I played them both again recently and would honestly say that Fallout 3 was better.

I wish they would do a,location other then united states. I was hoping for Moscow or something

They send their programmers out to the actual cities to create accurate models of the area. It would be hella expensive to do that internationally.

Russia would actually be pretty interesting.

Play them again and tell me 3 is better. New Vegas has far more replay value. I've sunk so many hours into that game it's retarded, but I only ever played 3 the one time. It was a great run, but after I did everything there wasn't anything else to do.

It's called S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadows of Chernobyl, I mean it's technically in the Ukraine but it's an Eastern European set FPS in a post-apocalyptic environment brought about by radiation that features mutated wild life and bandits as your main source of enemies.

I just played them both recently. I can't even leave Goodsprings without being bored to tears, since I've done everything in the Mojave a thousand times, and everything is identical to the last playthrough. Yet I still find a simple kind of joy in wandering the Capitol Wasteland with the difficulty cranked to the max, trying to survive those damn albino radscorpions and other fun random encounters, even long after I've found all of the secrets and the main story has ended. Honestly, both games have their strengths, and Fallout 3 is the one that I usually find myself going back to.

New Vegas had nothing on Fallout 3. The setting, the eerie atmosphere in F3 to me was much preferable over the grlitzy glammy style of New Vegas. I did enjoy New Vegas, even sunk over 200 hours in. But nothing beats A D.C wasteland, except maybe Boston who knows

A New York wasteland would trump all.

Hopefully it's Iran.