| Silver-Tiger said: Awesome conclusion, and I agree with your points. For me Fallout 3 was the better game, because it just felt better structured. When I played New Vegas (and I still do), I felt a little bit lost. You just had a better introduction. For people like me who never played FO1 or FO2, this was a bless. Also, the whole atmosphere jsut felt more realistic. You could really feel the destrcution the war caused. In New Vegas, it just feels unrealistic. They had enough time to overcome many of the obstacles. On the other hand, the gameplay from Fallout 3 was the problem for me. I don't know what you mean, but I had the same amount of bugs in FO3 like in New Vegas(playing both games on the PC btw) . And from what I've seen from New Vegas now, you indeed have much more choices and you're given much more freedom. But I still think FO3 was the better game IMO, partly because it had this "OMG new Fallout!!" hype effect. |
Well thank you :) I agree Fallout 3 is the better starting point for someone new or someone lapsed to the Fallout universe due to the cohesiveness from birth until the end.
I don't like to say one Fallout game is better than the other because each I love for different reasons at a different point in my life. Fallout 3 just like Final Fantasy 7 (I got a PlayStation for it solely) was the reason I bought a 360. Fallout: New Vegas is a diamond in a year of gaming where all the new titles, including Halo: Reach, never piqued my interest. Along with Red Dead Redemption, Fallout: New Vegas will be a memory I remember clearly until the day I die when I hear "2010."
Neither is qualitatively better in my book, but when placed head-to-head with their strengths and weaknesses aside, Fallout 3 edges New Vegas out. In 2 months, once all the glitches and corrupted save game files are patched out, neither will have a definite edge for me.
Sorry, I am at a loss for words as it took me a long time to type that and edit it.
