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

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


Around the Network
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.



I just ended up picking The PS2 option for the heck of it. but they both look fine.



     

Check out my lastest games review: Fast RMX and  Snipperclips: Cut it out Together

The booty on Fallout's lead alone >>> Every character model in x :P



Around the Network

XCX. IMO Bethsesda's games are terrible and Monolith are amazing. XB was the best RPG period last gen and hey mechs.



I'll go with the one whose color pallete and faces don't make me wanna puke. :P



I'm now filled with determination.

Ghouls and mirelurks are pretty damn ugly so my vote goes to Fallout.



Fallout 4 is uglier.



I voted "ps2" just to know the votes. =)