this post was submitted on 04 Dec 2025
289 points (97.7% liked)

Games

43682 readers
1294 users here now

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Rules

1. Submissions have to be related to games

Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.

This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.

2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.

We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.

3. No excessive self-promotion

Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.

This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.

4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you're submitting before posting to see if it's already been posted.

We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.

5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.

No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.

6. No linking to piracy

Don't share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.

We don't want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.

Authorized Regular Threads

Related communities

PM a mod to add your own

Video games

Generic

Help and suggestions

By platform

By type

By games

Language specific

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 163 points 21 hours ago (4 children)

"I think fans debate what their favourite one is, which is understandable," Howard says. "I think it's great that you can have a lot of factions and the fans say, 'Oh, I like one or two or three or four, or Vegas or 76' now, and so I think that's really healthy for a franchise where people can say which one is their favourite."

I'm sure Todd's head canon is that there's more of a debate than there actually is.

[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 42 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Dude, all the Fallout community is is debate.

We're just doing our favorite thing: picking a side and trying to solve a conflict between multiple factions.

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 24 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

That's... Wait. That's the whole premise of all the games dammit.

[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)
[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago (3 children)
[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

Bongo bongo bongo I don't wanna leave the Congo

[–] TaterTot@piefed.social 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)
[–] Morphite88@thelemmy.club 2 points 10 hours ago (1 children)
[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 8 hours ago

...I'm so happy in the jongo?

[–] deacon@lemmy.world 38 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

No one is seriously pushing 76 in that discussion.

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 22 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

ive seen it. they are out there. its wild but its true

[–] deacon@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

...

These are not serious people

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 7 points 13 hours ago

oh theyre serious. 20k hours into the game, level 10,000. absolute madmen

[–] LumiNocta@lemmy.zip 3 points 13 hours ago
[–] Croquette@sh.itjust.works 13 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

76 is a fun brainless Fallout multiplayer. I'd rather have a real Fallout MP instead of 76, but I can't lie and had over 100hrs of fun.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago

It's absolutely fun with friends, we put in around that many hours and then haven't played it much since, but for the $10 we paid. It was well worth it.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago

A lot of folks really live 76. And it’s the only game in the series that offers them what they like, so why wouldn’t they?

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 27 points 20 hours ago (10 children)

im not sure what this comment is trying to get at, ive never seen a game franchise more debated than fallout. ive seen every game labelled as someones favorite, including that awful brotherhood of steel game

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 43 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Just about any game is someone's favorite, but that doesn't mean there's a lot of debate. Fallout 4 and 76 appear to have reached an audience much larger than the rest of the series' usual standards for copies sold, so the sense I get is that if you're calling one of those your favorites, you most likely haven't seen most of the rest of the series. I think 3 and 4 get a lot of criticism that may go too far, but the long and short of it is that the consensus is that Bethesda's entries are not among the strongest in the series.

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 11 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

that may be your opinion but ive seen people who love fo3 but cant get into new vegas, who love 4 but cant get into 3 or new vegas, who love 76 because its online multiplayer and therefore not as big on the single player entries. theres endless debates about it. you may think its consensus but its not as clear cut as you think

hell theres fallout 1 purists who think that game is the ONLY fallout game

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

I've been on gaming forums for a long time, and I honestly can't recall a single time I saw anything resembling an actual debate that people might like 3 more than New Vegas. I have seen debates of 3 vs. 4 and New Vegas vs. 1/2, but I've never come across a debate between people who've played more or less the entire series and preferred Bethesda's games. Maybe that's you, but this would be the first time.

[–] iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works 15 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I've absolutely seen people who like 3 more than NV. Hell, I might be among them.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 4 points 20 hours ago (7 children)

Well you folks have been pretty quiet for 15 years. What's the argument for 3 over New Vegas? Or 3 over 1/2?

[–] TaterTot@piefed.social 11 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (8 children)

Well, take this for what it’s worth since I’m personally of the 1 > NV > 2 > 3 > 4 > Tactics/76 > BoS persuasion, so our preferences probably overlap and I might not be the best person to speak to why some prefer 3. But here’s my best take at why some people might genuinely prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas.

1. The world is more exploration-friendly.

Fallout 3 drops you near the center of the map, uses fewer invisible walls, and basically lets you run in any direction from the moment you leave the vault. Some of those design choices come at the cost of immersion and a clear sense of progression, but for players who just want to wander and explore, 3 scratches that itch.

New Vegas, by contrast, funnels players through a “racetrack” loop that eventually leads you to the Strip, then sends you outward to deal with the major factions. This structure reinforces the narrative pacing and supports the game’s strong story design, but it does reduce the sense of open-ended freedom.

2. Fallout 3’s dungeons are more extensive.

Most of 3’s dungeons are longer, more combat-heavy, and offer more substantial looting/scavenging opportunities, including bobbleheads and unique gear. While New Vegas has brilliantly written locations (Looking at you Vault 11), many of its buildings amount to one or two rooms, largely due to the game’s famously short development cycle.

For players who enjoy the simple rhythm of clearing out big spaces and gathering loot, Fallout 3 offers more of that classic “delve and scavenge” gameplay, even if its combat system is fairly "mid".

3. The atmosphere feels more traditionally “post-apocalyptic.”

This one is entirely subjective, but many players feel that Fallout 3’s bleak, bombed-out wasteland better captures the classic “nuclear apocalypse” aesthetic. New Vegas has richer world-building, themes more aligned with Fallout 1 and 2, and a more realistic sense of a society rebuilding after centuries, but its tone is often more eccentric than apocalyptic. For some players, that makes 3 easier to get immersed in.

For the record, I still personally believe New Vegas is the stronger game. (Outside of "atmospheric reasons") Most of the things Fallout 3 excels at are also done just as well (or better) in Oblivion and Skyrim. But what New Vegas does well, player agency and narrative depth, is something very few non-Isometric CRPG games even attempt, and even fewer do it even half as good. So comparing the two within their respective genre "spiritual siblings", NV is a exemplary title within its peers, while 3 is kinda just "one of the post Morrowind Bethesda" games (where Skyrim seems to reign as the champion).

Still, Fallout 3 delivers the “meditative, exploration-driven gameplay” that Bethesda built its reputation on from Oblivion onwards. For players who fell in love with that formula (especially those who entered the series with 3), New Vegas can feel like a departure from what they enjoy about the series.

And honestly, that’s one of my favorite things about Fallout: every game is a departure from the last. Fallout 2 shifted the tone dramatically from Fallout 1. Fallout 3 reinvented the franchise entirely. New Vegas reworked 3’s skeleton into something more narrative-focused. Fallout 4 emphasized crafting and building. Fallout 76 went multiplayer. No matter which game is your favorite, each one brings something unique to the table.

Anyway, I could talk about this stuff until the actual apocalypse, but I'll end it here. But hopefully this helps explain why some people genuinely prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks! But I really do mean it when I say I haven't come across defenders of 3 over New Vegas, so this was definitely all a new perspective for me, lol. I also think there are a lot of people asking for a new Fallout game that haven't tried 1 and 2, and I'd love to point more people that way when the topic comes up, or at least to the Wasteland games as a close enough proximity.

[–] TaterTot@piefed.social 5 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

But I really do mean it when I say I haven’t come across defenders of 3 over New Vegas

Agreed, there are not very many folks still hard Stanning for 3. Though I think a large reason for that is 3 was superseded by Skyrim, and FO4. While NV fans are still kinda waiting on even a true spiritual successor. So NV fans really haven't moved on, while 3's fans have long since gone onto other things.

Plus, the things 3 does well kinda makes you "forget about most of it" after a while. Like, I play A Tale of Two Wastelands pretty often, and one thing that stands out about 3's world is how much of it is just more of the same. It all just blends together. Eventually, the feeling of a real world breaks down, leaving you with a "lot of gameplay with not a lot of substance"

NV's emphasis on world building and choice on the other-hand makes you think about the game a lot more, even when you put the game down, you can still "play it" just by thinking about how your choices would affect the long term realities of the world.

So while 3's fans can basically say "Yeah, I really liked that game, the world was fun and stealing the Declaration of Independence from that robot was funny", NV fans can have full on years long debates of "Independent Vegas vs NCR vs House", I've even seen some mad lads argue that Caesar's belief that a sufficiently strong opponent to challenge the NCR would force the NCR to address some of the issues they were having as a country was a good idea. These people are of course insane, but you get my point.

All of this really adds up to the fact that NV built a game that is easy to form communities around, and people are excited to talk about, while 3 kinda just built a really solid turn your brain off game.

Edit: Oh, and yeah, 100% agree. More people should play 1 and 2. It's hard to recommend for fans of Bethesda games to go back to an obscure game from the late 90's, but like, they're so fucking good!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works 9 points 18 hours ago

I think it's just new Vegas stans are very vocal lmao

[–] ahornsirup@feddit.org 8 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (1 children)

As someone else who prefers 3, I think that it's more fun to explore and generally has a better atmosphere. New Vegas has better writing but the world feels empty. 3 more fun to actually play. Honestly, I'd probably take 4 over NV for the same reason.

1/2 I haven't managed to get into. At all.

ETA - I was also never really interested in the wild west as a setting, so NV has a bit of an uphill battle from the start.

[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

It really does depend on your preferences.

Fallout 3 is the better exploration game, New Vegas is the better RPG. Now, I love Fallout 3 and I think it has the best world design in the series (lore not included), but I get a great deal more enjoyment from leveling a character toward a specialization and seeing the different ways my small decisions affect the world than I do from dungeon crawling.

New Vegas has me covered there, its perks are really fun and a large part of its many quests have 3 or more solutions (or an alternative quest). Contrast that with Fallout 3, where perks often don't do more than raise a skill and the quest outcomes are largely binary between angelic and pure evil.

However, if I want to scavenge through the wreckage of a dead world I can think of no finer game than Fallout 3. It really just seeps atmosphere from every pixel.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 4 points 12 hours ago (7 children)

I don't think it's better than NV as a whole, but there are things it does do better. Probably the biggest is the random events. They have a lot more variety and interaction then NV. You might end up with a BoS Remnant group spawn and a Deathclaw, and they'll just start fighting. NV doesn't really have this. It's much more contained and scripted.

In this way, 3 is closer to 1 and 2 than NV is. A large part of the first two games are the random events as you travel the world. NV is almost entirely predictable, with the same things always being at the same spots. 1,2, and 3 are fairly unpredictable while exploring. Landmarks will be the same, but what you see along the way usually won't be.

[–] VerilyFemme@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 10 hours ago

Spot-on. 3 absolutely follows the world design of 1 & 2, but it scales it down to a city area instead of part of a state.

I'm a huge New Vegas fangirl, but I will say that the random encounters have kept Fallout 3's world surprisingly fresh. I've burnt myself out on the 30 side quests, but if I just go explore then I usually see something new every playthrough. Hell, 3 was the game that really cemented Bethesda's status as environmental storytellers with a real knack for making a space point toward its previous purpose. Back before they dropped so many skeletons in random places that it became a meme in Fallout 4.

New Vegas simply does not have that type of design. There's many more avenues to explore in quests and many more quests, but you can tell they focused the dev time almost entirely in that area. 10/10 tho, would recommend.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] sbbq@lemmy.zip 2 points 19 hours ago

I've seen a ton of debate over 3 and New Vegas. People have said New Vegas is too small or too empty. I don't get that at all, but I've definitely seen several people saying so in different venues.

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Not quiet at all. Lots of people loved 3. I’m old enough to remember when NV was the red headed stepchild of the series. I don’t think you’ve picked up on the fact that New Vegas is a cult hit. It didn’t become “everyone’s favorite “ for close to a decade at least after its release.

“What does FO3 have over New Vegas”? Well at the time New Vegas was regarded as a cheap knockoff of FO3. It didn’t do much to innovate from FO3 and played like more of a Fallout 3.5 which people resented. It also had a less bleak and more “Zany” tone to it than FO3 did which people weren’t a big fan of. Also by that point Bethesda had a bad reputation for releasing buggy games and NV somehow managed to be buggier and more broken than any Bethesda game had been, and what’s worse is it was never even to this day fixed as several major components of the game remain completely broken without fan patches.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 8 points 20 hours ago (2 children)

I have seen debates of both 3 and 4 over New Vegas. These arguments tend to come almost exclusively from newer fans. Anyone who played 1 and 2 first, especially back in the day, tends to have a much less favourable view of the Bethesda Fallouts. But there are tons of Bethesda-first fans who came into Fallout after first playing Skyrim, typically. The 4 fans either love the base building or tend to think the other games are "too old looking/feeling". The 3 fans... I don't even know, that game is pretty terrible I think. But they tend to argue the design of the world in 3 is better to explore than New Vegas.

I haven't personally heard anyone argue 76 is the best Fallout, but I'm sure someone is out there.

[–] False@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Basically the only negative things I can say about NV is that they're really heavy handed with forcing you to go through the map in certain direction/order. Though it still opens up in the second half of the game.

[–] Coelacanth@feddit.nu 7 points 18 hours ago

I mean, I love NV and think it's by far the best 3D Fallout, but it's also got a ton of performance and bug issues. Partly due to the engine they were working with and the insane development cycle, but still. The game isn't without issues. It's famously unstable and buggy if played without mods. I also think it needs mentioning that a lot of the assets look out of place, because they are. The game had such a short development cycle that a lot of them are just reused FO3 assets.

I love it, but there is a reason so many people recommend something like the Viva New Vegas modlist even for a first playthrough.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world 13 points 19 hours ago

I'm not saying Metacritic is the end-all be-all, but it does confirm the most commonly held opinion about the popularity of the modern games. You may think that there is a real debate here but that just isn't the case. 4 and 76 are pretty firmly the less well received of these games.

collapsed inline media

collapsed inline media

collapsed inline media

collapsed inline media

[–] tanisnikana@lemmy.world 9 points 20 hours ago (1 children)
[–] ThePantser@sh.itjust.works 6 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Agree but I wish it was more like the newer XCOM games.

[–] fakeman_pretendname@feddit.uk 5 points 19 hours ago

Makes you think of what could have been, if they'd done the new Fallouts as tactical/Turn Based RPGs, rather than first person shooters - although the new Wasteland games do a pretty good job of filling that niche.

[–] mnemonicmonkeys@sh.itjust.works 4 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Idk, The Elder Scrolls' fandom debates a lot too. There's still people fighting over whether the Stormcloaks or the Empire were right in Skyrim, or whether Morrowind or Oblivion are the best in the series

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Damage@feddit.it 8 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

My opinion is that only 2 Fallout games were made: Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

Fight me.

[–] TaterTot@piefed.social 10 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

Fight me.

Okay, sounds fun.

I could argue that there are more Fallout games than just 1 and 2, and that we should probably admit that if Fallout 2 gets to sit at the “true Fallout” table, Fallout: New Vegas should probably get a chair too. A bunch of the original Black Isle developers who worked on Fallout 2 helped make it, and it continues the same regional story and factions. But then again, maybe having the Fallout 2 developers is not enough to make something “truly” Fallout. Maybe it is the isometric (actually skewed trimetric) view, classic CRPG style. Although once we open that can of radroaches, we get a whole new pile of questions.

So maybe we can swing the other direction entirely and say there are fewer “true” Fallout games, and that only Fallout 1 really qualifies. That does have some logic behind it, since the original creators, Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky, and Jason Anderson, left during Fallout 2’s development. Their absence changed the whole design philosophy, shifting the tone, with way more pop culture references and absurdist writing, de-focused the tight world design of 1 so we got a ton of fluff dungeons and encounters, and gave us a more scattered writing experience thanks to the team being split up to work on different sections of the game (Tell me San Fran feels even remotely in the same universe as New Reno). Honestly, the jump from 1 to 2 kinda reminds me of the jump from 3 to NV. They feel the same on the surface, but are radically different experiences once you actually play them. But even then, Fallout 2 still uses the same engine and gameplay loop, so you could just as easily argue it stays true to the original formula.

But if that's the case and we double down on the 'gameplay matters more than the writing and development teams' point of view, then Fallout Nevada and Fallout Sonora belong on the list as well right? They are fan-made, sure, but they run on the same engine and play almost exactly like Fallout 1 and 2. So now we are up to four “true Fallout games.” So our definition needs to rules those out to get back to "only 1 and 2".

So maybe the fan-made games do not count because they are not official releases? But if it being an "official release" is the only rule, then Fallout 76 suddenly joins the “true Fallout” club too, which probably tells us that the bar has to be higher than that.

So if we say that a “true” Fallout game needs a mix of all the things above, like the original devs from the original studio working on the original engine with the original tone and the closest connection to the original story, then we come full circle and land right back at "Fallout 1 is the only true Fallout game."

No matter how I slice it, I can't find a definition that only includes Fallout 1 and 2...

You know... thinking about it, I guess the only constant of every single Fallout game since 2 has been that fans of the previous entry look at it and say "this is too radical a departure, this isn't a true Fallout at all!"

[–] BigBananaDealer@lemmy.world 9 points 17 hours ago

fallout shelter >

load more comments (1 replies)