, one of the more recent titles also doesn't have any problems with that. I could grind your opinion into fine red mist, but I simply don't have the time nor the will to do so. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/fallout/images/0/08/Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 09:58, December 16, 2010 (UTC)

Bethesda actually did a shit job of portraying DC. YuriKaslov 11:06, December 16, 2010 (UTC)