- Perks being less effective. This may sound strange, but I feel that perks in New Vegas were *way* too powerful, to the point they could be game changing. Jury rigging, Rad Child, and Hand Loading are three mid-level perks off the top of my head that were game breaking. In Fallout 3 there are very few perks that make a significant difference, which is how it should be. Perks should give a minor benefit, not completely change the nature of gameplay.
The perks aren't less effective, they're simply retarded and completely useless. The skill perks have no right or reason to exist, same with barter or DR perks, which the game made to be dead end sinks that get negated by in game items, fucking awful design.
Otherwise, that isn't even true, NV's perks take forever to get, and are way more specialized, Fallout 3 has a perk that gives you 6 and then 9 in every special, but still letting you take intense training. What about the perk to get full ap every kill in VATS? no Fallout game has anything as game breaking and anti-RPG as that shit. The perks are nothing like Fallout 1 and 2, the handful of perks you chose made a big difference on your character, the 900 perks you get in Fallout 3 are either useless of completely linear and lead to you being 10 in everything.
- Explosive weapons are far more effective. In New Vegas, centurions could shrugs off four rockets to the face. In Fallout 3 vanilla, grenades and rockets actually had stopping power.
Nah, that's just based off your belly feels, Explosives in New Vegas are almost universally more powerful. And because New Vegas is an RPG it also requires you to put skill points into it to use it effectively, the disparity then is even more massive.
Factually incorrect point based off of yer imagination and trying too hard to be contrary.
- Fallout 3 vanilla feels like less of a betrayal to the original Fallout setting than New Vegas. It felt like a post-apocalyptic wasteland with settlements made out of scrap iron, instead of Wild-West settlements being raided by people LARPING Roman soldiers.
Sounds like "Muh Atmosphere" bullshit.
Any generic post-apocalyptic setting has what you referenced, Fallout isn't defined by being a generic post apocalyptic setting, it's defined by it's factions and story. Which Fallout 3 decided to reinvent instead of progress, so you're basically left with nothing but iconography.
- The entire beginning of the game (growing up, and the flight from Vault 101) is more engaging than the beginning of New Vegas.
We don't all enjoy Larping as babies and small children. Press A to cry! As a non man-child I thought it was pointless, forced emotional engagement for the sake of crappy story, and is terribly annoying for replay value, NV lets you get into the game quicker without having to play out your paraphilic infantilism. (It's not the last time you play as a child in the game either, or find a group of immortal children that can survive despite being located next to supermutants, really reflective of the type of mind that enjoys and comes up with this shit.)
- There were a couple of other sequences I enjoyed, particularly the escape from Raven Rock and the assault on the Water purifier.
Slowly walking alongside Michael bay's transformers as it scriptedly kills all the bad guys and leads you to the thing, yes, very fun and cinematic, and linear, like a film. EXPLOSIONS! At least in NV's ending you had some effect on what's happening, games aren't meant to be films, when they are, they're shit, case in point: Fallout 3.
.
