• 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.