In no way is Skyrim a "landmark" RPG, popular sure, but not groundbreaking.

You are absolutely right.

With that being said, though, even though I don't think FO3 is much of an RPG, I would call it a landmark RPG as it caught the interest of a lot of people and brought them to the Fallout universe. It's what got me into the series, and the same can be said for a lot of people.

By 'landmark' I meant along the lines of marking a spot in RPG history albeit through popularity rather than merit, in the same vein that a physical landmark is noticeable but not necessarily a wonder of architecture.

I really agree with this. I used to LOVE Skyrim, but since really RPing in New Vegas I see how weak Skyrim is as an RPG. I went back to play Skyrim after many hours of NV and I just feel like I have no choices. My character in Skyrim feels extremely flat compared to my Courier. A lot of the role play stuff in these games is based on your own imagination, but with NV you can put some mass behind what you imagine. You can piss people and groups off, make them hate you, make them love you, you can use the perks and skills to make a scientist or a doctor or a cannibal and the game responds to who you are by allowing you to chose dialouge options based on who your character is. I mean, it totally rocks. Skyrim just doesn't have that so suddenly every single character I've ever made in Skyrim just feels like cardboard, going through the main quest. Skyrim is a lot more linear than I once believed it to be. There's more to an RPG than just giving you the freedom to do whatever you want. There needs to be a focus on your character and his or her personality more than how far away you can explore.

NV isn't perfect but it gives you the ability to make real-feeling people and Skyrim does not, so as an RPG NV is way better. Boom.

Again, popularity, not anything that couild be called a landmark.

Really? Do we need two topics to tell us what we already know?

So I got the Skyrim DLCs during the Steam Sale, just now got around to playing Dawnguard.

Omg the writing was so bad I don't have any desire to play Dragonborn. I'm sure I will at some point, but Dawnguard suffered from all the same problems the base game storyline suffered from. Poor transition, potential plot holes and just kind of a rushed feeling that doesn't fully answer every question posed. I found myself doing the quests with Serena telling her mother that "we have a plan to stop him (her father)" and I just thought "lolwat we do? I don't remember this, I remember working for him," as if the game decided on my behalf that I didn't want to work with him and didn't bother giving me a reason to do so other than "he's nonsensical and wants to kill you becuz evul even tho you're helping him." I mean it'd be on par to if Mr. House suddenly pulled a gun on the Courier after you support him for no other reason than "becuz evil" and then his terminal picture revealed him to have a curly moustache.

Sadly, based on what I'm reading, it would also seem Dawnguard is home to the game's ONLY RPG mechanics in that it's the only part of the game that doesn't let you have everything and supports replay value (though not for the sake of new quests, which are basically the same on both sides; the perks are what's different). So yeah, all downhill from there...

The choice between crossbows and Vampire Lord mode? No, you can have both

Oh right, both sides do offer some unique equipment and spells not available to the other side.

I would say that the only thing that causes the game to have replay value is the Civil War questline. It didn't for me, because I dislike the Stormcloaks and I would side with the Imperials.

Dawnguard doesn't have any. You can get both vampire lord form and the crossbow.

i have played through fallout new vegas and skyrim many times. my last skyrim game is lv126 and i still enjoy playing skyrim BUT i feel short changed. skyrim just feels unfinnished to me. it needs one more dlc. but we wont see it. there done with the game. they have made a killing on skyrim and would sell another dlc for skyrim n/p but they are focusing on skyrim online. witch is fine i am sure i will play it but skyrim is just not finished.

fall out new vegas feels finshed and is one of my 4 all time fav games.

1. fallout 3

2.oblivion

3. fallout new vegas

4. skyrim

skyrim looks and plays great. it has a massive sandbox. fallout new vegas looks and plays great but a more limited sandbox witch is n/p the dlc's makes up for it.

TRUTH is what i most want to play is fallout # 5 witch i hope will be in boston

Skyrim is definitely a better game then New Vegas but not a better RPG. New Vegas owns Skyrim in terms of RPG mechanics, writing, actual choice/consequences in the world. Skyrim however has more freedom in terms of roleplaying because it's not linear at the beginning, unlike New Vegas which is extremely linear. I mean you can go north, south or east in New Vegas but there's not really any point to it and it completely messes up the balance of the game. If I had to argue New Vegas's biggest flaw, it's the linear beginning. Fallout 3 and Skyrim don't have this problem.

The open world is also better with Skyrim although New Vegas greatly rewards you for exploring, where as Skyrim won't until higher levels due to the flawed level scaling of the entire game. Both games though are excellent and New Vegas is by far the most underrated game this gen.

Oh gee there's like a few enemies around the beginning that are too hard for you to sneak past how about that.

This and the bugs are overblown issues. Especially this one.

Depends on your criteria for what a "better game" is. Skyrim doesn't even come close to New Vegas IMO.

Wait, having a "linear start" makes NV a worse game then Skyrim?

1. It's not linear, you're not forced to go in a specfic direction.

2. What about the rest of the content. You know, the actual game?

This is true.

Everytime I start a new game in Skyrim I'm always on a prison cart and already have instant bias against and for several factions already. Great!!!!

I want to have a choice in the quests in Skyrim. Oh wait, I can't! Everything is already written out for me.

fallout new vegas is a open world at the start. you can if you want go after benie or you can just walk to new vegas and buy a big gun and go prospecting. and start the CQ at lv 25 or what ever. there are no rules to how you have to play. witch is why fallout 3 and new vegas are the best games. i spend the first 10-15 lv in skyrim justing hunting wild life for souls and fighting what ever comes my way. so fallout and skyrim are both open wold games from the start. i would say as far as the stories go fallout has a great center story and most of the side stories will mesh with its CQ. skyrim is made up of 100's of stores that have little to do with each other. witch is fine. a lot of times i just dont want to stop playing fallout as the story keeps building. skyrim i can play for a few hours and have touched a handful of stories. skyrim has many center quest story lines. the mage, fighter, thief, assassin and the main center story to become dragon born is the story of the hero. classic story telling but what do you do once you become a master assassin well try your hand at being thief ect....most of the main stories take a weekend to play through. fallout can take much longer to get that epic win

NV is the better game, but FO3 did deliver some moments I can still remember like it was yesterday....leaving the Vault that first time and seeing the DC ruins, following Liberty Prime as it swept away the Enclave....

Wasn't too happy when I found out the ending involved me killing myself, but overall I loved the game and put hundreds of hours into it. NV had less of those moments but the quality of everything was uniformly higher overall....and I just cannot go back to FO3 for long, find myself playing NV again. Like now.

It's heretical to some, I'm sure but I loved both games and I don't regret a penny I spent on either.

I never considered Skyrim an RPG to begin with anyways, so FO:NV wins by default in my opinion. I'm not saying Skyrim was bad. It was a great game, but it has never fit my definition of an RPG. Other than the first KOTOR and Mass Effect games, I think FO 3 and FO:NV are two of the best RPG's I've ever played.

how is skyrim not a "role playing game" you can decide to be orc, elf, argonian, human, khajit.......magic, warrior,stealth.....lawful or criminal......ect........

you can create a character in Saints Row too, but that doesn't get called an RPG

I consider it to be a FPS with a few RPG elements. If I play that game and go into combat, my skill with the weapon determines the outcome of the battle, not my characters skill. Whether my Dark Elf has a one handed of 100 or 25, it makes no real difference. There are no attributes to speak of. You can become the head of the Mages College and not be able to cast a spell. There are no real consequences to any of the choices you make in that game. Just because it lets you choose to do a quest or not, it doesn't make it an RPG.

I grew up playing pen and paper D&D, and Fallout come closer to that than TES do. If I had to compare Skyrim to anything, it would be one of those old "Choose Your Own Adventure" books I read as a kid.

Except the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books have more choices than Skyrim and actually have different endings.

You can pick which class you want to be in COD.

RPG of the Year

Oh, it's the linearity argument again. No, it is not linear. You can go which ever direction you want clockwise from north to south, and you can survive (as many have). The southern loop is completely optional; the game not cuddling you because of the route you choose is not linearity.