549

Bethesda Is Charging $7 For A New Starfield Mission, And Players Are Upset (www.gamespot.com)

submitted 5 months ago by Potatos_are_not_friends@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

166 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

Eh, I liked it better than 3.

[-] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

talk about damning with faint praise..

[-] ampersandrew@lemmy.world 1 points 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 3 points 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 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 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 0 points 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.