Fallout 3 has a well designed world that is fun to explore, but falls apart at gunplay. The guns look and sound weak, accuracy is handled by RNG, enemies won't stop moving too fast all over the place, and VATS is literally auto aiming.
STALKER has some of the best gunplay ever existed with realistic projectiles, but falls apart at level design. Exploration is extremely boring, pointless, and irritating.
Is there no FPS game that combines the gunplay of STALKER and the level design of Fallout 3?
You gotta be joking nigger
ok now im sure its a bait
SoC: can't obtain items unless it's marked on the map
CoP: barren wasteland with entirely empty buildings and occasional dogs or zombies.
FO3 sure isn't Morrowind, but it ain't bad. Still better than 90% of open ended games out there.
What's your idea of good exploration in open world game btw?
...
Just answer the question, cham.
lol
What's with the tumblr rhetoric?
:^)
If it was a bait then it would be piss easy to refute.
This must be a bait, right?
ok
The world doesn't feel like a lived in, breathing world, it feels like a theme park where you walk from one scenery piece to another. There's no large farms or realistic settlements at all, there's no coherence to the world, it just feels dead and empty
How does realism become a factor to the enjoyment of exploration? It portrays dead Washington DC quite well aesthetically. Empiricism doesn't automatically breed intuition, because entertainment isn't always a form of empiricism. The proof is STALKER. The world is scientifically accurate, but it's an ass to see and explore due to the nothingness.
It's dead but certainly not empty. In the other hand, STALKER, now that's dead and empty.
Wha?
Fallout 4 combines the best of both games. It's literally perfect.
What I found annoying about Fallout 3 was that it was impossible to navigate Downtown DC without the quest markers. Both overground and the metro had rubble blocking the way so if you didn't have the compass, going from point A to B was pure guesswork. I think exploration would've been better if the overworld had more "soft barriers" i.e. strong mutant or mercenary garrisons like the Mall instead of completely blocked roads. The metro system would've conversely been filled with the weaker ghouls, but navigation would've been left completely to the player, so you couldn't just walk to the right direction until you reached your destination.
Nonbelivalbe worlds are not fun to explore
Um, no. The gunplay, while it's a hell lot better than FO3, is still not special, barely better than Borderlands. The best guns need to be crafted, and crafting is boring. The world is pretty huge, full of verticality, and has no roadblocks, but it lacks the beauty and places of interests of FO3.
Yeah, I find the barriers annoying too, but it's still a shitload better than STALKER.
Believable worlds with nothing in it is even less fun to explore. I barely noticed the farms and crops in Fallout 1.
weak b8
...
Fallout has a lot more pointless buildings that also all look the same.
STALKERs locales are way more varied. The only thing that's missing is more loot you can pick up outside of looting bodies.
Similar textures and objects, but different placement and layout. It's like saying that Doom's levels look all the same. FO3 also has more buildings than STALKER.
They're all so bland that I barely notice the difference.
In other word, pointless and boring.
I've played both series to death and could argue why you're wrong, but I honestly don't see the point.
Have a nice thread.
...
I have too, and I can argue that you're wrong.
...
...