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.

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 .

We have this thing called learning from other's merits to offset one's weaknesses.

Saying A is better than B overall and B has a LOT more problems so A doesn't need to learn from B is plain dumb and ignorant.

Nothing is perfect, sitting in your little hole saying to yourself "I'm the best for now so I don't need to learn from others and improve" won't help you in the long run.

Others will soon catch up and replace you because others can and will learn.

Einstein was still learning when he was recognized as the greatest scientist of all times.

Your comment is ignorant and childish. No one and nothing is perfect, it's only through learning from others that one can improve.

If one does not learn from others and improve himself/itself, others will soon catch up and replace him/it.

- Player Dialogue. New Vegas had great depth in dialogue options for your character. Skyrim has absolutely no variety in what your character can say, crippling countless role playing styles. Speech in NV is a useful skill because it fundamentally shaped how a quest played out. Speech in Skyrim is borderline worthless.

- Handholding. Skyrim treats us like we're kindergarteners. Half of Skyrim's populations is immortal, which is annoying more than anything. Quests are unable to be failed in Skyrim. This is frustrating and lessens any sense of accomplishment from completing difficult challenges. New Vegas has almost no immortal NPCs, and quests feel important because they aren't completable if you don't have the skill.

- Perks and Skills. In Skyrim, skill isn't very powerful. I would estimate 90% of power is from perks, and 10% is from skill level. This effectively cripples skills in and of themselves because they don't help a lot directly. For example, one handed skill 30 and a perk is equal in power to 100 skill in one handed and no perks. New Vegas has the power at about a 50/50 split, meaning both skills and perks have power without either becoming worthless if you don't focus on both of them. Perks are just plain better in New Vegas too.

- Scaling. New Vegas has scaling based primarily on geography. This makes the world realistic, and allows the player to fight extremely powerful opponents right from the beginning. Skyrim has scaling primarily based on level. This both dis-incentivizes leveling your character, as well as lessening believability of the world.

- Companions. Skyrim has boring companions. Only a handful have semi-interesting stories to tell (like Mjoll the Lioness). Apart from being kind of boring, they lack a companion wheel to properly command them. New Vegas had a ranged/melee toggle, a stay close/stay far toggle, a "use healing" button, an angry/passive toggle, and a few other things. Skyrim has only a wait/stay and a somewhat unhelpful "do this" button. The "do this" button in Skyrim also doesn't work right half the time, because companions attack horses instead of riding them. New Vegas has companions focused on quality, and Skyrim focuses on quantity. I believe quality should come before quantity when it comes to companions.

- Reputation System. Skyrim doesn't have one, either viewable in a menu or behind the scenes. Stormcloaks treat you virtually identical whether you are a Legate or a Stormcloak General. Same with the Empire. New Vegas had factions that would change how they treated you based on your interactions with them. This caused choices you made to have impact, and made the game world feel more alive. It also helped role playing, because it made your alliances relevant to the character you were trying to role play as.

Umm, Einstein was not so recognized, and other scientists such as Niels Bohr conflicted with Einstein's deterministic beliefs which rejected the consequences of his own theories (and which were later proven to be true regardless of determinists like Einstein, who rejected ideas such as Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle).

I am trying to remember about a quality companion in Vegas.

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.

I am trying to remember about a quality companion in Vegas.

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.

New Vegas dialogue and great depth? You can't possibly be serious. That was one of the reasons I gave a sh*t to Vegas.

False question in my opinion. I think there was exactly the same sense of accomplishment in Vegas. You have to be stupid to fail quests in Vegas.

Great! You've got perks! WTF do you want more? I wish I could get crossbows and spears back!

In practice, I don't get how geography scaling makes you fight more powerful opponents just for the heck of it. Can you?

I am trying to remember about a quality companion in Vegas.

You are completely right here, and I see this as a flaw in Skyrim.

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.

Skyrim is a good game. However, it has some poor design choices that often hinder gameplay and role playing. Many of the things that I believe Skyrim failed at, New Vegas did wonderfully. Below is a list of some of those things.


- Player Dialogue. New Vegas had great depth in dialogue options for your character. Skyrim has absolutely no variety in what your character can say, crippling countless role playing styles. Speech in NV is a useful skill because it fundamentally shaped how a quest played out. Speech in Skyrim is borderline worthless.

- Handholding. Skyrim treats us like we're kindergarteners. Half of Skyrim's populations is immortal, which is annoying more than anything. Quests are unable to be failed in Skyrim. This is frustrating and lessens any sense of accomplishment from completing difficult challenges. New Vegas has almost no immortal NPCs, and quests feel important because they aren't completable if you don't have the skill.

- Perks and Skills. In Skyrim, skill isn't very powerful. I would estimate 90% of power is from perks, and 10% is from skill level. This effectively cripples skills in and of themselves because they don't help a lot directly. For example, one handed skill 30 and a perk is equal in power to 100 skill in one handed and no perks. New Vegas has the power at about a 50/50 split, meaning both skills and perks have power without either becoming worthless if you don't focus on both of them. Perks are just plain better in New Vegas too.

- Scaling. New Vegas has scaling based primarily on geography. This makes the world realistic, and allows the player to fight extremely powerful opponents right from the beginning. Skyrim has scaling primarily based on level. This both dis-incentivizes leveling your character, as well as lessening believability of the world.

- Companions. Skyrim has boring companions. Only a handful have semi-interesting stories to tell (like Mjoll the Lioness). Apart from being kind of boring, they lack a companion wheel to properly command them. New Vegas had a ranged/melee toggle, a stay close/stay far toggle, a "use healing" button, an angry/passive toggle, and a few other things. Skyrim has only a wait/stay and a somewhat unhelpful "do this" button. The "do this" button in Skyrim also doesn't work right half the time, because companions attack horses instead of riding them. New Vegas has companions focused on quality, and Skyrim focuses on quantity. I believe quality should come before quantity when it comes to companions.

- Reputation System. Skyrim doesn't have one, either viewable in a menu or behind the scenes. Stormcloaks treat you virtually identical whether you are a Legate or a Stormcloak General. Same with the Empire. New Vegas had factions that would change how they treated you based on your interactions with them. This caused choices you made to have impact, and made the game world feel more alive. It also helped role playing, because it made your alliances relevant to the character you were trying to role play as.



These are just a few of the things I thought of, what do you guys think? Discuss!

Well said! Nv was a terrible game IMO, it seems that a few dedicated fans lurk here to compare everything to their 'cult' classic. Nv was widely perceived as being a broken, garish, jittery product with some good writing. I think of it like a hammer horror, awful representation of the genre but a few hardcoe people take it to their hearts and love it for being the runt of the litter. Talk about immersion breaking in skyrim, yet nv had invisible barriers all over the map. It was broken, a LOT more than skyrim.

I am trying to remember about a quality companion in Vegas.

I know we all have opinions, but you can't be serious. The companions in NV actually had depth, personality, and their own stories. Even the DLC companions were decent. How can any of them NOT have quality?

Are you going to sit here and tell me Skyrim companions are better?

You're hating on people that like a game?

No one here is forcing you to think a specific way but don't hate someone for it.

Hell I'll take the first Mass Effect over the second anyday of the week even though more than 70% of people say the second is better. Does that make me a loser?

I am trying to remember about a quality companion in Vegas.