I don't get it, Fallout 3 has incredible characters, emotion and options in the storyline and yet Skyrim is completely hollow in this department. I don't get why they didn't bring the same level of humanity to the Skyrim table.

I was discussing this with another forum member over on CD and we both agreed that Fallout has that certain "something" that edge that makes you feel for the characters and their plight. Skyrim in comparison is vacuous and hollow.

I hope the DLC brings some more memorable characters, because I've played for 150 hours and Ulfric is the only one who is vaguely memorable.

I enjoy the game, but I feel like I'm talking to card board cut outs most of the time.

Fallout 3 had a much smaller and focused world, with far fewer NPCs, locations, and quests. This gave the devs more time to work on individual aspects, but also gave you fewer options and a smaller world to explore.

Fallout 3 also had a very different dialogue system, and this allowed for more back-and-forth between the player and NPCs. Again, this stems from FO3 being a smaller and more focused game.

That makes sense. I think FO benefits also from the whole post apocalyptic setting. I suppose it brings out the desperation of the plight that its inhabitants face. I enjoyed Oblivion, I enjoy Skyrim, but I just feel like I'm one more cog in the gear of Skyrim. Rather than someone that's out there making a difference and impacting on the world and its people.

I say the Jarl of Whiterun is memorable too if you done anything of the Civil War questline but I agree most NPCs are easily forgotten.

The Fallout setting is more unique, TES stays within the boundaries of classic fantasy where a lot of the stereotypes, stories, environments and concepts have been seen and used before. It is much harder to be innovative, unique and bring something that feels fresh to a fantasy game.

If you played Fallout and Fallout 2 prior to Fallout 3 you weren't that impressed with the entire Fallout 3 setting, since it wasn't something new and unique.

QFT

I loved both games, they each have their pros and cons. One of Fallout 3's pros is more memorable characters.

I disagree sorry but look at voice actors.

The following transcript was found covered in blood on Feb 30 2012. It is the last known recording made before the death of common sense. Please read with caution content may not be suitable for all "fans".
"male actor 1 please say 'let me guess someone stole your sweet roll'" "great now female actor 3 please say 'let me guess someone stole your sweet roll'". "Great now someone tell the public we worked hard.... Try not to laugh either"

They didn't use what they had or even make it look like "tried".

Huh. Haven'played Fallout 3 since Skyrim was released but I can instantly recall the unique personalities of half a dozen characters. Gob, Moriarty, Mr. Burke, Megaton Sheriff, 3 Dogg and of course the wannabie President (played by Malcom McDowell). Each had really strong personalities and some were really likable and others were really hatable.

In Skyrim, after threemonths of constant play the only two characters that had any personality that I can recall offhand are Kodlak Whitemane and Jarl Balgruuf. I am sure there are other characters that had personality, but I am having a hard time remembering it, whereas, I can easily recall the personality of a great many FO3 characters from a game I have not touched for more than three months . . .

Not sure why that is, but you are not alone in your feelings. I love Skyrim, and the voice acting is great, but the characters in FO3 did seem more memorable to me as well.

I've thought long and hard over this, as I still admit that Fallout 3 was one of the most enjoyable and engaging games I've played.

I think a lot of it has to do with the game ambience and environment. For example, once you stepped out of the vault into the entrance tunnel in F3, the first thing you came across was skeletons of folk who were trying to get in after the bombs struck...you then stepped out into the light and when your eyes cleared you were met by a desolate wrecked wasteland, with no apparent life, and dust devils swirling around, with a hollow and desolate sound track...I got the feeling of desolation, desperation, and a struggle to survive, which stayed with me throughout the entire game...and well, I guess it was so desolate that you could actually get attached to various NPC's just because they provided a bit of normallity in such a desolated place, even though the actual characters themselves were shallow. Skyrim, on the other hand, is full of life...people are going about their business, and are not as reliant on our characters as the folk in the wasteland. Yes, in Skyrim we are a legendary hero, but we are only one in a string of legendary heroes, dating back to the first battles with Anduin, and including Talos himself....whereas in Fallout, we were the saviour of the wasteland, and there was no other specific hero character that people could look up to or talk about.

It reminds me of a review I read about Rage, where the reviewer described how he came to the realisation that his character was just one more bit player in an string of bit players...someone who basically went somewhere, did something, got some thanks, but if he died someone else would come along. Skyrim is a little like that. Ultimately, yes, you defeat Anduin, and you get some kudos and admiration for that...but it is very limited. Possibly, because you can take sides in the civil war, or you can follow any number of 'role' paths, it would be difficult to design hero-worship into the game...I imagine that once you hit that level, and it was common knowledge that you had defeated the dragon menace for good, then both sides of the conflict would be wanting to recruit you as a big public relations thing, which would be hard for characters who play assassin or thief type roles where a low key profile is important.

In many ways, in Skyrim we are just another wanderer who has breezed in and is part of the normal hustle and bustle...in Fallout, because many of the communities and characters are actually dependant upon you in some way, you became 'king of the wasteland', and an important person in your own right.

I just wish there was some more interesting dialogue, some branched story outcomes, more "grey area" characters. More characters where I had to stop and think "is this the right thing to do?" Rather than skip all dialogue because I know they're going to ask me to get something from a cave anyway.

Compared to Oblivion, the NPCs in Skyrim are much deeper and more involving.

Fallout is a different game (I am talking the whole series) and has always had NPCs that are interesting, but they also have less of them to work with.

Maybe because most of the NPCs aren't exactly "Human"?

Rivet city has 42 named npcs. Megaton has 28. Together, that's almost the number just in Whiterun.

Whiterun has about 7 people living there. It's a joke of a capital.

I disagree, that's just a copout. Any fictional setting can be imbued with interesting and memorable stories and emotions, if the writers are good and allowed to do what they do best. And it isn't necessary to make good and interesting storylines for every npc and quest in the game... even if only 10% of them had gotten the full-on RPG treatment, FNV-style, it would have been a much better game, IMO.

What *IS* easy to do, is just what they did- stick to the classic, worn-out stories, stereotypes and concepts of every other sword and sorcery fantasy game ever made, with nothing at all new or different there. Story-wise, they're just treading water.

Fallout New Vegas DESTROYED Skyrim, and fallout 3 svcks... Fallout New Vegas has so much better characters. and why you ask? well look who wrote it..... Obsidian...they...are.....awesome....

edit- not to mention what choices obsidian gives you... in skyrim its legion or stormcloaks good or bad..... in NV...well you know.......

One thing that's a bit too noticable for my taste is the depth of the followers. Bethesda really appears to have gone for quantity over quality here. I'd much prefer companions with the quality of boone or veronica and only have a handful of companions over the amount and quality in skyrim

I think oblivion's characters are more engaging. The map is around the same size as skyrim, so size isn't the reason why the characters have more depth. The reason skyrim's characters are like that is because of the very large amount is of npcs in the game. There are more in skyrim than there are in both fallouts and oblivion. I believe only morrowind is ahead in terms of amount of npcs. Lol fallout characters more depth? At least Skyrim named all the residents in the towns. Megaton Settler isn't a very engaging character to me. Jokes aside I do agree that fallout 3's important characters are more engaging than Skyrim, they have more dialogue.

I loved Fallout 3 *points to avatar* but I would say the NPCs in Skyrim are on par. There are more of them, which may be why you reach a certain saturation and don't remember them.

And yet, I've logged about three times the number of hours playing Skyrim as I did New Vegas, which I never actually finished because I reached a point in the story where none of the options moving forward were acceptable so I opted for the status quo.

Guess I wasn't dazzled or duped by the illusion of 'meaningful choices' that all lead to the same place in the NV story tree.

Edit: A couple of the companions in New Vegas, particularly Veronica, did rock.

Quite true, I agree that TES has been taking the easy, stereotypical route, that's what I meant with staying within the boundaries of classic fantasy. They avoid taking risks by bringing something unique that fans might dislike. With the Fallout setting it is more of a given that it should include very unconventional characters and crazy stories.

With all due respect, that simply sounds like an excuse. With enough time applied you should've brought a game to the table that offered everything FO3 had to offer in the first place and still be a much bigger world, offering an actual upgrade as far as the gaming experience goes; instead you upgrade it on one end and consequently downgrade it on the other?

It's as simple as this. Want realistic people and good story but a pretty linear game choose Bioware, want a detailed world and freedom but gamebreakingly bad NPC's and boring story choose Bethesda. These days.

lolwut?

TES is not supposed to be Fallout with swords, Fallout is not supposed to be TES with guns. While both are open world RPGs they're not intended to be interchangable games with the same setting. Similar gameplay? Clearly. But they do focus on different things, and it's not just reflected with the NPCs and with the size of the game world. There are considerable differences in quest mechanics and pacing, factions, player consequences, character morality, and combat.

If the extra detail, interaction, and options of FO3 had been maintained Skyrim would have been a much smaller gamer. If they tried to keep the size of Skyrim it would have taken considerably longer to finish the game.