Bioshock, at a third of the price. since Oblivion>fallout for replayability and openworldness, than a straight through campaign experience would go to Bioshock anyway.
Fallout 3 is way too stat based. It really ruins the enjoyment when you realise the reason that the reason that Super Mutants head just blew clean off his shoulders when you shot him with a Sniper from a mile away was because your small arms skill is high enough to make it happen and the Mutants health stat just wasn't high enough to live.
I own Bioshock and I've played Fallout 3 on the computer. I'm not going to give any spoilers, but I do know that Bioshock's ending was lame and was a complete letdown as was the final boss. It was so bad that I could vaguely remember it at all, and the less you remember a final boss, the worse it is. I do know Fallout 3 has tons more game play and is very deep. Bioshocks story was good, but just died at the end. Personally I would buy Fallout 3 if you have the money.
Fallout 3 by far is the SH*T!!!! In a good way. It's cuz I really get tired of getting charged at by Splicers!
Bioshock Fallouts just oblivion except not as good. Oblivion Or Bioshock = Oblivion however Oblivion was like Morrowind,Considering its was the sequel Oblivion Or Morrowind = Equals
if you want to be scared shitless, play bioshock at night, with the volume really high up, on the highest difficulty. you will be so ****ing scared you will never let anyone give you a shot again. i prefer bioshock. it is really fun and,while you can just do the minimum to get through the game, it is very much worth your while to complete everything and scavenge what you can. fallout 3 is much less dark, while still pretty gloomy. it is an RPG, and so its not even in the same category as bioshock. there is definitely mch greater customization, but it is way overcomplicated for me. i like simple, but extended customization. thats why i like bioshock way better
This is probably one of the hardest choices between games I'll see for a while.... I truly loved Bioshock and I thought the plot was great, and incredibly original, the fighting was great and unlike the people above me I thought that the ending was pretty dam good. On the other hand Fallout 3 is also an amazing game. I love the randomness of some parts, like the Republic of Dave and the Gary vault. Also the combat was pretty cool and VATs was fun to mess with. The only problem for me is that you couldn't carry on after the ending! I'll be looking forward to the Broken Steel expansion (Which should fix this problem). Overall I guess I'd have to go for Fallout 3, I mean with the amount of brilliant expansions and the new ones coming out this is probably a game I will be playing for a long time!
I they're both amazing, but they're completely different games, in my opinion. Bioshock is a more finished, more polished up game. The weapon customization and plasmid system is great, and the default weapons are tight too. The enemies seem to be much more alert and diverse, and the feel of bioshock is great. Fallout 3, however, I have not had quite as much experience with it. Fallout has a great sense of openness to it, but stays locked in. The weapon choice is great, it's a mucher bigger amount, but I don't like having such a plethora of artillery. All in all, Bioshock wins for me, mainly because I'm more experienced with it.
Fallout 3. Amazing replayability. Amazing game time. Amazing graphics. Amazing everything. But then again, depends on the kind of game you want. Fallout 3=RPG; Bioshock= FPS??? I don't know... I definitely recommend Fallout 3 though... Its a great game and the DLC for it is awesome.
fallout 3 becuz well..... thers a miny nuke launcher of course i also liked it becuz i liked how realistic it was like if you broke your leg you couldnt support yourself little things like that mak a game better
I've played bioshock, (rented)fallout 3, but from renting it i can say bioshock. It's just a great game, a little creepy, but great. But if you like open world, check out fallout 3.
yes, of course. im not sure if you are saying this is a bad thing or not. if you are, i have to disagree. i hate when people say that things not being realistic is a negative thing. its a video game, its not supposed to be realistic. healing when sleeping improves gameplay. would you rather lay in a hospital bed for a few weeks? no, thats not fun. pressing rest then getting back into the action is fun. CoD 4 is another example, but a bit different. people tell me its better than halo because its more realistic. but no, it is not. is this bad? of course not. but its not realistic. in halo, you have recharging shields that can take an onslaught of bullets and plasma before breaking down. id say in 500 years, this technology would be possible. but in cod, which is set in modern times, you can duck behind a wall for a few seconds and your bullet wounds magically heal themselves. is this bad thing? no, it improves gameplay, but it is not realistic. being unrealistic makes video games fun to play. you know what is realistic? sitting at an office or at school for 9 hours. but is that fun? no, certainly not. the point of playing video games is to escape reality. so a video game being realistic is a ****ing stupid idea. that was my semi-unrelated rant. im gonna go do some homework now. homework is realistic, and i hate it.
It was just to tell the person I quoted previously that the game is not realistic, the enviroment is but a lot of it isn't. The one hour asleep thing is convenient though. I'm kind of more bent towards unrealistic. I would rather watch the person I punched fly 100 feet (Halo in 2007, ****ing hilarious). If people want realism in games, it is in shooting because they are closer to the real thing. I guess.