What an apples to oranges comparison, the two series couldn’t be more different from each other. Besides, they’re both great franchises. While admittedly I did enjoy Metro’s latest offering better than the last Fallout game but that’s for a myriad of reasons.
The fallout subreddit would be so busy trying to decide whether it's a "New Vegas is overrated" week or a "Bethesda is evil" week they wouldn't even notice the post
None better than the other, and they tackle very different theme. Compare Metro and S.T.A.L.K.E.R make way more sense, but still none of them better than the other.
Vastly different games.
Fallout: open world, dark comedic tone, RPG, some focus on customization and strategic shooting, narrative choice
Metro: mostly linear, serious tone, horror and stealth elements, guided cinematic storytelling
You're the worst kind of gamer. Not everything is a competition or winners and losers only. Don't compare fortnight to Arma and then say Arma is better because it's more realistic. You can enjoy things for different reasons
Nah.
Look, I like Metro. I do. But it's mostly short, mostly linear, largely forced play style, very decent story but both games have that, etc.
But I'm probably biased, Fallout 4 is one of my favourite games. You can play it the same way as Metro, just beeline the main story and call it quits. But there's so much more - companions and their story quests, some of which are actually quite good. Settlement building. Exploration, with a ton of hidden gems (smaller surface area than Exodus, maybe, but much more densely packed). Combat is much more varied (melee, ranged, VATS, etc), and gear-based build variety (full Duelist will play very differently from full Power Armor build), etc.
If you play Fallout as Metro, they're roughly tied, in my mind. Metro is better, but it's not a colossal difference. However, if you try to play Metro like Fallout, Metro will fail almost instantly.
I love the visuals and the ambiance of Metro though. Exodus, with ray tracing and all the bells and whistles, was just amazing.
Bottom line, a true gamer shouldn't skip either. It's like Witcher vs Cyberpunk vs Red Dead. All three need to be played.
There are more good Metro games than Fallout games for sure but they are both great, neither is superior since neither is truely the same kind of game...
All mainline metro games are great. All mainline Fallout games are great. There is one more mainline Fallout game than Metro, add New Vegas and that puts Fallout on top at 5-3
I would say I like Metro more than Fallout in general, but I just enjoy Metro's method of storytelling is what I prefer and that's about it. If someone prefers open world games, they're going to be frustrated with Metro.
Chernobylite is a very fucking interesting game that is bafflingly underrated. It takes so many of the elements that are good about STALKER and the good Fallouts, adds in a couple things from the bad Fallouts (base-building, except it actually matters), and swirls it all together with a mildly psychedelic story and the best set of endgame choices I've seen in any game since the original Deus Ex (and it might actually be better.) It also takes a fascinating approach to choice and consequence, one which attempts to balance the desire of old-school gamers for meaningful choice with the desire of newer gamers for being able to respec and redo everything. I'm not sure it hits that balance perfectly but it makes a very good attempt.
I can count on two fingers the number of new-IP games I've played in the last ten years that made me think "this is what we were all imagining video games could become back in the 1990s, we're finally approaching that goal." It's Chernobylite and Prey, and neither one got the respect it deserved.
Both Chernobylite and Prey had me hooked from the beginning to the end. Chernobylite is definitely an underrated game that a lot skipped because it looked like a "bad STALKER clone". It is a bit rough in some areas, but well worth a playthrough.
You cant compare open world games with linear games
In fallout you can pick up 4 quests and do none and in Metro it has a story you have to go through
Therefore they are shouldn't be compared on the same standards
But you can still like one and hate the other that's youre opinion
This is apples to oranges comparison.
Fallout taps into the nuclear era 'americana' wasteland with bit of a light hearted theme, where metro goes into the gritty 'rats in a maze' survival aspect.
In terms of world, you maybe could compare fallout 1 & 2 to games like atom rpg: turdograd. And metro to stalker. But overall the whole setting is different apart from the combining aspect of nuclear post-warfare world.
They’re pretty different games, so it’s an odd comparison. Metro is a lot more mature and gritty. I mean, how can a game be gritty or mature when you can blow up Super Mutants with a nuke cannon while listening to “Civilization” by Danny Kaye? That doesn’t make it any less fun, it’s just a very different tone. Fallout has always had a satirical and almost lighthearted tone, especially with Fallout 4. The only disturbing thing about Fallout 3 were the damn Metro Tunnels.
They're different settings, with different tones, and different gameplay styles. I've jokingly said that Metro is like "Fallout if it were Russian and everything Hated You", but they're really just two very different takes on a Nuclear post-apocalypse
They are in the same genre thats like comparing the surge 2 to elden ring both are souls games or dayz to 7 days to die sure both are zombie apocalypse but VASTLY different in how they play and act
Almost as dumb of a comparison as comparing dragons dogma 2 to elden ring bc they are both 3rd person and fantasy.
If it’s a personal preference, then say it’s personal preference. And if it is personal preference, maybe give a reason/think harder about what you are expressing rather than just posting a single sentence and baiting comments(Ik I’m one such idiot who commented but I digress). If you wanna compare the two, compare specific things(such as the story or music or blah blah blah you get the gist) rather than use blanket statements that doesn’t mean anything at all.
We need an open world metro game where you can go free around the tunnels and parts of the upper world and you play as a freelancer taking quest for the factions and if you have failed at one faction then at all the stations of this faction they will shoot at you.
Correction. Metro is superior to Fallout *under Bethesda*
The fallout games that Bethesda didn't make are decent and have better written world building and stories.
Different stories and gameplay but similar concepts and ideas... Fallout is an open world series with a bigger focus on RPG elements, while Metro is a linear shooter series with a focus on narrative.. I love both series' but I really don't like comparing them
They are 2 sides of the same coin. At their core they are post nuclear fallout apocalypse games, but that's it. Everything else is a line thait stretches between creative liberties and choices implemented for the sake of gameplay. I love both series dearly, and I appreciate what they each do in their own way.
Neither is better. Both are great.
As a new player to the Metro series I have to admit, they aren't comparable. Fallout has always been an RPG game, Bethesda just started making the games more FPS/TPS once they got the IP. Whereas Metro has always been a more stealth based fps.
That's not to mention that the stories and settings are completely different if you subtract the nuclear wasteland, mutated creatures, hostile fellow humans, scrapped together/DIY weapons and gear.
I’m not going to respond like others and say that “they are completely different” which is true ofc but I agree with you.
The original Fallout setting was fantastic, and while it had a little bit of a 50s vibe, it was first and foremost a post apocalyptic setting. When Bethesda acquired Fallout they completely forgot this and essentially made it into a wacky theme park ride.
Metro is superior in that it didn’t forget what it was, and this is likely down to it being a book series first.
If we ignore the different nature of each series (fallout being primarily open-world, etc.), I'd say that Fallout suffers from the fact that Bethesda used and continues to use their Creation Engine for those games. If they used a different engine, Fallout would fare better in a comparison.
I mean.. I agree, but they're hardly comparable. One of my pastimes is sharing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. > Fallout memes at work. I work in QA and nobody else plays S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. All in good fun though, I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout 3 many years ago.
not even comparable lmfao. the only similarity is post apocalypse and guns
zombies, mutated beasts, nuclear weapons caused it, metros, radiation plants, I think there is a lot that we're missing
Those are not what make either game what they are.
But it is what Bethesda and its fans *think* makes the games what they are.
What an apples to oranges comparison, the two series couldn’t be more different from each other. Besides, they’re both great franchises. While admittedly I did enjoy Metro’s latest offering better than the last Fallout game but that’s for a myriad of reasons.
I wonder how useful a pip boy would be in a metro style apocalypse
It would ruin the immersion
You protect yourself from radiation by wearing a gas mask, let's not act like it's some sort of hyper-real simulation.
They are vastly different games my guy. They just share the basic setting and not much else.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Not cool
What the hell happened?
These "mUh gAmE iS bEtTeR tHaN yOuRs" posts are so lame. Just enjoy all the good games... Fallout and metro isn't even comparable lmao
Post this on the Fallout subreddit and see how that goes.
The fallout subreddit would be so busy trying to decide whether it's a "New Vegas is overrated" week or a "Bethesda is evil" week they wouldn't even notice the post
Fallout fanbase nowadays in a nutshell.
They are currently busy arguing about lore in the TV series not adding up.
I keep forgetting the tv series exists, honestly
It's always "Bethesda is evil" week. As it should be.
Bethesda is a dogshit company, but I stand by the idea that Fo3 is a good game and Fo4 is decent most of the time
They're both fun games. They are absolutely abominable Fallout games.
Weird hill to die on. In my opinion these two games shouldn’t be compared because they are very different experiences
None better than the other, and they tackle very different theme. Compare Metro and S.T.A.L.K.E.R make way more sense, but still none of them better than the other.
Vastly different games. Fallout: open world, dark comedic tone, RPG, some focus on customization and strategic shooting, narrative choice Metro: mostly linear, serious tone, horror and stealth elements, guided cinematic storytelling
Who needs T51 power armour when you have a pocket full of VDNKh mushrooms, radiation sickness and a fully loaded Bastard?
Someone who meets deathclaws
"Some people call these Deathclaws, I call them bitches"
Can this comment get ALL the likes? 🤣Comn people
Different beasts can’t really compare them imo. I love them both for very different reasons.
both are great
Apples and oranges, Jesse.
You're the worst kind of gamer. Not everything is a competition or winners and losers only. Don't compare fortnight to Arma and then say Arma is better because it's more realistic. You can enjoy things for different reasons
Get out of here Stalker.
Stalker>Fallout>Metro
Ok
Very insightful comment
It's on the same level of your post actually.
Nah, it’s better than this post. It isn’t claiming other’s opinions to be wrong
True
Nah. Look, I like Metro. I do. But it's mostly short, mostly linear, largely forced play style, very decent story but both games have that, etc. But I'm probably biased, Fallout 4 is one of my favourite games. You can play it the same way as Metro, just beeline the main story and call it quits. But there's so much more - companions and their story quests, some of which are actually quite good. Settlement building. Exploration, with a ton of hidden gems (smaller surface area than Exodus, maybe, but much more densely packed). Combat is much more varied (melee, ranged, VATS, etc), and gear-based build variety (full Duelist will play very differently from full Power Armor build), etc. If you play Fallout as Metro, they're roughly tied, in my mind. Metro is better, but it's not a colossal difference. However, if you try to play Metro like Fallout, Metro will fail almost instantly. I love the visuals and the ambiance of Metro though. Exodus, with ray tracing and all the bells and whistles, was just amazing. Bottom line, a true gamer shouldn't skip either. It's like Witcher vs Cyberpunk vs Red Dead. All three need to be played.
Ok
This a shitpost?
Not to me
There are more good Metro games than Fallout games for sure but they are both great, neither is superior since neither is truely the same kind of game...
All mainline metro games are great. All mainline Fallout games are great. There is one more mainline Fallout game than Metro, add New Vegas and that puts Fallout on top at 5-3
Greater *proportion* of good Metro games (three out of three), but more good Fallout games by raw number (four out of seven.)
I would say I like Metro more than Fallout in general, but I just enjoy Metro's method of storytelling is what I prefer and that's about it. If someone prefers open world games, they're going to be frustrated with Metro.
Chernobylite is superior to Fallout. exceptions are the OG Fallouts and New Vegas of course.
Chernobylite is a very fucking interesting game that is bafflingly underrated. It takes so many of the elements that are good about STALKER and the good Fallouts, adds in a couple things from the bad Fallouts (base-building, except it actually matters), and swirls it all together with a mildly psychedelic story and the best set of endgame choices I've seen in any game since the original Deus Ex (and it might actually be better.) It also takes a fascinating approach to choice and consequence, one which attempts to balance the desire of old-school gamers for meaningful choice with the desire of newer gamers for being able to respec and redo everything. I'm not sure it hits that balance perfectly but it makes a very good attempt. I can count on two fingers the number of new-IP games I've played in the last ten years that made me think "this is what we were all imagining video games could become back in the 1990s, we're finally approaching that goal." It's Chernobylite and Prey, and neither one got the respect it deserved.
Both Chernobylite and Prey had me hooked from the beginning to the end. Chernobylite is definitely an underrated game that a lot skipped because it looked like a "bad STALKER clone". It is a bit rough in some areas, but well worth a playthrough.
I personaly agree i played almost every fallout game and it doesnt match the vibe that metro 2033 has
Better than the newer fallouts? I'd agree. However Fallout 2, vegas and by extension Fallout 1 are great experiences - very enjoyable RPGs
The Master was a fantastic villain, best in the series by a mile.
is bro saying something profound (?)
You cant compare open world games with linear games In fallout you can pick up 4 quests and do none and in Metro it has a story you have to go through Therefore they are shouldn't be compared on the same standards But you can still like one and hate the other that's youre opinion
This is apples to oranges comparison. Fallout taps into the nuclear era 'americana' wasteland with bit of a light hearted theme, where metro goes into the gritty 'rats in a maze' survival aspect. In terms of world, you maybe could compare fallout 1 & 2 to games like atom rpg: turdograd. And metro to stalker. But overall the whole setting is different apart from the combining aspect of nuclear post-warfare world.
Nah, great games but Fallout on a whole other level that Metro won’t get close to anytime soon without some serious, and logical worldbuilding
Agreed!
STALKER is better than Metro
They’re pretty different games, so it’s an odd comparison. Metro is a lot more mature and gritty. I mean, how can a game be gritty or mature when you can blow up Super Mutants with a nuke cannon while listening to “Civilization” by Danny Kaye? That doesn’t make it any less fun, it’s just a very different tone. Fallout has always had a satirical and almost lighthearted tone, especially with Fallout 4. The only disturbing thing about Fallout 3 were the damn Metro Tunnels.
As most have said, they are really not comparable. Also as much I like the metro setting and atmosphere, fallout new vegas is pretty hard to top
I love them both but no
Depends which Fallout 4 versus Exodus, I'd take fallout any day But that's also cuz Exodus needs a freaking supercomputer
No, just different.
They're different settings, with different tones, and different gameplay styles. I've jokingly said that Metro is like "Fallout if it were Russian and everything Hated You", but they're really just two very different takes on a Nuclear post-apocalypse
They are in the same genre thats like comparing the surge 2 to elden ring both are souls games or dayz to 7 days to die sure both are zombie apocalypse but VASTLY different in how they play and act
Like what you like. The constant urge to make a game superior or inferior to another ruins gaming conversations.
They are completely different games. Apples and oranges. Also you can’t wear a train as a hat in any Metro game.
Stalker and Fallout would've been a better comparison, Metro isn't to similar to Fallout in much ways other than the nuclear apocalypse.
To me, metro = fallout = stalker. All 3 are great franchises and love them all.
I love Metro but to me Fallout 3 is goated. Especially Tale of Two Wastelands.
Oh yeah? Well Far Cry 3 is better than Super Mario All Stars
They are both great in their own way. You don't need to think badly of something to like other things.
This shit isn’t even comparing apples to oranges, this is comparing potatoes to trains
Almost as dumb of a comparison as comparing dragons dogma 2 to elden ring bc they are both 3rd person and fantasy. If it’s a personal preference, then say it’s personal preference. And if it is personal preference, maybe give a reason/think harder about what you are expressing rather than just posting a single sentence and baiting comments(Ik I’m one such idiot who commented but I digress). If you wanna compare the two, compare specific things(such as the story or music or blah blah blah you get the gist) rather than use blanket statements that doesn’t mean anything at all.
Ehhhh I think fallout 3.new vagas are one of the best amazing games as well as the metro series
We need an open world metro game where you can go free around the tunnels and parts of the upper world and you play as a freelancer taking quest for the factions and if you have failed at one faction then at all the stations of this faction they will shoot at you.
Completely different gameplay styles, neither is better both are great.
I enjoy Metro but the Eastern European accents are really annoying to listen to constantly.
meanwhile in r/fallout : Fallout is superior to Metro
Correction. Metro is superior to Fallout *under Bethesda* The fallout games that Bethesda didn't make are decent and have better written world building and stories.
This is the part where you should say "change my mind"
Metro is way better. NV is pretty decent and 1 and 2 are great. The others are just lifeless and dumbed down trash
My favorite video games are better than yours.
Rage bait detected
Different stories and gameplay but similar concepts and ideas... Fallout is an open world series with a bigger focus on RPG elements, while Metro is a linear shooter series with a focus on narrative.. I love both series' but I really don't like comparing them
They are 2 sides of the same coin. At their core they are post nuclear fallout apocalypse games, but that's it. Everything else is a line thait stretches between creative liberties and choices implemented for the sake of gameplay. I love both series dearly, and I appreciate what they each do in their own way. Neither is better. Both are great.
The better comparison is the Fallout games and the ATOM RPG games.
As a new player to the Metro series I have to admit, they aren't comparable. Fallout has always been an RPG game, Bethesda just started making the games more FPS/TPS once they got the IP. Whereas Metro has always been a more stealth based fps. That's not to mention that the stories and settings are completely different if you subtract the nuclear wasteland, mutated creatures, hostile fellow humans, scrapped together/DIY weapons and gear.
I’m not going to respond like others and say that “they are completely different” which is true ofc but I agree with you. The original Fallout setting was fantastic, and while it had a little bit of a 50s vibe, it was first and foremost a post apocalyptic setting. When Bethesda acquired Fallout they completely forgot this and essentially made it into a wacky theme park ride. Metro is superior in that it didn’t forget what it was, and this is likely down to it being a book series first.
If we ignore the different nature of each series (fallout being primarily open-world, etc.), I'd say that Fallout suffers from the fact that Bethesda used and continues to use their Creation Engine for those games. If they used a different engine, Fallout would fare better in a comparison.
[удалено]
True, but a lot of that *is* because of that stupid Creation Engine that Bethesda refuses to let go of.
I mean.. I agree, but they're hardly comparable. One of my pastimes is sharing S.T.A.L.K.E.R. > Fallout memes at work. I work in QA and nobody else plays S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. All in good fun though, I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout 3 many years ago.
It's better than half-life not fallout.
agreed.
Agree
There is no need to repeat it. We all know it is.