[Hammerite]

I'm thinking of getting either of these two - but I don't know which I should try first:
Bioshock or Fallout 3?

[youfightlikeadairyfarmer]

Two very overrated games though still two very good games. Overall, Fallout 3 is better. There's lots to do and its a lot of fun. Bioshock is also cool and more playable as an FPS, but if you're interested in the "role playing" elements, Fallout 3 delivers those much better.

[D.C.]

I've played them both and had a freakin' awesome time on each one, but I think BioShock is the better of the two. The production values are incredible and the art deco design of Rapture is something truly special. (Not to mention an awesome, mysterious story and the atmosphere...) Fallout 3 is worth playing as well, but if you had to make a choice I'd definitely suggest BioShock.

[DustyShinigami]

BioShock.

Haven't played Fallout 3 but i've heard it's an acquired taste. It certainly doesn't seem like i'd be into it, but who knows, maybe i'll play it in the future. I've also heard that there's a lot of emptyish environments to travel through and there's loads of backtracking.

I guess you won't go wrong with either of them. But if you want interesting characters and an engrossing storyline then it's BioShock all the way.

[Lucien21]

Get both of them.

Bioshock first .

[JemyM]

Both titles are really great games. Bioshock is a linear experience with a better story but Fallout 3 offers more freedom and exploration.

[Sik]

They are two very different games. BioShock got too repetitive for me to even finish it, while I can see myself playing through FallOut 3 several times if I find the time. I don't like games that are mainly shooters gameplay-wise, though

[AndreaDraco83]

Wednesday my PC will be back from repair with a new, more powerful graphic card... and then I'll be out to buy Fallout 3, for two reason: (1) It's from Bethesda, and I'm a huge fan of TES, (2) It promises freedom of exploration and a great deal of moral choices, things that I'm extremely fond of!

[TiAgUh]

I've never played Bioshock but i've played Fallout 3 with a friend for a few hours and it was .. well .. kinda stupid and boring too.

Everyone says that those who hated Fallout 3 are the ones that thought they were getting a FPS.
Not us, we played the awesome Fallout 1.

[Psychocandy]

Fallout 3, in my opinion. I bought it on its release day and am still devoting at least an hour of every day to it - yet I'm pretty sure I've only seen half of what the game has to offer. The game world is enormous, the speech is well-acted and written, the environment looks beautiful and the whole experience has engaged me completely since day one.
Refreshingly, Fallout 3 is also one of the few games where you can tailor your own gameplay to quite an impressive degree. For example, around six of my colleagues are also playing it and each of us comes into work each day having experienced something totally different to the others, or massively different outcomes to the same quest.

However... If Fallout 3 isn't your kind of game, or you're expecting it to be something other than what it is, you won't enjoy it. Personally, I don't have much time for most FPSs so I was happy not to be playing a full-on shooter - and likewise I haven't played the first two Fallout games so I wasn't disappointed by any differences in the third.
As an example of how wildly opinions can differ; I work at a gaming store and have spoken to customers who swear Fallout 3 is the greatest game they've ever played, as well as customers who swear it's the worst. The best course of action then, I reckon, is probably to look into both games thoroughly and pick whichever appeals to YOU most. I'm definitely a solid Fallout3 convert, but perhaps Bioshock will tempt you more. Each to their own has always been my gaming motto!

[SamandMax]

They're both games everyone should own so I don't think it really matters which you get first, they're both brilliant and you'll be happy with either one. If you're looking for a shorter and more story-driven experience, play Bioshock first. If you're looking for something longer with a lot more replayability, you'll want to get Fallout 3 first.

[orient]

Fallout 3. It's the only game I've played where after spending 40 hours completing it, I'd put it back in and replay it straight away, because I know there are dozens upon dozens of quests and story arcs that I missed the first time round. The best part is, I don't have to replay any quests that I completed the first time if I don't want to...and I can be a completely different person as well.

Originally Posted by Alucard

I've also heard that there's a lot of emptyish environments to travel through and there's loads of backtracking.

Backtracking isn't an issue in Fallout 3. Once you've been somewhere once, you can instantly warp there. Trekking through bare environments is definitely a part of the game, but it isn't a bad thing -- it was designed that way. The environments are well-crafted and make the world feel huge and alive. It's definitely one of the most convincing game worlds ever conceived, along with Shenmue in my opinion.

Bioshock is a great game, too but in the end it's a shooter (albeit a creative and engaging one) that will last you roughly 20 hours with no huge incentive to play again. Fallout 3 is an interesting hybrid of shooter (if you so choose) and a relatively tactical, open world RPG with anywhere from 30 - 200 hours of gameplay. It's something different and great value for money.

Both are fine choices, though. You can't go wrong.

[Vernon Schillinger]

Originally Posted by orient

Backtracking isn't an issue in Fallout 3. Once you've been somewhere once, you can instantly warp there. Trekking through bare environments is definitely a part of the game, but it isn't a bad thing -- it was designed that way. The environments are well-crafted and make the world feel huge and alive. It's definitely one of the most convincing game worlds ever conceived, along with Shenmue in my opinion.

I'd say it is an issue. I didn't find the exploration partically rewarding or fun experience. Everywhere you went you ended up in a dungeon, killing monsters. I wish you could've been able to fast travel from those locations. In the end I was so sick of dungeons, I just stopped entering them.

Most of Fallout3's content is dead wasteland, dungeons and lemonstands/mudhuts inhabitated by three people. To me the environments are anything but well-crafted, mostly they don't make sense. Citizens of wasteland must have become the most un-cooperative people in the world, because not a single believable human city with adults really exists in Fallout3, unlike in it's precessors. (Sure, few poor towns and shelters exist)

[Psychocandy]

Originally Posted by orient

Fallout 3. It's the only game I've played where after spending 40 hours completing it, I'd put it back in and replay it straight away, because I know there are dozens upon dozens of quests and story arcs that I missed the first time round. The best part is, I don't have to replay any quests that I completed the first time if I don't want to...and I can be a completely different person as well.

Yup, I'd say that perfectly sums up my experience as well. Addicted much?

[orient]

Originally Posted by Vernon Schillinger

I'd say it is an issue. I didn't find the exploration partically rewarding or fun experience. Everywhere you went you ended up in a dungeon, killing monsters. I wish you could've been able to fast travel from those locations. In the end I was so sick of dungeons, I just stopped entering them.

I found it satisfying discovering new and interesting locations to interact with, especially if I came across some type of settlement. You just have to learn to only explore the places (or "dungeons") you want to explore. The game doesn't force you to do things you don't want to do. However, you can't avoid killing monsters - that's just a part of the game, so if you don't like that then I don't know what to suggest. It's a world riddled with radiation poisoning, limited supplies and mutated monsters. The reality of that world is fight to survive. It's not meant to feel like a walk in the park.

Fast travelling from within a dungeon would just kill the difficulty and tension of the game.

Originally Posted by Vernon Schillinger

Most of Fallout3's content is dead wasteland, dungeons and lemonstands/mudhuts inhabitated by three people. To me the environments are anything but well-crafted, mostly they don't make sense. Citizens of wasteland must have become the most un-cooperative people in the world, because not a single believable human city with adults really exists in Fallout3, unlike in it's precessors. (Sure, few poor towns and shelters exist)

Hmm, the world made perfect sense to me. There was a nuclear war 200 years ago, nearly everything was destroyed and the few people that survived now do their best to protect themselves by whatever means necessary. You can't have big towns without lots of people and clearly there weren't many people left in Washington DC after the bombs hit. Traveling through the wastes is so dangerous that people are forced to find shelter wherever they stand. Small settlements scattered around the place make more sense than 3 or 4 huge towns in that respect. Raiders, trade caravans, slavers, wastelanders, their rolls all make sense to me. Anyway, there are believable human settlements in Fallout 3, namely Megaton (awesomely designed town built round a nuclear bomb), the Brotherhood of Steel's Citadel, The Underground, inhabited by ghouls and the coolest (and biggest of them all, that I actually found anyway,) Rivet City, the huge aircraft carrier converted city. I'm sure there's at least one more moderately sized settlement that I didn't find during my play-through.

I guess I kept an open-mind to the world of Fallout 3 and filled in the blanks with my imagination. I know it's not perfect but no game is.

[Vernon Schillinger]

Originally Posted by orient

I found it satisfying discovering new and interesting locations to interact with, especially if I came across some type of settlement. You just have to learn to only explore the places (or "dungeons") you want to explore. The game doesn't force you to do things you don't want to do. However, you can't avoid killing monsters - that's just a part of the game, so if you don't like that then I don't know what to suggest. It's a world riddled with radiation poisoning, limited supplies and mutated monsters. The reality of that world is fight to survive. It's not meant to feel like a walk in the park.

Fast travelling from within a dungeon would just kill the difficulty and tension of the game.

Hmm, the world made perfect sense to me. There was a nuclear war 200 years ago, nearly everything was destroyed and the few people that survived now do their best to protect themselves by whatever means necessary. You can't have big towns without lots of people and clearly there weren't many people left in Washington DC after the bombs hit. Traveling through the wastes is so dangerous that people are forced to find shelter wherever they stand. Small settlements scattered around the place make more sense than 3 or 4 huge towns in that respect. Raiders, trade caravans, slavers, wastelanders, their rolls all make sense to me. Anyway, there are believable human settlements in Fallout 3, namely Megaton (awesomely designed town built round a nuclear bomb), the Brotherhood of Steel's Citadel, The Underground, inhabited by ghouls and the coolest (and biggest of them all, that I actually found anyway,) Rivet City, the huge aircraft carrier converted city. I'm sure there's at least one more moderately sized settlement that I didn't find during my play-through.

I guess I kept an open-mind to the world of Fallout 3 and filled in the blanks with my imagination. I know it's not perfect but no game is.

Let me clear up my position, I think you might've misunderstood it a bit.

You see - Bethesda's emphasized monster-sewer-fest isn't as much about continutation to fallout-saga as it is to Oblivions and Morrowinds. Even though the world might be coherent, the excitement of discovery "Woo-hoo" turns quickly to disappointing "Aww...", because the location always just seems to boast the familiar ruin or dungeon with only hostiles. In fallout2 Rivet "city", or the tanker, was just a tiny fraction of one city, San Fransisco, fulfilled with life and people. Multiple larger cities alike existed.

I'm not suggesting the notion of turning wasteland into Disneyworld. What I'm pointing out, is the lack of meat on the skeleton. Believable wasteland, rewarding exploration and flourishing cities aren't mutually exclusive trends.
Rewarding exploration is to offer new mazes with carrots in the end, not copy-pasting the same with a different label. I love wasteland, I just don't find it very well-planned department of the game in 3. Same goes to about all the content aside the graphics, combat, the practical engine things.

What comes to difficulty to begin with, I have constradicting opinions about it. Player lives inside the difficulty-bubble, which I thin could've been more well-adjusted. The difficulty transforms of being hard in the beginning to very easy in the end. Experience is rewarded maybe even a bit too generously.
I personally found playing Fallout2 harder. You couldn't just conquer everything, even if you had a strong character. The feeling of survivalism you expressed about fighting about guns, stimpacks and materia came across much stronger in the predecessors. Being lost in the dungeons didn't feel like it raised the bar, it just increased my frustaration.

I don't say can't come across as what you say to somebody. To me, after scratching the surface, Fallout3 comes across more linear and shallow experience than what I pick from you. But hey, that's what opinions are for.

[Gabe]

Bioshock a noir style fpsand second half of the game quite monotone but overall ok,Fallout 3 a postapocalyptic rpg (so not sure about your comparing how logic)didnt work for me coz lots of dumb things happens like in middle of a gun fight a child comes from nowhere and asks help,some prescripted scenes doesnt showsup if interfere with npc',same dull backdrops so on..I prefer The Witcher E.E.over these games overall experience is much matured.

[orient]

Fair enough, Vernon. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the design of the wasteland I do agree that the difficulty is a bit unbalanced (very hard at the start - very easy later on) but something tells me that your dislikes for Fallout 3 stem from a want for it to be more like the original games, which is fine -- but I'm glad I had a completely fresh look on the game.

[Gabe]

I generally like rpgs and exploring game worlds but why fallout 3 is that dumb beyond me,first if take a glass or anything around someone starts shooting to kill you or if you fist fighting with someone,another npc starts shooting you from half mile away and why the hell whole game world freezes when engaging a conversation ,really nauseating

[silent_m]

You can't go wrong with either – one is the Game of the Year '07 and the other is Game of the Year '08! But they are somewhat different in that Bioshock is more FPS than RPG and Fallout 3 is more RPG than FPS, so it depends on what you like. I really enjoyed Bioshock, but didn't have an urge to play through it again. Fallout 3 will get you more bang for your buck overall.