Borderlands > Fallout 3?

[MiracleOfSound]

I honestly doubt it.

It will almost certainly have better shooting mechanics, but it will be nowhere near as life consumingly immersive and story rich.

 

[geldonyetich]

Apples and oranges. That said, Borderlands promises to be very, very interesting. I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of players find it better than Fallout 3.

Really, Bethesda's FPS RPG design isn't that great. They tend to balance for lack of real challenging gameplay by dumping a ton of hitpoints into everything, but it doesn't work when you end up burning all your ammo/arrows trying to take something down. There was at least blocking in Oblivion (something they carried over to Fallout 3 melee even though it had no place in Fallout canon) but the only real depth in Fallout 3's combat was the VATS. Having to constantly repair your armor/weapons is a pain, too.

Their open, immersive world has always been the main draw. The characters and environments really drive an excellent story. However, olnce I finished Fallout 3 and Oblivion, the immersion suddenly grounded to a halt, the events that drove the story ran out, and I realized I wasted a lot of time playing these games when I could have been playing something with a bit more meat to the mechanic.

That said, Borderlands has an open, immersive world and apparent dynamic content, meaning the storyline never dries up because the game builds it as you go along, so that should be interesting to see.

 

[veloper]

Comparing borderlands to Fallout3 is like comparing Diablo to oblivion.

The focus of borderlands is the same as diablo: action, random generated loot and progression.
Fallout3 is more about exploration, same as the TES series.
You can max out on 100 skill with a weapon on a single digit level. The best rifle (lincoln repeater) is located in a museum where every player will discover it early into the game. The good stuff is finding locations like the green forest and the vault tek mainframe.

(still I hope I'll like Borderlands even better)

 

[Billy_Pilgrim]

borderlands=fps with rpg elements albeit pretty heavy rpg but its still mostly a fps
Fallout 3=rpg with fps elements although they arent to great
comparing the two is like comparing oblvion to bioshock they are completely different

Bullcrap. Fallout 3 is an FPS with RPG elements. They both have FPS mode, both have a lot of RPG elements even including damage and health points. Oblivion has more RPG than Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 is Fallout + Oblivion. But with a lot of FPS from Oblivion.

Borderlands is Hellgate London + Fallout. FPS + RPG + post-apocalyptic setting.

You're insane, man! Fallout 3 was, first and foremost, an RPG. That's what I'd like to think anyway, because it makes for a disgusting FPS...among the worst, in fact.

Yes, an RPG where you can just screw the RPG elements and shoot without using the VATS.

1. First Person Perspective.
2. You have guns and you shoot with guns.
3. You must even RELOAD like in an FPS game.
4. You don't need VATS if you treat F3 as an FPS game.

Exactly, all of which make for one horrible FPS, and a really rather interesting RPG.

By your logic, Valkyria Chronicles is a third person shooter, simply for having guns in it.

 

[Poomanchu745]

Comparing borderlands to fallout 3 is kinda like comparing a yellow lab to a jack Russel. The westminster dog show arward thing first compared the dogs within their own breed and then compares the best of each breed to the other breeds to determine the best in show. So while the two are not in the same breed you can compare the two as one would for best in show. You don't expect to do a side-by-side comparison but you can look at both games and determine which one you like better. Thats all im trying to say when considering borderlands as a GOTY because of the GOTY nods Fallout 3 got.

 

[Abedeus]

1. First Person Perspective.
2. You have guns and you shoot with guns.
3. You must even RELOAD like in an FPS game.
4. You don't need VATS if you treat F3 as an FPS game.

1. So what?
2. So what?
3. ...of course you fucking have to, you're shooting guns.
4. Without using VATS, the game is scary hard.. to the point of being nearly unplayable. Anyone who has played Fallout 3 would know this. VATS is a major part of that game and when it comes down to it, it's all number crunching.

1. So it meets one half of the FPS requirements.
2. And that's the second part (shooter, you know, with guns).
3. Do you know any RPGs where you have to reload your guns (Fallout 1, 2, even Hellgate) or bows?
4. But you can always use all your Action Points, then just shoot the enemy down.

Your points one through three make absolutely no sense in the scene of this. Yes, there is a first person perspective.. what does that have to do with anything? Yes, you shoot with guns. I do that in side-scrolling platformers too. And you have to reload a gun? Wow.. groundbreaking concept there.

Yes, but in side-scrolling platformers you don't play from FPP and you don't reload guns.

borderlands=fps with rpg elements albeit pretty heavy rpg but its still mostly a fps
Fallout 3=rpg with fps elements although they arent to great
comparing the two is like comparing oblvion to bioshock they are completely different

Bullcrap. Fallout 3 is an FPS with RPG elements. They both have FPS mode, both have a lot of RPG elements even including damage and health points. Oblivion has more RPG than Fallout 3.

Fallout 3 is Fallout + Oblivion. But with a lot of FPS from Oblivion.

Borderlands is Hellgate London + Fallout. FPS + RPG + post-apocalyptic setting.

You're insane, man! Fallout 3 was, first and foremost, an RPG. That's what I'd like to think anyway, because it makes for a disgusting FPS...among the worst, in fact.

Yes, an RPG where you can just screw the RPG elements and shoot without using the VATS.

1. First Person Perspective.
2. You have guns and you shoot with guns.
3. You must even RELOAD like in an FPS game.
4. You don't need VATS if you treat F3 as an FPS game.

Exactly, all of which make for one horrible FPS, and a really rather interesting RPG.

By your logic, Valkyria Chronicles is a third person shooter, simply for having guns in it.

If it's real timed and you shoot from guns/bows (yes, some FPS games use bows - Turok comes to mind).

Say what you want - people say that Bioshock is also an RPG. It doesn't make it so. EA says that Spore is a true simulation of life... but we all know that it's just a watered-down mash-up of a mini-game, platformer, two RTS games and one X4 game.

 

[Pillypill]

I dont think it will be better than FO3, it's really just a shooter, a fantastic looking shooter, with some RPG elements. I think Border lands will be a great game, but as a shooter, not as an RPG. So better if you want an FPS worse if you want an RPG.

I heard Border lands will have 4 way co-op, is that true?

 

[Elesar]

This reminds me of the inFamous vs. Prototype debate. Yes they're both sandbox games about people with accidental superpowers and flexible morals. What else do they have in common? Absolutely frakking nothing (yeah I said frakking). So while Fallout 3 may be similar in setting to Borderlands, comparisons are essentially irrelevant as they are about completely different things.
Also, no Borderlands will not be better than Fallout 3.

 

[happysock]

Well the game isn't out yet so currently Fallout is better as it can actually be played!

To me the games seem to be too different to compare but I'm sure I could pick a favourite

 

[Korey Von Doom]

Since the "Fallout3=Borderlands" people don't both to read about anything apparently, Borderlands is not set on Earth or any other planet that has experienced an apocalypse. From what I read the planet was a giant prison and when the resources dried up everyone left, except the prisoners who were left to kill each other. The planet got like that through neglect not mass nuking. Fallout 3 was a great game, and hopefully Borderlands will be too, but that are extremely different games.

 

[DividedUnity]

You cant really compare borderlands to fallout 3. That would be lke comparing world of warcraft to oblivion. Yes they have similar elements within them but they are complete different in every other way.

Fallout 3 (PC) with DLC and with the mods provided free online is possibly one of the best games ive played in terms of size and content. There is no way that something like borderlands will ever match up even if it does have better animations or firing mechanics

 

[Kiutu]

Would be nice if I could oh...I dunno....make my OWN character. I guess it will be Brute Force-ish, but still, I LOVE character creation.

Customizing them is not creating them, so if you were going to argue that, well...no.

 

[Syphonz]

VATS was more of a Turned-Based Combat element than anything, not RPG. Fallout 3 also has character abilities, stats, armor, upgrading etc. Borderlands seems to take most of those and just focus them on the guns.

They are entirely different games.

 

[Ryuk2]

It has nothing in common with Fallout 3! If you think that they are even similar, go and eat some dirt and brush your teeth with nails.

 

[L3m0n_L1m3]

It's not like Fallout 3. At all. The only comparison is the wasteland feel and the rpg elements. Other than that they're completely different, they don't play anything like each other. Why people keep comparing them is beyond me.

Because they both have the wasteland feel and rpg elements. But I agree with you.

 

[iamthehorde]

i´m really looking forward to borderlands. i didn´t really like fallout3 to be honest, although i adore the older games. i hated the battle system, i didn´t like the visuals(i say visuals because technically it´s pretty good, i just thought the characters were ugly as hell, not in a mutant way, and overall it´s too greeny grey, just didn´t appeal to me). borderlands looks like fallout3 should have looked for my taste and i´m always down for a fresh fps so for me borderlands>fallout3. now we have to wait until rage drops so we can compare the next post-apocalyptic shooter to those...

EDIT: in advance, i know f3 was never supposed to be a shooter anyways. i compare them as wasteland games.

 

[iamthehorde]

1. So it meets one half of the FPS requirements.
2. And that's the second part (shooter, you know, with guns).
3. Do you know any RPGs where you have to reload your guns (Fallout 1, 2, even Hellgate) or bows?
4. But you can always use all your Action Points, then just shoot the enemy down.

This is so simple, I don't exactly see how you don't get it. I mean, if you're looking at everything mathmatically then sure I could understand how a person might be able to think that "first person shooting and guns are the only thing that make up a FPS". Or perhaps you're trying to use the name of the genre to win this arguement, although that's not really a great idea.. because it's clear that it's just the name of the genre, and there are actually a lot of elements to consider.

In the Fallout 3 game world, gameplay wise.. yes you have the option of shooting in first person although it's also possible to go from a third person perspective. See, the damage that you can do though.. has a lot to do with the location where you shoot but also, a very big part of it.. is the stats from the GURPS system that is used. Very few people would have the ability, however to aim for specific body parts on the fast moving enemies. This is where the VATS system comes in.. it's very important to all of this. It takes control mostly out of the players hands and crunches the numbers to calculate the shot.

The fact that the player has a gun, and has to reload it.. isn't even an issue. It really isn't an issue that this point, because it just comes down to the realistic aspect of Fallout 3. Of course people are going to have guns in the wasteland, and of course they're going to need to be reloaded. Fallout 1 and 2 were created on different engines, in a different time by a different design team.. and there weren't any shooter ELEMENTS to it. At heart, the game is still very much tied to RPG roots and that's all there is to you. You can't just take a glance on the surface and go "Durr, guns and shooting and first person.. it's an FPS! Therefore it's the same as this other game."

right, but it is not realistic in fallout 3 if you are standing right in front of the enemy, get a 100% chance with vats to shoot the baddy in the face and you still miss him two times in a row. at least that often happened to me and pissed me off. it just makes no sense. a lot of stuff makes no sense in fallout3. it´s not really different from number 1 and 2. even the inventory is still fucking nervewrecking. that´s why i was really disappointed with f3. i don´t think it´s in any way better than the old games, which do have more character imo.

 

[hazabaza1]

It looks like it'll have more blind fun action, rather than an immersive and lonely feeling.

So I think I'll love it.