LogFAQs > #948337238

BetrayedTangy posted...

Very well said!

Thanks. I agree about the unique incentives for exploring dungeons, that really does help make the format work. I think Fallout 3 might actually do that even better, but my impression was that both games did a better job making their individual areas consequential than Skyrim did. From what I can tell AAA games haven't really gotten better about implementing player choice or having convincing AI over the last decade (with exceptions. I've heard Witcher 3 does it quite well.) Those are both really intensive, complicated things to do, and game development is getting inherently more expensive and elaborate even before you try to include those things because AAA games are always competing to have cutting-edge graphics and so on. I do think the Fallout games do a better job at it than something like Mass Effect. The ending cards help, I think that was a good idea. I can kind of understand why NV uses the same final level and the same "side bets" quests for different factions, it comes back to how hard it would be to actually make different areas for every faction. The only game I've really seen that does branching paths almost perfectly as The Henry Stickmin Collection. The last game in that is completely different depending on the endings you got in the previous two games, but that's only possible because it's such a small project, and a single playthrough of the last game takes around 5 to 10 minutes.

I haven't played enough of Fallout 3 to really say, but as far as I can tell you've got it right, 3 is more open-ended in terms of gameplay and emphasizes exploration while NV is more focused on story choice and quests. I'd also say it has a slightly better RPG system. It's not very important, but I'm glad it brought back strength requirements for weapons for example, and it gets some mileage out of adding new perks like Confirmed Bachelor.


---

I'm playing every game from GotD 2020! Games Completed: 12/129
Currently Playing: Super Meat Boy