Fallout 3 vs. New Vegas

Fallout 3 was a nice introduction to the series to me but is garbage when put up against New Vegas.

That's exactly what I think too :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vyk

Alpha Protocol was alright, New Vegas was alright, South Park was pretty good, Pillars of Eternity was pretty good. Fallout 3 was alright. Oblivion was pretty good. And Fallout 4 was pretty good

---

I'll use some of your game list to summarize why I think Obsidian is better than Bethesda.

Oblivion - 4/10
Fallout 3 - 5/10
New Vegas - 8/10
South Park - 8/10
Fallout 4 - 6/10

Although I think Bioware is better than Obsidian.

---

I'd say they're all 9/10 games

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hollycat

I'd say they're all 9/10 games

---

Yes, just like every game. Can you give me an example of a Bethesda-style game (open-world action-ish RPG) that you would rate 6 or lower?

Yeah I'd probably make fallout 3 a 6/10 but overall the others would be 7.5 or 8 regardless of the developer. But maybe I expect less from Bethesda for some reason. Either way that really does put it in better perspective. Thanks spuuky and everyone else who answered. I get it now. It probably helps I didn't play Morrowind until long after Oblivion. And only on console. So I didn't have a timeless experience with them to compare. And I think I'm missing something in Pillars of Eternity. I liked it well enough. But for me Divinity was much more a return to crpg amazingness. To each their own, but there is a growing list of games I want to be able to see differently and enjoy better the way others do. Either way, thanks again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spuuky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hollycat

I'd say they're all 9/10 games

---

Yes, just like every game. Can you give me an example of a Bethesda-style game (open-world action-ish RPG) that you would rate 6 or lower?

---

There aren't really any other games comparable to them... I mean, I'd say the original borderlands would be close to a 6 or 7. Same with the original Mass Effect. I'd give Kingdoms of Amular a 4 or 5, and Ni No Kuni a 6 or so.

yay, i'm not the only one who thinks ni no kuni is a mediocre game!

Ni no Kuni isn't even remotely like a Bethesda game, but I think it's good, except for the utterly interminable hand-holding.

If only the hand-holding wasn't written into the story. That's about the main thing that turned me off to that game... If it was just tool-tips and tutorial stuff that could be turned-off or by-passed in some way. I love what Ni No Kuni tried to do, and how pretty and imaginative it was. The experience was memorable and fun. But completely ruined... I pray the next one succeeds in all the ways the first one failed, without sacrificing everything that was good about the first one. Though I hear Level 5 has trouble with their end-game. I haven't played Dark Cloud or Rogue Galaxy, let alone beat them, but I heard people complain that the end of Ni No Kuni doesn't do the game as much justice as it deserved(?), and the common complaint was that was just a fault with Level 5. But I wouldn't know

I've heard people say Level 5 really went downhill after Dark cloud and particularly DC2.

someone talkin trout about kingdoms of amalur like i wouldn't find out

also what about two worlds?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister Adequate

someone talkin trout about kingdoms of amalur like i wouldn't find out

also what about two worlds?

---

I will never know if two worlds two is awful or not because I can't get past how ugly the main character is and how dumb his arms look.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mister Adequate

As for BioWare, I don't rate modern BW as highly as some do, but aside from massively smurfing up with ME3, they've put out consistently huge and detailed games that win a lot of acclaim and a lot of fans. They may not be making another game as absolutely, incomparably masterful as Baldur's Gate 2 anytime soon, but it's not like I didn't play all the Mass Effect series at release, and I've been spending most of my gaming time the last week intensely playing DA:O so I mean, they're doing a lot right. But they're not doing much that's daring, not how Obsidian attempt and often succeed.

Except telling everyone to get smurfed when everyone was mad about the ending of Mass Effect 3, that was a pretty hilarious bit of daring trolling, I'll admit.

---

My main enjoyment with BioWare games is the attention to diversity they put in their games, whether it's positive representations of trans identities with Krem in DA:I, to LGBT characters, race, or an interesting examination of different religious creeds. I feel like I can be lost in those worlds when I'm playing.

After playing Fallout 4. I can honestly say Fallout 3 was better in some regards. In fact Bethesda went one step forward and took 5 steps back. The gunplay was better but that was all to it. Fallout 4 was over hyped, bad story, bad characters, bad role playing, no moral dilemmas in comparison to Fallout 1 through 2 and New Vegas, bad dialogue, no honest choices in character of decisions, truthfully in my mind Bethesda smurfed up for the last time. New Vegas stands as the best Fallout in the series with Fallout 2 falling second.

I respect your position Lazerface, but I'm not sure I can really understand it. Everything you say that is bad about 4 is even more true with 3, in my eyes. 4 is mediocre a lot of the time, but it's only mediocre - 3 is actively and offensively bad, stupid, and nonsensical.