I did only to get out of the Sierra Madre and back into the Wasteland. Then I got back into Skyrim and had to spend an hour killing a @#!@#!#@ Ancient Dragon as I could not Fast Travel during combat.

Once the dragon was slayed, I got to kick off the final Thieves Guild quest to defeat M...

skyrim isn't about the conflict, bethesda games are not story driven...their games are combat, adventure and exploration driven and very complex in a lot of various ways, the dynamic world alone blows away every part of new vegas...and thats why skyrim sold 10 million copies so far and thats why the skyrim forum has 500 people on it 24/7...that speaks louder than the same 10 people bashing skyrim over and over again.

Trolling....Trolling never changes

how can it be "dynamic" if nothing you do changes or is acknoledges as happening? XD

Agreed even though i love skyrim it will never touch fnv

Alexander doesn't know what he's talking about. He's a perfect example of a fan boy, blindly defending what he likes with little to no real proof.
Then he spits large words in the hope that people will think what he's saying is "smart".

Skyrim is not dynamic, it's very vanilla. Point and click is the name of the game.

Trolling...trolling never changes...... That had my ass ROFL.

This is the Bethesda forums, unimaginative comments like these need to stay on YouTube. You should go back to the Troll Hive.

I enjoyed Skyrim. It was better than Oblivon in every way, and it's a fun hiking simulator.
But like all TES games, it's all foreplay and no [censored]ing.
Finishing the civil war or main quests gets almost no response from the world.. It seems that every 2nd NPC is invulnerable. And not even the NPCs that give them seem to be particularly interested in the outcome of the missions they give.
Joe is still rocking in the wastes. Kinda sad, since I’d like to start a new characters, but don’t feel like I should while I’ve got joe to worry about.

It doesn't speak louder then the same one person bashing NV here, we can bash Skyrim all we want here while you bash NV in the Skyrim forums.

Again, may sound like a broken record, but let me put it this way:

What game will people remember or be tempted to pick back up in 10 year's time: Skyrim or New Vegas?
I say New Vegas. Skyrim's strength is it's graphics and exploration, but the storyline is horribad and there's really no emotion or thought invested in the game. The game mechanics, such as character customization, are less than stellar as well, with pre-requisite perks meaning that characters that specialize in the same skill end up feeling the same; there's no further divergence beyond the 18 skills (which one character will probably utilize ~6 of them). Problem is that in 10 year's time, graphics will be better, the landscapes we can explore will be improved upon so that they're bigger and more stunning.
But New Vegas is timeless. A good game will last you a year, but a good story can last you a lifetime, and that's exactly what New Vegas delivered. New Vegas' strong suit is it's story, so it doesn't matter how good graphics or world-size gets in the future; this game will remain known and loved for years to come. The game mechanics are spot-on as well. It's a good system and a good form of character customization. Any game that has a good foundation and good rules can last for quite a while; people still play Monopoly and Chess. Why? Because they're well designed; those are very VERY simple examples, but their good design makes them timeless nonetheless.


And this is why I would prefer to see more from Obsidian. Skyrim and the things Bethesda's producing...it's like fast food. It's delicious when you eat it, sure, but that's ALL they've focused on when they made the food: the here and now, the getting your money. You're not getting any nutrients from it, whereas there are plenty of healthy meals that are ALSO delicious while providing you with a balanced diet for the long-term.


That to me, says everything. New Vegas will be able to weather the test of time, FO3 and Skyrim will not. FO4 and TES 6 will doom them to the shelves forever.

I recently sold Skyrim along with New Vegas. Every time I sell a game I start getting nostalgia practically the day after. Not with Skyrim. It's probably the worst of the TES games I've played (basically Oblivion is better). I hadn't even played New Vegas in months and I got nostalgia for it the week or so after. Skyrim is what's making me worried for Fallout 4. If it is just Skyrim with guns, I'd rather get a good PC and play NV and F3 with mods, thank you.

Look at me, ranting about how 1 game I don't own and haven't played in months is better than another I don't own and haven't played in months. I hate nostalgia.

Why did you sell the games though?

skyrim sold 10 millions copies so far, why wouldn't they make FO4 like skyrim?...they can use the same framework for both franchises, just like oblivion and FO3, they don't need to reinvent he wheel, they will make a much better game utilizing features from skyrim, when you have a successful recipe, you don't change it, thats now how it works, you change when you're not successful...well anyway you can always hope obsidian gets to make a fallout game after FO4.

Fallout isn't a Bethesda game series though, that's the problem, they treat like another one of their games when it should be treated like someone else's baby, with respect to the creators and the fans, which it seems they don't have.

How would you like it if Elder Scrolls 6 came out and Bethesda made it a Turn Based Isometric RPG, wouldn't like that would you?

and Sales do not equal Quality, if that were the case Avatar is the best movie ever made, and reality is its an unoriginal piece of crap.

So you want to play TES: Brown World edition? Fine, go reskin Skyrim. TES is TES because it's all medieval story, dragons, fireballs, and blah blah blah. Fallout is Fallout because it's a Retro-futuristic world built around the ideas of the Atomic Era. Merging either together is just rubbish. Why? Because despite whatever dumb thing people say. THEY.ARENT.THE.SAME. Would you be all gung ho if the next TES game was made like the style of Fallout 1? I mean, according to all the reception Fallout 1 recieves, which is all very positive in 8-9 times out of 10, with the only criticism being graphics, it's clearly a proper and superior game model, right?

Seriously, stop with all this 'DEY NED TU CLON FALUT TRE!!!!' business. Just because Fallout 3 was commercially acclaimed doesnt mean it was a good game at it's core. They even had to make a DLC because so many fans hated the ending, clearly they slipped up. The story was lacking, not terrible but very generic. The dialogue and lore for most places was virtually 'It's here FOR THE FUN!' When it's possible to add backstory to locations and still be fun.

I don't like the dinosaurs for their blind nostalgia, but I'm sick of the people who come around here bashing any idea of a more complex and lore rich game, they're just as bad, [censored]ing that it needs to be 'DUH CUL GRAFICS' and that it should be a shooter. If you want a dummied out lack of lore game, go play Call of Duty. But if TES has such in depth lore, the only excuse for Fallout 3's lack of rich lore boils down to lazy development.

Edit @ KyleM- Like it or not, Fallout IS an intellectual property right of Bethesda. IIRC, Bethesda's winning that MMO case with Interplay more or less gave Bethesda sole IP rights to the series.

I also hate it when people call people who like the original Fallout's only like it out of nostalgia.

I played Fallout 1 for the first time in 2009 after I played Fallout 3, nostalgia is not a factor when I say Fallout 1 is my favorite game.

Perhaps I use the word rather loosely. The more accurate term is that both the factions, the 'new' group and 'old' group are so obsessed with their side that they can't budge for one bloody second. Seriously, the 'Dinosaurs' as they call themselves, are the stubborn old men who can't accept that their time in the spotlight has come and gone, they've had their day. The newer fans, IE the ones obsessed with open world and graphics, think any attempt at a 'complex' game is ridiculous and nerdy thing to do, which alot of Fallout's hardcoe fans are to some degree very nerdy people in their own right.

My biggest pet peeve with this forum is that neither side is willing to budge in even the slightest way. to simplify, 'Old' fans are to conservative, and 'New' fans are to liberal, or rather, the loud vocal new fans here are, and yet neither is willing to meet the other half way. Half the threads I see here usually get heated or devolve into bickering like children. Plus, I'm just a grumpy person so I find alot of things annoying.

It is their game, after purchasing the IP, making the contract to make 3 games and then fully extending it to own the entire franchise. The legal battle over the MMO has now sealed the deal on Bethesda having complete control over Fallout and anything related. It is theirs.
If it was someone elses baby, why would you bring it up in the way that the original parents saw fit when they must have been incapable of raising it themselves. If I adopted I wouldn't raise it the way the original parents would have wanted, simply because the child is mine to raise, not theirs, and my views may differ greatly from the original parents.
Same goes for games and the handing over of the franchise.

What do we do about the middle child who wants the graphics and combat of the new games, but wants the lore and story telling of the first games

Does not excuse Bethesda lack of respect for Fallout lore and Fallout fans.

and you cant compare making a game in an existing franchise to raising a child.

It kind of makes me sad to know that Bethesda owns the entire fallout series. So much for Fallout 4 having a good story (I've lost hope in Bethesda's writers)

What disrespect? They brought a game that was otherwise dead back to life, sure Fallout 3 might have dodgey lore, though it was entertaining and brought in a lot of new fans to all the Fallouts that would never have noticed the older titles. Now on Interplay's side you have Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Now correct me if I'm wrong but that was the biggest pile of [censored] anyone could have taken on the lore as possible, no?

Yes I can, you just did before me. Parent = Company, Child = Game. Simples.

I am one of those middle children

I don't cry out 'FALLOUT 3 WAS T3H ILOGCAL!', I say, 'You know, Fallout 3 would have been better here if they had added some lore into this location', nor do I go 'FALUT SUX, DEM GRAFUCS IS OLD'. I am not a picky graphics person, I enjoy games for what they are and etc. The people who refuse to really play Fallout and Fallout 2 because of graphics are REALLY missing out on just as delightful an experience as Fallout 3 and New Vegas are.

I think my problem is, when it comes to video games, my standards are SOMEWHAT adjustable. Although after playing F:NV, I find going back to Fallout 3 to be very hard for me, compared to New Vegas, I always feel like I have nothing to do, and I miss the random streetlights that NV has

Why does everyone use the excuse "well they brought back a dead franchise"

Sorry but Bethesda wasn't the only dev bidding on Fallout.

and dodgy lore is a large understatement. the whole game is a giant contradiction.

and I didn't literally mean "baby", its just a figure of speech.

BETHESDA DOESN'T CLAIM TO BE THE BEST WRITER IN WHITERUN, THEY ONLY ASK FOR A FAIR CHANCE.

They had 3 chances to prove that since Morrowind, they have failed.