RPGWatch Forums
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 Last »

RPGWatch Forums (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/index.php)
-   News Comments (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=10)
-   -   Skyrim - Why Fallout: New Vegas is the Better Game (http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19074)

aries100 January 2nd, 2013 00:04

Skyrim - Why Fallout: New Vegas is the Better Game
 
Cinelinx has an 2-page editorial about why Fallout: New Vegas is the better game
compared to Skyrim. Here's a qoute about storytelling in the two games:
Quote:

The basis of Skyrim's story - for all purposely fantastical - just isn't all that interesting. A bunch of dragons died years ago…now they're back and plan to take over the world [insert overly-complicated reason why]… oh, by the way - you're the ‘chosen one', the only one who can stop them [insert almost non-existent reason why]… get to work.
Compare this with Fallout's very real threat of nuclear war and the devastating effect it would have on the planet. As a mere courier, you are instantly aware of just how expendable you are in New Vegas. The Mojave Wasteland is almost the perfect setting, as it drives home a desperate scenario of desolation. The reinvented New Vegas; overrun with gangs and thugs battling for both power and survival is almost certainly how our fickle human race would act if placed in similar circumstances. Battling your way to the top in order to save New Vegas from itself and being forced to decide who you can trust; kill or let live, all makes for gripping storytelling.
More information.

joxer January 2nd, 2013 00:04

New Begas (why B?) is a better game for one simple reason.
I didn't see 83745683746523876532847 unfixed bugs a year after it was released.

Ashbery76 January 2nd, 2013 00:05

I agree.Skyrim seemed great as first but you soon came to realise the game world was hollow with little choices and a pretty terrible script.

Twotricks January 2nd, 2013 00:13

Opinions, everyone has one

CountChocula January 2nd, 2013 00:38

Both brilliant games IMO. One did a better job of incorporating player reputation with NPC factions into the gameplay and main quest. The other did a better job of creating a new and incredibly immersive game world, with powerful systems for A.I. and dynamic events.

rune_74 January 2nd, 2013 00:41

And the Skyrim sucks group has arrived.

Corwin January 2nd, 2013 00:47

They are both excellent, but different games. What's wrong with that? Each one has differing strengths and weaknesses, but so what!! It's apples and oranges and I like each at different times!! :)

rune_74 January 2nd, 2013 00:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corwin (Post 1061177832)
They are both excellent, but different games. What's wrong with that? Each one has differing strengths and weaknesses, but so what!! It's apples and oranges and I like each at different times!! :)

Totally agree…that same logic works on most games, when you take emotions out of it. If you have fun with it that's great it doesn't have to be the greatest at everything.

aries100 January 2nd, 2013 01:01

Thank you for catching this. It should now be corrected. I was just in a Spanish mood, I think ;)

BababooeyHTJ January 2nd, 2013 01:05

Exactly both games have their strengths and weaknesses. There are a lot of things that Skyrim does better than New Vegas too. I honestly think that the world is much larger and more interesting.

Irian January 2nd, 2013 01:27

Quote:

Compare this with Fallout's very real threat of nuclear war and the devastating effect it would have on the planet.
What? Fallout… Very real threat? Fallout? We ARE talking about the The-Future-Is-Stuck-In-The-1950s-Fallout? The Giant-Scorpion-Fallout? The Atomic-Car-Fallout? Fallout is not great because it shows a possible future, but an interesting one.

Honestly, if you think Fallout has any real connection to a possible future, then Skyrim also has a real connection to a possible past.

(Edit: So, yes, I liked both of them, replayed Fallout NV this summer and will replay Skyrim as soon as the Dragonborn DLC is out for PC.)

NFLed January 2nd, 2013 02:04

They are both very good, in somewhat different ways, although I am glad that I did not play them back to back as they are similar. Both of them got tiring to me after playing for so long, but even at that point they were still somewhat enjoyable.

I enjoyed the story telling of Fallout NV better and the scenery of Skyrim better.

hairyscotsman2 January 2nd, 2013 02:15

DnD 4th Edition is vastly superior to 3.5.

Oops sorry, wrong gaming preference warring thread.

Lol.

CountChocula January 2nd, 2013 02:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by hairyscotsman2 (Post 1061177845)
DnD 4th Edition is vastly superior to 3.5.

Heresy! It must be 1e AD&D or I'm going home and taking my 20-sided die with me. :biggrin:

Dajjer January 2nd, 2013 05:19

I loved both games - both are in my top 10 games of all time. And both are desert isle games.

Damn island better have electricity . . .

Pessimeister January 2nd, 2013 06:03

Good Grief, what editorial buffoonery. There's no need to compare to two; they offer entirely different experiences, both of which I enjoy. I like New Vegas alot more for what it aspires to do design wise (especially in providing choice to the player) but in no way does that necessarily make it objectively the better game. Everything boils down to personal preference.

I don't go for the whole "Well my chocolate ice-cream tastes better than your strawberry ice cream so nyaah!" line of argument just to troll a response from people.

crpgnut January 2nd, 2013 06:05

Both are wonderful. Skyrim has a much more interesting flora and fauna system and is just beautiful to travel. FNV has better companions and overall writing. I thought Skyrim's opponents were much more real, as were their motivations. To me, the Imperials vs the Stormcloaks was more realistic than Kaisar's legions vs NCR. The chance of the legion winning against the NCR just didn't make sense. The House side of FNV was just silly and out of place. Then again, Skyrim had the benefit of seeing what another developer did with their engine, and I think it paid off.

JDR13 January 2nd, 2013 06:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pessimeister (Post 1061177861)
There's no need to compare to two; they offer entirely different experiences, both of which I enjoy.

This^

When you compare two games with such drastically different worlds but with similar gameplay, it usually just comes down to which setting the player prefers.

Maylander January 2nd, 2013 09:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Corwin (Post 1061177832)
They are both excellent, but different games. What's wrong with that? Each one has differing strengths and weaknesses, but so what!! It's apples and oranges and I like each at different times!! :)

I agree. They're two of the best games I've played for years. Trying to pick one over the other is not needed.

ChienAboyeur January 2nd, 2013 10:41

looks like the author fancies over one more than the other.

The delusion:
Quote:

As a mere courier, you are instantly aware of just how expendable you are in New Vegas. The Mojave Wasteland is almost the perfect setting, as it drives home a desperate scenario of desolation.
Reality: as a player, you are instantly aware of just how indispensable you are. Nothing advances without your bidding. The game story writing is set to give you that exceptional feeling and as such, your progress toward the completion of the story is mandatory. Failure but terminal is absent. You will reign supreme in the end.

It is the same for Skyrim. But for one reason or another, the author fancied over FO more.

The post-apocalyptic settings might be for something in the mix. After all, post apocalyptic settings are very trendy these days.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:20.
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 Last »

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch