Fallout 3 is superior.
New Vegas is a better game. And I mean that in the sense that you can go more places and interact with the story and setting in more ways in New Vegas. Also, what do they eat? Fallout 3? unknown. New Vegas? you see corn fields and such all over the place.
In Fallout 3, the NPCs have no existence beyond their part in the highly scripted story. You choices in game don’t matter at all in the way the story ends.
New Vegas has little bits and pieces of setting and backstory for random NPCs that you might never meet, and the story can be completed in different ways, your choices matter.
its not a good anti-fallout 3 video if it’s not at least 4 hours long
also, I too judge games based on whether there is evidence for subsistence farming. such gaming. much enjoyable.
Evidence of farming, or any food source for the NPCs shows that the makers of the game were actually thinking about the world as a livable space.
Fallout 3 devs were just thinking about a world where the story happens, nothing more. And it often shows. You run into little immersion breaking moments, especially if you go too far off the rails. Stay on the rails and it was a solid game.
New Vegas had devs who really paid attention to the details of the world, and if you went off the rails, it became an amazing game.
Unpopular opinion but FNV is terrible at environmental storytelling. I vastly preferred exploring in Fallout 4. In FNV, the locations felt empty and it’s more of a go to A then go to B. It’s a great RPG though.
you’re wrong and you should feel bad
