It's funny how your limit on old games usually at what similar games you managed to play as a child, like i tried playing xcom games and fuck that i just don't have the patience to get used to that interface and i can't even see what the hell is going on anything similar to civ2. homm2 fallout1 and such i can still play even if they are new games to me but it seems stuff older than that just confuse me. I'm 24 btw!
Anyway about the f3 vs NV i agree with the statements other people made about F3 being much less of an actual game and more about exploring stuff and sucking up the atmosphere while suffering from terrible dialogue. NV is more of a complete game but it lacks the exciting post apocalyptic feel of f3. I'd say F3 with one of the popular huge mods would be best way to go! that way you get gameplay and atmosphere.
On June 14 2012 06:09 Torenhire wrote: Fallout 3 > New Vegas...I liked the style better in fallout three, felt more...post apocalypse than New Vegas did. Plus I live in the DC area and it's very accurate, so it was kinda cool to go to places I know and see them all bombed out and crumbled. :p
I feel like the only people who can enjoy Fallout 3's atmosphere are people who know nothing about Fallout's lore. And I mean absolutely fucking nothing.
It's been like 250 years since the bombs dropped. People on the West Coast have railroads and are already starting farms and beginning to enter a new industrial period. Why in the actual fuck does the East Coast look like it was nuked 5 days ago in Fallout 3?
This seriously made me laugh out loud, and that's not easy to do. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes what Bethesda did to such an amazing series...
RIP rpg genre. One day I will avenge your murder at the hands of WoW....
For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
It's a shame what the sequel is doing to the books' this time around ;_;
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
It's a shame what the sequel is doing to the books' this time around ;_;
Can't say I liked the second book. First one was very good though. Still have to get my hands on this metro universe short stories collection.
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
It's a shame what the sequel is doing to the books' this time around ;_;
Can't say I liked the second book. First one was very good though. Still have to get my hands on this metro universe short stories collection.
No as in, what the second game is doing to the first book.
They're completely ignoring the second book, which is good, but nonetheless.
On June 14 2012 00:59 Obscura.304 wrote: Fallout 1 is by far the best. I'll never understand the love for Fallout 2; its mood is no where near as consistent as the first game's. It feels like the "theme park version" of Fallout.
Between FO3 and FONV, NV is much better. I thought FO3 was pretty bad, but enjoyed NV.
I second that notion.
My best mate and I continue to disagree on this hahaha. But in all games (incl. 3 and NV) pickpocket is imba.
I liked 3 for the gore, mainly. It's just fun to blast mutants to pieces. Didn't play NV much, I must admit, but it's at least equal to 3 so...
To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
On June 14 2012 10:42 sam!zdat wrote: New Vegas is far better than F3, as it is the same game with slightly better writing.
Bethesda is still only good at making shiny, though. They usually forget to include a game.
The two main differences between New Vegas and Fo3 is that in New Vegas the setting has completley changed ( more back to the style of the original fallout) which is great if you like it, but the whole deserty wild west cowboy theme was not in my tastes. The patriotic old school 50's american feel (don't know how else to describe it) in fallout 3 is what really made me like it.
The second huge difference is that in New Vegas there is no exploring, sure there is a cave right here you can go in, and there is a little town you can 'explore'. But most buildings are locked and there are no ruins to explore except for the vaults, which are cool, but the exploring part just really let me down. It makes some sense though ofcourse because New Vegas isn't in complete ruins like Fo3 is, still I didn't like it.
edit* To the OP, if you want to play fallout for the exploration part, then your choice has gotta be fallout 3, if you are expecting exploration and get New Vegas you will be sorely dissapointed.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
no man this is the internet gotta be an obnoxious little moron and show everyone how old school we are by not reading the op and just talking about how much better fallout 1 is
fo3 took the quality over quantity approach whereas NV went with quantity over quality. I found the quests and writing in fo3 to be better and overall just more engaging, but there was just a ton more stuff to do in NV. Both are fun, but I prefer fo3. Also, the dark humor the series had been known to sprinkle in was very prevalent in fo3 (especially if you read a lot of the computer logs) but I never really experienced that with NV.
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
Stalker > Metro 2033. Like, hugely. Metro's outside sections and ending were really cool though.
And everyone in here needs to go check out Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason immediately.
So surprised when I saw the poll, Fallout 1 is obviously the best fallout, no question. As for the new ones, since NV is just a standalone expansion to Fallout 3, I'd say go with both?
Fallout 3 has a more interesting world. The mechanics of New Vegas are cool. Like making your own ammo and all the different ways to beat the game. I voted for Fallout 3 overall. The stories you uncover in the wasteland and the towns and people you find are amazing. I beat Fallout 1 but had to start the game over five times because I kept getting stuck at the end. I tried to play Fallout 2, but it didn't seem very fun or interesting, so I never got very far. I played Fallout 3 first, and I imagine a lot of people just say whatever one they played first is the best.
EPT
anything similar to civ2. homm2 fallout1 and such i can still play even if they are new games to me but it seems stuff older than that just confuse me. I'm 24 btw!
