Support NeoGAF

[partyboy]

Here dude I'll start it out for you
1. The game breaking glitch in the new patch
2. The glitch that crashed the game during Gwent
3. The moving slideshow effect when you move the camera quickly around the horizon
4. The way NPCs never stop cowering even when there's nothing around
5. The way enemies like Drowners will stand there doing nothing even while you're attacking them
6. The way Geralt moves (I'm assuming this is a glitch because the whole game is about feeling like you are Geralt, and those movement controls make you feel like you're an awkward laggy robot)

You'll have to fill in the rest, but that's a good start. They should really put "Takes good screenshots!" on the box because I swear that's all anyone cares about LOL

1 - I'm 70hrs in and haven't experienced any game breaking glitches.
2 - Played the fuck out of Gwent, never had it crash
3 - No slideshow here. Playing on PC
4 - This happens in one spot in Novigrad. Never seen it anywhere else.
5 - Never seen this
6 - People complain about this the same way they complain about it in GTA. It's clearly a design choice to give Geralt weight. You like it or you don't.

But I don't remember saying Witcher 3 was glitch free so I'm not sure what your point is? It is certainly nowhere near as janky as Fallout 3. Even people who love Fallout 3 have to admit that its engine is crap.

 

[anothertech]

As one who has never played any of the Fallout series, it's always been interesting to me the level of hype my gaming friends and many Gafer's seem to have for this game. I've always wondered what was it that pushed the level of excitement for it.

What is it that sets this game above the rest for you? Is it just the atmosphere and premise of the post apocalyptic open world? Or is it something more?

Really interested to hear what anyone that loves the series has to say about it.

 

[AESplusF]

It's a simple addition, but it makes the trailer SO much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDo4XGnW_k

lol dude gross...

 

[Beelzebufo]

1 - I'm 70hrs in and haven't experienced any game breaking glitches.
2 - Played the fuck out of Gwent, never had it crash
3 - No slideshow here. Playing on PC
4 - This happens in one spot in Novigrad. Never seen it anywhere else.
5 - Never seen this
6 - People complain about this the same way they complain about it in GTA. It's clearly a design choice to give Geralt weight. You like it or you don't.

But I don't remember saying Witcher 3 was glitch free so I'm not sure what your point is? It is certainly nowhere near as janky as Fallout 3. Even people who love Fallout 3 have to admit that its engine is crap.

"I haven't experienced this so it doesn't happen", lol literally all of those things happened to me before I gave up on the game. And making a character rocket forward at the slightest touch in any direction isn't "weight". Weight of a feather maybe.

It's definitely as janky as Fallout, and like I said, at least Fallout plays well and you can see the text.

As one who has never played any of the Fallout series, it's always been interesting to me the level of hype my gaming friends and many Gafer's seem to have for this game. I've always wondered what was it that pushed the level of excitement for it.

What is it that sets this game above the rest for you? Is it just the atmosphere and premise of the post apocalyptic open world? Or is it something more?

Really interested to hear what anyone that loves the series has to say about it.

Atmosphere for me. Could never get into Elder Scrolls as much.

 

[Kinsei]

As one who has never played any of the Fallout series, it's always been interesting to me the level of hype my gaming friends and many Gafer's seem to have for this game. I've always wondered what was it that pushed the level of excitement for it.

What is it that sets this game above the rest for you? Is it just the atmosphere and premise of the post apocalyptic open world? Or is it something more?

Really interested to hear what anyone that loves the series has to say about it.

The setting
VATS
The enemy design (I <3 things like deathclaws, brahmin, cazadors, etc)
The world of New Vegas
The humor

 

[IcyRhythms]

Gonna make a bold prediction here. Vault 111 doesn't just hold a significant part of the story, but it's also the release date. 11-1-2015

 

[Tigress]

I think it's easier for some to compare the two when they're both under the umbrella of AAA single player open world rpg, but it's obvious both games have much different design goals in terms of gameplay, world building, combat, and sense of player agency in the world. To me the tone changes drastically just due to third vs first person and the protagonist of W3 having such an integral role in the plot. In FO it feels a lot more you fill in the blanks as you're the "silent" protag that kind of feels more specter than active participant in the proceedings.

That said, W3 does story and world building superbly, but I wouldn't really compare it to FO as the two sit firmly in their own corners of the AAA rpg space design wise. Unless you wanna get reductionist and just discuss things like budget, graphics, and maps with markers and fast travel

I kinda agree with this. I will say I think W3 does a better job of its goals than Bethesda games (I already pointed out flaws I think more pertain to the kind of games Bethesda puts out a page or so ago). But, honestly, it seems most companies don't really compete in the same kind of game Bethesda puts out (or if they do they don't get it near as right.... even with all Bethesda does wrong).

I think there is some stuff you can compare. I think you also have to keep in mind what you said, they aren't the same game and they have different design goals. Both are awesome games imho (I'm really enthralled with Witcher right now). I prefer Bethesda games mainly cause I prefer the choose your character and how your character decides to take on the world (I mean, try having a pacifist run through in Witcher. Try being a sneaky person who likes to get a good headshot in before the mob sees you in Witcher. Try not taking combat stuff head on in Witcher. Granted, Witcher has better combat, but that's easier when they don't have to focus on a wide variety of comba styles).

(and it kind of annoys me when people say Bethesda does nothing better than Witcher. It does, but that's because Witcher isn't trying to do that! They're not the same games and as you said, they have different design goals. Hell, even not considering that Bethesda does sneaking better. I hated the little amount of stealth they had in Witcher 2. And from what I see it's not even in Witcher 3).

Oh, and Witcher is far from a perfect running game (it's had its share of stuff that frustrates me and it tends to crash a decent amount of times). I am not so sure I'd go as far as to say it runs as bad as Bethesda games. I'll say it runs as bad as Bethesda games when you first start them. But after you put hours in Bethesda games, they definitely run worse than Witcher. I don't know if I've put enough hours in Witcher to compare witcher after you've put 100 hours or so into to Bethesda games when you put 100 hours or so into it.

 

[ThomasCro]

It's a simple addition, but it makes the trailer SO much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDo4XGnW_k

Without overstating, this is the worst thing I have seen, it doesn't even work as a joke.

 

[partyboy]

"I haven't experienced this so it doesn't happen", lol literally all of those things happened to me before I gave up on the game. And making a character rocket forward at the slightest touch in any direction isn't "weight". Weight of a feather maybe.

It's definitely as janky as Fallout, and like I said, at least Fallout plays well and you can see the text.

Geralt rockets forward at the slightest touch? Are you sure you're playing Witcher 3?

I can read the text just fine. That being said, they do make the text fill the entire screen in Fallout 3 so I guess if that's your preference you're not going to appreciate Witcher 3's more modest text size.

Anyway, saying Witcher 3 is as janky as Fallout 3... yeah, I don't have anything more to say about that past lol.

 

[Solid Samus]

Honestly, I'd argue that Fallout 3 doesn't play particularly well at all without mods, IMO. It's one of the most easily broken games ever made. AI runs directly at you or strafes side to side strangely, rarely reacting to the things going on around them. No iron sights. Simple VATs. A high enough leveled Sneak skill turns you into some unholy fusion of Batman and the judaic God. Stat check mechanics are easily save scum'd. Choices boil down to good/evil/whatever. With that said, Witcher is by no means perfect either, though I'd say it's got the edge in cohesion, the perfect fitting of all its individual parts into a truly satisfying RPG. New Vegas really did meaningfully improve on a lot of Fallout 3's gameplay mechanics and it's a shame that the engine couldn't be improved in a like fashion.

 

[Rafterman]

Well I'm really struggling to understand how someone could say Witcher 3 and Fallout aren't comparable. They're both open world RPGs with quests and exploration.

GTA is open world with quests and exploration, what's your point? Just because two games are open world doesn't mean they are similar.


I can't wait until people stop slurping Witcher 3 so much that they have to compare every game to it. It's as annoying as people comparing the combat in the Souls games to everything else. I love the Witcher games, but it's getting tedious around here with all the whining about how game A or B needs to learn something or do something that W3 does.

Seriously, the Fallout games and the Witcher 3 are nothing alike so trying to compare them is apples and oranges. Bitching about how Fallout 3 doesn't do this or that like the Witcher does is about as stupid as bitching about how Fallout combat isn't like Bloodborne.

Just because all of these games are technically in the "RPG", aka, the stupidly broad category of massively dissimilar games doesn't mean they should all be alike or compared to each other. Unless your a fanboy it's perfectly acceptable to love the Witcher 3 for what it does and still love Fallout for what it does.

 

[wanderingprostheyltite]

As one who has never played any of the Fallout series, it's always been interesting to me the level of hype my gaming friends and many Gafer's seem to have for this game. I've always wondered what was it that pushed the level of excitement for it.

What is it that sets this game above the rest for you? Is it just the atmosphere and premise of the post apocalyptic open world? Or is it something more?

Really interested to hear what anyone that loves the series has to say about it.

For me it's love of post apocalyptic atmosphere and world building done well, which I thought FO3 did superbly. The sense of discovery felt very rewarding and the layout of the various landmarks in the world seemed more organic than gamey. It felt like a place that was once functional as a city but had now been twisted by fallout, radiation, and mutation. Might be the most memorable setting I've explored in a game, the experience has stayed with me despite not playing it for years. Obviously other games do this too, but FO3 feels so distinct from most. W3 does a fantastic job at this creating a sense of place too, but the diversity of locations is more easily realized with the post apocalyptic theme imo. Also, vats is incredibly addicting and watching limbs come off in slow mo never gets old Here's hoping they kept that intact for 4.

 

[Beelzebufo]

Geralt rockets forward at the slightest touch? Are you sure you're playing Witcher 3?

I can read the text just fine. That being said, they do make the text fill the entire screen in Fallout 3 so I guess if that's your preference you're not going to appreciate Witcher 3's more modest text size.

Anyway, saying Witcher 3 is as janky as Fallout 3... yeah, I don't have anything more to say about that past lol.

Geralt does rocket forward at the slightest touch, and the text is too small. These aren't uncommon problems haha. And it is! Both have similar problems. It's ridiculous to say one is much better than the other haha

 

[Crooked16th]

It's a simple addition, but it makes the trailer SO much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDo4XGnW_k

https://youtu.be/5hfYJsQAhl0

 

[gosox333]

I think that that Capitol Wasteland was a more interesting place than the space of New Vegas. A major reason could be because I'm from the East Coast (though I've visited both DC and Vegas many times), but what I liked about the Capitol Wasteland in Fallout 3 was that there were more recognizable real world "things" that fit the Fallout universe well. I felt that New Vegas' world was really overhyped and poorly done. which leads me to...

I felt NV did this better (outside of the strip. As you said, that was a mess)

Every small town you go through before reaching the Strip is a town in real life. Goodsprings exists, Primm exists, Novac exists (not called Novac IRL tho), obviously the Hoover dam exists. Hell there's probably more that I can't recall just now.

Obviously the Capitol Wasteland does this too, but it's different. I think it's because DC is so famous and we're obviously going to recall the pieces that make it up as they are famous as well, as opposed to those random small towns surrounding Vegas that nobody's ever heard of. The fact that they took time attempting to accurately portray those is really cool to me.

 

[todahawk]

It's a simple addition, but it makes the trailer SO much better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McDo4XGnW_k

dear lord that's horrible and doesn't fit with fallout in any way, shape or form.

 

[Tigress]

It's not like the games are totally, wholly different in every single aspect, sure. They're directly comparable in some aspects, particularly the quality of the writing, and the impact of choice during questlines, but they're also structured very differently and have swathes of gameplay differences both large and small that contribute to the games feeling and playing out very differently from one another, to the point where I'd argue they're not directly comparable, because they're not played and enjoyed for quite the same reasons.

I wasn't saying they were directly comparable. I agree with you (I love both and enjoy both. I prefer Bethesda but that's cause I prefer being able to play who I want and how I want and to make my own story. As you said, different aim for Bethesda games to what Witcher aims at).

I will say that for their aims Witcher probably is more succesful at it than Bethesda is for the aim of their games (for the reasons I pointed out that I find is weak about their games that I think does relate to what Bethesda is attempting to do). I think it is fair to compare if the games actually achieve their goal successfully.

In the end though, I still prefer Bethesda games myself. But that doesn't mean I think WItcher is a bad game at all. Hell, I'm enjoying it as much as I enjoyed Skyrim and there are things I like better about it (as well as some stuff I'm missing from Skyrim).

Well I'm really struggling to understand how someone could say Witcher 3 and Fallout aren't comparable. They're both open world RPGs with quests and exploration. In W3 you play Geralt, in Fallout 3 you play your own character - who is always someone looking for their dad. So massive a difference that it is just asinine to compare them.

Um, Witcher and Skyrim are more comparable than Witcher and Fallout. And even then, they really do have different goals.

 

[Einchy]

It's definitely as janky as Fallout,

 

[Solid Samus]

I felt NV did this better (outside of the strip. As you said, that was a mess)

Every small town you go through before reaching the Strip is a town in real life. Goodsprings exists, Primm exists, Novac exists (not called Novac IRL tho), obviously the Hoover dam exists. Hell there's probably more that I can't recall just now.

Obviously the Capitol Wasteland does this to, but it's different. I think it's because DC is so famous and we're obviously going to recall the pieces that make it up as they are famous as well, as opposed to those random small towns surrounding Vegas that nobody's ever heard of. The fact that they took time attempting to accurately portray those is really cool to me.

That's one of the best parts about both games, but NV doesn't get quite enough credit for it. Check out google maps, y'all! New Vegas is shockingly faithful to the area around it.

I wasn't saying they were directly comparable. I agree with you (I love both and enjoy both. I prefer Bethesda but that's cause I prefer being able to play who I want and how I want and to make my own story. As you said, different aim for Bethesda games to what Witcher aims at).

I will say that for their aims Witcher probably is more succesful at it than Bethesda is for the aim of their games (for the reasons I pointed out that I find is weak about their games that I think does relate to what Bethesda is attempting to do). I think it is fair to compare if the games actually achieve their goal successfully.

In the end though, I still prefer Bethesda games myself. But that doesn't mean I think WItcher is a bad game at all. Hell, I'm enjoying it as much as I enjoyed Skyrim and there are things I like better about it (as well as some stuff I'm missing from Skyrim).

I was actually addressing partyboy with that segment of my post and using your quote as a support for my argument, lol. I'm pretty much where you're at RE: these two series

Fallout 3 is better than new vegas. Whats the problem here. Fallout 4 will be fantastic. As long as there isn't a stupid dog companion forced on you the whole game. I would rather be alone on my mission through the ruined streets of Boston.

That's arguable, and I'd personally argue that while Fallout 3 has the edge in world design (visually and atmospherically, and not lore/worldbuilding-wise), Fallout New Vegas beats it down in every other area that matters.

but I'm also not going to act like some of the people in here and in other threads that inevitably become New Vegas vs Fallout 3, where it's automatically assumed by fans of the former that Bethesda is, five years after the fact, totally unaware of New Vegas' reception, or the things it did to improve on Fallout 3's base formula. I've got a lot of hope for Fallout 4, that it might be every bit as grand as New Vegas in its own ways, and I don't think that's unreasonable.

 

[Grady]

Fallout 3 is better than new vegas. Whats the problem here. Fallout 4 will be fantastic. As long as there isn't a stupid dog companion forced on you the whole game. I would rather be alone on my mission through the ruined streets of Boston.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Fallout 3 is better than new vegas. Whats the problem here. Fallout 4 will be fantastic. As long as there isn't a stupid dog companion forced on you the whole game. I would rather be alone on my mission through the ruined streets of Boston.

Idk how anyone could feel after playing both 3 and NV that 3 is an overall better package. Better is a subjective word, so a lot of that is just a matter of opinion, but one can't deny that some things about NV are just superior or not done at all in Fallout 3. Aiming down the sights, more choice, more freedom, and the game doesn't force you down one path. You can side with a few different factions/main characters.

 

[Tigress]

Fallout 3 is better than new vegas. Whats the problem here. Fallout 4 will be fantastic. As long as there isn't a stupid dog companion forced on you the whole game. I would rather be alone on my mission through the ruined streets of Boston.

Disagree with you but Vegas vs. 3 is a far better thing to compare than Witcher vs. Skyrim (or even worse, Fallout which really is not the same game at all as witcher.. I'm not even sure how you'd compare them. The combat is entirely different, the world is entirely different).

Idk how anyone could feel after playing both 3 and NV that 3 is an overall better package. Better is a subjective word, so a lot of that is just a matter of opinion, but one can't deny that some things about NV are just superior or not done at all in Fallout 3. Aiming down the sights, more choice, more freedom, and the game doesn't force you down one path. You can side with a few different factions/main characters.

And this is scratching the surface.

You know what would be awesome? A collaboration of Bethesda and Obsidian where Obsidian does gaem mechanics and story and characterization and Bethesda does the world you explore.

 

[cilonen]

Don't want the negative nancies to totally take this over. Fallout 3 is an excellent game, as is New Vegas, and while many Fallout enthusiasts like New Vegas a lot more, the general audience either thinks they're equal or may prefer Fallout 3 more than NV.

I'm one of the rare birds where I liked Fallout 3 more than New Vegas, and here's why:

• I think that that Capitol Wasteland was a more interesting place than the space of New Vegas. A major reason could be because I'm from the East Coast (though I've visited both DC and Vegas many times), but what I liked about the Capitol Wasteland in Fallout 3 was that there were more recognizable real world "things" that fit the Fallout universe well. I felt that New Vegas' world was really overhyped and poorly done. which leads me to...
• The Vegas Strip in New Vegas is the worst conceived area of any game world in a major title that I've ever seen. What was described as this bustling metropolis "just like" the Vegas strip (even an old Vegas-type strip) is an empty region with 4 empty buildings and a bizarre, poorly designed slum surrounding it. If you watch the developer diaries about this region before hand it's even worse because the developers are outright lying in the videos -- "This looks *just like* Vegas with casinos packed with people at slot parlours" and shit like that. In reality, every casino is legitimately empty with maybe 3 or 4 randomly wandering NPCs in a room. This is obviously an engine limitation, but I felt like DC's sparse historical buildings fit this engine limitation better than what New Vegas was trying to do.
• I like the history of DC more than the history of Vegas, and this works better, in my opinion, for a post-apocalyptic Fallout esque story. I felt it really fascinating when a faction would take over the Lincoln Memorial or the Smithsonian Natural History Museum or the Washington Monument. You do have a bit of that in New Vegas, but less so.

I also felt that New Vegas was a much more linear trajectory for mcuh of the first half of the game. It was open world that drove you in a specific path, not by invisible walls or anything, but very strong deadly creatures. That's fine and it's a good way to do it, but I felt that you were punished for exploring in NV especially for the first 20 hours, where as you were rewarded for it in Fallout 3, albeit it was still dangerous.

FO3 also had better DLC. If you do play FO3, definitely get the Broken Steel update. Skip Operation ANchorage until you beat the game it imbalances it. Some DLC like Point Lookout, IMO, was truly awesome.

I think most people like FO:NV because the choice & consequence is better than in Fallout 3, and I get that. I liked them both but really liked the world of the Capitol Wasteland moreso than the world of New Vegas. But I'm generally in the minority here wth that opinion, though it's a common opinion outside of enthusiast Fallout circles.

If you're going to play both of them (which you should and can do in the next 6 months), then I think you should play FO3 first and then NV.

*edit*

Here is the developer diary about NV and creating "the Strip" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7r2idnbfPc When I watched that I had so much hype. And then I played the game and was like "... are you... serious?" I had to rewatch the video to make sure I wasn't wrong. "The strip... the strip is just huge." I think it's 4 doors and a recurring NPC drunk/cracked out prostitute that approaches you and the same 4 dancing NPCs. "We want to make it big an huge with tons of people milling about and make it feel like I'm on the strip in real Las Vegas." I think maybe they cut off that quote where he must have said "unfortunately due to engine limitations we can't do that." But, nope, they left tthat quote in there. If you want to see the strip that is "big and huge with tons of people milling about and it feels just like the real strip in Las Vegas" here it is:

4 buildings. 3 NPCs standing still. A door and loading screen in the middle of it. WELCOME TO VEGAS!

Are you my long lost twin? You put all that so much more eloquently than I could.

The world of Fallout New Vegas is one of my biggest gaming disappointments.

Only that last DLC with the messenger (I think?) had a decent atmosphere to it.

 

[MattyG]

Idk how anyone could feel after playing both 3 and NV that 3 is an overall better package. Better is a subjective word, so a lot of that is just a matter of opinion, but one can't deny that some things about NV are just superior or not done at all in Fallout 3. Aiming down the sights, more choice, more freedom, and the game doesn't force you down one path. You can side with a few different factions/main characters.

I don't think 3 is better, but I prefer it because a) it was my first Fallout experience and b) I find the Capital Wasteland to be a more interesting place to explore. I still really love New Vegas too though.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Disagree with you but Vegas vs. 3 is a far better thing to compare than Witcher vs. Skyrim (or even worse, Fallout which really is not the same game at all as witcher.. I'm not even sure how you'd compare them. The combat is entirely different, the world is entirely different).



And this is scratching the surface.

You know what would be awesome? A collaboration of Bethesda and Obsidian where Obsidian does gaem mechanics and story and characterization and Bethesda does the world you explore.

I'd love this

 

[joecanada]

Idk how anyone could feel after playing both 3 and NV that 3 is an overall better package. Better is a subjective word, so a lot of that is just a matter of opinion, but one can't deny that some things about NV are just superior or not done at all in Fallout 3. Aiming down the sights, more choice, more freedom, and the game doesn't force you down one path. You can side with a few different factions/main characters.

Fallout 3 was better.

 

[Yellowflashdude]

I like how graphics suddenly don't matter when it comes to bethesda games.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Fallout 3 was better.

Feels linear in comparison. Can you explain why you feel it's better?

 

[partyboy]

A question for the people who prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas: is writing important to you?

Because for me, the writing in Fallout 3 is so, so bad. It's made it hard for me to revisit the game. I can only imagine someone being indifferent to writing thinking 3 is a better game than New Vegas.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

My take:

Setting / Atmosphere: Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

Items and Armor: Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

Writing / Quest cohesion: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

Moment to moment gameplay: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

Companions: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

 

[Tigress]

I don't think 3 is better, but I prefer it because a) it was my first Fallout experience and b) I find the Capital Wasteland to be a more interesting place to explore. I still really love New Vegas too though.

3 was really my first Fallout experience (I mean I had tried Fallout 1 over and over. And at the time never thought I could try 2 cause by the time I realized they made a Mac version Apple updated MacOS not to support applicatoins that needed "Cocoa" which Fallout apparently did. It's too bad cause I would have easily gotten into Fallout sooner if I played 2, it's my second favorite Fallout).

I loved three enough to go ahead adn try Vegas (originally I was just going to play one). At first I was meh at it but it kinda crept up on me. Eventually I realized Vegas was just so much better and that I was glad I played it after 3 cause I really would have missed a lot of elements in Vegas if I played 3 after Vegas (New Vegas is my favorite Fallout. 2 might have seceded it if it was action based honestly though. Turn based and not having a large continious world to explore is the big reasons Vegas wins over it. I mean I like turn based but I love the FPS gameplay in a real RPG of the later Fallouts. Neither Vegas or 3 have it over 2 when it comes to choice and whacky shit happening and surprising you... for example my female character having a shotgun weddign to another female character when because all I wanted to do was talk to an NPC she was so enthralled with some one who didn't just want to f* her that she had her way with me and her dad found out. Yes, I really enjoy the zanyness of 2 . And, yes, I always turn on the wild wastelands perk in Vegas. It just isn't nearly the same).

(and hey, if Bethesda wants to bring back the intelligent Deathclaws, I'll be marking out! So pissed I couldn't save them though I hear there could be hope that the line continues).

 

[Solid Samus]

Feels linear in comparison. Can you explain why you feel it's better?

in before atmosphere

A question for the people who prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas: is writing important to you?

Because for me, the writing in Fallout 3 is so, so bad. It's made it hard for me to revisit the game. I can only imagine someone being indifferent to writing thinking 3 is a better game than New Vegas.

Seriously, it's kind of profound how noticeable the difference in writing is, going back from New Vegas (or to Fallout 3 from Fallout 1/2). And the world building is kinda crap, too. The whole world is a theme park of tenuously justified themed settlements. Playing through Fallout 3 as a survival game with mods certainly helps and enhances the already solid visual atmosphere. My current playthrough, I've been avoiding the main questline and heading north west and up around until I land at Rivet City, at which point I'll continue the main questline and circumvent as much of the stuff I don't like as possible.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

I like how graphics suddenly don't matter when it comes to bethesda games.

I don't care about graphics at all. If the game is fun, I'm there. If not, I go find something else to play.

It's much easier than debating resolutions and pixels all day. That's not for me.

 

[DOWN]

I think the Capital wasteland was better styled, but New Vegas was handled better as an actual game setting and atmosphere, and overall NV was the better game.

 

[IcyRhythms]

My take:

Setting / Atmosphere: Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

Items and Armor: Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

Writing / Quest cohesion: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

Moment to moment gameplay: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

Companions: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

I'm totally fine with this post, but, with items and armor did you mean which ones have better/cooler looking designs? I think in just the base game alone NV definitely has more unique weapons and armor to find than 3. It's been awhile since I've played 3 and I may be wrong.

 

[Big_Al]

So.....this may sound silly but, has Fallout 4 been confirmed as being moddable yet on PC ? I know with BGS's history it should be a silly question and I hope it really is.

 

[Solid Samus]

So.....this may sound silly but, has Fallout 4 been confirmed as being moddable yet on PC ? I know with BGS's history it should be a silly question and I hope it really is.

that's like asking if the new Halo is gonna have multiplayer, it's almost a guarantee. Mod support is the main reason people still talked about Fallout 3 and New Vegas in 2015. or 2014. or 2013.

 

[MattyG]

A question for the people who prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas: is writing important to you?

Because for me, the writing in Fallout 3 is so, so bad. It's made it hard for me to revisit the game. I can only imagine someone being indifferent to writing thinking 3 is a better game than New Vegas.

Yes, writing is very important to me, and while I never found Fallout 3's writing to be awful (I think it's decent, not great) NV is definitely miles better.

For just exploring the wasteland and general atmosphere/setting, 3 is my go-to, but for questing, NV is better.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

I'm totally fine with this post, but, with items and armor did you mean which ones have better/cooler looking designs? I think in just the base game alone NV definitely has more unique weapons and armor to find than 3. It's been awhile since I've played 3 and I may be wrong.

Yeah, just IMO. NV definitely has more unique items, but nothing beats Lincoln's Repeater.

 

[Yellowflashdude]

I don't care about graphics at all. If the game is fun, I'm there. If not, I go find something else to play.

It's much easier than debating resolutions and pixels all day. That's not for me.

Not trying to attack anybody at all, it just highlights how fickle the gaming community or the bias towards their favorite company after the shitstorm regarding Witcher 3.

 

[IcyRhythms]

Yeah, just IMO. NV definitely has more unique items, but nothing beats Lincoln's Repeater.

It's definitely not the most powerful weapon in the Fallout Universe but I love the All American that you can find in Vault 34. Best weapon in the game for me and I grab it every playthrough

 

[Deified Data]

My take:

Setting / Atmosphere: Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

Items and Armor: Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

Writing / Quest cohesion: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

Moment to moment gameplay: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

Companions: Fallout NV > Fallout 3

I agree with everything but your second. New Vegas has sooo much more weapons and armor of different strengths and utility than Fallout 3. Unless the variety of New Vegas was what turned you off somehow.

 

[Chance Hale]

There is a great mod series for the PC version of Fallout New Vegas that opens the strip up to how it was originally intended by getting rid of the load barriers and increasing the population count.

 

[Enduin]

There is a great mod series for the PC version of Fallout New Vegas that opens the strip up to how it was originally intended by getting rid of the load barriers and increasing the population count.

It's pretty buggy though and can cause issues with a number of quests in Freeside last I checked.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

I agree with everything but your second. New Vegas has sooo much more weapons and armor of different strengths and utility than Fallout 3. Unless the variety of New Vegas was what turned you off somehow.

It's probably my nostalgia talking, I played Fallout 3 earlier this year but I haven't gotten around to my yearly playthrough of NV yet.

 

[-duskdoll-]

As one who has never played any of the Fallout series, it's always been interesting to me the level of hype my gaming friends and many Gafer's seem to have for this game. I've always wondered what was it that pushed the level of excitement for it.

What is it that sets this game above the rest for you? Is it just the atmosphere and premise of the post apocalyptic open world? Or is it something more?

Really interested to hear what anyone that loves the series has to say about it.

• The atmosphere
• The freedom of exploration (most important)
• Interesting characters
• Doesn't take itself too seriously
• Story
• Post-apocalyptic theme (that's why Fallout > TES for me)

 

[IcyRhythms]

Hoping Fallout 4 can use at least 2 cores without having to adjust ini files.

 

[Tal Shiar Agent]

In regards to those stupid Reddit rumors.

http://kotaku.com/latest-popular-fa..._source=Kotaku_Facebook&utm_medium=Socialflow

 

[Rafterman]

Feels linear in comparison. Can you explain why you feel it's better?

I can tell you why I think it's better. In open world Bethesda games I care more about the worlds than the story, and Fallout 3 was a much more impressive world IMO.

A question for the people who prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas: is writing important to you?

Writing is very important to me, just not in these games. These are open world sandbox games to me, where the environment and world are the biggest draw. I've probably put in hundreds of hours of gaming on Bethesda titles and I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what each main storyline was even about. I'm not looking for PS:T or BG2 when I play these Bethesda games, I'm looking for a vast open world full of neat things to explore and do, the story is secondary.

 

[SocksAndShoes]

• The atmosphere
• The freedom of exploration (most important)
• Interesting characters
• Doesn't take itself too seriously
• Story
• Post-apocalyptic theme (that's why Fallout > TES for me)

These are the 3 big ones for me. I much prefer the Fallout series to TES for the same reason.