Which way, white man? Which one is better?For quality discussion (lol) let's divide it into which game has an advantage in>Story>Visuals>Exploration>Character progression/build variety>Replayability>Expansions/DLCs
>>744623263Skyrim all the way
>>744623263I love both these games despite their flaws. Skyrim’s story is nothing great and in the decade+ I’ve played Skyrim I’ve never completed the main quest. However fallout 4’s main quest borders on retarded. Fallout is obviously more visually modern but Skyrim is a more beautiful worldFrankly the way I enjoyed these games is just wandering around doing side quests, exploring and building up my character. Fallout has to be played on survival mode, it turned it from a subpar RPG to a great survival sandbox game. With how combat and difficulty is in Skyrim it’s probably more fun seeing your build come to fruition in Fallout 4
>>744623263Starfield obviously
>>744623627Fuck off
>>744623573>Fallout has to be played on survival modeHeard it hundred times but I'm not falling for it. I wouldn't mind survival elements but the saving system would make me ragequit the first time I'd lose more than 5 minutes of gameplay.
>>744623263Fallout 4, easily
>>744623879Thank you Emil
>>744623836That’s what makes it so good though. You actually care about what you’re doing and the stakes in each fight are so high. You care about having a base to restock and save in. You care about how you play and what fights you take. Before fallout 4 could be played on autopilot, all the systems don’t matter. But now you can’t fast travel: bases, trade routes and helicopters now do. You do quests by proximity You need foot and clean water and medicine: bases and money suddenly matter.You have less carry weight and ammo is heavy: you think carefully about what you pack for an expedition. No fast travel is great because Fallout 4’s world is so densely packed with cool locations. The game felt like it was designed to be like this
>>744624273Yeah sounds too autistic for me, then again maybe that's how people end up playing if they rack up 1000h+.>No fast travel is great because Fallout 4’s world is so densely packed with cool locations. The game felt like it was designed to be like thisYou may be up to something, because I remember Bethesda first having the fuel system in Starfield but scrapping that because you could become stranded on a world somewhere. They must have data for survival modes in Skyrim, Fo4 and Starfield so enough people must be playing them and having fun for them to keep on implementing them.
>>744624273>No fast travel is great because Fallout 4’s world is so densely packed with cool locations. The game felt like it was designed to be like thisNo fast travel has always been an option for players who understood it makes the games better...
>>744623263Fallout 76
>>744623263Skyrim vs Skyrim with guns
>>744625070I already played like that way before they added survival mode but it makes it better. Resources have more value because you need more of an edge in survival. Upgrading your weapons, armour, or base feels genuinely important in survival mode and not fast travelling lets you comb for more stuff.
>>744623263>Which way, white man?Not bethesdaslop.
>>744625187It does, I'm just saying Bethesda has done a good job making worlds that are fun to play without fast travel
