• ampersandrew@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            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.