Hi, I know it is difficult to answer which gameplay is superior, but I think it is possible. Both are RPG's made by bethseda , are made on the same engine and have many similarities.

I prefer Oblivion, it is simply more fun for me (though the A4 cities and the ridiculous level scaling were pretty annoying).

I don't know what you're particularly thinking of when you say gameplay. It's hard to compare when they are from two different series, because then the differences are inherent, and it really becomes a comparison between series.

Anyways, I guess I prefer Oblivion, because I like the universe and lvling system, but fallout 3 corrected a lot of mistakes in Oblivion, in general I'm just more of a Swords & Sorcery kind of guy.

I hate VATS and miss %

Its Oblivion with guns.

In my opinion, the core gameplay in Fallout 3 was generally an improvement over Oblivion. Having said that, I find the world and lore in the Elder Scrolls series much more interesting than the Fallout universe.

FO3's weapons were so inaccurate that you were forced to use VATS. That's the most annoying thing in FO3.

In Oblivion the weapons were more accurate and the gameplay felt much much better than FO3.

Just to give you some advice I would have probably put this in the community section as we are biased

I wish to surround myself with TES fans

I didn't really like fallout 3.. it could've been good, but it was too bloody, repetitive, WAY too dark and there was too much focus on action. imo.

I don't know, I feel the dialog system in F3 was a little better, took advantage of stats and such, I wouldn't mind that crossing over.

Oblivion or Fallout 3 you say?

Hardware: Fallout 3 wins - It can run on multiple cores and more than 2 GB of ram.

Dialogs: Fallout 3 wins - The dialogs was better with the options to talk ugly to a npc and the attributes had an effect on the dialog options.

Exploring: Fallout 3 wins - The handplaced items like bubbleheads and all the junk and weapons scattered all over the places was amazing.

Landscape: Both of them were good.

Animation: Oblivion wins - Oblivions melee attacks looked better and Fallout 3 characters look very stiff and it feels like youre floating when running.

Lvl Scaling: Fallout 3 wins - Hands down.

Lvl System: Fallout 3 wins - Perks was awesome in FO3, and Oblivion was not an improvement over Morrowind, they even dumbed it down on skills.

Fallout 5 wins
Oblivion 1 win
Even 1

I think it says it all.

This isn't really a fair fight to be honest I mean you're talking about a game vs it's predecessor in terms of all the innovations they pretty much took from Oblivion and added to the fallout game.

FO3 of course because it has tons of improvement over OB

its not fair to compare cause the same company made both and so FO3 was bound to be better than OB anyway.

tbh you guys are completely confused. And that fallout really devoted fan's post was pretty stupid. Fallout 3 was just all round poor, boring and too dark. Imo.

Sounds like you're bias on this one. Also, calling someone's post stupid simply because they don't share your views is pretty bad.

I hated FO3's landscape. It was wasteland in every direction.

When the world is a wasteland, taste the razor wire.

I like swords and magic better then guns and grenades, and I prefer Oblivion's landscape because it looks great but Fallout looks good in an ugly way. So for besides the stuff that has to do with them being in different series I guess I prefer Fallout's gameplay because of the better leveling system and dialog.

Let's say I do not like to compare such a different games, but i want to play a combination of Morrowind, Oblivion and Fallout New Vegas, i.e. I want a new Morrowind with some elements from Oblivion and Fallout New Vegas over an engine that is the next generation compared to Fallout 3.

What I DID enjoy about Elder Scrolls was the active levelling system. Jumping, falling, etc., would, in the long run, level your Agility. This makes far more sense. If you're trekking through the wilderness, we should expect that our agility and endurance should rise as well...not if all I'm doing is picking locks, you know?

Yet somehow they failed to put in some sort of transportation in Fallout 3 such as bikes or such, even while that would not require mounted combat unlike horses.

The little effort put into rebuilding or even clearing out the rubble makes the setting very unrealistic to me. It was a long time ago that the bombings happened, yet every house looks like people just started living in it perhaps a day before you find the place. Everyone seems to scavenge, and few if any bothers to create.

I mean, if I where squatting into an abandoned house I would at least clear out the rubble and try to fix it up. There is wood around, axes too. With some craftsmen, a house could be repared rather easily.

But somehow the developers got it into their heads that everything must look destroyed, like the bombings happened only months ago.

Way too vague of a poll. I like some of FO3's gameplay more than OB's, and some of OB's more than FO3's.

technically the landscape terrain is done the same way, but there are actually some very useful improvements to it in F3. You'll not notice unless you are looking under the hood so to speak, but it should run a bit smoother and the mesh might be more detailed close up.

Shoulda been OBLIVION VS NVEGAS....

It's a tough choice, for me, but Oblivion is my favorite of all games, so I voted for it. Fallout 3 comes very close, for me, as my second favorite.

Oh sorry...thought you were asking which game people preferred, but this "You're all wrong unless you agree with me!" tirade makes your true purpose obvious. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I didn't really see any reason to prefer one over the other- there were as many differences as similarities in the systems, plus bias over my having liked Fallout long before Bethesda got their grubby mitts on it, plus thinking Morrowind kicked Oblivion's ass in the gameplay department- I don't see where one was any " better than" the other, honestly- only that they catered to different sets of preferences. :shrug:

Oblivion.

Its setting (as well as every other TES game) exists in a world that I would actually want to live in.

On top of that, Fallout 3 had no factions, which was a big :thumbsdown: for me.

Don't get me wrong, though. Fallout 3 was absolutely amazing. No one could make a post-apocolyptic open world wasteland the way Bethesda did.


New Vegas had a better story and factions, but compared to Fallout 3, it failed as an open world game.

I think some might be confusing gameplay (which is a very technical topic) with atmosphere (which is NOT). Although they could not be more different aesthetically, the gameplay in Fallout 3 is nearly identical to Oblivion.

It's in first person. You wield a weapon. You have an inventory. You have a health bar. You can personalize and improve your character utilizing comprehensive RPG elements. It's an open world with "dungeon" areas, scattered locations, and cities. You have a map, which you improve by discovering locations and can use to "fast travel". Not all NPCs in the world are friendly, but not all are hostile either. There are "main quests" and "side quests", 99% of which you can drop or pick up on at any time, completing in any order you choose. The only significant difference in gameplay between Oblivion and Fallout 3 is the combat system, and the only reason that's different is because it's designed to suit the world you're playing in. Sans a few small differences, everything else is near identical.

Atmospherically, the two games couldn't be any more different. One is set in a bright, vibrant world, while the other is set in a world that's, by all intents and purposes, dead. One is as pure "fantasy" as it could possibly be, while the other deviates from reality only where it benefits some aspect of the game (combat, for example). One has an overall tone of happiness and optimism, while the other is a caricature of humanity at its most primal.

So, I can see why there's confusion between the two, but there really are significant differences between gameplay and atmosphere. They influence each other heavily, but they aren't the same thing.

Gameplay-wise? Fallout 3 wins by a mile. So many systems were improved upon, refined, or outright gutted. It simply had much better gameplay systems than Oblivion did. As it should, really - it's a sequel that cost millions of dollars to develop. If the base gameplay mechanics weren't better, I'd have some serious doubts about BGS.

That said, in terms of which world I actually preferred being in, Oblivion is the definite winner. Fallout 3 was amazing, don't get me wrong, but you can only spend so much time in a world as emotionally depressing as Fallout 3's before you get tired of it. The ES world is at least capable of conveying the same kinds of messages as Fallout 3's is, while still having the flexibility of being a beautiful universe to exist in. It's much easier for me to appreciate the brutality of a world (and spend long periods of time in it, for that matter) when there's beauty on the other end of the spectrum.