no, it's mostly because how praised new vegas is, and that fallout 3 isn't a "true" fallout game, which is a fecking lie. Spaced-Cowboy. • 3 yr. ago. Eh…it’s a little bit true. It’s a Fallout game. It has Fallout in the title. Like Tactics or Brotherhood of Steel. Obviously they aren’t illegal or unofficial Fallout games.

The similarities between the two games run much deeper. Back in 2010, New Vegas was an incredibly exciting proposition, especially as it came out just two years after the runaway success of

When I play 3 and NV I feel the atmosphere much better than in 4. Everything looks so rusted and blurry in 3 and NV. Instead of hurting my eyes it actually immerses me into the post-apocalyptic atmosphere. Fallout 4 looks nicer because textures are higher res, reflections are now a thing and everything just looks smoother.

The main differences between Fallout 3 and New Vegas are: Fallout 3 features a dark and dreary world which really nails the bleak, post-apocalyptic feel, whereas New Vegas features a much more zany, laid back world with a western theme. Fallout 3 is set in Washington DC and Fallout NV is set in Nevada. Fallout 3 has a powerful storyline which

Gameplay: fallout 4 has better gameplay as it is a more modern game than new vegas. Gunplay, controls, quality of life, and many systems added to fallout 4 make gameplay a good experience. Dialogue and character freedom: new Vegas is better in terms of character freedom and being more of an RPG than an action shooter like fallout 4. Whereas Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are Bethesda's take and Fallout Tactics is its own brand. Fallout NV also has more RPG aspects and emphasis on dialogue choices. Fallout 4 has a better combat system though. Fallout NV plays more like the classic Fallout games except its 3d. You have much more importance on stats than just aim. NV has more weaponry. NV is more about rebuilding a civilization, while Fallout 3 is more concentrated on building. If you like to RP, NV is your man. If you want an exciting game, 3 is best. However, New Vegas has a much more morally ambiguous plot. IMO, F:NV is the better of the two. I also heartily recommend the original two.

It's an old game but far better than 76. Both tbh but I’d get new Vegas first. New Vegas, get 76 later. I will say that if you have the chance and have a legit interest, you should check out 76 (After New Vegas). The story is solid (Better than 4’s (And even 3’s, but I just really dislike 3’s story)), the map is top quality, and there

^{Fallout 3 had a superior world design, save for the tunnels. Fuck the tunnels. The Capital Wasteland looked so much better than New Vegas. But that's really the only advantage. The story was worse, the characters were worse, the gameplay was worse. Bethesda are good at world design and that's it. Their writing is always as shallow as a puddle.} 3 takes the opposite approach and relies more on quest markers as a means of guidance. To my knowledge, I never had to rethink and go around an area due to enemies in 3, but that is commonplace in NV. Wow. That actually is a better explanation than I could give props. 250 votes, 76 comments. true. .