Yup, I see where this is heading towards. Everything wrong in F3 is viable to bash, if the same thing is in NV too, is inherited from F3. Here's the short version of it for future references: Bethesda sucks, Obsidian can do no wrong - though it's a mindset I always have and will continue to reject.

If someone criticizes Bethesda's work in F3 (or F4 for that matter), I have no problem with it (there certainly are a lot valid points to make). But if the same person then praises NV despite that you can find the same points (s)he brought up against F3, then I call this biased bullshit.
Use the same measuring stick if you want a discussion - otherwise it's trolling for the "LULZ", but nothing more.

Oh? Well, since you're apparently a clairvoyant, this discussion might be pointless indeed. Still... That's because the "NV sucks" list you presented was either comprised from things that had their beginnings in F3 (litter, old food, working machines), incorrect (gangs, no new societies and customs) or too subjective to contribute to interesting discussion (humor). If you gave the list of sucky things indigenous to New Vegas rather than inherited from F3, the discussion would have been different. Oh, and for the record -- I'm not really bothered by "litter, working machines, old food", fluff like that in either F3 or NV, nor am I passionate about gunplay, potato faces, clipping... basically, for me it's all about the story (writing, characters, storytelling, things like that).

(I'm a little tempted to reply to that "short version of it for future references" prophecy of yours, but as of yet I don't quite care enough about whatever opinion you want to project on me. Maybe later if this debate goes anywhere interesting, just to prevent boring strawmen). I'll repeat myself here with some rewording:

It's not "NOT having a problem with something stupid that is common for both games", but "shrugging off the stupidity because the other components are so good".

In other words, I am not (obviously. I cannot even fathom how you reached this conclusion) praising New Vegas for, e.g., having unswept floors for 200 years while berating F3 for the same thing. I'm saying that New Vegas gives me enough things to love so that I am not bothered with litter, and F3 does not.

Read the thread-title. It's called "Fallout 3 vs. NV". But if everything Obsidian did better in NV is because of the ingenuity of Obsidian, yet everything where they failed in similar fashion as Bethesda did in F3, is not valid for criticism because it's inherited by Obsidian, then yes my "prophecy" as you called it, just became reality.

You may not be. Others in this thread have been. Some even denying plot holes in NV at all, for which I brought an example. Which is where you joined into the fray claiming:
Note that I didn't claimed anywhere the plot holes being equally big / bad / stupid or whatever. I do however have problems with people bashing F3 because of plot holes, yet denying / ignoring / overlooking / whatever plot holes in NV. It's a thing called double-standards.

So basically it's ok to consider a certain aspect in F3 as the lazy work of Bethesda and bashing on it repeatedly, yet praising NV as quality writing despite the same or similar aspect happening there too....
It's one thing to feel that way personally. As soon as it get's used in defense for one part (here NV), it's double-standards.

Nowhere did I claimed someone praising NV for unswept floors. I do have problems if someone see's it as blistering stupidity in F3, yet manages to overlook the same in NV. Again, double-standards.

But I'll bite anyway. The better atmosphere and exploration worked for me in F3, whereas the much better writing in NV couldn't carry me completely through the much blander Mojave.
Take note that I'm not claiming F3 being better than NV - that's not the case. But what managed to bother you in F3 yet not in NV, was the otherway around for me.

I played NV for about 40 hours now and I'm starting to see in it more boring filler.

All of the BoS missions in NV are a pain. I hate that stupid BoS bunker where every single hallway looks the same as every other hallway, and for that reason it, takes eons just to navigate through the bunker.

The NV fetch quest of "go find parts to fix the bunker's air circulation system, in old abandoned vaults" is abysmal - definitely the worst quest and by far the most unenjoyable thing I've seen in NV. The vaults have the same problem as the BoS bunker. And to make matters worse, there is nothing interesting inside them either (with the exception of the plant monster vault...but I already cleared that vault out when I did another quest in it earlier, so revisiting that vault again just to complete an annoying fetch quest makes that vault just as boring as the others).

FO3 also has that exact same problem with incredibly boring, copy & paste fest abandoned vaults. I'm not sure why the NV devs copied & pasted that very bad, game-killing mechanic from FO3 into NV, but I wish they didn't.

Fallout 3 has the weakest story of them all (if we exclude spin-offs like the Playstation 2 game), overly simplified quests, the worst color palette choice possible.
The most retarded tutorial, and I know the Temple of Trials is crappy too, but a least is quicker to end it.
I'd much rather have a start like Fallout 1
The factions were built horribly, they didn't understand the BOS at all, they were never meant to be the justice of the wasteland, in shiny armors, followed by a fucking transformer.
The Enclave are now a bunch of neanderthals without a purpose, it's not clear what their plan was in the end because even the developers had no idea what do with the faction. Enemies devoid of any intelligence just added to increase the variety of creatures in the game. Where are the conspiracies, the social experiments, the virus production, slaves being subject of tests, etc? Oh right, it's a Bethesda game.
It's not 'interesting', unless they add a big explosion, and they don't want kids to not have fun. So let's explode a town.
The story is so full of holes I wouldn't be able list them all even if my life depended on it.
And they didn't even think things through for the main characters. Check how your father reacts to Megaton destruction, they didn't give a shit about realistic reactions, they don't want you to waste time with consequences or question your actions through the game, they want you to shoot teddy bears in the penises of the enemies, with a Rock-it.
You have to turn off your brain to enjoy Fallout 3, that's the tragedy. We'll never have cRPGs like the old ones, just casual FPS with Fallouty things added to it.
New Vegas is much better, the dialog is more interesting, it has more complex quests, the idea of hardcore mode was excellent, etc.
The followers were actually interesting, the radio didn't annoy me (shut the fuck up Three Dog, you get irritating fast).
And the end of the game wasn't a bad joke like FO3, they were pretty good (for a FPS I mean. They can't compare to the classic games, in my opinion).
So yeah, NV gets my vote.

Disagree. Exiting the vault is easily a top memorable gaming moment - both NV and F4 tried to reiterate it and neither came even close.

Can't say I liked the way the BoS was portrayed either. But the same "questioning the codex" angle was in NV (Father Elijah / Veronica), just with a different outcome. And yes, Bethesda understood that - see the rivaling Brotherhood Outcasts.

Their plan was pretty much the same as in F2? Killing everyone on the mainland with the FEV except themselves?

Finish Lonesome Road before heading for Benny and send the nukes towards the Legion and your infamy drops to the lowest possible with them.
However after confronting Benny and leaving the Tops, your Legion infamy will be removed once speaking to Vulpes Inculta (Source). Caesar then still takes the Chip from you, hands it back and sends you into the secret bunker, blindly trusting you doing what he just asked.
Well thought trough quality writing? Realistic reactions? Sry, nope.

How another game, made by a different company, eliminates the flaws of the previous game, made by another company?
I'm unauthorized to point the flaws of a game? If so, why?
The game should be remembered by its qualities, and its flaws.
I think you should remove the fanboy/fangirl glasses for a minute.

Where did I say New Vegas was flawless?
I didn't like the high level creatures strategically positioned in some areas just to make the new player change his path.
I didn't like how easy you can have access to dynamites, not only you but enemies too (if I remember well one of the first gangs you find carries a shitload of explosives).
There was other ways of adding some exciting action to the game, besides some BOOMS from dynamites. Lame.

Just a few examples.

I disagree with you, too, New Vegas beginning wasn't trying to make a memorable tutorial by getting inspiration from Fallout 3.
The FO3 tutorial was shitty, I repeat.
I'd like you to prove otherwise.

It's quite clear the NV team wanted the new game to please old Fallout veterans, the idea never was to be a sequel to the (shallow) story of Fallout three.
I'm surprised you believe they would even wish players to compare the tutorials, since the setting is so different.
If they wanted an incredibly memorable tutorial they wouldn't make it skippable, and would've put more time and effort into it, don't you think?
They didn't want a Metal Gear beginning with lots of story and cutscenes.

They (FO3, NV) share the engine and a lot of 3D models, etc, but if you play them for a couple of hours you'll notice a lot of differences.
It's more of a spiritual sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, than a sequel to 3, frankly.
I say in spirit, because too much time has passed for us to get a true sequel, the games are not isometric turn-based cRPGs based in pen and paper anymore.
And it's not me being a blind fan (I wish it was!), even if Interplay somehow hired every developer again and purchased the Fallout IP back from Bethesda, I doubt they would be able to produce a sequel in the same way that Fallout 2 was to the first one.
And I don't think the market would receive it with open arms.

Fallout 4 beginning had resemblances to 3, which is not surprising at all, seeing by who it was made. At least you start it as an adult, thank god. And the vault is not useless and forgetful after the tutorial, like 3. There's at least a reason to revisit the place.
I can't remember there being a reason to go to Vault 101 again, maybe I'm wrong. Is it even possible to enter the vault again?

Was it?
It was not the AI that wanted humanity to end? The super dumb NPC that destroys multiple Enclave soldiers for you after a dialog option written by a 5 year old kid?
I don't remember the last boss in Fallout 3 saying any of that to me, or the troopers.
They wanted control of the purifier, just because.
Bethesda added them just to present a challenge for the players, they didn't gave them motivations, reasons, anything really.

But you're saying they were following the machine orders? Then tell me what motivations they had, to follow its orders? What would they gain, and why every single one of them seems so generic, and devoid of real, human emotions? They seem brainwashed (but if the machine can brainwash people, why not make them all slaves? Why kill them?).
Their actions don't follow a logic path, that a normal human being would take.
Bethesda wants us to think the lone wanderer is still trapped in that vault with virtual reality or something?
Nah, they're just too lazy to create factions that make any sense in the game!
Where did I say New Vegas was a realistic game? Or that it is realistic from beginning to end? I don't remember saying or writing this.
And why you keep thinking that someone can't point the obvious flaws of Fallout 3?
Why can't I expect a realistic reaction from one of the main characters of the game, after commiting a very grave crime against a town full of people? How can New Vegas have any effect in the awful writing of the dialogues found in Fallout 3?
Receiving some monah from Bethesda?

I'd love to see Siannah criticizing a movie critic, in a website with reviews. He/she would say the critic opinion's about which Transformer movie is best is invalid, because it has similar flaws to another movie from the franchise.

So, let me tell you. =)
Just because a movie is someone's favorite one in a given franchise, doesn't mean that person is claiming that the movie isn't somewhat shitty, or devoid of any flaws!
It can be less crappy than the other movies, and that's why the person thinks it's the best movie of the franchise.
Now, there are multiple reasons why someone would like or dislike a movie, and obviously not everyone will agree with the critic, and it's fine.

Every movie or game has a flaw, and what one may consider a big flaw, other may think it's no big deal.

Having played both games to the end, I had a more positive experience with New Vegas.
Between FO3 and NV, I vote for New Vegas.
It's WHAT I, ALMA, consider the least flawed game and the one I had most fun with. It's my OPINION.
You have the right to have your own opinion, that's granted. What is not granted, is that your opinion is the only that matters, and it will trample any other that may dare to appear.

It doesn't eliminate the flaws at all and yes, there are plenty of flaws in F3 - up to this date, I haven't seen many claiming otherwise.
But it certainly isn't credible and unbiased to point out flaws on one side, to then praise the other side while ignoring same or similar flaws there. So much for the fanboy /-girl glasses.

You didn't. You left no good hair on F3 while praising NV without even 1 negative point.

Feel free to point out as many flaws in Fallout 3 as you want - I have no problem with that. But in a comparison thread like this one (read the thread title again) I expect that you do it on both sides. Which you didn't.
You expected a realistic reaction from the characters dad in F3 for nuking a town. You didn't expected such from Caesar in F:NV for nuking his own people. Why? Why is it ok to criticize it in F3, yet manages to get ignored in NV? That is NOT an unbiased look at it.

For me F3 had the better atmosphere and exploration. NV was better on pretty much everything else, be that storyline, quest design, companions, NPC interactions, dialogue and so on... so yes, NV was the better RPG than F3.
What I continue to not accept is the constant bashing of F3 for flaws, with the same or similar flaws in NV being overlooked, ignored or straight denied.

I did mention negative things about New Vegas. In the exact same post you quoted, to be precise.
Yup, roll your mouse wheel and look at it!
If you're gonna skip my previous posts then why should I bother to speak with you?

It's funny how you like focusing only in the flaws I mentioned in Fallout, and completely ignored the good stuff, the reasons I posted about why I like New Vegas. Tell me how it's fair that you want to discuss my game analysis if you're gonna skip parts of my posts like they didn't exist?

It seems that you're not here to really contribute to the FO3 vs NV discussion.

Feel free to contribute and post the perfect analysis here btw, everyone would like to read that.

Yeah, I don't know about that, you seemed triggered after I mentioned the flaws in the game. You're the reason the thread is running out of its tracks. Good job.

Point exactly where in my post I said I was okay with Caesar's reaction.

That's what happens you start assuming things, people.
I never said I did that quest, and how can you blame me for not doing the exact same actions you did in the game?
Yeah, you guessed, you can't. Because that would be ridiculous.

But feel free to tell me every single error made by Obsidian that I didn't find in their open world, your obsession has no limits so you'll be able to list them easily, I've no doubt.

If you can't, well, remember that before demanding that people check every nook and cranny of both games before choosing their favorite!

In your first post (on which I reacted) you did two things: slam F3 and praise NV. Nothing more, nothing less. Not one positive point for F3, not one negative for NV.

In your response to that you managed to come up with classics like: and so feel free to not bother speaking with me - I don't mind.

No. Exiting the Vault 13 entrance cave for the first time was the most memorable gaming moment, and Fallout 3 didn't even come close to reproducing it.

Take note that I'm claiming it to be a top memorable gaming moment - not the most memorable. :)

Guess what? I'd love to see more of that too. In case you wondering - yes I agree with almost all of his points brought up against F3. But sadly, he never did the same with NV.

Your second paragraph is exactly what I'm missing here (and in every other thread about this subject): an unbiased look at F3 AND NV - we gotten F3 covered over and over again, but NV? Nope.
If every other posting reads like "F3 sucks, NV is quality writing", I can't shack off that feeling of using double standards - especially if a blistering stupidity in F3, suddenly doesn't make it on the list in NV.

I think I can answer that. No Mutants Allowed were up in arms against Bethesda, when they acquired the Fallout franchise and wanted it to stay with Interplay - despite F:BoS.

Well it's understandable that Vault interiors are generally all the same, and that they look similar to each other. They're vaults - generally they're not built for aesthetic reasons but instead for practicality. I agree it can make navigating them really annoying at times - especially when some sections are locked, but then you unlock that a section from a different section and you have to remember how to get there...

They're also all built by Vault-Tec (except the BOS bunker I guess), so one would expect them to look similar. And one would also expect there to be a number of them in a region. Fallout 1 and 2 also had a number of vaults which were identical (albeit not that many).

While those fetch quests were kind of annoying, I believe most (maybe all?) of those vaults also have an additional mission associated with them. Which makes going there less annoying (since you're doing more than just a fetch quest). On the other hand, if you do each mission (for a vault) separately, it's even more annoying because then you have to go back...
Same here!

Though to be fair casinos in Vegas do tend to be designed such that it's difficult to find the exit - I think the theory is the more you wander around lost, the more likely you are to just give up trying to leave and just gamble some more instead...

But yes compared to the other casinos in NV, that one was definitely the most annoying. I think it wasn't until I had visited about three times and made a conscious effort to check it out in detail before I discovered that previously I had missed an entire section of it.