No, tbh I like the whole MIT exploration scenario a lot better from what I've heard. Unfortunately, Since Bethesda doesn't care about creating believable fictional worlds outside of the Elder scrolls, the story is probably going to be subpar as 3's was.
Fallout 3 was slow? I actually liked that one better than New Vegas. I haven't tried Fallout 1 or 2.
This probably why. If you had tried 1 or 2, NV would have appeared more in their spirit from both a canon perspective and a game perspective. FO3 had a great atmosphere but that is all I can really say, the story is the standard good and evil trope with every action being assigned "good" or "evil" and FO3's endings were the same irrespective of your choices.
Coming from FO1 and 2, this makes FO3 incredibly less satisfying to play. New Vegas(which was coincidentally created by Obsidian, who are comprised of former Black Isle staff who were developers on FO1/2) brought back the detail and dynamism of 1/2, by making almost every set-piece it's own story, and no matter what ending you got, you would always be reminded of your triumphs and defeats.
There is a
great 15 minute video(Minor Spoilers) explaining why Fallout New Vegas is a better, "Fallout" game than 3 is. 3 is a good game on its own merits...but that is the problem, it isn't on its own merits. It's building off the merit of 1 and 2, to which it under-performs.
An additional
10 minute video(Contains Fallout 1 main story spoilers), on actual "Choice and Consequence", using the first fallout as an example of proper implementation, and why modern dynamics of "Choice and Consequence" are trivial and overrated.
Poll