I was reading the thread on why people consider FO3 better than FO:NV. Substance wise, the whole collective package of the games in question, FO:NV is superior. This is considering depth, game elements, execution from the developers. The games are different and the developers intent is obvious--FO3 is about the journey (exploring) and FO:NV is about the execution (story, skills, factions, etc.). A refined version of the former self, Van Buren, was what the makers wanted FO:NV to be, but it became something bigger--it's own entity and not just a large DLC. People vary widely and passionately state their case, but one detail bothers me. Maybe, this why many players can't become game critics so easily--context.

The context I use to critic games is: what "vision" is the developer trying to project to me through this video game? And, does he/she successfully protray his/her vision successfully?

What bothers me about the FO:NV defense of better story, mechanics, depth is, well, FO:NV has to be better in story, mechanics, and depth. FO:NV was released nearly 2 years after FO3 and works off the same engine. It would have been a dismal failure other wise (even it was equal or just a little better)--progression is a must. I agree with all your points, but the points made seem redundant. It's like arguing tekken 3 and tekken tag 1. Tekken tag is the winner in the bout of which is better (refined fighting mechanics, looks, roster, etc.) and it plays differently bc of the tag team idea.

The tekken 3 and tekken tag argument is similar to FO3 and FO:NV. FO3 had nothing to ride on for its development other than FO2 which was made 10 years prior. Tekken 3 was the first real 3D fighter for the tekken series. They are similar in the sense that the progression involved making an evolutionary leap from former to latter. FO:NV was built off the same engine of its predecessor and Tekken tag 1 the same. Each of the latter games offered significant improvements to their former, but played differently to provide a similar yet fresh experience.

IMO, a better way to argue for which game is better will have to be...Did the game accomplish what its creator intended? For that to be accurately tested, the games have to be evaluated within its unique context. When was the game released (this may seem irrelevant, but its very important due to cultural, social, political views change and skew the creator and the player)? Who was the intended audience of the game? Did the game developer reach their audience?

Saying, games sold is the end all be all decider, would be a disservice to the critic of game, but let people judge how they choose.

The two games are widely successful considering this forums sample (it is a fan site). Since this is a fan site and the word fan originated from the word fanatic (means excessive zeal), it is very hard to judge from a fans point of view--opinion heavily biased. This site will never get the answer it is looking for, but i don't care--who doesn't enjoy a little good heart-ed friction. Just blabbing...

PS: I'm a fan of all 4 FOs; each provided a different experience, but i had to replay the first to after i grew up to see the full picture.

Yay, this again. Was the beaten pulp of the horse not enough for you?

There is this amazing concept of "opinion". It basically means every person has their likes and dislikes of things that could differ from someone else. Shocking I know.

I guess you misunderstand the point being made. This is not a post about which is better or everyone has their own p.o.v. Everyone has their own p.o.v., if this is not clear since the existence of man, well, I will let it go. The point of this topic is...criticizing games in general with more than the intangible (atmosphere, looks, etc.) tangible evidence (mechanics, skills, etc.)

Consider context in your evaluation. When was the game made? What were the precendents? What were the resources available at the time? What was the games creation trying to achieve? Did the game achieve said success? What was the creators vision? Did the creator succeed in his/her vision?

These are some of the contexts im trying to shed light on. There are more.

Are these questions hypothetical? Or rather, please do shed some light.

These questions are more like general guidelines people should take in mind or create some within as they critic and get ready to compare. I read a lot into to the arguments being made for which is better. The argument for fonv being better is obvious (like gen 2 prius to gen 1 prius) and those arguments became interwoven with game style. The difference of opinion or every person has an opinion is backwards bc no one sets a clear argumentative platform to debate while arguing intangibles. It is like talking apples and oranges at a butcher shop--doesn't make sense and people just argue for the sake of arguing.

If a context is set up and clearly explained, well, some pointless dribble can be avoided. Clear cut rules for comparison have to be laid out. For example, Do the game mechanics argument included dlcs or just main game? No, both are equally balanced or yes, fo:nv is better.

I've seen a lot of arguments (professional) and many choose (subconciously or otherwise) to stay on the people have there own opinions subject to much. Its easier to fight about it in vague terms that actually take a step and set up a set of rules/context/system to evaluate each side bc failure is a possibility.

1. They were made 2 years apart.
2. In regards to what?

3. They had basically equal resources. BethGS made Fallout 3 and the engine. Obsidian tookthe assets and engine and expanded upon it slightly. The intended hardware was unchanged (Current gen consoles).

4. Aside from no one but the developers being able to answer this, we can only say they were trying to achieve a game that told a story that people played and enjoyed.
5. Based off what we can say, yes they did. But if we also include the cut content, then no they didn't because it means there was much they wanted to add but couldnt for whatever reason. So really the games are incomplete ideas.
6. See #4.

7. See #5

It doesn't matter what the developers envisioned, or the hardware or reasources. It is and always will be purely an opinion based argument.