Skyrim or New Vegas? Just the world. Not the quests. Not the mechanics. Not the NPC's.

Fallout New Vegas, Skyrim's endless Draugr And Dwemer ruins don't cut the cake for me.

Better for exploration...Skyrim. It's one of the things that Bethesda actually did right. Now if only they could figure out how to write a decent story.

Exploration was never really what Fallout was about, then Bethesda came along. Obsidian made a very good attempt at bringing New Vegas back in line.

Are those not part of the world and its appeal in exploration?

The Pitt was pretty good with some moral choices, but not sure if that was intentional. If it was they are capable they just don't seem to choose to do that.

^Exactly.

The word setting, in both literature and games, is defined as a place and the attitudes and values of the people in that place. Without believable and interesting characters, a game's environment, and thus its exploration, suffers.

So I enjoyed the exploration in New Vegas better, partly because I tend to prefer the post-apocalyptic setting over the fantasy setting in modern video games, and also because of New Vegas' superior characters.

Is the writing that good though? I don't remember New taking home any story awards, or even being praised for the writing in the reviews i've read.

Generally speaking, big time game reviewers are either:

A.) Bias
B.) Paid off with company bribes
or
C.) Imbeciles

So yeah, don't trust reviews. Play the game for yourself, because, imo, the writing is "that good."

Other people never decide if a story is good, only the individual can decide for his/herself. Whether or not the story and writing is good is entirely up to you.

Perhaps I shouldn't have made a blanket statement like that. They clearly have been ably to put together a decent story from time to time, Shivering Isles is a pretty good example as is The Pitt, but for the most part, they are mediocre at writing. They would do themselves a favor by hiring better writers for their next published game.

The question laid down by "the main event" is very clear
Which game has a better world..
He clearly means backdrop.. setting.. etc..
Arguably: Skyrim wins this one.
Why? Well very simply put... it is built on an engine with more graphic oomph
More time went in designing the "dungeons"/"caves" etc..
Take it anyway you want... It is an aesthetic choice which objectively will always be won by Skyrim. It being the most recent and based on a new engine makes the whole thread useless... since exploration is part of the TES games.. unlike FO which is more story based..

Or to put it in counter arguments:

Ehh No.. I don't think this is what is meant... in fact he states that in the OP.
Exploration as such is not the focus of FO (though sort of has become part of it in the recent ones).. Landscape wise.., even if the rest of the game svcks.., Skyrim wins hands down.
Which is why the thread as whole is kind of pointless.... because it would be like:
Do you like New York more as it is portrayed in game a or in game b (for example Gta4 vs.. Crysis 2...)

Exactly..
FO:NV showes that less devolpment time but with more emphasis on story can make a greater game..
Yet, and this is from a purely graphical standpoint, apart from (possibly) DM and HH.. FO3 was in general the better looking game..
* we might not like the way they (Beth) portrayed the wasteland, it did look better than FO:NV's desert (and yes I am fully aware of why.. it is an objective view)

How are awards as such an argument for writing accomplishments.. There is a lot of controversy regarding GOTY awards.. because the industry is rather commercialy biased..
Skyrim winning story awards is an absolute joke..
Also gaming wise.
Luckily a few websites chose Portal2 or Arkham Asylum as the better games..
These games have actually added extra's to both story, settings and mechanics.. While Skyrim (some agree in hindsight) paints a pretty picture.. (which is universally acknowledged).. it "dumbed" down its mechanics... and actually did not evolve "gamingwise" from previous titles..

You think F3 looked better than New Vegas?

For me fallout is better. I enjoy the setting more

Eeh yes.. landscape wise.. Characters look better... in FO:NV... but it is obvious Bethesda had more time to design the DC wasteland themepark than the more realistic Mojave as designed by Obsidian.. (though worse looking I love the latter, and dislike the first... how is that for contrast)

The open world of Skyrim was pretty! It was definitely my favorite to explore. However, as bacon said up there, the constant Draugr and Dwemer ruins were just a pain to explore. The only Dwemer ruin I liked to explore was the one where that mage guy wants you to bring something back for him in exchange to a key to his museum. It was the first one I explored so that may have something to do with it. All Draugr ruins were repetitive.

Fallout wins hands down on the "dungeon" exploration. Each vault has it's own unique story. Vault 11 is the only evidence I need to back up my claim.

Maybe he should've asked which game has better environmental aesthetic and graphics. Because to me exploration (in videogames like these) is much more than just running in an environment with nothing else in it - which is also the reason I think exploration in Skyrim (and Fallout 3) is inferior to New Vegas. And yes, FO is not, and should not be, about heavy random exploration.

Skyrims world is far better to explore as it covers different climates, New Vegas is a bland mix of yellow, brown and orange all confined in a small space. Note that New Vegas is a smaller map than Fallout 3 as well, and even combining those two, they don't fill up much of Skyrims map.

Well to be fair, exploration is one of the major parts that make an open world game good. I'm all for better stories and characters, but if the quests are the most important thing worth doing, it really hurts the replayability of the game. When I try to jump on one of my more experienced characters, I'm often struggling to find something to do because I did all the quests and everything else, something that should not happen that easily in an open-world game. GTA IV fell in the same conundrum imo, they greatly improved the quality of the writing and the characters, elevating a franchise parent groups held as a shining example of the crude glorification of violence into a work of art, but there really wasn't a whole lot to do outside of the story (it feels rather out of place to go on a rocket rampage in the context of Nico Bellic's downtrodden immigrant tale) unless you decided to mess around with some friends in mp.

Depends on what you mean. Skyrim has nicer environments, from a purely aesthetic point of view. It is also bigger with a lot more elevation change. If what you like about world exploration boils down to "seeing nice places" tourism-style, Skyrim probably wins out. In actual game play though, I agree with whoever said that the endless caves-with-draugr-and-wordwall-at-the-end get old really fast. I appreciate that the dungeons aren't as copy and paste as in Oblivion, but they're still really samey. In New Vegas you run into more interesting people and places (settlements), which makes stumbling around the world more interesting to me personally than breathtaking views and fish in the rivers.

Which is why I called the thread pointless. Exploration for the most of us is not the focus of FO, and it, like you and others showed, is subjective to boot. And since Skyrim uses a newer engine: Using aesthetics as a comparing ground will (nearly) always be won by the more recent title.

Which is why you cannot compare both titles. First of: what you enjoy in a game is subjective.. not an undenyable fact. Most people on these boards actualy like replaying FO because of the diferent way they can finish quests, building on their character etc.. Why?:
Open world has been part of FO but never the Focus. The roleplaying was.
Open world has always been the focus of TES with RP as its foundation.
As stated: FO is an RPG: Not a sandbox game..

Are you seriously comparing GTA4 with both Skyrim and FO:NV?
I you want true open world games: Just Cause 2 and Saints Row 2. Story is basically filler for screwing around.

I was reading through the topic, and in the back of my head i had the notion that fallout had a better physical environment. But i think you've hit the nail on the head here; its the different environs which for me make Skyrim a better physical world to explore, its more exciting because things change as you travel between regions.
This only extends as far as the physical environment though, the dungeons in Skyrim were pretty repetitive, whereas NV's locations were much more varied/interesting.

I'm really meaning the outside world and exploring that just now, as it does indeed far succeed New vegas' bland desert feel, as much as the sand storm in some areas gave it more 'impact' they were quite grainy and didn't always render right (Hidden Valley especially).
As for indoors exploring whether it be caves or houses etc I'd say Skyrim still felt better to explore, to me at least. There is more towns, which means more buildings, which in turn means more people to 'explore' dialogue with. As much as I found one or two cave/ruins were just copy and pastes of other ones they were still better looking, bigger and more interesting than the buildings/caves of New vegas. I think the colour is also a big part in exploration, Skyrim used good shades of green, blue and yellow in places with gave it a really nice effect, where as Vegas' cave systems just seemed to paint over the scenery with either a brown or blue tint for everything the only exception being NPCs or weapons found in these caves.
http://media.pcgamer.com/files/2011/11/Skyrim-Tourist-Cave.jpg V http://images.wikia.com/fallout/images/2/2d/Nopah_Cave_interior.jpg
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/7/79952/1703366-content14091_136_1_1297163461.jpg V http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090908142618/fallout/images/5/5f/Hollowed-Out-Rock-Scenery-Image.png
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110716003332/elderscrolls/images/archive/2/2f/20120124124624!Skyrim-map.png V http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110107084504/fallout/images/thumb/e/e1/Fallout_New_Vegas_Map_v0.03.png/680px-Fallout_New_Vegas_Map_v0.03.png

New Vegas.
Skyrim became repetitive.
New Vegas, despite what it lacks in exploration design, is still more intruiging than just cutting through the same enemies in the same art design for the same loot.

QFT. Once the pretty world was all explored out, interest really goes downhill fast.