[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] daman825 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PublicToast In the end it's honestly: Atmosphere: Fallout 3 by faaaar Main Quest: Made little sense in 3 but was far more fun to play than new vegas Freedom of Choice: New Vegas Gameplay: New Vegas Not Glitchyness: Fallout 3 Graphics: Fallout 3 Side-Quests: Debatable General Story: New Vegas General Epic Moments: Fallout 3 Your Choices Actually Matter: [b]Neither.[/b][/quote] Wait what? Fallout 3 was the one with vampires. why did they still win that category? [/quote]Haha yeah I realized that it's just I just recently discovered that quest in Fallout 3 after owning it for years so I associated it with the most recent new vegas. Post fixed. [Edited on 09.15.2012 11:20 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lifts Her Tail [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX Snipped. [/quote] I completely agree. In Fallout 3 you can go literally any direction you please after leaving the vault. But in NV you can pretty much go to Primm. or you can try to make it through Deathclaw country, or Cazador country, and after that Fiend country. And at low levels good luck with that. Pretty much until you make it to Novac you are pretty much told where to go. [/quote] You're told where to go for all of 30min-1 hr, which is comparable to the time that you're made to spend in the vault in Fallout 3[/quote] Actually, after you leave the Vault, you never have to continue the story.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] II is over9000 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PublicToast I do believe so, but other's may think differently. Fallout 3 definitely hit post-apocalyptic on the head, New Vegas doesn't really do that. Though I must say I enjoyed the combat in New Vegas a little more with iron sight aiming.[/quote]Fallout 3 did not hit "post-apocalyptic" on the head, because it's set 200 years after the bombs fell and everything looks like it was freshly nuked 3 days ago, permanently. There's no vegetation anywhere besides Oasis, which is completely nonsensical. It's like Bethesda hasn't even heard of Chernobyl.[/quote]I honestly will tell you I don't give a single -blam!- when it's set it certainly felt much more post-apocalyptic. Either way New Vegas was saved and DC wasn't and you can tell. I takes a little less than 200 years(I believe) for radiation to wear off. Since most people were in vaults for most of that time it makes sense not much has changed.

SOLUTION: >buy Fallout 3 >play for a week >if you don't like it, return to Gamestop for full refund >buy New Vegas with refund money If you're unable to stop playing after a week then obviously it's a fun-ass game. I preferred Fallout 3 to New Vegas, personally. EDIT: And the alien abduction DLC for Fallout 3 is a must-play. Great -blam!-. [Edited on 09.15.2012 11:14 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX NV is linear and streamlined whereas F3 is an open world sandbox with much, much more shenanigans. [/quote] NV linear? Did you even play it? Or did you forget the part where you can side with NCR, House, or Caesar. Where in Fallout 3 you can only side with Brotherhood of Steel.[/quote] So you're saying I can either side with a humorous bunch of military folk, a robot, or a bunch of guys wearing skirts? Where's the seriousness anymore? F3 was harsh, gritty, and had select humor only to add to the atmosphere. The game was a nuclear wasteland with a battle-hardened war between two battle-hardened factions. These guys in it for real; they wear armor; they use heavy weaponry; they are serious, and do not wear skirts to war. And by linear, I mean the world in NV is EXTREMELY filtered by invisible barriers, mountains, and canyons that you simply can't climb over. Enemies don't spawn anywhere at any time, but instead are only found in select regions of the map (good example is Rad-scorpions), not to mention the belovedely-hated Albino Rad-scorpion was removed. F3 was completely loot based (not saying NV isn't, just reduced). All over The Capital Wasteland are abandoned warehouses that are stories tall, and fully lootable. In addition, found within DC itself are dozens of un-mapped buildings with tons of unique items. NV only contains two mass-loot buildings, and those are both REPCONN buildings if I'm thinking right. Total letdown. Little things like this completely streamline the game, and severely limit the amount of shenanigans that occur. Admittedly, the story-line did well with it's branches, and the game itself added many great features such as ADS, Hardcore mode, and may others. Even with all these great features, the complete let-down of the geography itself made the game a terrible experience on anything but my first play-through. [/quote] I don't really see where you're coming in with the less-serious part, I mean Fallout 3 had aliens, that whole bit with superheros in that one town, and was just as far out there as New Vegas was. Both games were serious when it counted, during the main storyline. You're complaining about the lack of serious by the guys who wear skirts, in one the first towns you enter those "guys in skirts" burned down a village and crucified the townspeople, I'd say that's plenty serious. You point out the problem about the geography, while this is a problem with New Vegas, it was nowhere nearly as bad as it was in Fallout 3. The Metro system was completely unbearable, there were invisible walls everywhere, and the DC ruins were such a cluster-blam!-. [quote]This is where quality>quantity comes in[/quote] But not really, that one option that you're presented in Fallout 3 is incredibly pants on head retarded that it boggles my mind that people can say that Fallout 3 has a great story. [url=http://i.imgur.com/hhCD1.png]Again see here[/url] [/quote] Really, the metro systems? As unbearable as they may be, at least they're there. Not only is NV's sandbox smaller, but it DOESN'T have metro tunnels. If you don't like them, don't explore them, but they're there for added exploration. And for what you said about F3 having WAY more invisible barriers than NV; that is complete bs. Only DCs interior has barriers, but that's incomparable to the middle of a wasteland. And the bit about the aliens... who says aliens can't be serious? There's plenty of things I didn't mention about NV that I hate, such as getting a perk every 2 levels. This is a single player, no need for balance like this. By the time you download all DLCs and get to lvl 50, you've already done everything in the game, making it worthless. In F3 you can max your character by lvl 30 and have half the game left to explore if not more. This goes for limited skill points as well. Oh yeah, I completely forgot about the Super Mutant, Talon Mercs, and the Regulator factions in F3. Yeah, you can only join the Brotherhood, but these five factions are in an all out war across the entire sandbox, which includes tons of random events where you will come across raging battles over the next hill and cars exploding into tactical nukes nearby. Things like this don't exist in NV because everything is segregated. F3 feels quite similar to the Terminator war, it's serious, gritty, and bloody. When I run through the trenches of DC, the atmosphere is sharp, because I know there's blood hungry mutants with Gatling Lasers stomping across the dirt nearby, and Enclave soldiers landing Vertibirds, dropping off reinforcements to overpower the nearby Brotherhood squad that is attempting to take the line. NV doesn't even have random vertibird events. These multi-faction battles, inside of a complete apocalyptic sandbox is what makes F3 a more enjoyable game. Obviously not for everyone, but for those who understand what a good game is, and for what a game strives to stand for. Like I said before, NV added lots of great features, but completely failed in touching F3.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PublicToast In the end it's honestly: Atmosphere: Fallout 3 by faaaar Main Quest: Made little sense in 3 but was far more fun to play than new vegas Freedom of Choice: New Vegas Gameplay: New Vegas Not Glitchyness: Fallout 3 Graphics: Fallout 3 Side-Quests: Debatable General Story: New Vegas General Epic Moments: Fallout 3 Not having idiotic characters(seriously Vampires?): Fallout 3 Your Choices Actually Matter: [b]Neither.[/b][/quote] Wait what? Fallout 3 was the one with vampires. why did they still win that category?

They are both good, yet being from the same series they're good in surprisingly different ways. In the end it's honestly: Atmosphere: Fallout 3 by faaaar (Vegas made you feel like a cowboy in the beginning and a mobster in the end, not a survivor of the wastes) Weaponry: Fallout 3 (Vegas may have had more but they were all -blam!- like hunting rifles and cowboy repeaters. I've seriously never even found a Fat Man in that game.) Main Quest: Made little sense in 3 but was far more fun to play than new vegas Freedom of Choice: New Vegas Gameplay: New Vegas Not Glitchyness: Fallout 3 Graphics: Fallout 3 Side-Quests: Debatable General Story: New Vegas General Epic Moments: Fallout 3 Continuation: Fallout 3 (New Vegas basically ends after you get to Vegas, it's so much less fun as you have a basicly 100% super safe city to come back to.) Your Choices Actually Matter: [b]Neither.[/b] [Edited on 09.15.2012 11:36 PM PDT]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PublicToast I do believe so, but other's may think differently. Fallout 3 definitely hit post-apocalyptic on the head, New Vegas doesn't really do that. Though I must say I enjoyed the combat in New Vegas a little more with iron sight aiming.[/quote]Fallout 3 did not hit "post-apocalyptic" on the head, because it's set 200 years after the bombs fell and everything looks like it was freshly nuked 3 days ago, permanently. There's no vegetation anywhere besides Oasis, which is completely nonsensical. It's like Bethesda hasn't even heard of Chernobyl.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] bergXX09 >You can walk anywhere >Piles of rubble and rocks everywhere >Metro system only lets you go one way [/quote]BUT IT LETS YOU GO ANYWHERE BECAUSE YOU CAN EXPLORE A GIANT EMPTY WORLD WITH ABOUT 3 POINTS OF INTEREST NEVERMIND THAT DC ITSELF IS 95% SEALED OFF BY AWFUL METRO TUNNELS

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Gottalovec4 Can do more stuff/multiple playthrus in New Vegas depending on the faction you support. But I like Fallout 3's atmosphere wayyy better overall. Although, the first 4 hours of Fallout New Vegas are hands down some of the best I've played in a game. However, fallout 3's atmo is just so....so perfect in every way. Just walk north from Megaton for a few minutes and stop at a highpoint. The emptyness and lonelyness is insane. Sooo good. GNR is better than Radio New Vegas in every way, and the in game music is spectacular. Best way to describe the difference is in the different exploration music [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZxBtLGxvvA]Fallout 3[/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z4rzwLbnFM&list=UUNR2p_7Uj7KAUxHNYLjaK9Q&index=0&feature=plcp]New Vegas[/url] Still desolate, but you know a giant ass city is just over the next ridge. [/quote] Fallout 3 and New Vegas are both more than 200 years after the bombs fell. You should feel like you are about to find a big city because that's how Fallout is. Also, Fallout 3's music sucks including GNR. I'm happy New Vegas tried to make it less swing music and more down country music. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZnOIyc3OkU&feature=relmfu]NV even uses some of Fallout 1's soundtrack which makes the games music even better[/url] [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lifts Her Tail [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX Snipped. [/quote] I completely agree. In Fallout 3 you can go literally any direction you please after leaving the vault. But in NV you can pretty much go to Primm. or you can try to make it through Deathclaw country, or Cazador country, and after that Fiend country. And at low levels good luck with that. Pretty much until you make it to Novac you are pretty much told where to go. [/quote] >Fallout 3 you van go any direction you please >Game holds your hand telling you to go to every single location (Megaton and Rivet City are the only two areas where you can even do anything for 75% of the main storyline and the game makes you go to both right away) >You can walk anywhere >Piles of rubble and rocks everywhere >Metro system only lets you go one way

I do believe so, but other's may think differently. Fallout 3 definitely hit post-apocalyptic on the head, New Vegas doesn't really do that. Though I must say I enjoyed the combat in New Vegas a little more with iron sight aiming.

No.

Fallout New Vegas always liked the New Vegas Strip and Fallout 3 was way too easy

Yes, Fallout 3 is much better.

Op why don't you wait for a sale on Steam and buy them both?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] II is over9000 Fallout 3 was terrible in nearly every way. It only gets so much praise because Bethesda pays off reviewers, and 90% of modern "gamers" have never played an open-world game before.[/quote]I think that people prefer it just because they started the Fallout series with Fallout 3. They should have started with Fallout: A Post-Nuclear RPG.

Way better!

Get Fallout 3 and all of the DLC!

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Lifts Her Tail [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX Snipped. [/quote] I completely agree. In Fallout 3 you can go literally any direction you please after leaving the vault. But in NV you can pretty much go to Primm. or you can try to make it through Deathclaw country, or Cazador country, and after that Fiend country. And at low levels good luck with that. Pretty much until you make it to Novac you are pretty much told where to go. [/quote] You're told where to go for all of 30min-1 hr, which is comparable to the time that you're made to spend in the vault in Fallout 3

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX NV is linear and streamlined whereas F3 is an open world sandbox with much, much more shenanigans. [/quote]The opposite of this. New Vegas is better, but 3 is good too.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Mr Reaganomics Fallout 3 is the best game ever. It's funny to see fanboys whine about how Fallout 3 destroyed the canon of Fallout. Fallout 3 made the entire series worthwhile, most of the people who bit­ch about Fallout 3 only played the first two games because of it. [/quote]Fallout 3 was terrible in nearly every way. It only gets so much praise because Bethesda pays off reviewers, and 90% of modern "gamers" have never played an open-world game before.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] The Chiodos Bros [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] xReconAssassinX NV is linear and streamlined whereas F3 is an open world sandbox with much, much more shenanigans. [/quote] NV linear? Did you even play it? Or did you forget the part where you can side with NCR, House, or Caesar. Where in Fallout 3 you can only side with Brotherhood of Steel.[/quote] So you're saying I can either side with a humorous bunch of military folk, a robot, or a bunch of guys wearing skirts? Where's the seriousness anymore? F3 was harsh, gritty, and had select humor only to add to the atmosphere. The game was a nuclear wasteland with a battle-hardened war between two battle-hardened factions. These guys in it for real; they wear armor; they use heavy weaponry; they are serious, and do not wear skirts to war. And by linear, I mean the world in NV is EXTREMELY filtered by invisible barriers, mountains, and canyons that you simply can't climb over. Enemies don't spawn anywhere at any time, but instead are only found in select regions of the map (good example is Rad-scorpions), not to mention the belovedely-hated Albino Rad-scorpion was removed. F3 was completely loot based (not saying NV isn't, just reduced). All over The Capital Wasteland are abandoned warehouses that are stories tall, and fully lootable. In addition, found within DC itself are dozens of un-mapped buildings with tons of unique items. NV only contains two mass-loot buildings, and those are both REPCONN buildings if I'm thinking right. Total letdown. Little things like this completely streamline the game, and severely limit the amount of shenanigans that occur. Admittedly, the story-line did well with it's branches, and the game itself added many great features such as ADS, Hardcore mode, and may others. Even with all these great features, the complete let-down of the geography itself made the game a terrible experience on anything but my first play-through. [/quote] I don't really see where you're coming in with the less-serious part, I mean Fallout 3 had aliens, that whole bit with superheros in that one town, and was just as far out there as New Vegas was. Both games were serious when it counted, during the main storyline. You're complaining about the lack of serious by the guys who wear skirts, in one the first towns you enter those "guys in skirts" burned down a village and crucified the townspeople, I'd say that's plenty serious. You point out the problem about the geography, while this is a problem with New Vegas, it was nowhere nearly as bad as it was in Fallout 3. The Metro system was completely unbearable, there were invisible walls everywhere, and the DC ruins were such a cluster-blam!-. [quote]This is where quality>quantity comes in[/quote] But not really, that one option that you're presented in Fallout 3 is incredibly pants on head retarded that it boggles my mind that people can say that Fallout 3 has a great story. [url=http://i.imgur.com/hhCD1.png]Again see here[/url]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] II is over9000 Fallout: NV > Fallout 2 > Fallout > dog-blam!- > Fallout 3[/quote]I think that even Fallout: Tactics was better than Fallout 3. I wish the Van Buren Fallout 3 was made instead.

New Vegas is better by faaaar. I would take a desert (New Vegas) where society is actually starting to rebuild over a wasteland D.C. with a copy paste subway system. And fallout 3 had a terrible story (lets go get some water). And it got even worst in broken steel. Did you side with the Enclave in Fallout 3? Too bad, you were supposed to side with the Brotherhood so we are just going to pretend you did. And lastly, New Vegas had way better and more emotional DLC. Seriously, Fallout 3 DLC doesn't hold a candle to [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxI4rptRbLk] this,[/url] or [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjS8VXBntfA]this.[/url]

Fallout 3 is the best game ever. It's funny to see fanboys whine about how Fallout 3 destroyed the canon of Fallout. Fallout 3 made the entire series worthwhile, most of the people who bit­ch about Fallout 3 only played the first two games because of it.

Ive wouldve enjoyed New Vegas much, [i]much[/i] more if my disc hadnt been glitched to Hell.