Should I get Fallout 3 or New Vegas?

I can either get the Game of the Year addition and something else, or New Vegas. What do you think?

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

Good Lord, New Vegas. It's a much better story in my opinion, and at the very least offers the illusion of more freedom. Plus, I enjoyed the factions system.

"You can only come to the morning through the shadows."

New vegas is better. And not nearly as broken.

Are you planning to get both? Eventually, I mean. If so, I'd have to say get Fallout 3 first. It's a good game in its own right, but New Vegas improves on it in so many ways that to go from New Vegas to Fallout 3 is quite a downgrade.

Against all tyrants.

New Vegas is basically the same game in slightly different wrapping. Oh, and it's actually WAAAY more buggy than the original. Game of the year edition Fallout 3 has the DLC content on the disc, and, like you said, you can get something else with it, instead of spending more money on a glorified expansion pack. Buy Fallout 3.

Can't think of anything witty, so have this instead...

If money is an issue, then go with GOTY Fallout 3, currently alot more bang for your buck.

If money isn't an issue, and then it's a toss up between which game is better, although New Vegas does fix many of FO 3's problems (with it's own getting patched), so I'd say go with New Vegas in this case.

#IceBearForPresident

Get New Vegas, Fallout 3 has awful writing.

Live by the sword, live a good long time

Good writing is important.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.

They're really not that different in terms of writing. New Vegas does have tighter plot though.

Can't think of anything witty, so have this instead...

Skip Fallout 3 entirely, it's got its charm but New Vegas is better, head and shoulders. All playing FO 3 first would do is make New Vegas less entertaining.

Vegas is better on most aspects except for glitches - because a) it's still relatively new and not entirely patched yet; b) it's made by Obsidian and it's almost a tradition for them. Better story, better illusion of freedom, more sensible crafting system, properly applicable prostitutes, it's got everything Fallout 3 was missing to be Fallout-y enough.

Videogames do not make you a worse person... Than you already are.

Vegas is better. Better as a Fallout game, better writing, better story, more fun... Except for the bugs Fallout 3 is inferior in every way.

"No, the Singularity will not happen. Computation is hard." -Happy Ent

Yeah, Fallout 3 didn't impress me much. I'm not even an old school fallout fan, but it just kinda left me cold. Everything was so bleak and depressing. New Vegas sounds like it has more charm.

[quote] properly applicable prostitutes[/quote]

You what?

This post has been powered by avenging fury and a balanced diet.

It has prostitutes you can actually sex up, rather than just "Sleep" with, like in FO 3.

"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."

If you plan to get both eventually, I would definitely pickup FO 3 first. Bethesda, who made 3, will be making 4 as well, so there may be links to 3 that you would miss out on by skipping it entirely.

While I think Vegas is better, I got 400 hours out of FO 3 and enjoyed every minute of it. That's definitely good value for the money.

Visit my contributor page to assist with the "I Like The Cheeses" project!

That's the freaking point. If you want something cheery and lighthearted, go play a Mario game.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE UNLEASHED JOE

THE FAN STUPIDITY IS ALREADY FLOWING IN

Kill all math nerds

@Mammalsauce. I don't think you get the point. I did play the old Fallout back in the day and although they weren't memorable games, I do remember the one of the key parts of the "old school fallout vibe" was periodically lightening the post apocalyptic vibe with dashes of levity.

Also, the thing that about Fallout 3 was the apparent lack of any serious attempt to rebuild civilisation. It's pretty hard for someone with even an amateur's knowledge of history like myself to find that remotely plausible. Humans have been pretty consistent about being determined to form governments and rebuild infrastructure in the face of a setback. This idea of a place consisting of nothing but loose-knit communities of badasses who somehow have loads of guns and ammo and nothing else almost seems like a Deconstructive Parody of a libertarian fantasy land.

Errr, nearly everbody is dead, kinda hard to make a serious attempt to rebuild civilisation. Also, society pretty much collapsed, so most people are out for themselves. TBH, I found the depiction of post apocalyptic life pretty realistic. I mean if the world ended tomorrow, you think the survivors would immediately set to rebuilding civilisation, or would everybody just start looting everything that wasn't nailed down. Somehow, I think the second scenario is more likely.

Can't think of anything witty, so have this instead...

They're different "flavors," with 3 being more 50's sciencey and New Vegas being more Texasey.

That said, New Vegas has a lot more bugs, some of them of the game breaking variety.

edited 16th Dec '10 12:14:44 PM by INUH

Infinite Tree: an experimental story

So there can only be "SUPER EMO GRIMDARK" and "SUPER HAPPY BUNNYLAND"?

It's nice to have some middle ground, you know?

One of my few regrets about being born female is the inability to grow a handlebar mustache. -Landstander

EDIT: I kinda wrote this quickly and didn't proofread it so expect it to read a bit like a clusterfuck.

Not to play Captain Obvious' role but it depends on your tastes.

First of all, yeah, Fallout: New Vegas is built on the same engine as Fallout 3, uses many of the same assets, and has very similar gameplay mechanics, though it sports better shooter mechanics, some improved/tweaked balance. It is buggier, that much is true, though I personally find it a little bothersome that people forget to mention that it's a lot buggier also because it offers more significant branching in both the main and the side quests and has generally more RPG content, where Fallout 3 feels more like a sandbox game and can be easily played as a pure dungeon crawler. On that matter, Fallout: New Vegas is a little bit more lacking when it comes to non-quest related locations.. on one hand, there's so many quests that you're probably not going to care, on the other hand, the improved shooting mechanics may actually come with... less shooting.

As far as the writing goes, Fallout: New Vegas is the clear winner. There are occasional lapses and occasional pieces of brilliance but overall I'd say that the writing qualifies as competent, the new lore is mostly well-done and finely put together.

Atmosphere-wise Fallout 3 feels a lot more like "there has just been a nuclear war" while Fallout: New Vegas feels like a sort of post-apocalyptic western with its central theme being the analysis of the rebirth of society rather than the bleak lawless world of Fallout 3.

Also, what Meeble says is true, so if you want to play the whole saga (or at least the current gen episodes) you should definitely grab Fallout 3. Not to mention that F:NV is still being patched and the DLC is starting to come out just now, while Fallout 3 already has all the patches out, all the DLC and if you play it on PC a plethora of mods to keep you entertained for a long time.

I've tried to keep this as "objective" well, of course some things are bound to be subjective, but I tried to keep my personal feelings on the games out of this as I believe Fallout: New Vegas to be superior, but they're both fine games that will be worth the bucks you spend on them.

edited 16th Dec '10 1:05:56 PM by WUE

FO 3 isn't really Emo or Grimdark. Most of it is ridiculous dark humour...

"It's so hard to be humble, knowing how great I am."

Okay I want a lot of content, but I've got a heavy course load this year, and college the next, so I don't want too much.

If the shooting is better too, I think I'm leaning towards NV.

Sorry Mrym.

Charlie Tunoku is a lover and a fighter.