Skyrim vs Fallout 3 GO!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I prefer Skyrim over Fallout 3 for quite a few reasons, but if I were to be completely honest I'd probably give a lot of the credit to it simply taking place in a setting which I find more appealing. I'm not too particularly fond of the Post - Apocalypse setting, but never the less I still found Fallout 3 entertaining. The thing I probably found the most interesting of it was that battleship city.

Jitters Caffeine:

SajuukKhar:

Jitters Caffeine:

You could show pictures of the major cities in Skyrim to a person and they couldn't tell the difference between them because they're all just generic medieval walled cities with a castle above everything else. The settlements in Fallout 3 and New Vegas all look different, especially in Fallout 3. No two looked even vaguely similar.

Lets see
-Markarth is made in Dwemer style
-Solitude has a very classical Imperial stone style
-Windhelm is built out of massive ancient dark stones, partially falling apart, lots of staircases.
-Whiterun's buildings are made out of a light color wood and have thatched roofs, some have singled roofs and are generally spread out
-Riften has very cramped buildings, made out of a dark lumber, and have shingled roofs

anyone who has played the game for more then 5 seconds could tell the main cities apart from each other because they look nothing alike.

You would have to be literally blind to not see the difference.

Of course YOU can see the difference. You've probably got a combined play time longer than a standard work week. Anyone else just sees another shitty medieval city after another. Nothing in the game made me care about what was happening anywhere. There were no interesting characters, no cities I could like because they all looked the same, and the world was frigid and uninviting. The whole experience just screamed of a development staff that were told to make a huge, good looking world, but were not allowed time to do anything with the world besides will it with dragons and fetch quests.

ummm im sorry but your just flat out wrong. each city in skyrim looks and feel unique and alive were as the ones in fallout just look like any other distroyed city. Now if you just dislike medevil styles just come out and say it dont go makeing excuses that they all look the same when they dont.:) (oh and ive got less then 20 hours of game time with skyrim and ive been to every one of the cites:)

ecoho:

ummm im sorry but your just flat out wrong. each city in skyrim looks and feel unique and alive were as the ones in fallout just look like any other distroyed city. Now if you just dislike medevil styles just come out and say it dont go makeing excuses that they all look the same when they dont.:) (oh and ive got less then 20 hours of game time with skyrim and ive been to every one of the cites:)

I play Dungeons and Dragons, I'm very familiar with the fantasy structure. And saying that any city in Fallout looks the same is factually wrong and proves to me you didn't actually play the game. Every city in Skyrim is just another boring medieval city with a population that hates cat and lizard people.

I'd go for fallout 3. The "Cities" of skyrim felt more like ghost town with only 10 or so houses. Atleast the setting of fallout 3 partially supported it.

IT DEPENDS ON YOUR PERSONAL TASTES

I tend to like Fallout much more, but I know people who enjoy both equally. For me, Fallout is more interesting and relatble due to the technology in it, I also enjoy the survival sorta thing that is included as well as the gunplay.

CAN YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION WITH A MESSAGE PLEASE!

If they use the same engine for Fallout 4.. CAN I HAZ DRAGONZ IN FALLOUT AND SUPA MUTANTS IN SKYRIM!!!!!! :D XD 8D

A tough choice. Fallout 3 and Skyrim both has amazing scenery, good gameplay, a large world, good music and a pisspoor story.

Fallout captures the post-apocalypse setting very well. Question is if it doesnt do it TOO well, because the grey wasteland sure gets very bleak and similar after a while of exploring. New Vegas does that better imo, as the mojave is more interesting and varying to explore then the mass of grey concrete rubble that is Washington DC. But maybe that's just my personal preferance of the desert.
Music is also great and the gameplay is interesting. My main problem, as with any bethesda game, is the story.

As someone else put it:

Berenzen:
I dislike them both equally. I've never really been able to get into Bethesda games all that well, typically because of the fact that their stories are some of the poorest in the business and there's never really any sense of urgency that their stories are supposed to tell. Open world supersandboxes can't really do 'THE WORLD IS ENDING SAVE IT NOW' all that well due to how the size of the world can really dilute how it feels.

I largely agree with this quote, although im clinging to the hope that an exploration game can pull off a well written and interesting story some day. Maybe Bethesda should team up with Bioware, which imo makes some of the most interesting stories on the gaming market.

As for Skyrim, it excels in what it is suppose to excel in: Exploration. The atmosphere is amazing, the graphics well upgraded from that previous blob Oblivion and gameplay is solid enough to make it a very enjoyable experience. It doesnt suffer from the "bleak and similar"-problem of Fallout 3 because its nature and dungeons offers variation to a greater extent. The dungeon crawling especielly is something Bethesda has pulled off very well.
Again, as with Fallout, the main problem with the game is the pisspoor story.
I suppose I enjoy storydriven games more then exploration-driven games, but I'd live to see some sort of fusion between the two.

In the end, I think Skyrim wins, narrowly. It outshines Fallout in just about every field, but not by a lot.

Jitters Caffeine:

ecoho:

ummm im sorry but your just flat out wrong. each city in skyrim looks and feel unique and alive were as the ones in fallout just look like any other distroyed city. Now if you just dislike medevil styles just come out and say it dont go makeing excuses that they all look the same when they dont.:) (oh and ive got less then 20 hours of game time with skyrim and ive been to every one of the cites:)

I play Dungeons and Dragons, I'm very familiar with the fantasy structure. And saying that any city in Fallout looks the same is factually wrong and proves to me you didn't actually play the game. Every city in Skyrim is just another boring medieval city with a population that hates cat and lizard people.

i played 60 hours of the damed game and i want my money back besides, but thats not why i say its cities all look the same. the reason i say that is theres only so many ways you can make a distroyed city. Now with skyrim its different as they are using REAL nordic and roman building styles. You can find a real life example of every one of those cities if you try. As for the people in those cities, its the gothic period people hate things that are different then them simple as that.

a little off topic but what do you play in D&D?

ecoho:

Jitters Caffeine:

ecoho:

ummm im sorry but your just flat out wrong. each city in skyrim looks and feel unique and alive were as the ones in fallout just look like any other distroyed city. Now if you just dislike medevil styles just come out and say it dont go makeing excuses that they all look the same when they dont.:) (oh and ive got less then 20 hours of game time with skyrim and ive been to every one of the cites:)

I play Dungeons and Dragons, I'm very familiar with the fantasy structure. And saying that any city in Fallout looks the same is factually wrong and proves to me you didn't actually play the game. Every city in Skyrim is just another boring medieval city with a population that hates cat and lizard people.

i played 60 hours of the damed game and i want my money back besides, but thats not why i say its cities all look the same. the reason i say that is theres only so many ways you can make a distroyed city. Now with skyrim its different as they are using REAL nordic and roman building styles. You can find a real life example of every one of those cities if you try. As for the people in those cities, its the gothic period people hate things that are different then them simple as that.

a little off topic but what do you play in D&D?

DC is the only instance of there being widespread destruction. All the actual settlements are amazingly unique and full of personality. A city of children who live in a former field trip site? A settlement made of scavenged pieces from an airfield? A city that a fucking beached Aircraft carrier? Or how about the settlement that's the ONLY FOREST IN THE ENTIRE CAPITAL WASTELAND? None of those are "just destroyed buildings". You're mistaking the setting of the game for the settlements you actually visit. Every city in skyrim is just boring. There's no personality because it's always just a walled city with a population filled with citizens that are indistinguishable from every other city.

I play a Cleric. No one crosses the Cudgel.

Love em both but Fallout 3's atmosphere pips it for me. Plus it doesn't have any snow.

I agree with the OP, Fallout 3 was incredible, far better than Skyrim, IMO.

SajuukKhar:
Yeah Bethesda is gonna fail at making a "true" RPG or w/e, but they will do what Obsidian has failed to do repeatedly.

Make a game that doesn't have as many bugs and that can get a score comparable to the prequels.

for all of Obsidian's "good game design" they have yet to make a game thats actually....... playable.

Bethesda did the bug testing on fallout and fallout new vegas and thought it was ok as it was.
plus they said they wont fix 'hilarious' bugs in skyrim. but they still are bugs.

And the similarities are...um...same developer?

Who cares whats better, they are both awesome, I hate how the old-school fans of Fallout are such whiny fuck-pumps that make me want to bash their heads in. I fucking love Devil May Cry and I am accepting of the reboot and hope it doesn't bomb because the game-play looks excellent, you know, the whole point of a fucking GAME! The main reason for hating the reboot is Dante's new look and considering it's a reboot, I'm fine with it.

See? One of my favorite game series is being made by someone else and I'm not being a fucking baby about it.

TizzytheTormentor:
And the similarities are...um...same developer?

Who cares whats better, they are both awesome, I hate how the old-school fans of Fallout are such whiny fuck-pumps that make me want to bash their heads in. I fucking love Devil May Cry and I am accepting of the reboot and hope it doesn't bomb because the game-play looks excellent, you know, the whole point of a fucking GAME! The main reason for hating the reboot is Dante's new look and considering it's a reboot, I'm fine with it.

See? One of my favorite game series is being made by someone else and I'm not being a fucking baby about it.

I had a run in with someone who said they absolutely hated Fallout 3 and New Vegas because they "ruined the series". The only real reason I could get out of them was that they were "different". I've played fallout 1 and 2, and I love them. But I also love Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I just don't understand hatred of something that's just different.

Luis Alamo:
So which one do you prefer and why?

Both games contain the usual Bethesda shit(awful story, mediocre gameplay, shit characters, no choices and consenquences, therefore not being worth playing).
Fallout 3 is shit, while Skyrim is just mediocre, so i guess Skyrim is the less terrible one.

So Fallout New Vegas for me. A open world sandbox that's actually worth putting 50+ hours in it.
It's funny. Obsidian's first try in making an Bethesda type game and they nailed it, while Bethesda is making these kind of games for 20 years and only somewhat succeded with Morrowind.

Skyrim was a lifeless, boring dungeon crawler with one dimensional quests and a broken leveling system.

Fallout 3 wasn't.

Though New Vegas is still the better one.

I prefer Fallout 3 over New Vegas and Skyrim. Here's why:

I don't like being the center of attention, IRL and in games. I really don't like being the focus of praise or, at worst, worship, for doing stuff that's - to me - not all that extraordinary.

Skyrim does it the worst. It seems every establishment I go into and do their work, I end up either doing something 'amazing' that everybody lavishes praise and attention on me for, or the leader of the group/place. Thieve's Guild, Dark Brotherhood, Companions, College of Winterhold to name some. Then there's the whole Civil War and Dragons business - which nobody seemed to able to make any progress in until me, a lone soldier, turns up and fixes everything with zero effort. I don't buy it, and it ruined an otherwise benchmark of a game.

New Vegas was a bit of the same, but not at such a scale. I happen to be the dude carrying the item that changes the Wasteland, and somehow that makes me the hero.
House explains that he needed me to go and get the Chip, so he had Victor dig me out and send me to the Lucky 38 - because he's contractually obligated to not send Securitrons into the casino after Benny unless the casino specifically requests them, or under extraordinary circumstances. Well, doesn't the casino owner stealing from House count as breach of contract in the first place? And why *me* specifically? There's plenty of people who don't have bullets in their heads who'd love to work for House directly - with all the benefits that come from that.
The same with the NCR vs Legion war - the whole thing was at a total stalemate until I show up and fix everything with no effort. Shoot dudes > some spy work > world's greatest hero.
Right.

However, in Fallout 3, I feel like I was just 'helping', with the Brotherhood spearheading the operations, and I'm just there to help out, doing other stuff they didn't have the resources for. The final battle for the Purifier - I was just one soldier of many who happened to know the code thanks to my father. My part was bigger than that of any other wastelander or ex-vault resident, but I was born into that and circumstances pushed me deeper into the situation.
I was never asked to do anything massively heroic, like in Skyrim where I was the ONLY ONE who could kill dragons or in New Vegas when I was the ONLY ONE who could decide New Vegas' fate. Most of the stuff I did in Fallout 3 I either just barely managed to pull off or couldn't without heavy armor and weapons, or outfitting my follower with the same. New Vegas I could rofl through with light armor and basic projectile weapons... while everyone revered me as some kind of immortal demi-god - 'The Courier', ooooh.

Right.

Well Fallout's setting was far better but the whole 'nothing makes any sense and when we try to fix it we actively insult any player who tried to make a logical decision' problem with the game takes away much of the enjoyable, didnt really have that problem in Skyrim, so I give it to that.

Mm, i say Fallout 3, Skyrim was nice but somehow i got bored of it way faster than expected.

Fallout 3 had more depth and character, in my opinion.

Also Gatling Lasers. Are there Gatling Lasers in Skyrim? No? Then take your Dragons and get out of here, filthy milk-drinker!

Jitters Caffeine:

TizzytheTormentor:
And the similarities are...um...same developer?

Who cares whats better, they are both awesome, I hate how the old-school fans of Fallout are such whiny fuck-pumps that make me want to bash their heads in. I fucking love Devil May Cry and I am accepting of the reboot and hope it doesn't bomb because the game-play looks excellent, you know, the whole point of a fucking GAME! The main reason for hating the reboot is Dante's new look and considering it's a reboot, I'm fine with it.

See? One of my favorite game series is being made by someone else and I'm not being a fucking baby about it.

I had a run in with someone who said they absolutely hated Fallout 3 and New Vegas because they "ruined the series". The only real reason I could get out of them was that they were "different". I've played fallout 1 and 2, and I love them. But I also love Fallout 3 and New Vegas. I just don't understand hatred of something that's just different.

Well, after the series was utterly dead and Black Isles went bankrupt, they sold the rights to Fallout to Bethesda and Bethesda made an excellent RPG that not only brought the franchise back on the radar but did so while achieving critical and commercial success. Old school Fallout fans hated 3 purely because it wasn't made by Black Isle, that's it.

According to them, F3 had "shitty game-play, music and graphics", but when Fallout: New Vegas came out, the "Shitty game-play, music (reused tracks) and graphics suddenly disappeared when they heard Obsidian (original writers from black isles) made it, it's the best (broken) game ever. I love F3 and F:NV but the hate 3 gets is purely childish from the so-called "Old-School" fans.

They also like to forget about that...other Fallout game, Fallout Brotherhood of Steel (not tactics, although fans bitch at that too for some reason)

Anthraxus:
I prefer Fallout New Vegas because Bethesdurpia post Morrowind is a total fail.

I, on the other hand, enjoyed (old Obsidian) Fallout 1; but massively prefer Bethesda's Fallout 3 and I really can't decide if I prefer itself to Skyrim.

I'd say I liked Fallout New Vegas, but thanks to Obsderpian:
The story bored me, as a program it had more bugs in it than the moon has craters, as an multipath RPG it had more dead-end quest lines and dialogue paths than words in the English language; and for immersion, I get more immersed in a stickman cartoon...

I think I came across maybe 10 bugs in my 4 varied Fallout 3 playthroughs, none game-breaking, and about the same so far on Skyrim. With FNV, however, I lost count of the game breaking bugs (let alone regular bugs) to the point where I stopped playing it altogether for a while because it kept crashing; and I bought it 6 months AFTER release. I also came across broken quests, holes in the world, odd texturing on mountains, dialogue that left me having a staring contest with nothing to say, multiple crashes, companions getting stuck in walls... *yawn*. I was disappointed, to say the least.



So yeah, back OT: I loved Fallout 1, never played F2, absolutely loved F3, loved Oblivion and liked Morrowind, hated NV and love Skyrim. But I can't really decide between Skyrim or F3.

Kahunaburger:

Anthraxus:
Fallout New Vegas

Berenzen:
Fallout New Vegas

Above: truth. Fallout New Vegas is basically the sort of game Bethesda should be making instead of hiking sims.

Somebody said it better then my draft did, so yes, Bethesda makes the finest hiking simulators.

Neither because Bethesda can go fuck itself for essentially killing or really hurting Obsidian and making terrible games with terrible engines that also glitch.

SajuukKhar:

Jitters Caffeine:

You could show pictures of the major cities in Skyrim to a person and they couldn't tell the difference between them because they're all just generic medieval walled cities with a castle above everything else. The settlements in Fallout 3 and New Vegas all look different, especially in Fallout 3. No two looked even vaguely similar.

Lets see
-Markarth is made in Dwemer style
-Solitude has a very classical Imperial stone style
-Windhelm is built out of massive ancient dark stones, partially falling apart, lots of staircases.
-Whiterun's buildings are made out of a light color wood and have thatched roofs, some have singled roofs and are generally spread out
-Riften has very cramped buildings, made out of a dark lumber, and have shingled roofs

anyone who has played the game for more then 5 seconds could tell the main cities apart from each other because they look nothing alike.

You would have to be literally blind to not see the difference.

Architect style is now color? The fucking cities were different in their building styles but had the same drab colors. I'm sorry but due to their highly realisim style they had to smear pounds of dirt and sawdust onto the players camera so I couldn't see nor care about the one neat arch in that one boring town.

-----------------------------------------------

Same thing as before, Bethesda makes the best hiking and meat-and-fuck simulators around.

Skyrim and FO3 both have 1 flaw that annoy me to no end. Enemies scale to your level, which is irritating because that means you'll never find someone that much stronger than you.

Try that crap in Morrowing or New Vegas, you'll walk into the wrong area, and something will kill you just with a glare. That's how it should be rather than everyone is as pathetically weak as you in the world at your fierce level 1.

In FO3 on the hardest mode with mods to make some things harder I was still able to explore the wasteland despite never visiting a single town. I used what I found on corpses and traders out in the open, it was STILL too easy.

Aprilgold:

SajuukKhar:

Jitters Caffeine:

You could show pictures of the major cities in Skyrim to a person and they couldn't tell the difference between them because they're all just generic medieval walled cities with a castle above everything else. The settlements in Fallout 3 and New Vegas all look different, especially in Fallout 3. No two looked even vaguely similar.

Lets see
-Markarth is made in Dwemer style
-Solitude has a very classical Imperial stone style
-Windhelm is built out of massive ancient dark stones, partially falling apart, lots of staircases.
-Whiterun's buildings are made out of a light color wood and have thatched roofs, some have singled roofs and are generally spread out
-Riften has very cramped buildings, made out of a dark lumber, and have shingled roofs

anyone who has played the game for more then 5 seconds could tell the main cities apart from each other because they look nothing alike.

You would have to be literally blind to not see the difference.

Architect style is now color? The fucking cities were different in their building styles but had the same drab colors. I'm sorry but due to their highly realisim style they had to smear pounds of dirt and sawdust onto the players camera so I couldn't see nor care about the one neat arch in that one boring town.

-----------------------------------------------

Same thing as before, Bethesda makes the best hiking and meat-and-fuck simulators around.

I'm with SajuukKhar on this one; the architecture, colour, style, layout, weather, flora, surrounding lands and even the interior designs occupying city buildings are heavily distinct in Skyrim.

In Oblivion, MAYBE you might find it hard to distinguish between, say, Leyawiin and Bravil; but in Skyrim only a lack of attention or downright ignorance could prevent someone from distinguishing between the towns, even if you don't remember their names.

For instance, Markarth is carved into a cliff, Riften is built on a lake.

Bvenged:

Aprilgold:

SajuukKhar:

Lets see
-Markarth is made in Dwemer style
-Solitude has a very classical Imperial stone style
-Windhelm is built out of massive ancient dark stones, partially falling apart, lots of staircases.
-Whiterun's buildings are made out of a light color wood and have thatched roofs, some have singled roofs and are generally spread out
-Riften has very cramped buildings, made out of a dark lumber, and have shingled roofs

anyone who has played the game for more then 5 seconds could tell the main cities apart from each other because they look nothing alike.

You would have to be literally blind to not see the difference.

Architect style is now color? The fucking cities were different in their building styles but had the same drab colors. I'm sorry but due to their highly realisim style they had to smear pounds of dirt and sawdust onto the players camera so I couldn't see nor care about the one neat arch in that one boring town.

-----------------------------------------------

Same thing as before, Bethesda makes the best hiking and meat-and-fuck simulators around.

I'm with SajuukKhar on this one; the architecture, colour, style, layout, weather, flora, surrounding lands and even the interior designs occupying city buildings are heavily distinct in Skyrim.

In Oblivion, MAYBE you might find it hard to distinguish between, say, Leyawiin and Bravil; but in Skyrim only a lack of attention or downright ignorance could prevent someone from distinguishing between the towns, even if you don't remember their names.

For instance, Markarth is carved into a cliff, Riften is built on a lake.

Honestly, I don't see that big of a difference. Its like in Pokemon where they would change the screens color from Green to Red to show that you entered a new town.

Honestly, Whiterun is just more gold then Riften which is more clean then Markarth and Solititude is the darkest out of all of them. They, from a first-person-perspective and while moving through the town look so fucking generic. "Its the Elf City" and "Its the Peasent City" and what not. Guild Wars 2, each factions main holds look so much more different from eachother, they are not just a generic town repainted to look more gold or white.

Aprilgold:

Bvenged:

Aprilgold:

Architect style is now color? The fucking cities were different in their building styles but had the same drab colors. I'm sorry but due to their highly realisim style they had to smear pounds of dirt and sawdust onto the players camera so I couldn't see nor care about the one neat arch in that one boring town.

-----------------------------------------------

Same thing as before, Bethesda makes the best hiking and meat-and-fuck simulators around.

I'm with SajuukKhar on this one; the architecture, colour, style, layout, weather, flora, surrounding lands and even the interior designs occupying city buildings are heavily distinct in Skyrim.

In Oblivion, MAYBE you might find it hard to distinguish between, say, Leyawiin and Bravil; but in Skyrim only a lack of attention or downright ignorance could prevent someone from distinguishing between the towns, even if you don't remember their names.

For instance, Markarth is carved into a cliff, Riften is built on a lake.

Honestly, I don't see that big of a difference. Its like in Pokemon where they would change the screens color from Green to Red to show that you entered a new town.

Honestly, Whiterun is just more gold then Riften which is more clean then Markarth and Solititude is the darkest out of all of them. They, from a first-person-perspective and while moving through the town look so fucking generic. "Its the Elf City" and "Its the Peasent City" and what not. Guild Wars 2, each factions main holds look so much more different from eachother, they are not just a generic town repainted to look more gold or white.

Aprilgold:

Bvenged:

Aprilgold:

Architect style is now color? The fucking cities were different in their building styles but had the same drab colors. I'm sorry but due to their highly realisim style they had to smear pounds of dirt and sawdust onto the players camera so I couldn't see nor care about the one neat arch in that one boring town.

-----------------------------------------------

Same thing as before, Bethesda makes the best hiking and meat-and-fuck simulators around.

I'm with SajuukKhar on this one; the architecture, colour, style, layout, weather, flora, surrounding lands and even the interior designs occupying city buildings are heavily distinct in Skyrim.

In Oblivion, MAYBE you might find it hard to distinguish between, say, Leyawiin and Bravil; but in Skyrim only a lack of attention or downright ignorance could prevent someone from distinguishing between the towns, even if you don't remember their names.

For instance, Markarth is carved into a cliff, Riften is built on a lake.

Honestly, I don't see that big of a difference. Its like in Pokemon where they would change the screens color from Green to Red to show that you entered a new town.

Honestly, Whiterun is just more gold then Riften which is more clean then Markarth and Solititude is the darkest out of all of them. They, from a first-person-perspective and while moving through the town look so fucking generic. "Its the Elf City" and "Its the Peasent City" and what not. Guild Wars 2, each factions main holds look so much more different from eachother, they are not just a generic town repainted to look more gold or white.

Not sure if trolling... you can very clearly see the structures are completely different architecturally.
The buildings in Solitude have a medieval feel about them, a town built of castle stone like a typical keep. Huge open areas, spacey stores and the towering stone walls of the keep constantly around you. A good design for the capital of the nation of Skyrim.
Whiterun is more of a Viking village; with the buildings made right from the local pine trees and river stones, with steep staircases, thin and tall buildings, clearly designed by Nords.
Riften strikes me as an old British shipyard, with classic country-style buildings and the water flowing beneath it. It's cramped, and made - again - from local trees, I'm guessing spruce and ash. It has a sort of Nordic feel to it, too, which I think merges nicely with the 'ye olde English' theme.
I don't know what exactly Windhelm is doing, but it looks horrid. I think it's trying to be a Viking fortress, possibly Erik the Red's idea of a town, but it has an ugly, cold, dark aesthetic - which is not to say it's bad, it's clearly a deliberate theme. Possibly to match the Stormcloaks and their struggle.
Markarth is dull and ancient, constructed from rock and iron - completely different to anything else in Skyrim. The huge iron doors, the enormous open spaces of the city and interiors, the curved aesthetic of the roads, pillars and roofs clash with the square shape and sharp angles of the interiors.

All the major cities ARE designed and constructed completely differently, and their different colors match the architectural aesthetic. You've clearly never played Skyrim enough to go and see these cities for yourself, or your artistic perception is just rubbish.

Your avatar is amayyyyyyyyyyzing!

I love both of them and have no idea why people get so critical over them. They are buggy but they are big, so take in the shit that you can instead of bitching about a couple of problems.

Jitters Caffeine:
snip

I'll solve this little dispute quiet easily, while both have annoying children, no game made me hate children more than fallout 3.

Both Fallout 3 and Skyrim feel soulless to me, but Skyrim is miles worse than Fallout. In Skyrim, I did not get attached to anyone or anything. That shit ain't right for an RPG.

Bethesda game with a green tint (FO3) Vs. Bethesda game with a grey tint (Skyrim)?

I'll take the grey tint over the green one. Because the grey tint actually fell in line with the main story of Skyrim for me, which is the Civil war not the stupid Dovahkiin realization thing. In fallout, what does the green tint stand for? Radiation? That's not the main story, fuck that.

In the civil war, the two sides who're fighting are actually shades of grey, no one in each side is more correct or more right in winning the war, it's a fight for freedom & independence and another for unity under one rule with personal restrictions. Something that's actually worth thinking about today, should nations be independent and free regardless of the dangers of nations who are looking to expand, or should they be united in one rule and have restrictions especially ones about religion and the like and feel safe and secure because they have strength in numbers.

Fallout
-Fallout has better atmosphere and a more interesting setting.
-The Pipboy inventory/stats/etc UI and character management isn't the best, but it's better than the minimalistic and not-so-practical system in Skyrim
-The perks are much more interesting
-Combat is better. AI seems to have less problems with pathfinding while in combat

Skyrim
-At least weapons and apparel don't wear and break as if they were made out of cardboard
-Looks prettier
-A lot more lively environment with a great possibility to run into some adventure/quest/thing-to-do/character when just moving in the wilderness
-More variation with the environment
-More characters
-Quests are aplenty, whereas you have to actively seek those in Fallout 3

Yep, Skyrim doesn't have Little Lamplight.

To be more precise, Skyrim kind of starts indifferently but the latter third holds together. In FO3, I cared about finding my Dad but the last parts don't hold up.

Also, while I liked K2, after I used up all the Bethesda-style exploration content and a couple companion side quests in New Vegas, I quit. I didn't like any of the LARPer sides, the strip, or care about getting revenge on Benny.

Sansha:

Not sure if trolling... you can very clearly see the structures are completely different architecturally.
The buildings in Solitude have a medieval feel about them, a town built of castle stone like a typical keep. Huge open areas, spacey stores and the towering stone walls of the keep constantly around you. A good design for the capital of the nation of Skyrim.
Whiterun is more of a Viking village; with the buildings made right from the local pine trees and river stones, with steep staircases, thin and tall buildings, clearly designed by Nords.
Riften strikes me as an old British shipyard, with classic country-style buildings and the water flowing beneath it. It's cramped, and made - again - from local trees, I'm guessing spruce and ash. It has a sort of Nordic feel to it, too, which I think merges nicely with the 'ye olde English' theme.
I don't know what exactly Windhelm is doing, but it looks horrid. I think it's trying to be a Viking fortress, possibly Erik the Red's idea of a town, but it has an ugly, cold, dark aesthetic - which is not to say it's bad, it's clearly a deliberate theme. Possibly to match the Stormcloaks and their struggle.
Markarth is dull and ancient, constructed from rock and iron - completely different to anything else in Skyrim. The huge iron doors, the enormous open spaces of the city and interiors, the curved aesthetic of the roads, pillars and roofs clash with the square shape and sharp angles of the interiors.

All the major cities ARE designed and constructed completely differently, and their different colors match the architectural aesthetic. You've clearly never played Skyrim enough to go and see these cities for yourself, or your artistic perception is just rubbish.

I just glossed over them, but so many more of the cities, visually, look the same, even the actual insides of buildings are repeated more then once in more then one city.

Your missing my point, which is that they are all, if your just walking through them, visually bland and similar, nothing jumps out and rapes your eye-sockets.

Honestly bro, you want to know how long I played Skyrim? I played it all the way through to the end, and I literally do mean the end. All story lines are tied up, and at the end of the day, all I can remember is that there was a shitty dragon spawn in one of the towns that would spawn every time I enter it. The problem is that with something like Guild Wars 2, the whole world grabs your attention, here its trying to click and drag it to a specific point in a town, I.E. the waterfalls, or the boat house, and such. But the way it tries to drag you is by having you look up and I never looked up because everyone that I needed to talk to was always in perfect view.

Look, you seem like bullshit and I am not saying that to be a douche, but if you have to assume that I'm trolling to not understand that SKYRIM HAS THE DULLEST FUCKING DESIGNS AND COLORS ON THE PLANET then you are not understanding what is in the bold. Just take a picture of Fallout 3 and Skyrim and compare, side by side, and you'll get what I mean. Skyrim and Fallout 3 have very similar palettes if you scan your eyes across the picture, kinda like ya' do if you play the game. Neither have anything interesting and as such, are bland.

Fallout New Vegas is a much more colorful game that was published by Bethesda if I remember right, and that is a great visual showcase between Skyrim and what its palette should consist of, I.E. Bright fucking colors instead of all this worn down crap-tastic looking world.

Terminate421:
I love both of them and have no idea why people get so critical over them. They are buggy but they are big, so take in the shit that you can instead of bitching about a couple of problems.

Well Skyrim shit the bed and deleted by 20 or so hour save, yes, that is a fucking small problem I shouldn't bother to complain about. Fallout 3, currently, my dude is stuck in a firefight that I can not leave due to clicking on the door leads back into the firefight.

I'm sorry, but in booth instances I have to restart and plenty of others have had such giant problems with the games that I don't blame them for giving up on them.

Elmoth:
snip

I found New Vegas's DLC to be.... lacking. they were better then Fallout 3's,except maybe the Pit, but still.

-Dead Money was probably the worst, it was so barebones.
-Honest Hearts had SOOOOOOO little content in it.... then everyone important magically disappears after you beat it.
-Old World blues was probably the best but it was way to short
-Lonesome Road was probably the single most disappointing DLC I have ever played, they set up Ulysses as some uber-badass with a mysterious past, then they turn him into some generic "I WANT REVENGE FOR SOMETHING YOU DIDN'T KNOW YOU DID WAAAAA" story and the whole nuking thing was really pointless.
.
.
Also yes you CAN do something out those things
-In Markarth you end up killing the inside Forsworn agents and can either let their king live or not
-In Whindhelm you can eventually overthrow Ulfric in the civil war, and replace him with a Jarl who starts slowly bringing everyone back together
-Whiterun has a quest for one of the feuding families were you can find out that the other family was hiding the fate of their son from them and free him. Furthermore you can dispose Jarl Balgruff in the civil war and replace him with one of the two feuding familys.
-Riften has several quests where you can steal things from Maven, and if you choose NOT to do the Thieves Guild quests eventually Maven's power, as well as the thieves guild's remains relatively low.
.
.
Also after reading that article I can safely say whoever wrote that had little to no understand about what the College is, the college is a place for SELF-STUDY, it isn't like a school and the Archmage's "job" has just been to sit around and M<AYBE solve disputes between the mages should they arise.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked