Fallout 3 or New Vegas

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Flight Lieutenant Stainforth on July 6, 2012 at 9:25pm

My  personal fave is FO3, I just found it more re-playable. I enjoyed NV, but keep finding myself having a bash at FO3 now and again. NV has some nice features, but you can often replicate these in FO3 with the use of mods. I also prefer the "east coast" atmosphere in FO3 to the arid west of NV. Hopefully they will continue the series, I have spent many a happy afternoon, trudging around the wasteland.

Permalink Reply by Markus Glanzer on July 6, 2012 at 9:39pm

I think FO3 and following titles are an insult to everyone who played 1&2. I mean, it's well designed, but poorly written, and overall - it's simply an FPS with character stats. Imho, Bethesda really screwed the license... not that it was a surprise.

Permalink Reply by Blake "Maceo" Canham-Bennett on July 6, 2012 at 10:22pm

I haven't played the first two Fallout titles, but I'd probably concur with what Markus is saying here. Although, I'd disagree as far as New Vegas is concerned. From my knowledge; New Vegas was actually made by some of the people who made the original Fallout games, thus it has the same sort of top-notch story and humour that the originals have. I haven't played New Vegas, but I trust my friends' opinions on this sort of subject matter more than anything else (they've played the original games, and they pretty much know what the cat's meow is in gaming), so I'd have to recommend New Vegas and suggest skipping on Fallout 3.

Also, I want to clarify that Fallout is atompunk. I don't mean to be telling you off for posting here, as Dieselpunks.org is a place for all punk sub-genres. I'm just stating something to clear up any misconceptions (such as people referring to Bioshock as steampunk). ; >

Permalink Reply by Flight Lieutenant Stainforth on July 6, 2012 at 10:33pm

Just to clarify. I haven't played either 1 or 2. I only heard about the series on this site. Of FO3 and NV I prefer FO3. Go figure...

Permalink Reply by Markus Glanzer on July 8, 2012 at 11:35am

more clarifications: i have enjoyed playing Fallout3, and found it a pretty nice game, but I didn't like being forced to shoot the whole wasteland. Even at the rare Occasions, you don't have to shoot someone, the game clearly favors killing. (FO1&2 summoned some pretty nice problems if you where playing that way). Because of the FPS handling, a lot of RPG-Skills became pretty meaningless, left aside that they screwed up a pretty good and consistent canon, with almost no logic holes in it. (I would compare FO3 to Star Trek[2009], but that's another story)

I also liked the Art pretty much, and bought the collectors edition. I like the Lunchbox, and I had the Pip-Boy Figure actually mounted on my car dashboard (which in retrospective was no good idea, since it melts in sunlight). Though I wandered the wastes of FO3, and didn't feel quiet home there. All the familiarities i stumbled upon had plain nothing to do with what originally used to be cool about them. Sad I wandered on.

Why would they need to enter the Enclave and the Brotherhood? These folks are West coast stuff. Had they to revive the Master? really? I would have liked it better, when they wouldn't have tried to reinvent the whole series. 

Also FO1&2 made me make decisions, and take actions, i really felt guilty after. FO3 forces you to do this. This makes me angry, because I would have tried to decide different. 

I have played the basis DLCs... Broken steel, Point lookout, Mothership zeta, and the war-game part i forgot the name (and are too lazy to ask google). I enjoyed Mothership zeta a lot.. and would love to play a Rocket/Atompunk Space Opera game that works a little like that. But I did not care to buy anything after that.

All I want to say is, they didn't make a bad game. They only made a bad Fallout.