Mace vs. Sword = Exactly, nothing is different in how you play it.
Light armor vs. Heavy Armor = YOU build them with speed in mind. Does it actually matter at the end of the day? No, no it doesn't. Your light armor character and your heavy armor character will move at equal speeds once all perks are taken. The "difference" is purely your imagination.
Two-handed vs. One Handed = So with one of them, you click twice in 3 seconds time to deal 80 damage total and with the other you click once in 3 seconds time to deal 80 damage total. Wow, this is some complicated [censored] right here. Hope Bethesda isn't blowing people's minds with the complex character creation decisions to make and all...
Stealth vs. Stealth = Again, YOU imagine a difference between the two, but it's purely imagination. Both are capable of doing each other's job if neccesary.

10 times better.

10 times worse

Way more glitches and bugs and a main story line ten times worse then the one we got.

So what's the difference between someone using a police batton and someone using a knife? None that I saw
Of course it matters, my light armour characters can't soak up the damage like my heavy armours can. You're assuming that everyone will take all the perks; that's the biggest problem of your argument.
Convenient that you forget the perks when comparing one handed to two handed
Right, so both my characters can swing a knife and hit someone, the distance is purely in my mind. I understand completely now

Police Batons and Knives have different swing speeds, damage, crit. Damage, crit. multiplier, perks effected, different sounds, far different visuals, different Vats moves, different power attacks.

That's the difference.

Here is what I like about Bethesda and Obsidian.

Bethesda: Amazing Graphic Games, Good Detailed World/Objects, Main Quest Plot.

Obsidian: Very Good Quests, Variety in Armor, Weapons, etc.

Fallout 3 was a bit more fun than NV. So here is how it goes, Fallout-Bethesda/Obsidian helping somewhat. TES-Bethesda.

Yes, because Fallout deserves another punch in the face from Bethesda.

I think it is interesting that because Obsidian did certain things with New Vegas, that they would do those exact same things with a theoretical Obsidian Skyrim.

I personally found NV to be quite enjoyable, deep RPG features, good story. If not for being rushed out, we may have seen a different sort of game and would be having a completely different conversation.

I played NV probs as long as I did FO3. Actually that's not true.. but I played it well over 80 hours. I remember the starter guy. The doctor. That's about it. FO3 I remember quite a few more characters. I think memorable characters must be subjective..


Personally, BGS makes better games. Especially using their own engine..

NV was more bug ridden than Skyrim could ever possibly have been (for me). A horse flying off through the forest is a lot more bearable than crashes every 10 minutes. Don't get me wrong... sniping in NV was so awesome.. and real gun sights was awesome. But overall? I think BGS develops much better open world RPG's.

Edit: Also open world RPG's don't end.. especially not with endings that can't be reconciled. Dragonbreaks are okay, but not for every game. Which Obsidian would do with a TES game. No thanks on that. Personally I thought the TES series has always had a better story, even going back to Arena, than NV did.

haha i will never understand that mind set either.

i really don't understand why its so much to ask for a little more depth when it comes to story and quests. And I really don't know why people go ape [censored] when someone mentions something that Bethesda could've done better. If you can't handle seeing them being criticized, I'd hate to see how you take criticism.

You have to give Bethesda some credit though, Longknife. Everything was fantastic before Oblivion. Morrowind is my favorite game of the series because of how immersed I get in it. Because back then, they weren't appealing to the masses.

Let me just collect my thoughts real quick....


What Obsidian can do better than Bethesda:

-Character depth. Play through a Bethesda title, any of your choosing. Go through it and find a character with multiple personality layers. What I mean is....who is Nazeem? He's that condescending snob. What else do we know about him? Nothing. Every single line of his dialog screams "THIS IS ME BEING A CONDESCENDING SNOB, IN ORDER TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM ONE." Now, who is Farkas? He's the "stupid" companion. What else do we know about him? Nothing. Every single piece of his dialog screams "BTW IN CASE I FORGOT TO TELL YOU, I'M THE STUPID ONE."
99% of Bethesda's characters are limited to one personality trait that defines everything about them, or they lack any noticeable personality traits at all. There's no such thing as character depth or multi-layered personality types in Bethesda titles. Brunwulf Free-Winter isn't the only Nord who's anti-racism, and yet he's the one that comes to mind because anti-racism DEFINES his entire personality.
After a time, this gets old. Not only is it kindergarten-level character depth, but it gets old when you know this is the case. It gets old because you know that if you talk to someone and the first thing they say is "yawn I'm tired," then without talking to them any further, you could make a safe bet that their personality type is "narcoleptic" and nothing but.
Some characters lack depth entirely. Hell, ALDUIN lacks depth entirely. What do we know about Alduin? Uhhhh, he eats worlds. Why? [censored] if we know, which is sad considering he's the villian. I've always believed "you can judge a story by the quality of it's villian," because believe it or not, humans are good. We seek to do good. Then how are villians created? How did they turn out bad? That's a good question and that's why successfully writing a (at least somewhat) sympathetic villian reflects the quality of your work.



Now compare this to New Vegas. Who is Veronica? She's a lisbian, she's an outcast, she's got a bubbly sense of humor, she has a strong sense of family, she's loyal and caring, she questions authority and she's somewhat of an idealist. Many of these personality traits extend into entire story archs, such as what became of her love interest, where will she go in the future, what became of her mentor and what will happen to her family. This is a realistic, believable person and every one of those personality traits has a purpose. She's not loyal "just because;" there's a quest and story that ties into her loyalty and gives it purpose.
What about the villain? Typically Caesar is considered the game's villain, although yes it is subjective. But let's focus on Caesar. Who is he and why does he do what he does? Caesar is....a fallen angel. An intelligent guy from a good organization who "snapped" and was willing to make the tough calls, all for the sake of the greater good. A man who saw the corruption that takes place within modern society and was willing to take drastic measures to do away with it. A practical, realistic man who lives in the moment and knows what needs to be done and what should take priority, rather than someone who lives in dreams or in the past. I could write a full page about his motives, because he has a 30 minute conversation (literally, go load up New Vegas and time him) about them, involving real-life philosophical theories and arguments. THIS is a villain. THIS is believable and, if you bother to hear him out, sympathetic as well.
For this reason, Obsidian's characters just have x1000 times more depth than Bethesdas.


Voice-acting

If I load up Skyrim, what do I hear?

"Who is this Ralof, one of your comrades (pronounced "kom-raids")?" Immediately after, Ralof pronounces it "kom-rad." Five minutes later... "Here, let me show your comrade (pronounced "kom-rad") into the house."
Ok, what the [censored]. I don't care what kind of fantasy world this is Bethesda or what accent you were trying to mimic. Nobody has inconcistency in their accent and dialect. You won't see me going to the store asking for the "toe-may-toes," then the next minute I'm praising the freshness of the "toe-mah-toes" there.
And yet, this is Skyrim. There's no consistency in the accents. It sounds as though everyone was told "SOUND EUROPEAN!!" and no one thought it was a problem when wtf, one guy was doing a french accent, another was doing a romanian one, another guy thought he was Arnold Schwarzeneggar and another thought he was british. And sometimes, the same voice actor switches his accent completely between lines. Sometimes the delivery is off. And by god, I swear that one blacksmith somehow manages to pronounce "Eorlund Grey-mane" like a robot.
The whole thing is like a very awkward, disgusting song, with the beat and tempo changing rapidly and no clear indication of what kind of song this was supposed to be.

New Vegas?

Rose of Sharon Cassidy
Robert House
Raul Tejada
The King
Joshua Graham
Ulysses


So many great voices and so many good actors.

Even weirder? New Vegas and Skyrim share many of the same voice actors. But whereas "the Making of New Vegas" will show you voice actors smiling and chatting and explaining their character's backstory for the interviewer, Skyrim shows you a voice actor briefly saying "LOL WOW this is hard changing up my voice so quickly from one character to the next!" Poor management is all it is; Bethesda doesn't know how to direct.


Gameplay mechanics

Remember what Agility did in Fallout 3?
Me neither.
Charisma?
Me neither.

In New Vegas, they actually do something. Whereas Agility in FO3 was practically pointless because every weapon had a high enough AP cost so that comparing 1 agility to 10 was the only way to make it matter, New Vegas actually had a system where it mattered. Furthermore, it effected reload speed.

Remember those great perks in Skyrim?
Me neither.
That's because while Skyrim was feeding you "your skill is now 20% more effective" in bulk, New Vegas perks were giving you the ability to repair any weapon with practically any other weapon, or the ability to knock enemies down with your melee attacks, or an immunity to being knocked down, or the ability to paralyze an enemy with you attacks, or the ability to regenerate HP over time, or the ability to slow time temporarily, or or or....

Remember all those threads we've had in the Skyrim forums complaining about balance? Yeah, me too. Too bad they've never been answered.
And remember all those threads in the New Vegas forums complaining about balance?

Yeah, me neither.

I like that in New Vegas, I don't have to pretend my characters are different; they actually are. My NCR soldier has almost consistent 95% accuracy in VATS, can knockdown enemies by shooting them with a shotgun and he reloads and draws his weapon faster than the devil himself. My Legionnaire can pierce straight through enemy defenses with his punches, can paralyze an enemy, is invulnerable to knockdowns, runs 15% faster and attacks faster than all hell. My Boomer uses explosives with a longer range and bigger area of effect that deal more damage, while simultaneously being more resistant to explosives himself. My Powder Ganger's sneak speed is faaar faster than anyone else, he can do a lot of sneak damage with one handed weapons and is unaffected by light while sneaking. My Brotherhood of Steel Paladin crits often as hell, can fire his plasma rifle far more in VATS than anyone else, can trigger explosions with his energy weapons and can get base damage in the 200s with the right ammo type. My Great Khan enjoys drugs that last three times as long as those used by others, has the ability to slow time to his advantage several times a day and gets healed by stimpacks 20% more.

And that's just perks.
That's not including SPECIAL, that's not including weapon choice, that's not including practical decisions like who they ally with or what weapons/armor/items they have access to BECAUSE of their decisions.

Skyrim? My warrior hits harder, my mage has more tools available but has less health, and my thief is less likely to be caught in stealth. And that's about it.



Consequences

If I take a quest in Skyrim, it's go from point A to point B, then I get 500 gold. Sometimes I get the choice to go to point B or point C, but both point B and point C award me 500 gold.
In New Vegas, my choices matter. Hell, I may make a decision for someone and unknowingly impress a warlord on the other side of a map, qualifying me for a special reward when I finally meet him. I might unknowingly cut myself off from the only supplier of a certain chemical in the area. I might be rewarded with a unique weapon I can't get any other way. Or I might tick off a faction to the point where they send assassins after me.
In Skyrim? The assassins hunt me anyways. The unique weapons are usless to me as I can make something better. There's no one who'll ever be please or displeased to the point where they don't associate with me, and even the few that do offer no consequences.

This ties into the above point: my characters feel different. It's nice that, if I load up New Vegas on my Boomer, the world treats me different then it would on my Powder Ganger. It's annoying that, in Skyrim, on one character I turned in the redguard lady and in another I killed her assassins, but on both characters? The world looks exactly the same and reacts to me exactly the same. What's the point in doing ANYTHING if the world doesn't react to it?



Knives vs. Police baton? Swing speed (actually matters due to the perk Super Slam), Damage, crit rate, crit damage (the last three matter due to heavy handed), VATS special move (some offer special perks, such as a guarenteed knockdown, higher chance to cripple enemy limbs, or more bonus damage than normal), reach, repair difficulties (repair difficulties actually matters since New Vegas doesn't have draugr wiping their asses with gold coins; money is actually finite in New Vegas)
Light vs. Heavy No it doesn't. The armor cap is around....576? After that, you've hit the cap with 80% damage reduction. Both Light armor and heavy armor are MORE than capable of hitting the cap. As for me assuming everyone's taking all the perks, go look at the light armor or heavy armor tree. Both are very linear (and similar in shape) and if you nerf yourself by not taking all the 20% extra protection perks, you can nerf yourself equally with both.
One handed to Two Handed? This wouldn't be so sad if you were right, but you aren't, which is why Skyrim is so pathetic. Go review their perk trees. The ONLY difference? Two-Handed gets a side-swipe AOE, one-handed let's you dual-wield for higher DPS, or use a shield (which only matters if you get shield perks). That's -literally- it. Two entirely different skill trees and the only difference is side-swipe AOE vs. higher DPS. Same goes for Light armor vs. Heavy, which is basically damage reflect vs. faster stamina regen.
The distance? That's your choice. Both characters can attack from afar if you'd like, both can sneak up if they'd like. The difference is purely in your imagination OR you have to go out of your way to purposefully nerf yourself and MAKE this difference matter. Why should you be expected to nerf yourself?

+Npcs
+ Lore/Not breaking own lore
+ enemies
+ factions
+ Rpg elements (better perks, attributes, skills, night and day, relationships)
+ Better dungeon story

= bethesda are just as bad with bugs and are just as much too blame for New vegas's bugs.
= would probably have wasted money on stupid things like top of the line voice actors rather than staff that can fix a texture.

- Less funded. Smaller team.
- likely less of an engine upgrade.

Bigger towns, but not every npcs will have a quest.
Worse level design.

Bethesda did a great job in location back stories this time around, like finding notes on dead miners saying how they were gonna get out if they hear anymore shaking in the mines, or the house and abandoned prison destroyed by a flood. Oh and there was a lot of variety, they just used the same textures for dungeons so that explains the similarity, but they were not copy pasted in design like the Fallout 3 stations. I think the only thing that would have been done better by Obsidian is the Factions, everything else would be worse...

This is not a matter of opinion at all. Fallout 3 's world was supremely gamey. A society that failed to rebuild basically anything in 200 some years, "towns" or settlements consisting of two or three people, towns without any visible means of supplying themselves with food and other supplies, little lamplight's children that apparently pop out of the ground every few years to keep things consistent, etc. This isn't even getting into the poor, or downright stupid motivations of various factions you encounter, an aspect I consider extremely important when presenting a believable, logical world.

Given my experiences with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic 2 compared to Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, and Fallout: New Vegas compared to Fallout 3, an Obsidian designed Skyrim would have been much worse. Much much worse.

I don't think that Obsidian has more memorable characters or stories than Bethesda, like, at all.

So what would happen if Obsidian would make Skyrim.

Obviously better because Obsidian is undeniably the better development team there, right?

Yes, if by better you consider the game being a lot more linear, favouring scripted events against dynamic events, long winded converstations with unimportant NPCs that lead to pretty much nowhere, more bugs, less detailed world (oh but they talk about it well enough, so I guess that doesn't count), more scripting errors...
In other words, more linear story based gameplay WHICH TES GAMES ARE NOT.

Funny thing about "failing to rebuild", even though Washington was hit harder than other areas, so it's logical that bigger settlements won't be built there especially with all the radiation out there, let us ignore this fact for a moment.
So what is the sub-title of the Fallout franchise? Post Nuclear role-playing game. Remember the Post Nuclear part, because that is the main thing that is completely missing in New Vegas.
New Vegas is not a post-apocalyptic ruin, there are barely any artifacts from the old world, it's a warzone, most of the ruins are there from the current war.
The capital wasteland was less civilised, it did not prospered as much, but that gave the feeling of an ACTUAL post-nuclear world.

I have a feeling my definition of a game breaking bug/glitch is very different from other people. Just because an NPC fails to finish a quest or function correctly isn't game breaking (It's still a bug but not a game breaking one). To me a game breaking bug/glitch is FONV's quest "Come Fly with Me" causing the game to crash or destroy your save file beyond repair.

Want to see what happens when a separate Dev team gets their hands on elder scrolls?

Elder scrolls online -zenimax

3rd person
Turn-based combat
Stylised graphics
The list goes on...

I am not bashing on ESO, in fact I believe it will be a pretty good game... But the fact remains that different companies -change- things that they should leave alone.

Obsidian does what they do well, but it would NOT translate well to elder scrolls.

What if I asked you what you thought fallout would have been like if developed by Bioware?

So pretty much the PS3 issues with Skyrim then.

It would be horrible in so many ways.

Large expanses of nothingness.
Map locations that shouldn't be locations (ant race track anyone, or how about a deserted campsite with only clutter objects?).
Severe lack of humanoid opponents (NV hostiles = 80% critters, 20% humanoids).
A "big scary enemy" that has at most a dozen weakling patrols, and a couple of sparsely populated camps.
Faction railroading (note the percentage of NCR quests before you catch Benny in NV).

New Vegas is only more stable than Fallout 3 because it is newer, and built on top of Fallout 3.

If Skyrim had been made like New Vegas, then you'd be stuck playing their story. Try RPing anything but their story in Fallout New Vegas and you'll see what I mean.