I'd say the main difference is that the world of Fallout is distinguished by it's characters and factions, and the way they interact. Elder Scrolls worlds are distinguished primarily by their landscape and scenery. In spite of the fact that Fallout's world is an irradiated wasteland, it feels much more alive to me, primarily because its people seem so much more human. Elder Scrolls characters tend to have all the personality of a wooden plank, so in spite of the beautiful vistas and lush forests, their worlds all feel bleak and lifeless to me. The people are just set dressing. Skyrim isn't a nuclear wasteland, but it sure feels like one.

It helps that FO3 addressed many of what I found to be Oblivion's flaws at the time: It has better level scaling, more hand placed clutter dungeons with a story/purpose, NPCs with more meaningful conversations, etc. I'm not sure I want to know what Skyrim would've been like if they didn't have the opportunity to experiment with those things in Fallout 3.

I love both of Bethesda's series and I can't wait to see what they're planning for Fallout 4.

I save myself the headache from comparing FO 1/2 with 3 by simply considering them as separate series. I really like the Bethesda Fallout 'series' for what it is, regardless of whatever controversial things it did with the lore and game mechanics of the old games. It's a post apocalyptic FPS/RPG with a large explorable world.

New Vegas is somewhere between FO2 and Fallout 3 in its mix of old Fallout and new Fallout aspects I think.

The FO3 universe is a plane of Oblivion, but no one knows it.

Just look at the way the girders claw at the sky in FO3, check out some Oblivion architecture and then tell me the Super Mutants aren't demora in disguise.

I think FO3 is what Nirn would have become had Merunes Dagon succeded in Oblivion.

(Personal viewpoint. I'm aware that the Fallout universe is separate IP and may well predate TES, etc etc etc).

I think I prefer FO, due to reasons already stated. Much more life like NPC's. I actually feel like my actions have consequence on the world around me and the dialogue options are immensely better.

It's a shame though, because I love TES setting wise. Fantasy is my favourite genre, but when all the NPC's are about as interesting as a duck with his bill taped shut, it becomes difficult to immerse yourself. I don't know how people can role play in a TES game. Probably the type of kid's who though a cardboard box was a space ship when they were small.

Sorry for the double post, but YES! This sums up exactly what's wrong with skyrim and what's right with FO3. There's an incredible humanity in it, which is completely lacking in Skyrim. When playing Skyrim, I feel acutely aware at all times, that I'm playing a game. In FO3, I used to become so immersed in the desperation and hopelessness of the game.

See I think TES have done a great job of not sticking to the usual stereotypical fantasy characters/races etc.

Then you haven't read Raymond E. Feists books.

Akaviri = Tsurani
Illigitement heir named Martin? check and double check
Saaur = Argonians
Ancient dragon overlords? check
Almost non-sentient giants? check
Ape-like trolls? check
Tiger People of Novindus = Khajitt
the list goes on

I've been playing Fallout for ages now, maybe 4 years, but I have only recently picked up Skyrim and well that game just feels a lot better and more appealing, there is tons more quests and people to interact with, compared to Fallout 3 and NV were you knew exactly who was important and who wasn't just because they were a named NPC.

I started playing Fallout in November last year, and started Obvlivion this year, I like em both, strongly prefering Fallout due to it containing my beloved Energy Based Impliments of Destruction.

In creating the first immensely popular modern version of Fallout, they directed the future path and nature of the game. Subsequent versions of the game may be illegitimate children of Bethesda, but still born out of their gene pool.

The comparison is therefore only natural.

While F3's environment is boring to some people, I prefer it over Oblivion or even Skyrim. The D.C. landscape was incredible for me. As soon as you leave the Vault, you can see the Washington Monument. Just down the road is a wrecked village. The atmosphere was so much more epic. I remember on my first character going out, I felt like I was actually trying to survive. Scavenging for materials, trying to survive raider attacks, it was all so awesome! However, my only problem is that I'm nervous that Beth is going to use Skyrim's writers for Fallout 4, which would be a nightmare. While Beth could have done a better job on the writing, they didn't screw it up that bad. Dialogue was pretty good too. You usually had 3-5 different dialogue options, compared to Skyrim's one or two. I'm really scared that Beth is going to make F4 just like Skyrim:no dialogue, horrible writing, break every bit of canon and just ruin the game and make it "action adventure"

Hell, after playing Obsidian's New Vegas and all the DLCs(which was all made with Beth's consent) that is one of the reasons Skyrim was ruined for me. So much dialogue, so much choice, so much "YOU SHAPE THE ENTIRE WORLD" whereas in Skyrim you have to conform to others.

I like how FO confronts you with the realistic feel of the game world. After all it's still our world in a possible shape, despite the split-off. It certainly feels different to make choices on a destroyed planet we call home than as an elf in a world that feels indeed a bit too Tolkienesque and remote. The story of a regular man in a home that isn't home no more is very appealing to me. It appeals to me more personally as a human and yet it feels all so alienating. But FO should also have lots of humour and wacky things next to the overall feel of depression and sadness and I think that's great.

Yes, comparing it all to one fantasy author suddenly makes everything stereotypical.

I far prefer Fallout to TES. TES is just so generic and bland, Skyrim improved over Oblivion, but it was still just the same boring game underneath the shiny graphics. I haven't played Morrowind, I probably should since I hear it's less LOTR-ripoff-y.

Go and read ingame books, preferably stuff like the Commentaries. Then go and understand them, Then come back and tell me TES is bland and LOTR-ripoff-y
Its like saying all people are the same because they have leggs, arms and a head.

Fallout was more immersive to me. Exiting Vault 101 (and quickly getting mauled to death by feral dogs) is probably my all time favorite gaming moment. That said, I like the post apocalyptic genre, so I'm biased.

Skyrim is beautiful and the lore is well developed, but the world seemed static. No one had anything interesting to say.

I also liked piecing together the past in fallout - from holotapes and terminal entries. The journals in Skyrim didn't have the same appeal, or seem as realisitic.

Comparing it to one fantasy author makes you realize how similar it is to other fantasy. Of course like all fantasy material it will be influenced by what came before.
It's not a good thing that they saved their best writing for the in-game books, besides none of the stories in them were nearly as interesting as finding the holotapes and terminal entries about regular people just trying to survive in the wastelands of the Fallout series. Read the notes left by the Survivor in the New Vegas add-on Honest Hearts and then try and tell me that anything in Oblivion or Skyrim compares to it.

These are my favorite games. I don't really have a favorite because I feel like playing one or the other at different times.

Both games go out of their way to make organic and quirky experiences (my all-time favorite gaming event was the time I played Morrowind and a guy fell to death, screaming from the sky. Finding the journal and scrolls on his body made me feel like anything was possible). Sometimes I feel like roaming a destroyed world as some badass warrior gunner. Other times I want to be immersed in a fantasy world unlike what we have here, with its lush environments and exotic creatures.

Someday I'd like to see a combination of the two, in the same vein as the Shadowrun but with Bethesda's quirky brand of humor.

I kinda prefer the Elder Scroll setting (altough I love Fallout too), but Skyrim dissapointed me a little bit as a RPG. I think Fallout is much more immersing (lol I hate that word, but I lack others) game and the world and quest is well made and well written. I kinda love them both equaly, but I think both games could learn from each other.

agreed. someone bought FONV for me, I never had any interest beforehand cause it was too 'mad max' for my tastes. but the writing and dialogue pwns skyrim.

skyrim is a nice looking place, but it svcks to live there because nobody cares that you do.

only trouble for me is I have to delete the DLC because I play on PS3 and its still broken even without it, much better stories and characters than skyrim

I love Skyrim's beauty.FO got to be so depressing after awhile,everything in shades of gray but I have to say I CARED about the people there.I really don't feel anything for anyone in Skyrim.I feel like a sightseer and that's it.

Try playing Oblivion and noticing that it's set in pseudo-british countryside with magic, swords, orcs, elves, and every other LOTR trope. Then come back and try and claim that TES isn't just LOTR only uglier, less interesting and more derivative.

I have always hated the idea of Fallout 3 or NV so I never played them, but from what I understand, they are superior in design and depth than Oblivion/Skyrim. Can anyone confirm or deny this?

Firstly, I agree with you. Secondly, you have Zee Captain as your avatar, therefor I love you.

I'll see your Oblivion and raise you a Morrowind