Bethesda's Fallout games have always been divisive, but which is the better game?
I personally prefer 4 for its more densely packed world, settlement building, crafting and the institute made for a pretty decent villain. Sacrificing some of the RPG elements sucks but overall I think 4 is better.
New Vegas
New Vegas.
But if we must do this, Fallout 3.
I will 100% take the mediocre RPG over the mediocre FPS.
But if we must do this, Fallout 3.
I will 100% take the mediocre RPG over the mediocre FPS.
New Vegas
3. Nothing beat the grind to the Capitol. Those subways will haunt my dreams until my dying day.
NV does nothing for me.
NV does nothing for me.
This is a Sophie's Choice of bad. New Vegas. Or 1. Or 2.
"Fallout 3 or Fallout 3.1"
NEW VEGAS whichisanoffshootoffallout3
New Vegas because it's better
It's weird how you guys like NV because its gameplay is marginally better whereas the atmosphere and writing of Bethesda's efforts are miles ahead of NV.
I...do not think you know what you are talking about.Originally Posted by WheelHoss1
It's weird how you guys like NV because its gameplay is marginally better whereas the atmosphere and writing of Bethesda's efforts are miles ahead of NV.
People do not like New Vegas for some silly incremental updates.
Both the overall game design and the writing in New Vegas are unquestionably superior to both 3 and 4.
And truth be told, the writing in NV is not even all that impressive, F3/4's is just that poor.
3 for quests, story, etc. 4 for exploration. I like both.
They both suck.
Fallout 4 somehow manages to have a dumber plot and worse writing than three, and the choice of dialogue has been downgraded to sub Bioware levels of match one of four boring paths.
Fallout 4 is better than three because it's less buggy and looks better. Slightly more fun to play.
I'll take Tactics or even Brotherhood of Steel over either of them.
Fallout 4 somehow manages to have a dumber plot and worse writing than three, and the choice of dialogue has been downgraded to sub Bioware levels of match one of four boring paths.
Fallout 4 is better than three because it's less buggy and looks better. Slightly more fun to play.
I'll take Tactics or even Brotherhood of Steel over either of them.
Last edited by Man God; Today at 05:52 AM.
Did someone already say New Vegas?
Pretty sure this is a trick question.
New Vegas is the hidden answer as everyone else pointed out.
New Vegas is the hidden answer as everyone else pointed out.
4's the better bethsoft game, way more interesting gameplay with a plot that got the vaguest hint of why everyone liked new vegas for an overall more fun uh "game" part
How much Jet are you on right now?Originally Posted by WheelHoss1
It's weird how you guys like NV because its gameplay is marginally better whereas the atmosphere and writing of Bethesda's efforts are miles ahead of NV.
We like NV because it has the better atmosphere and writing. And the better soft drink.
4 cause it doesn't look like a ps1 game.
At this point. Play 4, its more refined.
Then, if you have the urge to play one of the previous titles, Play FO3.
Then, if you have the urge to play one of the previous titles, Play FO3.
Between 3 and 4?
I was hooked on 3 when it first came out and played it to completion because I couldn't get enough and I was having a blast.
While I have more than 3 days worth of game time in 4, I just don't want to even play it anymore. I never did finish it. I suppose I will one day, though...
I was hooked on 3 when it first came out and played it to completion because I couldn't get enough and I was having a blast.
While I have more than 3 days worth of game time in 4, I just don't want to even play it anymore. I never did finish it. I suppose I will one day, though...
Fallout 4
I don't really care about the main plot in games like these. I did enjoy the random mini stories while exploring more in 4 than 3 though.
I don't really care about the main plot in games like these. I did enjoy the random mini stories while exploring more in 4 than 3 though.
fallout 4 is actually reasonably fun to play, whereas fallout 3's combat is atrociously bad and basically forces you to use VATS.
it's not clear cut which game is better, since it pretty much depends on what you value more: good story or gameplay.
story: NV > 3 > 4
gameplay: 4 > NV > 3
either way 3 should not be your first choice.
it's not clear cut which game is better, since it pretty much depends on what you value more: good story or gameplay.
story: NV > 3 > 4
gameplay: 4 > NV > 3
either way 3 should not be your first choice.
New Vegas.
Yup, put me in the 3 camp. New Vegas never managed to hook me. I try playing it every few years and it just does nothing. It's much more recognizable as Fallout than 4 is, though, at least to me.Originally Posted by WheelHoss1
3. Nothing beat the grind to the Capitol. Those subways will haunt my dreams until my dying day.
NV does nothing for me.
New Vegas>>>>> 4> 3
3 by a mile, though New Vegas by a mile beyond 3.
4 was just bland. The story segments fell flat on their face when you realized most of the choices were the same only worded ever so slightly differently. Voice acting for the main character was also completely unnecessary. Not to mention the absolutely horrendous performance at launch and for a good while after.
4 was just bland. The story segments fell flat on their face when you realized most of the choices were the same only worded ever so slightly differently. Voice acting for the main character was also completely unnecessary. Not to mention the absolutely horrendous performance at launch and for a good while after.
New Vegas. I loved three on release but I can't even fucking play it after New Vegas, and I didn't even bother buying Fallout 4 when it seemed to lean even further in the wrong direction.
So uh, Fallout 3 I guess.
So uh, Fallout 3 I guess.
wot did u just sayOriginally Posted by WheelHoss1
It's weird how you guys like NV because its gameplay is marginally better whereas the atmosphere and writing of Bethesda's efforts are miles ahead of NV.
New Vegas is one of the video game sequels that improves on its predecessor in literally Every. Single. Way.
3 was far more creative.
New Vegas is you want to play a rpg. Fallout 4 if you want to play a fps.
Just curious guys...what makes new Vegas so good?
Asking cause I never played it.
Asking cause I never played it.
3. It ad least did things somewhat right. Fallout 4 is huge and that might be a bad thing. Never once was I really in to the lore as far as notes and terminal entries. Just seemed to be too much
Originally Posted by WheelHoss1
It's weird how you guys like NV because its gameplay is marginally better whereas the atmosphere and writing of Bethesda's efforts are miles ahead of NV.
took the baitOriginally Posted by BigTnaples
Then if you have the urge to play one of the previous titles, Play FO3.
Fallout 4. I tried playing 3 a bit before 4 came out and it's garbage. Gunplay's horrible, the RPG elements feel almost entirely meaningless outside of a couple stats, and the writing/story are atrocious, right down to the quest lines. I only enjoyed a few, and even then said enjoyment was mixed.
The only things that I still enjoy about either game is that some of Bethesda's atmosphere is kinda neat in a bargain bin Lovecraft kind of way. Dunwich Building is cool, as was that mine or whatever in Fallout 4 (though the groups of raiders surrounding it took away from the atmosphere a bit).
4's a boring, shallow game with few redeeming factors, but a couple of the characters are endearing and the gunplay's kind of fun in a Doom 2016 alpha sort of way, which is more than I can say for Fallout 3. Fallout 3, at most, is fun as an open world collectathon where you try to get all the unique weapons, bobble heads, et cetera. Fallout 4 fucked that up by just making it some Borderlands shit for the most part.
I say 3, and I actually love 4.