The story of FO3 is more compelling, you'll never top the story with your dad, but New Vegas had a very cool environment, and I liked the new items and gameplay mechanics a lot. Lonesome Road is probably the best Fallout DLC overall between both games.
I guess it depends on what you were looking for in the environment. I found it very generic and dead feeling in most of FNV. FO3 devs knew how to build a set. You could practically make an archaeological study of any given location and the artifacts and skeletons you found there, the positions they were in, what they appeared to have been doing when they died, etc.
That is what I thought the main story the worst part of FO3. NV definitely improved that aspect.
@muppet yeah the environment is way more sparse which was really disappointing but they make up for it somewhat with quests. There's less areas to just straight up explore but theres more actual interaction between NPCs. The sparse environments stopped me from playing for a long time. But once the ball gets rolling it's easier to look past that issue.
You'll never top the story with your awkward, charisma-free dad (sorry Liam Neeson) who keeps abandoning you every 10 seconds?
Coming off of Fallout 1 and 2, FO3 felt really warmed over and generic. New Vegas had a much better cast, and much more interesting premise than "the water in this world sure sucks." I liked FO3 well enough, because I by default like games that let you roam around in isolated and desolate places, but New Vegas is by far the superior product.
Also why'd they make the Super Mutants super dumb.
My dad and I are pretty lukewarm and I pretty much can't wait for my mom to die so she'll stop crazily stalking me while riddled with untreated bipolar disorder, so I gotta say the Daddy angle didn't do much for me.
The story was definitely the worst part of FO3. It wouldn't have been so bad, if they had let you deviate from it. If there was a "Fuck you, dad, I hate you and am going to go join the Brotherhood of Steel or something" option, it would have been fine, but instead they anchored you to a character that I personally hated.
Also, that ending was bullshit. I had the Supermutant sidekick. Why couldn't he have flipped the switch with his invincibility to radiation.
Nah, I'm on team HYPE. Apocalypse crashed and burned due to creative friction between two different companies. This game appears to have been guided by the same people as last time around and has also been given time to bake.
Some pre-release of XCOM 2, there is a lot of missing information, interesting that you get to come out of fog of war. I want to see the macro level play.
Comments
@muppet yeah the environment is way more sparse which was really disappointing but they make up for it somewhat with quests. There's less areas to just straight up explore but theres more actual interaction between NPCs. The sparse environments stopped me from playing for a long time. But once the ball gets rolling it's easier to look past that issue.
Coming off of Fallout 1 and 2, FO3 felt really warmed over and generic. New Vegas had a much better cast, and much more interesting premise than "the water in this world sure sucks." I liked FO3 well enough, because I by default like games that let you roam around in isolated and desolate places, but New Vegas is by far the superior product.
Also why'd they make the Super Mutants super dumb.
Also, that ending was bullshit. I had the Supermutant sidekick. Why couldn't he have flipped the switch with his invincibility to radiation.
The original XCOM was a similarly amazing and hype game when it game out.
It had a sequel.
We never talk about that sequel.
I thought this was the sequel to the original X-com :-p
Which reminds me I kickstarted this game and should actually play it.
I want to see the macro level play.
What a terrible, beautiful abuse of spreadsheets.
[] super burn
[X] Burnie 2016