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:
More information.

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.

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.

Opinions, everyone has one

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.

And the Skyrim sucks group has arrived.

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.

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

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.

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.)

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.

DnD 4th Edition is vastly superior to 3.5.

Oops sorry, wrong gaming preference warring thread.

Lol.

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

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 . . .

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.

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.

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.

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

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

The delusion:
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.