Poll 2 was New Vegas

Poll 1 was a toss up between Skyrim and New Vegas

In TES/Fallout 3 the areas and characters feel like they have more to them than a single role in a quest. For example, freeside is supposed to be a big and populated slum, yes? My problem is not that there are too few people but they only used up only the half of the explorable area, the rest feels empty and until a certain quest they remain so then suddenly they become important for that one quest never to return there again after that.

And, it wasn't F3 or TES that is well known for their Invisible walls and convinient long paths around high level areas...


Oh, I played the original games, that's why this issue bothers me.

Even in Fallout 2 where rebuilding has started, peaceful civilization was still an exception, not a rule, there were caravan routes and more travel but the areas between cities were still barren and dangerous.
Not in the case of New Vegas where the opposite is true. You hear how both in NCR and the Legion areas are well defended, peaceful and thriving, only New Vegas is somewhat of an exception because it's a warzone.

That's fair and makes sense, but this is not a Post-Apocalyptic setting. Where are the ancient ruins, where are the untouched technologies, where are self-reliant people living on what they can find, where are the people who found something from the old world taking advantage with it?
Most of the ruins in New Vegas are recent, mostly caused by the war with the Legion, there's no much sense in exploring ruins because nearly all of them are already looted if not rebuilt

Fallout 3 might not make full sense, but it did it so this sense of being in a "destroyed, savage world" remains.

I mean, what would happen in a sequel? Half of america is already civilized and the series won't leave the country, walking around the rebuilt NCR areas are hardly interesting or "Post-apocalyptic".

Yeah, the writing was typical for Bethesda in that regard. Meaning, it was clumsy and not very well thought out. There was also no good explanation for DC was still so utterly destroyed. Not to mention it lacked the hallmark of Fallout games in that 99% of your decisions really effected nothing in the game.

To me fallout3 actually felt like something that could have happened after a war. It was raw and gritty. I loved it! The capital wasteland felt exactly like a wasteland. After playing through NV once I was convinced it was a joke because I didn`t feel any excitement about exploring. The desert seemed small in comparison to the DC wasteland and very boring. I guess if you are a quest and story buff NV might be your game but if you were into post war survival and exploration then FO3 wins every time. But I also liked liked the story of FO3 better myself too. I loved the mainquest and the pit,anchorage was cool but was stupid it was a simulator, point lookout was ok, I loved broken steel. I have NV and the DLC fior them too but it just seems like a joke to me.

I only really liked NV better then FO3 at first because it had stock ironsights and options for night vision scopes and a few little things FO# was missing. But after playing through campaign and all the dlc for NV I never felt the urge to go back and do it again. I could however start a new game of FO3 every week and never get bored of it.

Uh, there's a million things to do in Freeside with at least 10 quests I can think of off the top of my head, not to mention two factions residing there. Yes, half of it is bombed out. So? Aren't you complaining that not enough of NV was unlivable?

I'll grant the invisible walls (which there aren't actually that many of). They should have just made those areas too steep to climb like they did in Skyrim.



A ravaged burned out world with people living in boarded up hotels, prisons and ramshackle buildings isn't "Post Apocalyptic"? Where are the people who found something and are taking advantage of it? How about the Boomers?

And no matter how much you don't like it New Vegas was mostly spared from the great war. That's part of the lore. Just like the Hub in 1 was never directly attacked nor New Reno in 2.

All in all you have a vary narrow view of what constitutes "post-apocalyptic" in games or literature. It certainly doesn't mean nothing but ravaged desert and tiny enclaves of people clinging to life. It usually involves society rebuilding itself.

Wow Im surprised I voted Fallout 3/ Oblivion and realise I must be being too hard on Bethesda even though Ive nearly had enough of Skyrim. By the time Fallout 4 is released I will have played Skyrim least out of the lot. But the poll suggests differently, so surprised. I didnt add Morrowind or earlier titles Fallout or Elder because they seem practically obsolete for the future and many players wont have played them.

FO is more interactive than TES, yet TES world feels more alive than Fallout IMHO. As I stated before, "Choose your own adventure" doesen't equal a beliavable world. Sometimes the choices are taken too far, being the content the same but administered by the game instead of the player. With skyrim, on the other hand, I constantly running into robbed caravans, people mining their own business, thiefs, assasins, people asking for help, etc., not to mention how almost every single dungeon now has It's own story or event.

All those random encounters exist in FO games, not to mention FO:NV is even better at making every dungeon have a unique and longer story (though there are less of them). Not to mention you can actually interact with far more NPCs as opposed to vacant stares and canned dialog.

I liked Fallout3's main quest better than that of New Vegas in terms of playing it, but the thing about both was how little I cared for the main quests and just wanted to explore ('breaking' many of the main quest segments in the process by the way), and the Fallout games are really designed around you doing the main quest...which I thought was inane considering the setting. I really was hoping it was a pure exploration game with not much of a main quest, which is what Skyrim managed to accomplish, by having both a large sandbox and a solid but short main quest that doesn't really make you regret doing it or not.

In the Fallout games I kept 'tripping' over main quest locations and stuff. Lots of quests failed because certain people died early. I played one of the DLC's for New Vegas, and somehow a fight broke out as soon as I got to Zion park, so every faction in that area was immediately hostile to me. I'd killed everybody by the time I had figured out that they weren't all the same. The lack of a 'last witness killed' solution pretty much made that DLC a writeoff.

I cant seem to go many places in Skyrim without crossing quest paths or finding quest items. Ive previously posted here asking for questless locations because I cant name one place that isnt part of a quest. Even ships are quest locations.

New Vegas over all of them. Except Morrowind.

I don't understand how anyone could like Skyrim more than New Vegas, New Vegas had no bugs at all, and -

Naa, just kidding. But I do prefer FO3 and FNV to Skyrim by a mile.

I picked Fallout 3 and Fallout NV simply because they beat out Oblivion hands down, Skyrim is just to new to compare to patched classics. Ask me again in a year. Gotta see what Bethseda does with Skyrim.

:fallout:
Love them both!!!!
:tes:

:fallout: :gun: :gun: :bolt: :tes:

Who cares if you a fail a certain quest? That's the whole point. Consequences of your decisions. This whole "exploration game" concept makes no sense. Even TES games are based entirely on questing. They are just bad at making quests. Even from an exploration standpoint NV had far more interesting non quest related things to find.

new vegas has the vastly superior writing. great characters, great quests, great companions, and a story i cared about. i also got every penny's worth out of the dlc. because of the different sides you could choose, FNV allows the greatest role playing freedom. unfortunately it took six months to make the game playable and this left a very sour taste with many gamers (understandably so). what it lacked was exploration. while i enjoyed all the locations, there simply weren't enough of them.

FO3 had horrible characters, horrible story (let's build a water purifier...a giant brita...that's the plot...) with solid locations to explore. there was only one way to finish the game and most quests (very anti-fallout). it was the first trip into the fallout universe for many and thus leaves a stronger mark than those who did play the first two on pc (my speculation). lackluster dlc that introduced game crippling bugs. despite my harsh criticism, loved the game and it is a great game.

oblivion is a good game. i found it rather boring. didn't care much for the characters and what is an epic story still seems lackluster. you have class choice but no 'pure' role playing. overloaded with many useless items and game play mechanics that ultimately bogged down gameplay. weakest game on the list. still a very good game and worth playing, but only if you play it before the others.

skyrim is a great game. beautifully created world, great atmosphere, with tremendous attention to detail. sadly the books have better characters and story than the game itself. again, no real role play opportunities due to very linear quest structure. as with the other bethesda titles, it lacks a coherent story. i love the different guilds, but it does not seem likely if i became listener that the companions would let me in their ranks (one example). lots of individual stories (many of which are very creative and fun) but lack of world awareness makes the choices taken inconsequential, and thus, they lose their meaining.

skyrim/oblivion still have unsatisfying melee combat. if Dead Island can have hit detection and good visceral melee combat, why can't bethesda? while a major improvement over oblivion, skyrim still is lacking. i know many are having tech difficulties with skyrim, so i must be extremely lucky; skyrim is the best running game of the bunch for me. didn't get a freeze till the patch (sounds about right lol) and i haven't had a freeze for the last 30 hours. have not encountered a quest breaking bug, but have had some house bugs and some other very minor bugs.

all bethesda games have great worlds and exploration but story and characters that are extrememly lacking. my dream is obsidian writers + bethesda game world.

Eh, just was saying that the Fallout games pretty much force you to 'do' the main quest because every location and dungeon is tied to it, albeit some more than others. Not so with Skyrim, which I like.

I also didn't appreciate the 'scripted' path through the wasteland you have to take without dying from high level enemies. Of course I think Skyrim avoids this because of the Fantasy setting where dungeons/forts/caves are the principal enemy locations in a relatively peaceful world on the surface whereas with Fallout the entire map is the dungeon..... Just two different games I guess.

I loved all games although i bought fallout nv straight after i finished fallout 3 so i kinda got over the whole oh okay i'm alone in a barren wasteland again idea even though it was probably a sick game.

Personally Oblivion always holds a place in my heart.

I understand your sentiment though strictly speaking there are dozens of places NV that aren't tied to the main quest. You also can cut across to New Vegas right away if you are careful but I understand your point. They are different games.

Fallout was enjoyable, but the 'repair' thing was every bit as annoying as Oblivion's lockpicking game. Enough already. New Vegas' reloading thing was a neat idea, however, utterly useless since ammo was practically everywhere, and the highpowered stuff also not needed.

Voted Skyrim and Fallout 3. Wasn't a big fan of Fallout 3, but it certainly was no Oblivion.

Skyrim
Fallout 3

Oblivion was ok, but got tired of bumping around blindly in empty ruins.

New Vegas was weak, too much choice they went overboard making you play 4 times to see All stories. Uninteresting characters by 50 hours I just didn't care what happened to who I was so confused and gave up on it. Plus it wa a bugfest. I went skyrim and fallout 3.
If obsidian are involved with fo4 I'll skip it.

You're joking right? Too much choice? Do you not like RPGs?

I could never get into the Fallout series but I LOVE the TES series