Support NeoGAF

[BaneIsPain]

Can I pick Skyrim? I don’t want to touch both games again.

 

[Atrus]

Fallout had more advanced settlement building, ability to loot corpses naked, targeted and progressive enemy destruction, a better perk system, the ability to command companions, better companions, the ability to mod melee weapons, a better weather system and fewer loading screens.

That’s just off the top of my head without having to enter the game again to check.

 

[Sacred]

Starfield without question

 

[BigLee74]

Starfield by a mile. Fallout 4 was quite the dirge.

 

[Cashon]

I haven't finished Starfield yet, but at around 25 hours in, I'm going with Starfield.

Though I really liked the opening of Fallout 4, shortly after dealing with the Minutemen I remember feeling very disappointed in the game. It took me many tries to actually finish the game, and even then I had to force myself through it. It's not bad; in fact it's pretty good once I ignored the namesake, but it didn't hold up to Fallout 3 or New Vegas for me at all. Still haven't tried the DLC. Exploring The Commonwealth was really fun at times, and is overall better than exploring anything other than cities in Starfield, due to how broken up it feels exploring space.

Starfield does a better job of capturing my imagination, despite the largely more realistic take on life, has far better combat/controls/mechanics, a better dialogue system, a better Perks system, far better graphics, and, generally, is more fun to play.

 

[LastBattle]

Starfield for me. While I enjoyed my time with Fallout I fell off after not too long. I’m still playing Starfield since launch. The side quests and faction quests are next level. Just finished the Crimson Fleet quest line and it was almost an entire game in itself.

As another poster mentioned as well, I do miss the gore though

 

[AngelMuffin]

Least shitty game? FO4.

 

[acm2000]

Starfield by far, never got on with the fallout setting and gun play, just really bore me.

Give me sci-fi space pew pews with cool guns any day.

 

[MidGenRefresh]

Fallout 4 if you ignore the main quest and play on survival.

 

[systemr123]

I think his point is that the UI for any game last gen shouldn't look that old or garish for something that came out in...

2015.

Fallout London does a good job of modernizing yet keeping the aesthetic.

This looks exactly the same as Fallout 4 lol except the UI colours are different. But you can actually change the UI colours in Fallout 4 too. There's a simple setting for this in the menu.

 

[UltimaKilo]

Starfield, but give it a year to make it a more equitable comparison.

 

[SJRB]

Fallout 4 is a bad game, buy playing Starfield makes you want to play Fallout 4.

 

[AV]

I guess I'm voting FO4 which is kinda shocking, but at least I spent 50 hours in that game and beat it.

Starfield felt like FO4 just came out again 8 years later. The needle's barely moved.

 

[Dice]

Fallout 4. Starfield is boring like FO4 but with 1000 times more obstacles to performing absolutely basic ass tasks. It's like it is actively trying to stop you from playing it the whole time. In FO4 you can also freely do some legitimately edgy stuff without 5 people berating you.

 

[YOU PC BRO?!]

Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim are all better than those listed.

I really want to feel better about Starfield. The visual identity at times is incredible, but something is clearly missing. The same tired old Bathesda gameplay loop just doesn't work with a game this expansive. It takes too long to get around, the constant loading is like a boot on your neck, not allowing you to fully enjoy the experience. The menu system is tedious to navigate. The performance isn't great either, constantly dropping frames. The crafting system felt like a chore. More than all of that, the game just wasn't all that exciting. Like it had no edge. Contrast it with a game like CyberPunk or even the Mass Effect collection and it pales into insignificance. Such a shame.

 

[OceanGaming]

Morrowind. Simple as.

 

[Arachnid]

Both are awful.

 

[Krappadizzle]

I have no idea why Fallout 4 is as popular as it is.

It has the most horrific UI in any game, the FOV is beyond fucked and the game is janky even for a Bethesda game.

The weird brightness and colour pallet Fallout 4 exposes so many flaws in the game, it's horrible to look at let alone play.

At least Starfield is cleaner than Fallout 4.

Look how horrible this shit is:

What's the problem with this? You literally have all the information you need to do literally everything while not being too complex or overly busy. Even then, there's about 40+ variations of mods that can change it to whatever your preference is. Literally all the complaints you make in this post can be or are addressed directly via mods.

Even then, you compare the very basic U.I. of FO4 to the really busy ass Starfield U.I. that is very confusing to look at. It's a night and day difference.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

Going with Starfield due to space setting.

Also didn't finish main story in Starfield so that might be in its favour. FO4 main quest I finished and it brought my rating down a bit.

 

[KungFucius]

Fallout 4 by a long shot. The game mechanics are similar, but Fallout had exploration. Exploration is nonexistent in Starfield. It's all fast travel and a bunch of boring, procedural bullshit that is not remotely interesting enough to waste time looking at. Also I am a Masshole by birth and loved the Boston Setting, and Fallout nostalgia.

Starfield is basically an offline, shittier version of Fallout 76.

Oh, I saw a quote from Bethesda that says TES6 is going to keep people playing for 10 years. Whatever Todd Howard is smoking/snorting/shooting up it really has inflated his ego. Just because a few people obsessively do the same thing over and over and over again in one of your games it does not meant it is a good game and that you need to churn out the same game over and over again.

 

[BootsLoader]

Fallfield.

 

[FinalBossWithTheMostPower]

Warts n all, at least Fallout 4 knew who it was.

Starfield lacks an identity.

 

[Laptop1991]

Fallout 4, while not as good an RPG as Fallout 3 or New Vegas, i still played Fallout 4 vanilla for most of the year after it was released and still play the game modded to this day, it seems a lot of Bethesda fans and gamers are getting bored quickly with Starfield and dropping the game, like i did with GTA V Singleplayer, after a few weeks once i had completed the story and missions and found nothing more to do. boring isn't immersive for me.

 

[tmlDan]

god Fallout 4 was so disappointing, but it's story was a bit more coherent than Starfields and Fallouts world was more convincing.

That's not saying much for both games.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Fallout 4’s a more complete game, so easy choice.
Maybe in five years Starfield will be a better experience, with more interesting shit on planets. .

 

[Schmendrick]

Imho both are rather mediocre. But Starfield got the "fresher" setting so I´ll go with that.

 

[TheGodfather07]

Fallout was disappointing but it was still alright for that time. Starfield is straight up stale in 2023. Its like a game that should have released in 2015 but came out in 2023 instead.

 

[StueyDuck]

I think the reason why fo4 edges it out for me, is the fact that the open world still enables you to get lost and naturally find an adventure, unlike open menu, load, open menu load, encounter, menu, load and so on...

(I have basically the same grievances with both games, since they haven't changed since oblivion/fo3)

I think a perfect example for me of what I mean is in fo4 you are just wandering, minding your own business when suddenly you hear a noise and a UFO comes crashing down which you can then track down and find without any loading or menus, it feels so spontaneous and special, obviously you just walked through a trigger zone but the fact you had been exploring all of those areas nearby and it didn't happen earlier feels special.

Starfield lacks anything like that, you just load into a system and either event happens or it doesn't as you load in, it never feels like you are exploring and stumbling across magic

 

[Caio]

Honestly, both games suck but if I had to pick, it would be Fallout 4.

Fallout 4 does not suck; it's not perfect, glitches, whatever you want, but many people had a blast with it, and so did I; if I'm not wrong, it also got 87 on Meta. IT IS NOT CRAP, come on.

 

[MiguelItUp]

Because of VATS alone, Fallout 4. The combat is a lot more fun, where as in Starfield it just feels like it's flat and missing something IMO. Even if it's the lesser of the new Bethesda FO titles, not counting 76, lol.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

Starfield by far, never got on with the fallout setting and gun play, just really bore me.

Give me sci-fi space pew pews with cool guns any day.

This seems to be a big factor in any Bethesda game preference. I prefer sci-fi shooty bang bang over fantasy and wasteland settings, so it's Starfield all the way for me.

My wife on the other hand likes fantasy, so she's Elder Scrolls all the way.

 

[killatopak]

They both suck as an RPG but Fallout 4 for me really tickled my fancy after it had Survival Mode. Weight balance, better crafting, better damage balance and settlements actually have use instead of just being a collector museum for junk you have.

It's definitely a lot more nerve wracking especially at the start than New Vegas Hardcore Mode because you're only allowed to save on sleep with like 1 save slot.

Starfield has a lot of tedius unecessary systems that I think would become important if it gets a Survival mode update. For now though, Fallout 4 is better strictly in terms of gameplay and systems for me.

I won't even compare their RPG systems. It's like choosing to eat rotten fish versus rotten pork.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Fallout 4, but not my a mile. Fallout 4 had Far Harbor which was better than the main game since it bought back choice and RPG elements. Starfield has the illusion of choice but much worse exploration. Starfield is a 7/10 for me and Fallout 4 is a 7.5/10

However New Vegas absolutely shits on both of them.

 

[Tg89]

I dunno, both were big zzzzzz to me. Dropped em both after like 8 hours. Two of Bethesda's most uninspired efforts.

 

[Aldynes]

Fallout 4 easily

Small handcrafted interconnected world with actual exploring and traversing > shit tons of procedural empty no man's lands with only fast travel and loading screens.

 

[JokerMM]

fallout 4 with the right mods is an incredible survival game

 

[danklord]

Fallout 4 because of VR support. Starfield PCVR needs to come out asap, it'll greatly improve the game experience.

 

[applesaucejaxon]

From what I've played, Fallout 4 for me. I'm really not digging Starfield, and I wasn't a big fan of Fallout 4 either. But I was interested enough in Fallout 4 to play through it. I've essentially given up on Starfield at this point.

 

[The Fartist]

New Vegas

 

[Krappadizzle]

They both suck as an RPG but Fallout 4 for me really tickled my fancy after it had Survival Mode. Weight balance, better crafting, better damage balance and settlements actually have use instead of just being a collector museum for junk you have.

It's definitely a lot more nerve wracking especially at the start than New Vegas Hardcore Mode because you're only allowed to save on sleep with like 1 save slot.

I still contend that Fallout 4 really needs to be played with some sort of survival mode to really appreciate what the world offers. It really changes the dynamic the player has with the overall world that it can feel like a different, better game with that change. Pain in the ass to learn about and figure it all out, but once you do. Way better.

 

[IDKFA]

Fallout 4 isn't the best work from BGS, but I prefer a lot more than Starfield.

Fallout 4 has better exploration, better story, more enemy variety and VATS.

 

[ShaiKhulud1989]

At least F4 has a true overworld with real exploring and some likable characters. It's an easy pick despite it's huge flaws.

 

[RGB'D]

Honestly it's damn disappointing that this is even a debate. I would have never expected the average fallout 4 to be considered better by most people than Starfield, but it is.

It wasn't console exclusive... it's much more en vogue to bash Starfield since it is Xbox exclusive.

 

[King Dazzar]

I love and far prefer Fallout 4. One of my favourite games. But it has to be modded.

 

[The Cockatrice]

It wasn't console exclusive... it's much more en vogue to bash Starfield since it is Xbox exclusive.

Or you know, Starfield a game that took so many years and so many dollars, you'd expect it to be at least on par with a small team of developers who made a small game called Baldurs Gate 3 but instead it's far worse than a game that came out 10 years ago called Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas, but yeah, defo the console exclusive is the issue lmao.

 

[Romulus]

It wasn't console exclusive... it's much more en vogue to bash Starfield since it is Xbox exclusive.

The review average is worse too.

 

[The Infectious Paradox]

Can't believe I'm saying the turd sandwich that was fallout 4

 

[Krappadizzle]

Or you know, Starfield a game that took so many years and so many dollars, you'd expect it to be at least on par with a small team of developers who made a small game called Baldurs Gate 3 but instead it's far worse than a game that came out 10 years ago called Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas, but yeah, defo the console exclusive is the issue lmao.

 

[Jigsaah]

There's about 139 or so folks in this thread smoking crack.

Starfield is better graphically and gameplay-wise. The animations are better. The freedom of movement is better. The base building is better. The ship building is new...and one of the most innovative things I've seen Bethesda do...ever.

The scope of the game is what sets the stage for the biggest complaint about Starfield - the loading screens. You simply can't walk or fly from planet to planet. If you could, you'd be spending an awful lot of time doing a whole lot of flying. How the fuck else are you supposed to do this? People will inevitably bring up Star Citizen. You know what, you would be flying forever in that game too if not for the quantum drive system. For me to get to Crusafer from Microtech (two planets in Star Citizen it take approvimately 5 minutes traveling around the speed of light. The two planets are 56 million kilometers apart. So are you telling me that people would prefer this to a 5-8 second loading screen to get where you gotta go?

Starfield isn't a fuckin space simulator you dipshits.

Tell me you wanna have Sony fanboy circle jerk, without telling me you wanna have a Sony fanboy circle jerk. Jesus Christ it's so frickin obvious what's happening here it's maddening.

What game is better? The game we all can't play, or the game we all can play?

 

[bbeach123]

Starfield lack that illusion of a big open world , yea fallout 4 you still load in and out but the illusion was there . Starfield though , the disconnect was real .