Fallout - Best to Worst

Originally Posted by joxer

Where is Tactics on the list? Ah okay, I see… Deliberaely skipped…
But she completely forgot BoS console avoidware.

Fallout Tactics ranks right between the three great ones (1, 2, NV) and the two mediocre ones. BoS of course at the very bottom.

A list that gets it right. Well done!!!

I can't believe the love NV gets, I have recently played it before FO4 and it just isn't as good.

Originally Posted by jpnole
That author is out of his mind. Everyone knows in their heart it's:

F4>FNV>F3>the rest of the ancient ones

I'm glad they tore the game out of it's niche audience and made it appealing.

You forgot to list the Call of Duty games before Fallout 4 there buddy?

On topic: Mine would be Fallout 2, Fallout, Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, Fallout 4.

F2>F1>F:T
The others don't exist for me. FNV might be good if it wasn't in that terrible and boring engine, Fo4 is just a Far Cry rip off in another setting, I don't accept that as real Fallout.
F3 is called Underrail.

I keep seeing gamers being incredulous about how much love NV gets. Maybe it did when it came out, but mostly I see gamers being incredulous about how much love NV gets. Instead of that actually happening. I'm here to change that.

I couldn't get into FO3, although I tried. Bad dialog and generic locations/sewers killed it for me.

New Vegas is the most compelling, dynamic, and fun to explore. For me.
Fallout 1 comes second.
Chances are FO4 would be next for me, as it sounds decent, and I struggled to get into FO2.

Ok, I'll get in this one too. I didn't play and am not interested in Fallout 3 or Fallout 4.(for various reasons that I won't go into)
I did play Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, and recently picked up Fallout New Vegas.

1. Fallout (the original) I remember that I really liked this game, it had great atmosphere and setting and story.
2. Fallout 2 - I didn't finish this game either, like some others who responded. I thought it was a letdown compared to the first one, and that they put too much wacky humor into this one, as opposed to the more "pure" experience of Fallout.

Fallout New Vegas - I spent around an hour playing it so far, and I can tell already I think it's a great game. I love the desert atmosphere, and they got all the details right, and it shows in the graphics. (I have spent a lot of time in the Mojave desert on vacations, believe it or not, however odd that may sound).

I can't properly rate it yet, but I can tell already I would put it at least as my second favorite, and maybe even has a shot at replacing Fallout as my favorite of the series.

I was thinking they should put Underrail somewhere in that list and not even consider FO3 and FO4 real Fallout games just because they carry the name.

I'll join in after some consideration.

FO1 > FO2 > FONV > FO3 <> FO4

I'm still jury-out for Fallout 4 as I'm only at level 33 and haven't entered the Institute yet. I hear from others that plot and story really start to fall apart and the faction politics just aren't believable. The mechanics also appear to show cracks at somewhere close to my level. We shall see. I do remember that Bethesda stories have a habit of starting strong and then stumbling over their shoestrings in the second half.

In the meantime I'm having a grand bit of fun and really like being in Boston. Lots to do and the plots are still hanging together reasonably well. It's hard to say where it is in comparison to the 3rd game. I really liked the tone and scope of that game, but need to see the rest of Boston to just 4 vs 3 better. Fallout New Vegas is vintage Obsidian material and I love the game for that. The DLC was bar none some of the best I've played. The turn based games captured my heart, though.

Originally Posted by luj1
1. Fallout 2
2. Fallout
3. Tactics
4. Fallout 4
5. New Vegas
6. Fallout 3

Same for me! Tactics is underrated imo.

Edit: My avatar is actually from a comicstrip I made for Tactics back in the days.

Originally Posted by Emerwyn
I was thinking they should put Underrail somewhere in that list and not even consider FO3 and FO4 real Fallout games just because they carry the name.

I don't agree with that at all.

Not sure how to rate FO4 yet. At 241 steam hours (minus some idle time) and level 31. Also now main story progression yet, just doing misc quests and faction quests.

My ranking is

1. FO 2 (interesting questing and locales)
2. FO NV (loved the factions and feel of the Mojave desert plus some fantastic DLC)
3. Tied: FO 1 (hated the time limit and UI and companion AI during combat) and FO 3 (too mean-spirited, not enough roleplaying)

Right now FO4 would rank either 1 or 2.

Fo2 > fo1 > fo3 = fonv = fo4

Originally Posted by Drithius
F1>F2>FNV>FO4>FO3

F2 didn't take itself serious; we got a sillier and less grim, thought-provoking franchise thanks primarily to #2. FO4's level design puts it above FO3's linear corridors and subways, despite the dialogue choices made for a 2 year old mashing keys on a console.

:brofist:

It has been so long since I played FO1 and FO2 I really can't recall much other than I enjoyed it and a few trickles of memories on some quests and story. Not top of the list clearly as I still have a ton of memories of BG1 which I played the hell out of and that was a decent time in the past.

So my own list is FNV > FO4 > FO1 > FO2 > F03

While I don't recall a ton on the early games I do know I finished them and had a sense of satisfaction and enjoyment. FO3 I never finished, was just to dull.

FNV I still have very fond memories of and got 200+ hours in which for that genre was amazing for me. Liked the story, writing, characters, atmosphere, setting, and quests. Even enjoyed the combat.

Originally Posted by rune_74
I don't agree with that at all.

It is Fallout in Europe

Originally Posted by rune_74
I can't believe the love NV gets, I have recently played it before FO4 and it just isn't as good.

FO:NV is light years ahead of FO4 in my opinion. Like they aren't even in the same league. FO:NV feels like you're playing a real RPG, not a shooter with some light RPG elements.

My list is the same as Couchpotato's, 2->1->NV->3->4. Although I could be convinced to swap 1 and 2 perhaps.

Originally Posted by Stingray
FO:NV is light years ahead of FO4 in my opinion. Like they aren't even in the same league. FO:NV feels like you're playing a real RPG, not a shooter with some light RPG elements.

My list is the same as Couchpotato's, 2->1->NV->3->4. Although I could be convinced to swap 1 and 2 perhaps.

I didn't really see that….it was buggy as hell, worse then a Bethesda game. I think a lot comes because it has obsidians name and not Bethesda.

I literally played both back to back….Fallout NV felt very basic in comparison. Yes there was longer text entries but the overall layouts and general areas weren't as interesting and the game didn't work as well.

Well it had factions for one. Some real roleplaying opportunities there.

Wouldn't know about the bugginess. I generally wait at least a year after release to play AAA games these days, so by the time I get around to them they're already all patched up and with all the DLC released. (I made an exception for Fallout 4.) That said, I don't remember noticing any bugs in FO:NV when I did play it.

The Obsidian vs Bethesda name isn't it at all. The games feel completely different. Not sure I can effectively explain why. I think a lot of it is related to (in FO:NV) great dialogue, world reactivity, more C&C, a lot more interesting places and storylines going on, etc etc. FO:NV feels more similar to something like Vampire Bloodlines or Witcher - ie: a real RPG, presented in first-person. While FO4, and to a slightly lesser extent FO3, feel like shooters with some RPG elements tacked on.

edit: and yeah, what Thrasher said. Actual factions that matter. Instead of just joining up with every one and doing almost everything.