Fable 3's ok, Fable 2's bad imo (know not many share the sentiment)
If you still have an old xbox Fable 1 is amazing (for its time, I suppose someone who played it for the first time today wouldn't think much of it )
Fable 3's ok, Fable 2's bad imo (know not many share the sentiment)
If you still have an old xbox Fable 1 is amazing (for its time, I suppose someone who played it for the first time today wouldn't think much of it )
You can get the first Fable on PC. It's on Steam, in fact.
Mount & Blade. It's not full on open world and has a bit in common with strategy games, but it's a pretty good RPG. More of a historical fiction type of game, though. There's also just lore. There isn't a main quest.
If you want to play a game where the story is just living the life of a guy who is either an outlaw causing problems throughout kingdoms, a merchant, and whatever has to do with being a mercenary or even loosely a knight, you might like this.
Nice, Fallout new vegas is awesome, have fun with that.
For which was better, I personally think New vegas overall is the better game. It's got more hardcoe RPG elements to it, like reputations in every town, every quest has like 3-6 different ways of doing it, you can side with any faction, different ammo types for different combat situations, less skill points overall - making it much harder to have a character that is a god at everything, ie more specialized characters, Many different combinations of endings, hardcoe mode (dehydration, hunger etc.)
Fallout new vegas to me was made more with replay value in mind - meant to be played over with different characters, wheras Fallout 3 feels more like skyrim in the concept of guiding towards the player to do everything in one playthrough.
Fallout 3 had a better looking environment, and a more personalized story. Fallout 3 was made as a more "Cinematic" experience in mind then fallout new vegas was, wheras new vegas was made as a more unforgiving "hardcoe" rpg.