3's story was pure ass that made no sense to anyone with ANY idea how radiation works and just raised the question of why they didn't have the same problem in other areas that got nuked. Also they screwed up EVERY faction in it. Raiders? Nah no backstory, no thought, just generic killer psychos, BoS, nah ignore everything and make them generic good guy knights, Regulators, nah no thought or explanation for them being there, Enclave, only sorta right but no explanation why they would be there, why they would be called the Enclave even though it was a west coast group and had acess to stupid crap like rad immunity things for no reason, super mutants, nah no thought as to WHY they wanted to turn others into mutants just throw it in without any of the context that made it make sense in the first game.
This is how EVERYTHING in 3 was, no thought, no originality, no fucks given about the older games except for stuff to (badly) rip off.
Comment has been collapsed.
To be fair, most of what you complained about was explained in 1 and 2.
Regulators weren't given backstory, you're right. The whole point of raiders is that there is no rhyme or reason to them doing what they do. They raid to survive, and they're there to show that humans can be just as brutal to each other even after a nuclear apocalypse. BoS are NOT good guy knights, I have no idea how you got that, especially if you played the DLC where they sawed an innocent man's arm off to get access to a couple weapons. They're neutral-ish who only want technology, thinking that's how to solve anything. The Enclave is the remnants of the government who have rad immunity because of their suits and because they were on oil rigs or functioning vaults when the nukes went off. Super mutants still want the same things they want in the first game. Why would they change? They just want to make more of themselves, which is exactly what humans want, but mutants are all sterile.
The '3' is there for a reason. You actually do need to play the first one at least to understand the finer points of plot.
Oh, and I forgot about the radiation thing. It's called suspension of disbelief. The entire point of the game is that radiation works the way they thought it worked in the fifties. Giant mutants when exposed and so on. They barely knew what cancer was in the fifties, much less that radiation caused it and genetic mutations.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not to mention that the super Mutants themselves are not the product of typical nuclear radiations, but byt the FEV Virus.
Comment has been collapsed.
FONV without mods has a larger variety of weapons and quests.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow, really? Noone has said this yet?
Finish them, then play through 3 (for story etc - i.e. don't go off exploring for ages, don't spend all too much time on it, just finish it), and save New Vegas for last, as it's the better of the two new games.
3 and New Vegas were made by different dev teams, and have no relation in story or anything else, other than both being in the Fallout universe and drawing from the first two games somewhat. They also have quite different gameplay mechanics. Most would tell you NV's are better though - having to craft ammo, conserve it a lot, and drink water, to name a few.
Comment has been collapsed.
Visually, they're the same, apart from the added green and yellow tints. New Vegas has more refined gameplay and much better writing, but the environments are abit more boring and bland. I think NV has more quests, too.
They are unrelated, so you don't have to play them in any order.
Overall, New Vegas is better. Fallout 3 is still amazing, though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Short answer: 3 has better atmosphere. Way better. New Vegas has better gameplay and story (at least as far as morality goes--it's not nearly as black and white as 3 was. Also, it didn't fuck up the canon like 3 did.), better factions, better companions, and so on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Wow didnt realise the enormous difference. Both were good games though.
Comment has been collapsed.
Both of these games are worth it :)
Comment has been collapsed.
If you really only want to play one, I'd go with New Vegas.
If you decide to get both I'd play Fallout 3 first.
Both are very much worth playing and the main storyline isn't particularly long in either title.
Comment has been collapsed.
they're both good but 3 is slightly better. make sure you get the ironsights mod though!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd start with 3, didn't play NV as much as 3 because the atmosphere was way different, I also felt like I always had too much money due to the gambling... =/ This was something i loved about 3 because at times ammo conservation was quite important if you wanted to survive ! Also the DLC was miles better !
Comment has been collapsed.
1,833 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by FranckCastle
10 Comments - Last post 38 minutes ago by lostsoul67
93 Comments - Last post 46 minutes ago by Glas
33 Comments - Last post 57 minutes ago by Axelflox
15 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by vlbastos
386 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by adam1224
207 Comments - Last post 8 hours ago by sensualshakti
9 Comments - Last post 8 minutes ago by Yamaraus
19 Comments - Last post 17 minutes ago by eldar4k
10,792 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by Cruse
693 Comments - Last post 32 minutes ago by Cruse
192 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by antidaz
2 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by aquatorrent
58 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Lexbya
So I've never played any of the Fallout games, however have been gaining interest over the past months to give it a try. But which should I play? being that Fallout 3 is over 4 years old, does it still look nice? Is New Vegas in any way related with 3?
I'd rather play one or the other, don't have the time for both. So which will leave me more satisfied (=
Comment has been collapsed.