It was always mostly in favor of NV because of the people behind NV, plus few differences in game design.
Usually people who were brought up with the original 2D Fallout games, tended to support NV more.

They also tend to downvote any positive review of Fallou3. yes, that petty.

As someone who was playing cRPGs from the 80s, played the Fallout series from start to finish (not F4 to completion yet), my view is that both Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas are great games and a must to experience from any RPG fan who likes his/hers post apocalyptic setting.

As a "world" I prefer Fallout 3. As game design I prefer New Vegas. I have spent 100s of hours on each of them and I can't recommend to only get one of the two to anyone (not you of course) that would ask this. They are both great games, not matter what some idiots might say against one or the other game.

Thankfully there are no story elements connecting the two so one could play either of them first.
There are some changes in gameplay mechanics in FNV which if you love, might make playing F3 a bit more rough, but nothing serious that would stop one from enjoying said game, unless of course this person already decided they are not going to like it...

So, yes it was always as far as I know, the view that NV was "better" by many people. But that is like saying you prefer fried potatoes to baked.

Fallout New Vegas is a FAR better RPG and feels like the true Fallout 3.

WITH THAT SAID... I did/do very much enjoy Fallout 3 as well and it even does a few things here and there better than New Vegas.

I suspect that most people who played the originals, especially at or near release will gravitate towards New Vegas (like myself) while those that started with Bethesda open world Elder Scrolls games will gravitate towards Fallout 3.

Bethesda has been developing open world games for decades and they are superior at developing interesting open worlds to explore.

Obsidian is better at just about everything else. Better writing, more choice in how to complete quests but their open world is more... linear. Most routes are blocked off by higher level enemies so the game pushes you to take specific routes.

New Vegas is a sequel to 1 and 2.

3 is a lazy retread of 1 and 2 in a different setting.
I'm also now under the impression that the DC wasteland is filled with lazy idiots who, in the same period of time are about a hundred years behind the progress of the west coast.

West Coast: Cities and governments, trade empires. Essentially the old west reborn.

East Coast: One city made up of squatters in a boat, another city made up of crashed plane parts made into crappy sheds. Oh and a bunch of people who hang out in a tower that they simply found and decided to live in. Essentially anarchy and the dark ages.

To be fair, more strategic nuclear targets in DC compared to casino-land.

I've always heard NV was better, I'm actually unsure I've ever heard it the other way. I personally enjoyed both a lot but I think Fallout New Vegas get's my award for better game too. The real winner is when you download the mod which allows you to connect both games into one super game.

Fallout 3 is a better open world, in my mind, but Fallout: New Vegas is a better role playing game and also a better successor to fallout 1 and 2.

I was talking about California. You know, Fallout 1 and 2.
Fallout 2 has society totally rebuilt.

Not sure how one thing is closer to....what...reality? Not sure what you are saying here. Most likely in the even of such a war, no one would be alive to talk about it. Seeing a closer to anarchy bunch of survivors feels closer to "right" than what's going on near the west coast. But that's just me.

Closer to Fallout lore. He's saying people on the west coast are building civilization while people on the east are still sitting around in shacks and rubble doing nothing.

What I'm saying is Fallout 2 establishes that the west coast was able to rebuild society and meanwhile in the exact same time frame, the east coast didn't. It makes absolutely no sense for the east coast to look like that still with no sense of society when the west coast didn't have any problems.
It's a giant plot hole. It makes no sense. Either the east coasters are significantly dumber or they're significantly lazier.

Ah thank you.
I see.
I can understand your point now. What you say makes sense in a way, but then again perhaps the east coast was hit harder. Or some other excuse. I don't know. I guess it never really bothered me as I just saw it as a different game.

Thanks for all of your guys' replies!

I have since I made the post gone back and forth in between both games just trying to figure things out exactly. And the more often I left NV to try things out in F3 again, I missed something, can't really tell what, but probably boils down to what you guys are all describing. So in the end, I would have to agree with you guys, that NV just feels better to me.

F3 is still an amazing game and should not be disregarded in my opinion, only because it is outdone by its sequel (which, frankly, doesn't happen all that often anymore).

About the debate about the society in F3. They do have villages and cities around, I agree it is not as highly civilised like the isometric Fallouts and NV is, but you can't say that they're basically hobbling around in their ruins doing absolutely nothing.

What FO3 did good was exploring the land, sneaking about and sniping raiders and mutants.
I really enjoyed it a whole lot.

But after iron sights in NV, FO3 is dead to me. Even the exploring is better.
And all the characters are so much better written in NV it's not even a contest.

Alas, after getting used to game mechanics of FO4, I can't go back to either FO3 or NV.

So, just saying. Get your enjoyment out of them in order,
because if you're like me, you cant go back after tasting the next one.

Buy both.
Install either Tale of Two Wastelands or Soul of Fallen Worlds.
Install Bullettime mod and disable VATS.
Enjoy the double profit!


Edit: just to clear it up, both merge-mods require licensed versions.