By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Xenoblade Chronicles X Vs Fallout 4 (POLL)

 

Which game is uglier?

Fallout 4 154 37.47%
 
Xenoblade Chronicles X 202 49.15%
 
lol awesome ps2 games 55 13.38%
 
Total:411

Everybody is voting bad by accident, the op should change the poll, or delete it. Both look fine.



Around the Network

If it's more than technical aspect like art style and setting, I choose fallout. Apocaliptic setting > fantasy setting.



shikamaru317 said:
AbbathTheGrim said:

You really picked that picture for Fallout 4? I guess that must have been the most plain one. Let's see others:

I bet Xenoblades world will be a dwarf one in comparison to F4's.

I'm with you on the graphics, but I'm not so sure about the world size. Xenoblade Chronicles X is apparently 400 square kilometers, while Bethesda's last game, Skyrim, was 37 square kilometers(not including the size of dungeons of course). Rumor has it that Fallout 4's map is about 3 times larger than Skyrim's, so just over 100 square kilometers, which would still make it 4 times smaller than Xenoblade. However, Fallout 4 could very well have more content packed into the map than Xenoblade, I don't know how many hours of content Xenoblade is supposed to have, but Skyrim had roughly 200 hours of content, and I wouldn't be suprised if they were aiming to top that number for Fallout 4, especially if the map is 3 times larger than Skyrim's as is rumored.

300



Goodnightmoon said:

Everybody is voting bad by accident, the op should change the poll, or delete it. Both look fine.


Yeah title of the thread combined no Info in the op is certainly misleading... But it is an interesting observation of how many people actually read poll questions these days...



Goodnightmoon said:

Everybody is voting bad by accident, the op should change the poll, or delete it. Both look fine.


Deal with it



Around the Network
Moyu said:
Goodnightmoon said:

Everybody is voting bad by accident, the op should change the poll, or delete it. Both look fine.


Deal with it

Why do you have to be always so unfriendly? is annoying.



Nice job, OP, if that was on purpose. I'd love to know how many people voted under a mistaken assumption.

On topic, Fallout 4 looks good relative to the style it's going for and XCX looks good relative to the style it's going for. Neither one looks "great" but nether series has ever aspired, or desired, to be Crysis. Rather than small, carefully controlled areas that look amazing, these games are spending their resources elsewhere. Personally, I think it's awesome that we can have different kinds of games with different goals.



Fallout is uglier.



Proud to be the first cool Nintendo fan ever

Number ONE Zelda fan in the Universe

DKCTF didn't move consoles

Prediction: No Zelda HD for Wii U, quietly moved to the succesor

Predictions for Nintendo NX and Mobile


shikamaru317 said:

I'm with you on the graphics, but I'm not so sure about the world size. Xenoblade Chronicles X is apparently 400 square kilometers, while Bethesda's last game, Skyrim, was 37 square kilometers(not including the size of dungeons of course). Rumor has it that Fallout 4's map is about 3 times larger than Skyrim's, so just over 100 square kilometers, which would still make it 4 times smaller than Xenoblade. However, Fallout 4 could very well have more content packed into the map than Xenoblade, I don't know how many hours of content Xenoblade is supposed to have, but Skyrim had roughly 200 hours of content, and I wouldn't be suprised if they were aiming to top that number for Fallout 4, especially if the map is 3 times larger than Skyrim's as is rumored.

That will be huge and now I doubt Fallout 4 would be so different to F3/NV to surpass that, but who knows?

It took me 800 hours to do everything I wanted to do in Fallout 3 including exploring the whole world so when it comes to me those playtime estimates never work and end up lengthened by the end.

I wonder if Xenoblade X has little interesting places for exploration though, like little campfires or house, or caves, things that make you worry about overlooking some location with a special weapon, or items or something. I mean, you can easily overlook a little spot in the map in Fallout and you can miss an interesting area with some valueable item. When I look at Xenoblade's gameplay I see them rushing past areas like there is nothing to miss. In Fallout, items can be scattered and are affected by physics which means that one has to be very attentive not to miss on something. The speed of traversing terrain in Fallout is also a factor in my opinion. I feel that Fallout/Skyrim's world look more intimidating during exploration due to those aspects of the game.

But I guess the sizes are measured and Xenoblades have the edge in that respect.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

I don't like Bethesda games, in my mind they are massively overrated. I think I almost throw Oblivion and Skyrim through the window when I was playing them. Although I somewhat enjoyed Fallout 3, so maybe I'll give it a chance. And I think Fallout is uglier, it's too cartoonish for a post-apocalyptic game.