Skyrim vs Fallout 4: Who is playing?

Crni Vuk said:
Like I said, just my opinion. But I tried most of the really good mods. And I would be lieing if I say they don't improve the game. But even all of those mods, still don't change what Skyrim is at it's core.

I will say this again. The main difference is, that you don't need really mods to enjoy The Witcher or Gothic 2. Those games can stand on their own. Skyrim can't. And it shows. Even with mods. You would probably need more than just one mod to get the game in a position where it is really enjoyable. And what they most of the time do, for me, is to remind me how sloppy Bethesda was in their work. And that's what I mean with the painting. There is no doubt that Skyrim is a "finished" product. And not an empty canvas, that fits more to something like Minecraft.
Click to expand...
I'm not disputing the fact that base Skyrim is crap, all I'm saying is I've put 70hrs at a time into the game without touching the vanilla content aside from random locations; Skyrim may have a living world in the game, but I would hardly call it a finished product either. Even FNV, which I have more time into than any other game ever, I am at a point where I play more modded content now because vanilla content is finite. Prior to FO4 it was that "choose your own adventure" style sandbox that sold me on Bethesda games.
 
Skyrim, a game I really put a lot of hours into not because of the story or the characters - but for the art department. It looks gorgeous and sounds gorgeous (Jeremy Soule, c'mon). As stated before, mods do fix a lot of things - totally agree about Requiem. Visibly makes a huge change in terms of gameplay. But the sole reason why I came back remained due to the art department - I loved walking around, looking at the sunset - leaving the game run while I did other things just because of the atmosphere (Like when you keep a TV running due to the background noise we're not capable of living without).

Fallout 4 though... it doesn't have the same. Especially its OST is questionable - when you start hearing Guild Wars, Witcher and Skyrim leitmotifs in its tracks, it ends. Did Boston become a Post-Slavnordic fantasy after the bombs fell? It seems so.
 
I liked Fallout 4's ambient music for its Minutemen Colonial tracks. If they had gone and put all their focus into centering the game around that theme then they would have a fair amount of uniqueness and consistency.

If that had been the case, pardon my opinion, but screw making it fit with older Fallout games, because there was no way Bethesda would've been able to pull that off.

BGS centered the game around exploring about half a hundred concepts that surrounded the American Revolutionary War. Make the Institute the British and the symbolism in plenty of places starts to make more sense. And then that's when it's clear the colonial music would've fit.
 
Im done with skyrim, but Ill never get as many hours out of FO4 as skyrim, and I have more hours in oblivion than both of those. Bethesda should stick with their magical worlds, less logic required, fits them perfectly.
 
LonesomeDrifter said:
Skyrim, a game I really put a lot of hours into not because of the story or the characters - but for the art department. It looks gorgeous and sounds gorgeous (Jeremy Soule, c'mon).
Click to expand...
This is the elephant in the room with the last couple Bethesda games. These games look absolutely gorgeous in still screenshots but are the most shallow, lame, boring offline-MMOs ever made. Which explains why so many people spend so many hours modding their Skyrim with different ENB mods to make it look pretty in screenshots - and for what? That's not the video game. I personally see more people modding Skyrim for pretty pictures than actually playing the game. And Fallout 4 is even more shallow than Skyrim.

Fallout 3 had more depth and RPG in it than Skyrim or Fallout 4, and that is saying a lot.
 
Last edited:
Shade04rek said:
Bethesda should stick with their magical worlds, less logic required, fits them perfectly.
Click to expand...

I understand that this is meant to be facetious, but it's worth pointing out that Bethesda puts far more care and effort into making sure that their worldbuilding in TES is logical and consistent than they do for Fallout. They would never put something as incredibly stupid as "Kid in a Fridge" into a TES game, nor would they handwave away a reasonable fan question with a bullshit "Not interested in discussing realism..." line. To put it another way, the problems with Bethesda's handling of the Fallout series have less to do with their incompetence and more to do with their laziness. I'm not necessarily saying that they could make some fantastic Fallout games if they really buckled down and gave it their all, but they could at least do better than what they've given us so far. Much, much better.
 
Eh, I am to lazy right now, but I am sure if I look hard enough I can find something equally stupid in Skyrim or Oblivion. Maybe even the main plot itself - in both games. As it is always creating some kind of "urge", yet the player can wander around for years, doing bascially nothing. A Daedra invasion? Some ancient world eating Dragon? Oh ... well ok ok ... But let me finish my gardening, cleaning my house and the companion quests first, then if I don't get sidetracked by those butterflies and ants crawling on a tree stump, I might decide to save the world.

It is a sad fact, that often enough "logic" seems to play less of a role in worlds made of magic. But, even here, it is pretty important I would say. The key word, is consistency. Magic, the way how it is used in Bethesdas games, is quite often used as a Deus Ex machina and randomly. Which is something I hate. There never seems to be really a purpose to it in their game world. It's just there, another mechanic to hurt people. Just like swords and bows. One of the reasons why the Mage Guild feels always so lackluster.
 
As someone who never finished Skyrim can somebody tell me how Alduin planned on eating the world? Was he gonna dislocate his jaw like a snake? Really what was his plan there? Was he gonna take tiny little bites one at a time, or was it MAGIC?
 
Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Bethesda RPGs are always deeply explorative, but never immersive. They make for some great screenshots, but the moment it has to start living and animating, you find it full of blank-eyed computer programs who struggle to navigate a six-lane highway without a carelessly-placed dog turd making their path-finding bugger up.
Click to expand...
 
Skyrim is still the closest thing to a unique game this console generation that Bethesda had, and I would have preferred another Elder Scrolls with guns for all its flaws rather than this Frankenstein of stitched up bits from other games, along with all their flaws.
 
Izak said:
As someone who never finished Skyrim can somebody tell me how Alduin planned on eating the world? Was he gonna dislocate his jaw like a snake? Really what was his plan there? Was he gonna take tiny little bites one at a time, or was it MAGIC?
Click to expand...
I'm a bit fuzzy, but I don't think he was going to literally digest the world.
 
Izak said:
As someone who never finished Skyrim can somebody tell me how Alduin planned on eating the world? Was he gonna dislocate his jaw like a snake? Really what was his plan there? Was he gonna take tiny little bites one at a time, or was it MAGIC?
Click to expand...

Umm... umm... I guess he was calling up all the other dragons to eat up the world one by one?
 
The World-Eater title is metaphorical. Alduin was going to destroy the world - which probably just meant he was going to destroy all life in the world, not destroy the physical terrain of the world itself. It's hard to say for certain what was going to happen, as there's a fine line between what's firmly established in the lore of the games and what's simply dreamed up by ex-devs like Michael Kirkbride and fans of the series.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top