Originally Posted by
Endus
I feel like, after playing and letting it sit a bit, that comparing TOW to Fallout is a mistake, in both directions. They're really not similar games, despite the aesthetic similarities.
Fallout, from 3 on at least, has been about densely-built massive open maps, with a lot of discoverable content tucked away in it. You need to explore to find quests, and a ton of locations exist that you'd never be sent to, unless you come across them and poke your nose in to see what's there.
TOW, on the other hand, has much smaller, more carefully-crafted maps, that serve to tell the specific story threads the game contains. There's a handful of pretty minor exploration-based rewards, but the game isn't actually about that; if you poke around in a set of buildings that have a marker "just cause", chances are you'll be coming back when you get the quest that directs you there. I cleared the entire Edgewater map before leaving, and kept coming back to re-clear locations after I'd left.
Frankly, it's more similar to Mass Effect than Fallout, in terms of game design principles.
I'm not saying this to crap on TOW, or Fallout; I love 'em both (and Mass Effect, for that matter). I just see people drawing the comparison to mock Bethesda (who deserve it, with that sub model for FO76, admittedly) and claim that TOW is doing Fallout "right". And it really isn't. It's a different subgenre, really. A story- and character-based RPG centered around story missions, as opposed to a setting-based RPG centered around exploration.
Heck, look at the companion missions. Most of them in TOW revolve around telling you more about the companion. Parvati learns to love, Max settles his crisis of faith, etc. They're very personal (in a good way). But they often don't tell you a ton about the setting. In Fallout, it's traditionally the other way around. They certainly are personal, but they're highly tied into how that character is tied into and affected by the setting, first and foremost.