Current Events > Your daily reminder ppl argue 3 > New Vegas

(+) Yeah! (+)

An objectively wrong opinion

idk cuz I can't run 3 on my computer

g0ldie posted...

Opinions can be wrong. Like those who say Ryuko is a better waifu than Satsuki

I don't want to argue 3 is better than new Vegas, I haven't even played it

DKBananaSlamma posted...

Opinions can be wrong. Like those who say Ryuko is a better waifu than Satsuki

who and who??

I'll never argue it's better. But I'll always prefer it over NV.

I haven't heard anyone argue that 3 is better in a long time. It's always NV love these days. I never even hear anything about 3.

Your daily reminder ppl argue 2 > 1

New Vegas wins in almost every single department.

Combat, perks, sidequests, companions, locations, factions, DLC, and the most important quality: Replayability.

I'm pretty sure anyone saying 3 is better is just trolling and getting off on annoying people.

People are allowed to enjoy 3 more if that's how they feel. I think New Vegas is better in every single way but that's just my opinion man

MC_BatCommander posted...

People are allowed to enjoy 3 more if that's how they feel. I think New Vegas is better in every single way but that's just my opinion man

Just because you are allowed doesn't mean you should.

There are no wrong opinions. But there are a shitload of bad ones.

Master_Bass posted...

I haven't heard anyone argue that 3 is better in a long time. It's always NV love these days. I never even hear anything about 3.

I'm of the opinion this is largely because FO3 has little to no memorable characters. People who enjoyed NV will always remember Veronica, Cass, Boone, Lily, Mr. House, The King, Caesar, etc. They had personality, were interesting, and typically had a wealth of backstory.

Fallout 3 doesn't have the benefit of that. The companions were almost completely shallow; Charon was just a stock strong silent type, and Fawkes had some decent surface-level dialogue, but little to no depth or backstory. Hell, the closest thing that FO3 has to a main character besides the PC (Sarah Lyons) was so forgettable that Bethesda unceremoniously killed her offscreen between 3 and 4, and the only way to know this is by looking up the info on some terminal in the Prydwen that the vast majority of players will never find.

The few memorable characters Fallout 3 does have range from irritating to unbearable. Three Dog is entertaining at times, but almost exclusively through radio monologue; his brief interaction with the player doesn't make much of an impression. Moira Brown is one of the game's better-developed characters, but I wouldn't want to be stuck in a room with her for more than five minutes. MacCready was given a complete personality change in 4, obviously to keep the player from brutally murdering him on sight. Doctor Li also had her rampaging insufferability toned down considerably in 4 as well (even though she's still a pretty big pain in the ass).

I like 3 more only because I played it on release, and didn't try New Vegas until about 5 years ago. It's a mess

I do think NV is better, but I was able to beat Fallout 3 on PS3, whereas the freezing and slowdown in New Vegas got so bad I had to give up before even touching the DLC.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Fallout 1 fans just seem to hate the goofy shit added in fallout 2 (like the old media references, talking plant, ghost girl, and some "lore breaking" stuff ive forgotten about)..

Ive met someone on the fallout subreddit that only liked fallout 1, 3, and 4 and hated New Vegas and fallout 2 due to their writing style and "lore breaking stuff". I can't even remember the lore part of the argument tho it just doesn't seem that important to me. Might have to due with the evolutionary virus? Idr.

As for me, I felt underwhelmed playing fallout 1 tbh. It may have more consistent writing but that is not an aspect that improves my enjoyment of the game. I prefer Fallout 2 over Fallout 1 because it has more playable content . Also I do enjoy the silly dialogue a lil bit

3 is better tho

There's a dude here that thinks 4 > New Vegas. I already forgot who he is because he's unimportant.

HagenEx posted...

New Vegas wins in almost every single department.

Combat, perks, sidequests, companions, locations, factions, DLC, and the most important quality: Replayability.

Not to mention the level 50 cap as opposed to 30. I also thought that it was completely unnecessary to put any points into Barter in Fallout 3, but trading became much more important in NV. You can also have the quartermaster at that NCR base repair your equipment completely, then steal the money back. There were more traders in general

Payzmaykr posted...

You can also have the quartermaster at that NCR base repair your equipment completely, then steal the money back.

If you aren't playing NV with Jury Rigging you're doing it wrong.

I still play NV.
I'm down to like four or five games I still play.
I think that's worth something.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/8/AABhrNAADx0Y.jpg

People are allowed to be wrong.

But seriously, FO3's endless sub tunnels are so much worse than anything in NV.

I dabbled in both and didn't really like either. Don't know why there's an eternal debate as to which is better because they both feel like playing nearly the exact same game.

Shotgunnova posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/8/8/AABhrNAADx0Y.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kkc4rqPk_Us

garan posted...

People are allowed to be wrong.

But seriously, FO3's endless sub tunnels are so much worse than anything in NV.

I think a lot of people forget how big of a pain it is to deal with them because they're fast traveling everywhere by the end and take it for granted.

DKBananaSlamma posted...

idk cuz I can't run 3 on my computer

That's because it's a poorly optimised piece of shit that only runs on Windows XP and Windows 7. It needs a remaster to modern platforms with the Fallout 4 engine.