I had fun with both. Fallout 4's flaws are still there, but if you're going to make a punching bag out of one of them, 4 is a better game than 3, IMO.

[–] Zoot@reddthat.com 3 points 5 months ago

Better than 3 maybe, but doesn't even hold a candle to New Vegas. Hell, id argue 3 with NV's engine is leagues better.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

No ones disagreeing with that.

Fallout 3 was all around an inferior game. Not just an inferior fallout, but an inferior game, compared to 4.

Mostly cause Fallout 3 was a disjointed mess.

But just because Fallout 4 is better by comparison, Doesnt mean fallout 4 is good.

I hate beets. But give me the choice between a bowl of shit and a bowl of beets, and put a gun to my head? I'll eat the beets gladly and happily. Doesnt mean I love them.

[–] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Neither is shit. 4 is way better. 1, 2, and New Vegas are better still. But 3 doesn't tend to come up in these conversations when people talk about Bethesda Fallouts being worse. They always go to 4, and that surprises me.

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

because Fallout 3 is at least fallout-ish despite its horrible writing, story, and world building.

4 is just a shooter game with Vault Tec and Super mutants thrown into it.