I know this video was pretty old, but I watched it pretty recently and developed a few thoughts I really wanted to share. I don't know how the conversation has changed since it's uploading, whether your opinion's changed or not, but oh well. Maybe there will be some new insights here anyways. ---WALL OF TEXT, FULL FUCKING ESSAY INCOMING-- I disagree pretty strongly with a lot of the statements made in your video, but I really hope this doesn't come across as aggressive or confrontational in any way. You're free to love the Fallout games that you love, but I just wanted to make a case for the reasons that New Vegas is as beloved as it is, and criticize some of the different aspects of Fallout 3. Not to further flame the debate and brandish "New Vegas" as the objectively superior game, but to point out some of the reasons fans like me do consider New Vegas to be the best in the franchise, and defend the rationality of calling New Vegas the "definitive" Fallout experience, however controversial or subjective such a statement might be. Of course I'll concede that Fallout: New Vegas is not "perfect", it has no god-like status, and I myself laugh at the new user reviews that claim it to be so. The game was very buggy at launch, and after 450 hours, I've noticed many of the areas are noticeably incomplete. It was a rushed game and that shows. It's messy, crude, unwieldy, etc.. It's had to rely greatly on the community for it to reach even part of its full potential. But I've still loved it more than any other title. After 7 years, I think it's aged very, very well as opposed to Fallout 3. It was built on the same engine with a lot of the same technology, but after 7 years of interaction between game and thriving modding community, the bugs are fixed, graphics improved, lore-friendly content expanded, and it can be given a surprising new degree of polish with the right items off the Nexus. Maybe it's just me, but if I try to go back to Fallout 3 and play it again I just can't. It was the first Fallout I ever played, and it left a great initial impression, but It doesn't have near the degree of quality mod support, and it feels old and a little bit empty compared to my long experience with New Vegas. This is where I think you two might be sort of influenced by nostalgia. People like to criticize New Vegas for having an emptier world, but I don't understand it. From a shallow evaluation or a very short gameplay experience, it might feel that way, just a lot of desert with little interesting locations, but to me that shows a failed effort to really engage with the game world. The world of the Mojave wasteland is very different from the Capitol, it's more like the frontier of a world beginning to regain it's bearings, it's the edge of new civilization. There are real towns, settlements, camps, and people all over the place. The desert itself is just a tool for making the world feel more realistic, the barren harshness of the Mojave being mostly a backdrop to complete the setting and atmosphere. Instead, follow the roads, talk to the people in these dwellings, that's where the game world is experienced, and where the game world thrives. The amount of story and lore to be experienced talking to the settlers, prospectors, soldiers, beggars, etc., in the Mojave's diverse population is incredible, and I think in this sense the locations that are there are much more interesting than a lot of what exists in the Capitol wasteland. Contrasting with the world of New Vegas, Fallout 3's world is really empty (please don't hit me). I know this might sound strange, and if you still prefer it to the setting of New Vegas after hearing what I have to say, that's okay. But there are, to me, serious reasons to feel like the Capitol wasteland is empty, boring, and unengaging. The world is very populated physically, with raiders, ruins, buildings, etc., but there is very little to actually do in these places. Unlike New Vegas, where almost every location is tied to a quest, marked or unmarked (much like skyrim), Fallout 3's world is populated with just a lot of enemies. I know there is content to be discovered, but encounters with actual people who have anything interesting to say (like the Reily's Rangers encounter in DC), are sparse. I definitely appreciate the silent story telling behind the world-that-was, where skeletons and age-old scenery can act as evidence for events long transpired, but that kind of novelty wears itself out. There just isn't much of a world to live in. Fallout 3 has 17 named side quests, as opposed to 75 for New Vegas. Any other point of merit for New Vegas you've already heard. Most people agree it's just a better RPG. Deeper faction systems, more contributions to lore and story, a branching main quest line, bla bla, all that good stuff. So, all things considered, I would call New Vegas the "definitive" Fallout game. That doesn't mean it's perfect, but what it does mean is that I think it's the best in the series. If I were to introduce the franchise to a friend who's never played, I would tell them to play New Vegas, give them my mod load order, and tell them to be ready for a really unique and engrossing experience. p.s., I think the best way to understand why New Vegas is so beloved is to take a look at a few random moments of Gopher's modded playthrough. I don't know man, maybe you just fundamentally disagree, but that's what makes Fallout special to me.