YES, while I like NV more than 3, that's always an issue with me and NV. It never felt like I was in a post apocalyptic sense as much as 3. With 3 even later in the game you still felt like this was the final days of humanity. With NV it always felt like you paid money to play against Yul Brynner.

But New Vegas IS the true successor, as in it's made by the same guys as 1 and 2 and directly references and expands on concepts, characters, and ideas found in the original Fallouts. Fallout 3 takes the series to the east coast and tries to lazily adapt things from the originals just because "hey they're Fallout so they must be in this game." Super Mutants on the east coast? Brotherhood of Steel on east coast? Jet not only found on east coast but just lying around everywhere you go??

The main problem with Fallout 3 is that it's just a simple, fun, sandbox shooter with the Fallout name attached to it. Bethesda took the most shallow elements of the originals and slapped them together in the Oblivion engine with no regard for the deeper, more meaningful story about a fallen society trying to rebuild that's presented in 1 and 2.

I honestly think the hostility that some show toward F3 comes from the fact that they put the "3" on the end, as if saying this is a direct sequel to the originals. If they had simply called it "Fallout" and said it was a reboot, I think people would have been more forgiving.

EDIT: I am a moron.

Possibly something like "Fallout: East Coast" or "Fallout: DC" would have been better. Ideally they should have set it back a bit in the Fallout timeline so that the destruction and lack of society makes more sense.

FO3 is more suited for the casual/FPS players, it's linear and easy to follow, hence easier to appeal to a larger audience. On the other hand, NV and FO1+2 are for the hardcore/RPG players who don't mind the intricate quests.

I haven't played Fallout 3 yet so I cannot comment on it...

but...

I feel New Vegas is up there with the greatest games of all time. Maybe I would feel differently if I had played it during its buggy release. Just the fact that there are over 200 quests 70% of which can be completed in 3 or more different ways with various outcomes that can permanently alter the world is stunning to me.

Generally the 'divurgent path' quests by Bethesda are quite a bit more superficial. I usually reference New Vegas when Telltale apologists defend their terrible 'games' which -- having no focus or developer resources need be given to gameplay -- fail miserably at the one thing they advertise themselves as.. "Choose your own adventures."

Totally agree on all your points.

It always bugs me how Telltale go on about "Choices" and how they're so "meaningful" (both in their marketing and in your face in their games), when a) they change very minor, usually superficial parts of the story, and b) there are many games, both adventures and of course RPGs, which have way better "choices" that actually DO matter in terms of story, outcomes, plot, endings, etc.

That's the thing.
But it's not all bethesda either.
After 100 years, all (ok, there would be some exeptions) tall buildings would have collapsed into rubble.


That's the timeframe of FO1, and sure enough, most buildings were rubble, bunch of new ones rised.
But in FO1, there are largely intact cars, buildings crafted from leftover bits that would have rusted away by then.
It's not a well researched scientific future, it's a Wasteland/Mad Max rip-off.

FO2 to FO4 are set further away and again, while FO2 does lip service to passin of time with more collapsed buildings and new ones having been built, there's still tons and tons of working stuff just lying around. Like cars, and know what, a car that's been left outside for 150 years wouldn't even be recognizeable, let alone repairable.

FO4 does this the worst. They're showing a world that's still dry and barren, like it's been just a few years since the bombs fell, but continuing the story requires the setting of 200 years after.

And it's not just the outside. Ghouls and supermutants.
Those were dealt with in FO1, in FO2 we see just scattered remnants.
But you can't make fallout without them so they're in Tactics, FO3, NV and FO4, in great numbers.
It doesn't make sense but that's how it needs to be, it wouldn't be fallout without them.

It never made sense and it makes even less sense with every new installation.

I'm kind of expecting/hoping for FO5 to be the complete reboot. Just "Fallout".
Reshuffle everything, retell the FO1 (inspired) story in a different way for a new audience.

Why even compare them? They're both so bloody similar that it is extremely pointless. New Vegas has a good story but bland enviroment/characters, FO3 has a great environment and characters but a bad story. The gameplay is all the same.

>fallout 3
>great environment

ishygddt.jpg

Fallout 3 a boring ugly world filled with train tunnels, sewers and poorly designed collapsed buildings.


Also, let's point out how stupid your statement is.
"These games are basically identical, except for the different parts!"

GOd, someone actually thinks that FO 3's bland charecters are better then Fallout 4's characters?
I pity you.......

Fallout New Vegas is my favorite game of all time. While I wish Obsidian could have another run with the Fallout franchise, I am glad that Bethesda made 3 and brought the series to more eyes. This isn't to say I love the "mainstreamlining" of RPG mechanics in their latest games, ESPECIALLY Fallout 4, but it's hard for me to stay upset with a company that made the base engine and most of the graphics that would go on to be in my favorite game ever. Also, I do think 3 is worth playing at least once because while I think the dialogue, story, and logic of a lot of its world makes little to no sense, there is some fun to be had.

So, okay, after installing and playing FO3 for several hours again (yay!), I think I know why this game is so interesting to me: the exploration of the DC ruins feels like archaeology. I've been to DC a few times in my life, and there's just something cool about exploring its ruins, even if they are implausibly full of zombies and mutants and ammo. Sneaking into the Smithsonian Aerospace Museum (look - there's the Spirit of St. Louis!) is just a rush for me personally. When I was a child, we'd go to the library and I'd take out stacks of books about ancient Egypt and Archaeology. That's just the particular type of geek I am.

I started to play Fallout 3 more now with GOG version and I have to say the most obvious differences:

Fallout 3 is more choatic - I never know where are the quests, how to get there and what I will get out of it.
Fallout NV is much more stright, clear, you just follow the road and you know who is the bad guy and who is quite good. You know what will happen if you will join some group on the way.

Someone criticized the karma system in Fallout 3 and now I know why it didn't fit - I guess it was taken from Star wars, where it was connected to the background lore. In Fallout world it just prevent you from doing quests, you never know you missed something and it just adds to the overall chaos.
In Fallout NV there was no karma points system, instead you joined factions directly by making choices, which is much more clear to me and to my roleplaying.

Also Fallout 3 was very serious - almost no humor, and no colors - everything was desaturated. It made me bored after some time, because I couldn't imagine how I will walk around, trying to explore something so dull.

But after I added a few mods with better lightnings/colors I can enjoy Fallout 3 again. I like the "just talking" kind of dialogues, I like walking around, exploring, also I can see how it was different - when you walked in an empty street and was jumped suddenly by enemies - instead of constant war in Fallout 4.