I've come to a striking revelation that I'm ready to share with the world: I like Bethesda's Fallout series more than the Elder Scrolls series. Yes, more than Skyrim.

   With such a discovery, I knew I needed to delve more into the causes in order to still be respected by the gaming community. And this brings me to my topic today: setting in video games.

   Anyone who has played both series can agree with me when I say they are the exact same game, just set in different eras. In both games, you customize your character, add skill point upgrades each level, embark on countless side quests in an open-world landscape, horde thousands of random items, recruit companions for battle, and debate the direction of your karma.

   Both games share the same flaws: flat character development, monotonous NPC speeches, and glitches (although the case can certainly be made that Elder Scrolls possesses far more glitches than Fallout, at least that's the case in my experience with both games). There is really not a lot that one game has over the other.

   Of course, there are little differences I have neglected to mention, but we are sticking to the big stuff.

   The one looming difference is setting: a post-apocalyptic world for the Fallout games and a medieval realm for the Elder Scrolls games. With this being the only substantial and logical reason for the liking of one over the other, I began to debate how setting could impact the liking of a game.

   For obvious reasons, setting can influence a game's details. Maybe subconsciously I like exploring buildings that have been demolished by nuclear warfare and radiation than the quaint villages that intersperse Skyrim. I suppose that I unknowingly favor mechanized weapons to the smithing of old. Setting changes how the game is played, but not the overall purpose of the game. You are still questing in an open-world setting with the same mechanics for either installment.

   This idea led to me another thought. So many people fawn over the release of the Elder Scrolls games than Fallout that I wonder if I'm missing something huge. I've played through the main quests of the Elder Scrolls games, but I'm sucked into every detail of the Fallout games. Can setting be the only cause for such a polarized predicament?

   I think yes. With two nearly identical games created by the same developer, it is easy to pinpoint the main difference. I couldn't make nearly as positive of an assumption if I was comparing games like Rage (to mimic Fallout) and Assassin's Creed (to mimic Elder Scrolls). Their settings are certainly not similar, but the gameplay elements are radically different.

   That being said, I believe that setting has much more of an influence over us than we might think. When the trailers for games such as I Am Alive, The Last of Us, and Fornite debuted, I was naturally drawn to them. I wanted to know how a game in the post-apocalyptic setting would play out. It's that desire to get the game without even not knowing a lot of the details about it. I have also played about four hours into Rage, and I already love it. And why do you think that is? Yep, the setting. I don't know much about how the game will play out, but I'm enthralled at the possibility of exploring a world completely different than everything we have ever known. How's that for influence?

   Maybe I like speculating on a world that doesn't actually exist opposed to one that I've seen in movies and read in history books (of course with a twist). One era is simply going to appeal to some people over the other, even if I am one of the few on the Fallout-esque side of this debate.

   Anyway, now that I've had my fun, what are your reasons for liking one game over the other?