In order to get to level 80, you have to griiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind, hard, and not everyone wants to do that, so putting the enemies at level 80 wuld be outrageous.

And op, a lot of people HATED NV, plus it is not the same developer, New Vegas was hardly open world, you couldnt go to 90 percent of the places you wanted to go to without following a path, because of invisible barriers, same with fallout 3. I especially hated NV, because every time an update came out the character i previously made broke, and i had to make another, and dont even get me started on the rings of death around the expansions where you had to worry about your entire save file becoming corrupt. Yes the dialogue was a little better, but the skill system was a jooke, you could get everything to level 100 and be a super man do all character, this game actually makes you fit in a role, not be a do all end all character.

You guys that play hardcoe/Expert is it in Skyrim? Really you have my respect and I'm not being a flatterer here. It's really HARD. I know it's called hardcoe, but dang! I was running for my Mom!

In New Vegas, Obsidian showed Bethesda how it's done. Bethesda decided to ignore this and do things the way they always have. I dread for the future of the fallout series unless obsidian is kept in the loop.

Or worse, beth decides to put :shudder: Todd Howard in charge of fallout. "What if apple were to design a fallout game?" "We don't need unarmed or any unarmed weapons. Let's get rid of that skill." "Pip-Boys are too spreadsheety." "Time to cut down on the variety!"

Weapon balance and choice is another thing.

I absolutely agree. Despite the weirdness with invisible walls, and the greater amount of glitches, I enjoyed New Vegas more for what it had. It was strange going form Fallout 3 to NV because despite the similarities, there was an almost overwhelming amount of additional depth added. You could actually use your skill checks in many dialogue choices, there were actual consequences to your actions, things were truly challenging, and almost every incidental NPC had more character than nearly all of the characters in atypical Bethesda game.

Fallout NV did some things right, but the zero gameplay improvements, and the skill progression was a joke, yes some of the perks were good, but if Beth mixes that perk system with the system in Skyrim, it would be much better than one or the other. NV had a LOT more problems than skyrim as well....LOTS more .

"open world" doesn't mean you are able to get over every pile of rubble or cliff. open world shouldn't mean you get upset because you can't climb to the top of every building or outcrop of rock , unless, you want to add some rope and carabiners to our inventory.

and, as for me, near the end of my character build-up i better be nearly invincible.

New Vegas pwns. I agree with the points OP made.


Also, Bethesda should've made the world more responsive to your actions regarding the Legion v. Stormcloak war. From what I've read, things are still practically the same after the war with no real dialogue differences and whatnot.. the world still feels the same.

This was a problem that Obsidian saw ahead of time with New Vegas, and to avoid a "derp. war over. everything's the same." situation like Bethesda's found themselves in with Skyrim - Obsidian decided to end the game once you finished the main quest which would have had sooooooooo many ramifications upon the world it would've been impossible (I assume) to include an entire explorable world AND a new one that's toooooootally different based on your actions during this majorly impactful quest.

So, basically... Bethesda should've ended the game after you finished the Civil War quest - assuming they couldn't make the entire world change upon its completion. For the sake of believability/role playing (this is a role playing game, right?) and well... 2+2=4, right? Or does it equal 2 because the world can't add?

I agree completely. New Vegas was a great game (despite the bugs), and things like companions, dialoge, and reputation system especially were done much better in that game over Skyrim. It was also very balanced, and had grey choices.

Fallout's skill progression was a joke? At least in fallout, skill progression counts for more than unlocking new perks!

Fallout also lacks what I call "Speedbump Perks" - Perks you don't care about that stand in the way of the perk you really want to get.

I'm not talking about mechanical problems - that's just the outdated engine.

I don't mind the slight linearity of FNV in the beginning, there's still plenty of exploring to do on the way. And once you get to vegas, you can go pretty much anywhere.



Nah, the civil war in Skyrim wouldn't have had nearly as much impact as the war in New Vegas - though i'd imagine it would be interesting if it does cause some changes. I've never done the Civil War on the Stormcloak side prior to raiding the Thalmor embassy - Does that change anything? If not, i'd call that a huge oversight.

I agree, Skyrim has a lot to improve on, but it's still a better game.

Skyrim is an excellent action/adventure game. I am pretty sure that is what they were trying to make since Oblivion was an action/adventure too. The problem I have with action/adventure is that I can see 95% of the content on one character so it has no replay value. I like imagining and making new experiences with the Fallout games. I hope BGS takes some inspiration from Obsidian and makes an awesome RPG with Fallout 4.

What is a "kindergardener?"

You forgot that civil war isn't the main quest in skyrim

Some who gardens with much kindness?

yes, you can be invincible by sticking inside a role in skyrim at level 60, which was the whole point of the perks in this game, but to be able to use every skill effectively and more is not role playing, it is just making a god character. And it wasnt a few invisible walls in NV, it ws map dividing invisible walls, so instead of just going over the mountain to the NV strip, you ahd to either A. fight a crap load of deathclaws and cazadores, or B. go around the ENTIRE map. That is not open world. and not to mention, not being able to swim to the legions camp, and god knows how many other barriers there were.

It doesn't really matter which one is overall the better game for this discussion. The OP identified a few areas where Skyrim is weak and New Vegas is strong. If Skyrim had incorporated those things, it would have been an even better game.

People keep mentioning how NV railroads the player... but I found that using available tools wisely allowed me to go in all sorts of directions at an early level. There are just so many ways of doing things in NV and a lot of it evolves from how you interact with the world over time. A game like Skyrim should try to integrate that kind of stuff since it is based on traveling the world for extended periods of time.

very valid points. I agree with the lack of speech options being a problem, I liked how your choices mattered in New Vegas, in skyrim it seems very one directional. That's been a big difference between TES and fallout.

Another point would be how tacked on companions and other features feel, such as marriage being unreversable and there only being nord children. It seems as Bethesda is taking baby steps and only doing crap halfway. I'm very let down on how unfinished some things are.

However, I feel that the handholding and scaling are not as serious, but are problem, none the less

To all those who feel this is illogical, please consider we all love this as much as you do and we just want bethesda to understand it's flaws and help the community to find common ground in its complaints.

Yeah, because locations on the map of MV were sometimes a pile of sand, and a rocket in a playground, woot. One time I even discovered a rock for a location,seriously, wtf. And about the perks, that is why i said it should be a combo, you could choose WHATEVER perks you wanted in NV, and still max every skill to 100, and have it be like having every perk mastered in skyrim, there was no role playing, it was just cram as many points into whatever skill possible, if you didnt already have everything to 100 before the level cap of 30 , it was a joke, the skills could be more original in this game, but it is EONS better than in NV, sorry, NV was a disaster. And ridiculously boring aside from the dialogue options.

NO!!!!! Just NO!!!!!
That was by far the worst mistake they made for FO3. A lot of people were upset that the main quest ended the game, and Bethesda promised they wouldn't repeat that error during the year leading up to Skyrim's release

Wasn't technically a mistake. They were just following Fallout's tradition from all the previous games. That it irked so many players is more an issue of expecting something that was not likely to be there.

You could only choose the Perks if you met the SPECIAL and/or Skill requirement. They even offerd people a choice with the Logans Loophole trait to be able to get 100 in every skill.
And you can be danm well sure that "Pile of sand" has more story to it than Half the dungeons in skyrim.

yes it was a mistake, because games before were not as open and in depth as current RPG games like skyrim, so to end the game is just ridiculous, they could have done a beter job with the results of after the war in skyrim, but they even stated at the end, they would try to keep everything as normal as possible, both sides said this. So, i really see no problem, it leaves a lot o room for expansions involving the thalmor

I knows this, but they still should have done more with the aftershocks of the war.