Skyrim vs Fallout 3 GO!

[Jitters Caffeine]

Yes, every city is boring as an essay about white bread. Glamour shots of the cities doesn't make them any more interesting. Sure, Markarth was different, but I'd hardly recommend a $60 game for that.

If you find
-A city ruled by a mob boss
-A city infiltrated, and under constant threat, by a terrorist group
-A city that resembles is segregated like a city from WW2 Germany
-A city split by a family feud and two sides of a war

To be as boring as "an essay about white bread" then you must be bored of most things.

The game has no personality. I will unapologetically say the game felt like I was playing Runescape. The cities and characters felt like they were put where they were out of a necessity to fill space. If I had to describe the game in three words, those words would be frigid, sterile, and safe. Maybe because it was made for the Xbox? Who's to know? All I know is that the game is impersonal and boring. Nothing in the game makes me care about what is going on. Fallout will always be better because of the focus on characters and player interaction. Two things Skyrim seemingly avoided.

 

[SajuukKhar]

The game has no personality. I will unapologetically say the game felt like I was playing Runescape. The cities and characters felt like they were put where they were out of a necessity to fill space. If I had to describe the game in three words, those words would be frigid, sterile, and safe. Maybe because it was made for the Xbox? Who's to know? All I know is that the game is impersonal and boring. Nothing in the game makes me care about what is going on. Fallout will always be better because of the focus on characters and player interaction. Two things Skyrim seemingly avoided.

Ironically I had that exact same problem..... with Fallout 3 and most of New Vegas.

Neither Fallout 3 or New Vegas's opening made me give two damns about finding my father/finding Benny.

When I finally did find my father my only feeling was... meh, and when he died I was also.... meh.... because he was just so unlikeable and there was no reason given to care about him.

Benny, Caesar, House, and Kimball all made me go.... meh..... because they were all terribly 1 dimensional. All close minded, and all just various on the same "recruit X faction to my side" quest-lines.
.
.
.
The cities of Fallout 3 and New Vegas had 95% of the people standing in one spot for 90% of the day, only moving to go home and go to sleep. most people felt like pillars with eyes whose heads turned to look at you.


Admittedly the people in Skyrim aren't THAT much better, but at least most of them walk around, go into various shops on different days, and generally act at least like they are somewhat more alive. I have actually had to go looking for characters in Skyrim, unlike Fallout 3/New Vegas were you knew that they would be in the same spot all the time.
.
.
.
The only people I EVER gave two flips about in Fallout 3/New Vegas were Joshua Graham and the scientists from Old World blues.

Compared to Skyrim were I found all the main characters at least somewhat likeable.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

-snip-

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

 

[SajuukKhar]

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

Funny because I cant think of anyone in Fallout 3/New Vegas who would fit that either.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

I consider them to be two rather different games so I can't really compare them. I like them both for some of the same reasons and also different reasons.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

Funny because I cant think of anyone in Fallout 3/New Vegas who would fit that either.

Really? I can think of dozens in New Vegas. Maybe less so in Fallout 3, but the people there were interesting because of the uniqueness of the cities and settlements they were a part of. I mean the followers in New Vegas were all deep and had genuine arcs that you saw and were a part of. Even smaller characters like King or Pacer in Freeside were more than just "Members of the Kings". But in Skyrim, any NPC that isn't immediately hostile can either be described as a plot device, a merchant/guild member/faction member, being either in support of the Empire or the Stormcloak, or being a werewolf/vampire. They have no other defining character features.

I consider them to be two rather different games so I can't really compare them. I like them both for some of the same reasons and also different reasons.

If I had to pick the biggest difference between the games, it would be the focus. Fallout focuses on player interaction and having character. Elder Scrolls focuses on having big worlds to explore. But the problem I have with Elder Scrolls is that the SOLE focus is on exploration. There's no reason to care about what is happening in the world because the game doesn't give you a reason to care. Fallout gives you interesting characters like Paladin Lyon or Veronica to interact with and bond with while you're going through the game. Elder Scrolls is just a diorama with no interaction with the player.

 

[wintercoat]

-snip-

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

I'm pretty sure 90% of all NPCs would fail that experiment.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

Funny because I cant think of anyone in Fallout 3/New Vegas who would fit that either.

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

Funny because I cant think of anyone in Fallout 3/New Vegas who would fit that either.

Really? I can think of dozens in New Vegas. Maybe less so in Fallout 3, but the people there were interesting because of the uniqueness of the cities and settlements they were a part of. I mean the followers in New Vegas were all deep and had genuine arcs that you saw and were a part of. Even smaller characters like King or Pacer in Freeside were more than just "Members of the Kings". But in Skyrim, any NPC that isn't immediately hostile can either be described as a plot device, a merchant/guild member/faction member, being either in support of the Empire or the Stormcloak, or being a werewolf/vampire. They have no other defining character features.

So are you two actually gonna offer any evidence for these deep characters or are you just gonna continue contradicting eachother?

Also Im gonna quickly agree with SajuukKhar, all the cities in Skyrim are very visually distinct, and If you claim otherwise, there might be something wrong with your eyesight. Sure someone whos never played the game may not be able to tell the difference, but Im sure they also wouldnt be able to tell which places were which in Fallout.

OT: I like them both, and they're very different experiences, but I think Skyrim slightly beats out Fallout. If only ever so slightly.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

-snip-

All the characters in Skyrim are either just plot devices or have a single defining feature. Here's a fun little experiment to find out if a character is deep or not: Describe the character in detail without describing their profession, their costume, their role in the story was. Describe the character like the other person has no idea about the subject matter. In those rules, I can't really think of a single character that is more than a plot device or more than just "Is a vampire/wrewolf."

I'm pretty sure 90% of all NPCs would fail that experiment.

But in New Vegas, there were characters that were much deeper than just "a member of the Kings". Sure the NCR was a little dry, but there were a few gems in there. Maybe not so much having deep arcs, but were at least more than just a quest giver. Any one of the followers in New Vegas had genuine arcs that you actually saw and experienced as you traveled with them. Followers in Skyrim were talking suitcases.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

So are you two actually gonna offer any evidence for these deep characters or are you just gonna continue contradicting eachother?

Also Im gonna quickly agree with SajuukKhar, all the cities in Skyrim are very visually distinct, and If you claim otherwise, there might be something wrong with your eyesight. Sure someone whos never played the game may not be able to tell the difference, but Im sure they also wouldnt be able to tell which places were which in Fallout.

OT: I like them both, and they're very different experiences, but I think Skyrim slightly beats out Fallout. If only ever so slightly.

Nothing felt unique about the cities in Skyrim. Every time I walked through the gates of a new cites, I just saw more stone buildings and another castle with another boring Jarl that'll give me a bunch of quests to do before he'll give me a new house. In Fallout 3 especially, every settlement was unique in the people and how it looked. A city made from a scavanged airfield? You see big pieces of passenger jets made into a walkway or you'll see a plane engine or a wing stuffed into a wall. A city of children that live in a former tourist destination that the original "settlers" were there on a field trip? Sounds pretty unique to me. An eerie Suburb where everyone acts like it's still the 1950s and who's loony tells you to check the basements? Boom, that place was spooky as hell because everyone acted totally normal aside from their refridgerators filled with "strange meat". All of those places are unique in their own way, and none of them are the same.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

So are you two actually gonna offer any evidence for these deep characters or are you just gonna continue contradicting eachother?

Also Im gonna quickly agree with SajuukKhar, all the cities in Skyrim are very visually distinct, and If you claim otherwise, there might be something wrong with your eyesight. Sure someone whos never played the game may not be able to tell the difference, but Im sure they also wouldnt be able to tell which places were which in Fallout.

OT: I like them both, and they're very different experiences, but I think Skyrim slightly beats out Fallout. If only ever so slightly.

Nothing felt unique about the cities in Skyrim. Every time I walked through the gates of a new cites, I just saw more stone buildings and another castle with another boring Jarl that'll give me a bunch of quests to do before he'll give me a new house. In Fallout 3 especially, every settlement was unique in the people and how it looked. A city made from a scavanged airfield? You see big pieces of passenger jets made into a walkway or you'll see a plane engine or a wing stuffed into a wall. A city of children that live in a former tourist destination that the original "settlers" were there on a field trip? Sounds pretty unique to me. An eerie Suburb where everyone acts like it's still the 1950s and who's loony tells you to check the basements? Boom, that place was spooky as hell because everyone acted totally normal aside from their refridgerators filled with "strange meat". All of those places are unique in their own way, and none of them are the same.

Yes yes I get it, you really like Fallouts locations, the thing is, I never said that theyre all samey as you seem to think, I just said that to someone who has never played it, they probably wouldnt be able to identify the places quickly.

And good job on sidestepping the question completely

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Yes yes I get it, you really like Fallouts locations, the thing is, I never said that theyre all samey as you seem to think, I just said that to someone who has never played it, they probably wouldnt be able to identify the places quickly.

And good job on sidestepping the question completely

I'm just explaining what I liked about them. They're different and unique. Skyrim just has one walled medieval city after another. There's no real personality to it. Someone could see that each settlement is distinctly different beyond having to identify that this walled medieval city is heavily inspired as eastern European, while this other one is obviously Scandinavian. The visual ascetics of the settlements in Fallout 3 add to the personality of the population. Skyrim is just a walled city full of people who don't like cat and lizard people.

And you seem very confrontational over something so trivial.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Yes yes I get it, you really like Fallouts locations, the thing is, I never said that theyre all samey as you seem to think, I just said that to someone who has never played it, they probably wouldnt be able to identify the places quickly.

And good job on sidestepping the question completely

I'm just explaining what I liked about them. They're different and unique. Skyrim just has one walled medieval city after another. There's no real personality to it. Someone could see that each settlement is distinctly different beyond having to identify that this walled medieval city is heavily inspired as eastern European, while this other one is obviously Scandinavian. The visual ascetics of the settlements in Fallout 3 add to the personality of the population. Skyrim is just a walled city full of people who don't like cat and lizard people.

And you seem very confrontational over something so trivial.

So are you two actually gonna offer any evidence for these deep characters or are you just gonna continue contradicting eachother?

Also Im gonna quickly agree with SajuukKhar, all the cities in Skyrim are very visually distinct, and If you claim otherwise, there might be something wrong with your eyesight. Sure someone whos never played the game may not be able to tell the difference, but Im sure they also wouldnt be able to tell which places were which in Fallout.

OT: I like them both, and they're very different experiences, but I think Skyrim slightly beats out Fallout. If only ever so slightly.

See that bit in bold? You know the part with the question mark? That was a genuine question, Im interested in finding out an example of a well done Fallout character from you since all you've done is bash Skyrim's characters instead of providing evidence for your own point.

Also what do you mean confrontational? Im just adding my two cents on the matter, besides its a forum, discussion is sort of the point.

 

[endtherapture]

Yes yes I get it, you really like Fallouts locations, the thing is, I never said that theyre all samey as you seem to think, I just said that to someone who has never played it, they probably wouldnt be able to identify the places quickly.

And good job on sidestepping the question completely

I'm just explaining what I liked about them. They're different and unique. Skyrim just has one walled medieval city after another. There's no real personality to it. Someone could see that each settlement is distinctly different beyond having to identify that this walled medieval city is heavily inspired as eastern European, while this other one is obviously Scandinavian. The visual ascetics of the settlements in Fallout 3 add to the personality of the population. Skyrim is just a walled city full of people who don't like cat and lizard people.

And you seem very confrontational over something so trivial.

For me, FO3 seemed the same as you find Skyrim.

I played it for 10 hours, couldn't get into it. Everyone was static. Everywhere I went was just more ruined buildings. Sometimes there was a ruined aircraft carrier, or a ruined settlements with walls. I seem to remember a ruined settlement built on a bridge too.

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

Yes yes I get it, you really like Fallouts locations, the thing is, I never said that theyre all samey as you seem to think, I just said that to someone who has never played it, they probably wouldnt be able to identify the places quickly.

And good job on sidestepping the question completely

I'm just explaining what I liked about them. They're different and unique. Skyrim just has one walled medieval city after another. There's no real personality to it. Someone could see that each settlement is distinctly different beyond having to identify that this walled medieval city is heavily inspired as eastern European, while this other one is obviously Scandinavian. The visual ascetics of the settlements in Fallout 3 add to the personality of the population. Skyrim is just a walled city full of people who don't like cat and lizard people.

And you seem very confrontational over something so trivial.

So are you two actually gonna offer any evidence for these deep characters or are you just gonna continue contradicting eachother?

Also Im gonna quickly agree with SajuukKhar, all the cities in Skyrim are very visually distinct, and If you claim otherwise, there might be something wrong with your eyesight. Sure someone whos never played the game may not be able to tell the difference, but Im sure they also wouldnt be able to tell which places were which in Fallout.

OT: I like them both, and they're very different experiences, but I think Skyrim slightly beats out Fallout. If only ever so slightly.

See that bit in bold? You know the part with the question mark? That was a genuine question, Im interested in finding out an example of a well done Fallout character from you since all you've done is bash Skyrim's characters instead of providing evidence for your own point.

Also what do you mean confrontational? Im just adding my two cents on the matter, besides its a forum, discussion is sort of the point.

You're very clearly attacking people. It's not just adding your thoughts to a discussion if you're making aggressive comments. If you're not aware what that means, there's a good chance you have a problem with hurting people's feelings when you talk to them in real life.

But, if you'd like a few good examples of deep characters in Fallout, I can provide quite a few good ones. I may stick with New Vegas since that was the most recent one I played.

Veronica
She's one of my favorites to do this with. She's more than just a sarcastic idealist of the Brotherhood of Steel. Her views on how they Brotherhood should act in the Mojave are directly opposed to the views of the Elder. She wants them to open the Bunker and start trading with the Mojave because she knows they won't last another 2 generations if they stay isolated. That headbutting with the Elder made her a sort of pariah in the Bunker and is what lead her to leaving. Her personality is rather non-chalant and snarky, but when she's talking about her views on what she thinks the Bunker should do, she couldn't be more serious. Once you go through her quest of looking for evidence to prove to the Elder the Bunker should be opened, you can either tell her to stay with the brotherhood or to leave them and to join the Followers of the Apocalypse. If you tell her to stay by her family, eventually the Brotherhood ends the feud they've had with the NCR. If you convince her the Brotherhood will never change and they'll always stay secretive and cloistered, a group of Brotherhood Knights and Paladins decimate a Followers of Apocalypse outpost for "corrupting" one of their scribes.

Pacer
He seems pretty simple when you first meet him. He's the number two of the Kings, the faction that runs Freeside. But once you start doing jobs for The King, you realize Pacer has been trouble for some time, but he's still loyal to the group. Eventually, you get caught up in a shootout Pacer started with a group of NCR relief workers who were providing food to the "squatters" Pacer so despises. He may seem kind of like a classic "Starscream", but he doesn't lust for power or want to overthrow The King. He wants to look out for Freeside and the "native" people who live there. You also discover his secret deals with the Van Graffs. All things considered,he probably deserves the "evil karma" he has.

Corporal Betsy
Seemingly your standard hard nosed military type and member of the First Recon. But if you ask around, you'll find out her story and her past with a particularly nasty character by the name of Cook-Cook. After claiming the bounty on Cook-Cook, you start talking to Betsy and her friends around Camp McCarren and realize her personality changed after her run in with the Fiends. Going through dialogue with her either trauma is just another war would that should be healed or by telling her that her trauma makes her the weak link and puts her friends in danger, she'll get counciling. Talking to her after that, she'll be noticably nicer and not immediately snap at you, and thank you for convincing her to get fixed. It's a legitimate character arc that the player is in direct control over.

 

[malestrithe]

Fallout 3/ New Vegas because both games had destinations for me to work towards. No matter how much time I spend dicking around the world, I know where the goal is at all times.

I hate Skyrim because the end game is not really a destination, but more like a goal. Your goal is to slay all of the dragons, but then what?

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

For me, FO3 seemed the same as you find Skyrim.

I played it for 10 hours, couldn't get into it. Everyone was static. Everywhere I went was just more ruined buildings. Sometimes there was a ruined aircraft carrier, or a ruined settlements with walls. I seem to remember a ruined settlement built on a bridge too.

I can totally see that. It took me actually trying to play the game three times to actually realize I was having fun. I'm not the kind of person who enjoys the games that has the draw of "mayhem and chaos for the sake of mayhem and chaos" like most Sandbox style games. When I sit down and see a good story, I want to see what happens, which is how Fallout 3 felt. You were experiencing the story as you completed the main quest. The "running around and exploring" was always a secondary objective in my mind. Sure I COULD do it, but I've gotta find my Dad goddamn it.

 

[endtherapture]

For me, FO3 seemed the same as you find Skyrim.

I played it for 10 hours, couldn't get into it. Everyone was static. Everywhere I went was just more ruined buildings. Sometimes there was a ruined aircraft carrier, or a ruined settlements with walls. I seem to remember a ruined settlement built on a bridge too.

I can totally see that. It took me actually trying to play the game three times to actually realize I was having fun. I'm not the kind of person who enjoys the games that has the draw of "mayhem and chaos for the sake of mayhem and chaos" like most Sandbox style games. When I sit down and see a good story, I want to see what happens, which is how Fallout 3 felt. You were experiencing the story as you completed the main quest. The "running around and exploring" was always a secondary objective in my mind. Sure I COULD do it, but I've gotta find my Dad goddamn it.

I'm not sure but something never clicked with me in Fallout 3. The main story wasn't particularly compelling, the subway system annoys the fuck out of me WHY CANT I GET WHERE I WANT? All the characters seemed flat and dull, the only one I remember is Moria and she was really annoying. I just don't get the game, every time I've played it, it's been a chore. I was happy in Skyrim and even Oblivion exploring, doing the main quest when it suited me, finding new gear and stuff, but Fallout 3 just seems like TES but with guns and without any magic and mystique and sparkle. And more grey.

Hopefully New Vegas will be better.

 

[spartandude]

i prefer high fantasy to post apocalypse

 

[SoranMBane]

They're both pretty much on the same level as far as role playing choices, which is to say, they both have almost none beyond what what skills you're good with. But Skyrim at least has its bizarre, 4th wall-leaning lore to buoy it up and perhaps help explain why the protagonist doesn't act with a whole lot of range or sense. Personally, I don't exactly think it's the greatest story design decision ever to force the player to do so much digging outside of the main plot in order to understand why the game isn't just another generic fantasy RPG about a fabled hero slaying dragons, but it's something. Fallout 3, while more or less fun to play, is just plain dumb and badly written.

That said, I think Fallout: New Vegas is better than both of them. Maybe not entirely playable, being as buggy as it is, but at least it has good writing, actual role playing, and moral choices that are more evolved than binary "good" and "evil" options as the norm rather than a rare exception.