Fallout 4 or No Man's Sky?

[Klokinator]

I figured I'd ask this, since both games are going for the "Giant world/universe, do whatever you want procedural generation build a bunch of stuff" gameplay.

Don't know what each game is? Check them out.

No Man's Sky

Fallout 4

[gringe]

First time I've seen No Man's Sky. Looks kinda cool.

But I've long enjoyed Bethesda's games and the Fallout series so I guess that one's the safest option. Steam says I have 450 hours on New Vegas. DON'T JUDGE ME.

[Klokinator]

Fallout is the safer option because FO3/NV both rocked, but I'm hinging a bet on No Man's Sky, because it's a unique game that's never before been successfully done, and it seemingly came out of nowhere. For once, we have a world destruction and building game that isn't minecraft building blocks, and a sort of MMO infinite universe.

Fallout is single player though (I think they mentioned possible 2 player?) which for me kills some of the enjoyment compared to NMS.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Klokinator

[Jedi]

No Man's Sky, because I don't appreciate the direction that Bethesda took the Fallout series with 3 and beyond.

[Knight]

The Last Guardian

Fallout 4. I dunno, No Man's Sky seems kind of experimental.

Edited July 20, 2015 by Knight

[Magical CC]

Fo3 is a big hive of bugs and I expect Fo4 to be the same. So pick NMS first, play it until Fo4 is bug free then buy Fo4.

[Klokinator]

Yeah, if Bethesda has proven anything, it's that they should rebrand themselves as Bugthesda.

[Topazd]

If there's one good thing to be said about the bugginess of Bethesda games, they at least tend to present only minor inconveniences in lieu of actual game-breaking issues.

Anyhow, I'll say No Man's Sky since I'm not a huge fan of Fallout 3 and I expect 4 to follow suit. New Vegas is one my favourite games, but that was Obsidian.

Edited July 21, 2015 by Topazd

[Klokinator]

No Man's Sky, because I don't appreciate the direction that Bethesda took the Fallout series with 3 and beyond.

Having not played 1 and 2, what direction is that?

[Jedi]

Having not played 1 and 2, what direction is that?

Fallout 1 and 2 had tons of character to them, they are more top down adventure games with a turn system in combat, you had alot of control over your stats and such.

Part of the main draw to the original fallouts though is not only the various characters you meet, but also that every situation has a slew of ways to solve them, including diplomacy, the final boss even for instance can be either outgunned or talked into such a debate that you cause him to realize everything he's done is wrong and basically convince him as such without even drawing a weapon.

Every choice you made effected the wasteland in Fallout 1, you had a strict timelimit for the first arc of the game, where you delve into the ways the world works, as you are a vault dweller with no outside experience. 2 while not as complex and deep, continued 1's story to a degree and was interesting.

3 on the other hand.. devolves into the usual Bethesda cycle of "Kill this thing", "fetch me this", the choices you make aren't morally complex they are downright goody-good or lolevil, the characters lack the depth they had in 1 and 2, and I could go on for eons about this. 3 had some interesting moments, but its bogged down by being made by post-Morrowind Bethesda.

Edited July 22, 2015 by Jedi

[Klokinator]

Hm. That sounds like the same level of gameplay I'd expect from the generation that gave us Planescape: Torment. You can't really blame devs though, 3D animation and huge costs for art assets means games take up more memory and take far longer/cost more to make, so they end up sacrificing those good elements.

I'd say we're entering a new Renaissance of indie games though. Thanks to platforms such as steam, many indie devs can get recognized and make great games without big budget studio overhead and expectations.