Yeah but they get tiring after a while. I just had to befriend her and Nick so I could have no crime stats at all on my "good" character. Still love her voice. Couldn't really stand being near Curie too long.

they killed sanic....

I love her ability to pick any lock for me. My main character still has 0 locks picked because of her.

I make my character able to do anything decently well, so her ability was never useful to me since i got her when i was like, level 40. i choose companions based on their banter really, and curie has the funniest quips imo.

Yeah but they get tiring after a while. I just had to befriend her and Nick so I could have no crime stats at all on my "good" character. Still love her voice. Couldn't really stand being near Curie too long.

oh Jesus. You just showed me Valhalla. Time to save me some money to go to Hong Kong

oh, I know that, but I love MCDs, and I also love variety, so when I go anywhere outside of North America, the first thing I do is compare mcd menu items.

Well, you'll be interested in "McDonalds Next" that's in Hong Kong
www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/foodanddrink/hong-kong-mcdonalds-next/

oh Jesus. You just showed me Valhalla. Time to save me some money to go to Hong Kong

I would marry that burger

well I mean it's mcdonalds, you could do better practically anywhere else.

oh, I know that, but I love MCDs, and I also love variety, so when I go anywhere outside of North America, the first thing I do is compare mcd menu items.

Well, you'll be interested in "McDonalds Next" that's in Hong Kong
www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/foodanddrink/hong-kong-mcdonalds-next/

oh Jesus. You just showed me Valhalla. Time to save me some money to go to Hong Kong

I don't think it's that exactly even. I have spent too much time trying to figure out why I don't like it as much as 3/NV and I can't exactly put my finger on it. It has to be a combination of little things i guess.

How I rate things
Companions: NV>4>3 NV's companions were the most diverse and interesting, 4 is close, and 3 is nowhere near being close.

Combat: 4>NV>3, it's been improving each iteration

Atmosphere: 3>4>NV 3 was the first FO game I played, and the consistent atmosphere of destruction is done so well in my opinion. 4 has a lot of hope thrown in through the settlement system, which muddles the mixture so to speak, NV felt like they've passed the apcolypse, which is fine since that's what they've pretty much done in the NCR.

Collectibles: 3>NV>4, 3 had so many unique items it was bonkers, vegas had a very good amount of them as well, 4 seemed to focus too much on the legendary system that they just didn't make too many "cool" uniques

SideQuests: NV>3>4 NV had sidequests in every location pretty much, and each one sort of relayed itself on the ending. 3 had a lot too, but NVs abundance of towns lent itself to more quests. 4 has only a handful of towns and not that many quests to go around, focusing on the player doing radiant quests, go save that settlement!

Factions: NV>3>4 NV had so many factions, every town was pretty much a faction, and each faction more or less directly affected the final battle and the end game, 3's factions were very defined, and the enclave definitely was threatening, 4 has more factions then 3, but is the institute ever really scary to the player? The minutemen are always allied unless you really fuck up, the railroad is inconsequential at best, and the brotherhood is as brotherhood does. Each one is equally the 'good' guy. There's no hard decision making since they're all equally all right.

Endings: NV>3>4 This really is just the end game slideshow, why they took it out i'll never know. It's so satisfying at the end of the game to see the "Happily ever after" stories.

Dialogue: NV>3>4 NV had a lot of skill checks based on number values, no need to save scum for %s, 3 had %s and lots of options as well, 4 has limited dialogue based only on your charisma skill.

enemy designs: NV>4>3 NV added in very distinct looking, and colorful factions, the red legion, the drab NCR, the casino staff, even the geckos i enjoyed the designs of, in fallout 4 I love the new mire lurks, I like all the new designs, 3 was NVs starting point, but what they offered was limited.

DLCs: NV>3 OWB easily outstrips all of 3's DLCs in my opinion, NV also had a connected continued story for the DLCs, vs 3s scattered but definitely interesting and good DLCs. Also vegas added in lobotomites, a cut enemy from the original fallouts, that I thought was a super cool idea.

Main Quest: 3>NV>4 4 would be at the top if they had a dedicated SHAUN button where you shout it out Alan Wake style, but 4s story seemed cylical in comparison to 3s, Vegas had a lore-packed main story, even if the start was cliche. 3's story is the most memorable to me, although it probably is just a train ride through the most interesting locations in the game, GNR, Rivet City, Megaton

Those are just my opinions but 4 just seems to lack what a good RPG needs in comparison, also I left out the original fallout games because 2 would just win them all anyways.

I never found the teddy bears particularly funny, same thing with legendary traders, but i have 1/2 of them already

Hopefully the addons kick it up a notch. I actually started playing NV from scratch again because I felt the story and quests were far more involved.

I agree, there's just a certain lack of involvement in 4, perhaps its the dialogue severely reducing the possible skill checks into just "Heroic Yes, Sarcastic Yes, No, and Persuasion more money

I don't think it's that exactly even. I have spent too much time trying to figure out why I don't like it as much as 3/NV and I can't exactly put my finger on it. It has to be a combination of little things i guess.

How I rate things
Companions: NV>4>3 NV's companions were the most diverse and interesting, 4 is close, and 3 is nowhere near being close.

Combat: 4>NV>3, it's been improving each iteration

Atmosphere: 3>4>NV 3 was the first FO game I played, and the consistent atmosphere of destruction is done so well in my opinion. 4 has a lot of hope thrown in through the settlement system, which muddles the mixture so to speak, NV felt like they've passed the apcolypse, which is fine since that's what they've pretty much done in the NCR.

Collectibles: 3>NV>4, 3 had so many unique items it was bonkers, vegas had a very good amount of them as well, 4 seemed to focus too much on the legendary system that they just didn't make too many "cool" uniques

SideQuests: NV>3>4 NV had sidequests in every location pretty much, and each one sort of relayed itself on the ending. 3 had a lot too, but NVs abundance of towns lent itself to more quests. 4 has only a handful of towns and not that many quests to go around, focusing on the player doing radiant quests, go save that settlement!

Factions: NV>3>4 NV had so many factions, every town was pretty much a faction, and each faction more or less directly affected the final battle and the end game, 3's factions were very defined, and the enclave definitely was threatening, 4 has more factions then 3, but is the institute ever really scary to the player? The minutemen are always allied unless you really fuck up, the railroad is inconsequential at best, and the brotherhood is as brotherhood does. Each one is equally the 'good' guy. There's no hard decision making since they're all equally all right.

Endings: NV>3>4 This really is just the end game slideshow, why they took it out i'll never know. It's so satisfying at the end of the game to see the "Happily ever after" stories.

Dialogue: NV>3>4 NV had a lot of skill checks based on number values, no need to save scum for %s, 3 had %s and lots of options as well, 4 has limited dialogue based only on your charisma skill.

enemy designs: NV>4>3 NV added in very distinct looking, and colorful factions, the red legion, the drab NCR, the casino staff, even the geckos i enjoyed the designs of, in fallout 4 I love the new mire lurks, I like all the new designs, 3 was NVs starting point, but what they offered was limited.

DLCs: NV>3 OWB easily outstrips all of 3's DLCs in my opinion, NV also had a connected continued story for the DLCs, vs 3s scattered but definitely interesting and good DLCs. Also vegas added in lobotomites, a cut enemy from the original fallouts, that I thought was a super cool idea.

Main Quest: 3>NV>4 4 would be at the top if they had a dedicated SHAUN button where you shout it out Alan Wake style, but 4s story seemed cylical in comparison to 3s, Vegas had a lore-packed main story, even if the start was cliche. 3's story is the most memorable to me, although it probably is just a train ride through the most interesting locations in the game, GNR, Rivet City, Megaton

Those are just my opinions but 4 just seems to lack what a good RPG needs in comparison, also I left out the original fallout games because 2 would just win them all anyways.

Going to have to add this to my list of RPGs to play. Finding a DM I trust in my area is hard, even harder to get the players to find a day every week, let alone month to to join up. Since most of us have jobs we cant control the scheduled of.

Know anyone else online willing to give it a go or something? I tried doing some reddit shadowrun thing but that just felt some impersonal jumping groups like they did.

Can't say I do, I mostly play with my old High School friends that still live in the area, since most of us are just going to local universities and colleges

1. Literally every single hero is a vigilante, superman, green lantern, wonder woman are all vigilantes

2. Using your brain & being cunning isn't an anti hero trait by itself

3. Standing in front of or behind someone before you engage them has nothing to do with your moral status

4. He is doing what he percieves to be the best for gotham, which used to be a run down den of complete corruption and batman shows the world that no one, not even a hero is above the law

You're really grasping at straws here, the only things batman has are dark & brooding and paranoid But he does not do the two basic things that an antihero does:- kill people who get in their way and break rules.

antiheros don't have to kill people, and batman breaks plenty of laws, that's the definition of a vigilante. Batman believes he is above the law, again the definition of vigilante. And for fucks sake me anti-hero is an old ass term, you can't think straight because you think modern heroes are heroes rather than antiheroes, the only thing we have close to a true "hero" in modern comics is Captain America, everyone else renounces typical heroic traits and you just seem to think that the status quo changes the definition of hero. It doesn't. Batman is an antihero, Deadpool is an antihero. There is no debate.