Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/30/11 06:17 PM, Wolfos wrote: I want one to take place in Paris. I don't live there (I've been there a couple of times), but it would be very different.
Amsterdam is another suggestion, but if realistic it would've been flooded with the dike gone.

The games would NEVER leave the united states, or at least north america.

The game is too focused in the United States. And not only that, but it's also where the game company is located. :P

Although it would be cool.

As much as I hate saying this, NV seemed a little like a rehashed version of 3. That said, it's by no means a bad thing, as they're both incredible games which have both given me hours of amusement.

Fallout 3: GOTY > Fallout: New Vegas > Fallout 3.

/facts

At 8/30/11 05:57 PM, Wolfos wrote: New Vegas. The story, the characters, the choices... All great.
In Fallout 3, there was pure evil (the Enclave) and (seemingly) pure good (the BOS).
In New Vegas however, there were 4 choices but it was just choosing between lesser evils.

Actually, the Enclave isn't evil in Fallout 3, Autumns plan to use the Purifier to gain popular support for the Enclave to rebuild America isn't an evil plan at all, Eden is the only one that wants to poison it.

The game (infuriatingly) doesn't give you the option of siding with Autumn and railroads the player into working with Lyons Brotherhood of Steel. Even if you go along with Edens plan and/or blow up the Citadel in Broken Steel, your still forced to work with the Brotherhood the entire time.

At 8/30/11 10:54 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 8/30/11 05:57 PM, Wolfos wrote: New Vegas. The story, the characters, the choices... All great.
In Fallout 3, there was pure evil (the Enclave) and (seemingly) pure good (the BOS).
In New Vegas however, there were 4 choices but it was just choosing between lesser evils.

Actually, the Enclave isn't evil in Fallout 3, Autumns plan to use the Purifier to gain popular support for the Enclave to rebuild America isn't an evil plan at all, Eden is the only one that wants to poison it.

The game (infuriatingly) doesn't give you the option of siding with Autumn and railroads the player into working with Lyons Brotherhood of Steel. Even if you go along with Edens plan and/or blow up the Citadel in Broken Steel, your still forced to work with the Brotherhood the entire time.

This is, more than likely, a necessary plot device to depict the expansion and fall of the Enclave. Just think about that for a little while and you'll get it fine.

At 8/31/11 10:51 AM, Rahmemhotep wrote: This is, more than likely, a necessary plot device to depict the expansion and fall of the Enclave. Just think about that for a little while and you'll get it fine.

Because the retarded plot says so, is what your saying?

There was no need for Bethesda to depict the factions as so black and white and not even give the player the option of siding with the Enclave. It was just bad storytelling.

New Vegas was kinda' boring in my opinion. And ANYONE who gets shot in the head will die.

Fallout 3 was and is the best game i've ever played. (apart from left 4 dead)

At 9/1/11 10:04 AM, IAmNotDead wrote: And ANYONE who gets shot in the head will die.

No they don't.

Also, Fallout 3 didn't even try to have a final boss. Autumn and 2 bodyguards, really? He should at least had 6 bodyguards or something. Lagate Lanius in New Vegas is a tough fight, unless you use the OP Alien Blaster.

And talking Eden into blowing himself up was very stupid. Not the [Science] route, the [Speech] one is mind-numbingly dumb, dialogue wise.

At 8/30/11 10:36 AM, IrishGun wrote: No, I'm choosing New Vegas because its world isn't ridiculous

Oh, come now. Fallout is supposed to be ridiculous, kinda. 3 wasn't ridiculous enough, I reckon.

At 9/3/11 01:57 PM, Centurion-Ryan wrote: Oh, come now. Fallout is supposed to be ridiculous, kinda. 3 wasn't ridiculous enough, I reckon.

I could deal with stuff like the talking spore plant in Fallout 2, because the way he talked pretty much gave away that it was a joke, and not to be taken seriously.

Then 3 just dumps you in a world where elderly British men can make hotels in the form of towers out of nowhere, vampires exist, children somehow manage to build a settlement RIGHT NEXT TO A CAVE FILLED WITH MUTANTS and manage to survive, and a town that in its entirety is a Planet of the Apes reference, and it still tries to give off this 'doom and gloom' feel everywhere you go.

Calling it 'ridiculous' isn't really an accurate term, though, looking back on all that. Some parts of its world are just outright stupid.

Fallout 3. Haven't played much of New Vegas, but from what I have, I prefer 3.

There is no doubt they are both fucking brilliant games, but I would personally have to go with New Vegas. The setting was great, I loved the Mojave Wasteland. And you're actions with all the various factions in the game have a much greater impact on the story. Ceasors Legion FTW.

I like Fallout 3, I think that they make New Vegas too much fancy and hard... well I'm not saying that i dont like hard games, but New Vegas is kinda in strange way hard... and boring... :D

At 9/6/11 12:16 PM, Jin wrote: Let me illustrate with this equation.
2 > 1 > NV > Tactics > POS > van buren alpha > 3

Sorry, but shitty opinions don't count.

Fallout new Vegas has much more of a dynamic feel to it, how you could part with pretty much any tribe and gang, unlike in fallout 2 where you had a few minor choices but in the end it all lead to similar things anyway, plus N.V has a lot more to offer out of the linear story and i like how the DLC's aren't just some random bonus missions, but instead create an entirely new story away from the main game which feels more like the main story than the actual story line, fallout 3 is amazing, and a ground breaking game i couldn't put down for months on end, but i just think new Vegas capitalized on the greatness of fallout 3 and improved on its flaws, allowing you to shape your destiny in the Mojave so much more than in the capital wasteland.

At 8/29/11 09:06 AM, MrPercie wrote: fallout 3 reintroduced the game too us but fallout new vegas had so much more too do.

i second this

I liked Fallout 3 more, but oddly enough, I don't own Fallout 3. I own New Vegas.

At 9/6/11 12:16 PM, Jin wrote: Let me illustrate with this equation.
2 > 1 > NV > Tactics > POS > van buren alpha > 3

I second this notion except the Van Buren tech demo because it was just a demo. I wished Interplay stilled owned the rights to make a fallout game, or better yet a fallout mmo. :3

Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time. I played and beat new vegas, but the god damn glitches, the pointlessness of your decisions due to a lack of post ending gameplay, and the overall chore of playing through it pissed me off so much I ended up doing this:

At 9/8/11 08:01 PM, animehater wrote: Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time. I played and beat new vegas, but the god damn glitches, the pointlessness of your decisions due to a lack of post ending gameplay, and the overall chore of playing through it pissed me off so much I ended up doing this:

I would also like to say I acknowledge the immaturity of my actions. But holy fuck was I pissed that day.

I think Fallout New Vegas was a marked improvement over Fallout 3 for the following reasons-
1. Vastly better writing. Fallout is Obsidian's baby and Bethesda didn't really take it the right direction.
2. Robust intro sequence IE: Thirty minutes into Fallout NV, you're killing Powder Gangers with a shotgun. Thirty minutes into Fallout 3 you're having your tenth birthday party.
3. More weapons, with several favorites from the old Fallouts returning.
4. No fucking green tint. The brown tint is gives a slight washed out look, and in the very least the skies are blue.
5. Improved crafting system and Hardcore(with mods) create a much more interesting endgame then Fallout 3's "I shoot the raider in the head 9 times with my Xiaolong"

However, the interior level design suffered greatly, those new buildings are like mazes!

All in all, where fallout 3 was an adequate and unique game, Fallout New Vegas was a great one. It's in my top 20 games of all time.

Here's my code for the classic pack in New Vegas, never used it and it's not like I'll need it anymore. And like they do in facebook the first one who puts it in wins.

YKTHX-7RVP6-H34JC-QWHQC-FQYRZ

While both games are very good.

Fallout 3 had a way better setting. The Fallout series really thrives in metropolitan areas, and Fallout 3 showed us that like no other.

Fallout New Vegas could've been incredible, but it suffered from terrible setting. Making a post-apocalyptic wasteland game in a place that has always been a Wasteland? You must be joking. Overall, exploration was just not at all as satisfying or rewarding as it was in Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 you could explore dilapidated metro tunnels, ruined cities, decaying neighborhoods, etc, and pretty much every area had something interesting in it.

In New Vegas, the loot is boring, the exploration is boring, the locations are boring, etc. And the Strip was so incredibly over-hyped, I'm surprised they even had the audacity to release it. All along we were indirectly led to believe that The Strip was some incredible place full of bright lights and interesting features, we were given a three room area, with three casinos that kick you out after a while.

Not to mention that without patches New Vegas is damn near unplayable. Hell, even with patches I still have 3 or 4 quests that are completely bugged and can't be completed.

Overall, I'll choose Fallout 3 every day of the week.

Not to say Fallout New Vegas doesn't have it's shining points. More weapons, larger map (Although the boring locations kind of cancels it out), weapon mods, more quests, unique skinned unique weapons, better companions (In the sense that they have backstory and quests now, instead of just being there)

Fallout 3 lacked the imagination that the Fallout series had. Overall Bethesda tried to prove they could make a better Fallout game and when Obsidian had their go they put it to shame with a more creative in depth storyline, better weapons, better characters, and more interesting quests.

At 9/8/11 08:01 PM, animehater wrote: but the god damn glitches,

Hmm, I have it for the 360 and I haven't noticed too many glitches. Except for this one noticeable one that drops old lady Gibson and her dogs and/or hostile dogs on top of you when you l leave Helios One. Kinda funny.

I didn't have this glitch, but its an awesome glitch!

the pointlessness of your decisions due to a lack of post ending gameplay

Now, with all the different endings for the different factions, having post-ending game-play would be such a huge DLC, it practically be its own game, the scale of New Vegas makes the concept laughable.

At 9/9/11 07:28 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 9/8/11 08:01 PM, animehater wrote: but the god damn glitches,

Hmm, I have it for the 360 and I haven't noticed too many glitches. Except for this one noticeable one that drops old lady Gibson and her dogs and/or hostile dogs on top of you when you l leave Helios One. Kinda funny.

I used to get that as well. Fixed in a patch.
And it sounds like you're one of the lucky ones. The majority of people who bought the game experienced lots of game breaking glitches and bugs.

At 9/9/11 12:33 AM, Cericon wrote: While both games are very good.

Fallout 3 had a way better setting. The Fallout series really thrives in metropolitan areas, and Fallout 3 showed us that like no other.

Fallout New Vegas could've been incredible, but it suffered from terrible setting. Making a post-apocalyptic wasteland game in a place that has always been a Wasteland? You must be joking. Overall, exploration was just not at all as satisfying or rewarding as it was in Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 you could explore dilapidated metro tunnels, ruined cities, decaying neighborhoods, etc, and pretty much every area had something interesting in it.

Most of those abandoned buildings and metros in Fallout 3 are boring filler though. Many of them give no reason to explore them other than because you can. Wear as New Vegas had many more important places that figured into the plot somehow.

In New Vegas, the loot is boring, the exploration is boring, the locations are boring, etc. And the Strip was so incredibly over-hyped, I'm surprised they even had the audacity to release it. All along we were indirectly led to believe that The Strip was some incredible place full of bright lights and interesting features, we were given a three room area, with three casinos that kick you out after a while.

New Vegas loot is boring? New Vegas has way more weapons, not to mention mods and special ammo. In 3 your basically using the same few weapons the entire game, depending on what skills you take.

Also, New Vegas has a space laser weapon, although you have to make an asshole decision to get it. (choosing to power the thing instead of powering local communities and/or the NCR)

And nobody can describe 'This machine' as boring, one of my favorite guns.

But yeah, the strip was kinda of a let down.

Not to say Fallout New Vegas doesn't have it's shining points. More weapons, larger map (Although the boring locations kind of cancels it out), weapon mods, more quests, unique skinned unique weapons, better companions (In the sense that they have backstory and quests now, instead of just being there)

True, and Star paladin Cross is the most boring companion in the entire fallout franchise.