NV introduced setting game perimeters before you played- hardcoe vs regular. Now, that may have been a device in the industry, but this was first I saw of it, (I'm not a professional gamer or a young person) and if Bethesda would adopt that device to the next Elder scrolls game, they can eliminate at least some of the criticism. How? Well, bring back missing features and let the player decide what he wants in his game= Chameleon or acrobatics or whatever. Those hating these things as unrealistic would not have to have them.

Then Bethesda can concentrate on what happened to the character build.

I enjoyed NV for what it was but it was way too linear by design. If you follow the normal progression it holds your hand to every location in the game and there really isn't much beyond that. It is even possible to competely break quests if you just wonder about on your own. I know because it happened to me on more than one occasion since I did not want to follow the linear progression. I was also terribly disappointed in the map size and the invisible walls blocking access to many places even inside the map. They did a great job on the overall story and the interaction with the factions. And the companion quests were extremely fun. I will give them those two things. But overall it was a fairly shallow game that did not lend itself well to replayability. I did not spend nearly the time in the NV world that I spent in the FO3 world. My feeling coming away from it was that if they could somehow combine the two games it would be a nearly perfect combination.

The one thing you guys mention that bugs me in Skyrim is the lack of recognition by the people at large. There is very little recognition for what my character has accomplished and even less for what he is. There are a few things that NPC's say and I appreciate that they made an attempt but it just isn't enough. If they want to allow me to become lord and master of every guild and town in Skyrim then the people around me should act accordingly. At some point I should either be loved or feared by all of them and the petty insults and threats should stop. And people, like the mage in Whiterun, should recognize what I have done and stop saying the same things they said when I first met them. That much I find extremely annoying.

I agree with everything you've said but the combat, I thought New Vegas did a good job in that department with the addition of Iron Sights mode and the changes to the amount of damage you get when in VATS. Fallout 3 had I think 95% reduction in damage when in VATS, where as New Vegas is around 15% reduction in damage.

Fallout 3 = New jump animation, me = YAY OMFG !

Skyrim = Back to default jumping animation me = WHAT THE FUH IS THIS [censored]E !

Nuff said

Skyrim is great, I'm still playing it and having a blast. Of course there are areas which left me a little disappointed, but there are not many games that keep me playing for hundreds of hours.

I"m tired of the argument that Bethesda changed with the times,that this is an industry trend. There is market room for a great elder scrolls character build game.

You looked like a floating statue in fallout when jumping, Skyrim looks at least relatively realistic.

Choices you made in Fallout 3 are indeed more meaningful. In fact NV is even better at that.

Meaning multi-choice quests ranking:
Fallout NV > Fallout 3 > Skyrim

However also note, game world design and amount of content:
Skyrim > Fallout 3 > Fallout NV

See the trend and trade offs? They basically sacrificed quest depth for world width. Most likely because they came into forum and saw 1001 threads complaining about the MAP SIZE. As if a 11 inch can't satisfy you any more because you are used to a 12 inch. (monitor size of course, what else are you thinking about?)

No level scaling was the best part of the game. I use TIE for oblivon which unlevelled the entire game except for around major roads and cities which were actually made safer than the default game. I love sneaking into a cave not knowing if I'm going to find level 4 bandits or level 40 lichs and necromancers. It forced you to play more cautiously and really think about what you were going to do. FNV weak point was its world design whicn even though i worship at the alter of FNV and drink their kool-aid everyday almost, I even know that FNV had average at best world desing. I use some mods to address that though so its not much of an issue for me anymore. It makes more sense that there already high level creatures around in areas than if they just start magically appearing out of thing air once you hit some level. Also, you could sneak past them if you took a certain route and around 40 in sneak skill.

It wasnt just map size, it was amount of people in the map, dungeon counts, and cities. A lot of locations in NV were a joke, I remember one specifically around the brotherhood bunker that was a 3 inch hill of sand with an ant on it...I mean...reaLLY?!

That was one of the more exciting areas in the game.

don't get me wrong, i do think obsidian did very well with the combat mechanics, weapons, perks, the character creation system, its all good, i loved all that....i wish FO3 had all that...but overall the lack of stuff to do as far as combat/stalking enemies/sneaking around, new vegas just didn't have the right elements for that....even skyrim has forts, dungeons other types of structures to go and explore or fight it out in...places to hide or sneak around....in new vegas you're in the open everywhere and there wasn't a lot going on apart from the strip area. most of the map was pretty open and desolate, lets face it...there's seversal huge dry lake beds with nothing but ants and a couple scorpions, i know it was a desert but skyrim is a mountainous forest type region and they put in a lot of cites, towns, forts, caves, other types of buildings and lots of good terrain to fight it out in...all sorts of cliffs and rocks and crevises and trees and other various structures to actually utilize.

I don't see how a game is great with no Level scaling. It either becomes a snooze fest at high levels or a pain at low levels because the game doesn't allow you to explore which is the number 1 thing your suppose to do in an Open World game.

Lmao, this is true. Hehehehe. Lets not forget how they spawned enemies right in front of you in the BIG MT.

*Shrug* I thought Oblivion was the height of crappiness.

Fallout 3 was much better than Oblivion.

That said, I don't know where Fallout NV sits. It's really fun, but as has been said before: It didn't feel like a game in and of itself, it felt like a stand-alone expansion, so I kind of lump it in with Fallout 3.

If I had to seperate them though, Fallout NV would be just Above Oblivion.

I wont put Skyrim as my #1, because it's fun, it will eat up my time until the next TES or FO game comes out, but still: It's only Great, not Excellent.

And to back up a generation since everyone is doing it anyway: Skyrim and Morrowind just hold the same place for me. I enjoy both of them equally, but neither is my favorite of all time (Though this probably marks me as a heretic )

If forced to put them in Order then from worst to best:
-Oblivion
-Fallout NV
-Skyrim/Morrowind
-Fallout 3

Agree, I specifically mention world design and content.

The part about map size is in regards to the release of skyrim map, before 11-11-11 where many forum users anolyze and over-anolyze the map to come to the conclusion that skyrim is smaller than oblivion. It was a point in time that might still influence Bethesda to go for more depth, or more width.

Obviously they chosen width because Todd has to, at some point assure us there will be equal or more content and deliver on that.

Bethesda is very much aware the game is too shallow because when questioned about the DLC, Todd mentioned that they are looking to improve on the game, rather than expand it.

Improvements are welcome, but they also said the DLCs will be like fallout and be LARGE DLC's not small ones like oblivion (aside from shivering isles). But skyrim is also 3.7 gigs large, which confuses me, cuz every other bethesda game is over 7....so they could have made it much more in depth and had more content...but for some reason they didnt.

Not exactly, Expansion shouldn't be just adding more hours to gameplay, it should be making the game better. Shivering Isles did that for Oblivion although it kept the good things and bad things from Oblivion.

At least FONV had an original story. All FO3 had was a rehash of the plots from FO and FO2. "Hey, let's take a vault dweller and throw him out into the wastes to combat the Enclave and purify some water!"

Also FO has never been about dungeon crawling and open world awesomeness. When Beth did FO3 they did what they do best but the series was always about the story and changes your character brought to the wastes.

NV may have had an original story, but thats it. And all of them revolved around the boomers mostly, and then dealing with the brotherhood, none of them were really different, at all. So it was pretty much a really short ..... REALLY short, even shorter than skyrims, story line, that ended the game...woot. FONV was a flop, and a lot of people agree.

I hate fallout 3. I hate how it forces you to play the main quests. Its very hard to make another character because you are always forced to talk to every npc to learn about things for the quests. SPOILER : At some point U will have to do the main quest. for the power armor. Theres barely any side quests.

That's actually how RPGs used to be in ye goode olde days. No level scaling not only means you're weak at low levels and powerful at high levels, it actually makes you feel weak and powerful. It's orders of magnitude more fun than a level scaled world.

Pick one or more:

A) Money (greed in wanting to be popular over making a different experience that may not be for everyone)

Consoles (Making a game to fit a baseline that more people can have access too)

C) Poor time management and an ADHD approach to development

For me it feels like more of C then anything with a dash of A, I have no proof obviously but frankly I can't think of any other reason to justify most of the flaws and shallow emptiness of the game, like how come not one person in the entire company didn't go "Hey this fallout text is really jarring to the game lets change it seen as we think we've finished everything 1 month before the release" or simalar things said about other parts of the game when someone said "hey we've finished with a month to go". It feels more like they went "Lets add marriage" "Yay" "ohh shiny".

I only added b for the sake of fairness but I think all claims that skyrim is worse for having supported them are nonsense, they aren't basic calculators and crazy as it is programming "AI" hasn't gone backwards before skyrims release. Bethesda is certainly no worse off for it with nearly double the sales on Xbox then both pc and ps3 combined, they really have ignored the majority in hardcoe players that are on PC. Although I'd imagine PC sales will slowly catch up as people convert for mods and unofficial patches with GOTY editions, still alot of full price extra sales.

You perfer fallout 3 than skyrim. Thats your opinion. No need to compare both games.