Fallout - Best to Worst

Stingray said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't say I agree with you. The areas were much more interesting in fallout 4....where in NV they seemed a bit on the bland side. For instance there was a lab I found in Fallout 4 where it was mutated plants and had a lot of things to do inside in order to solve it with a lot of back ground....I think it is getting short changed by a lot of people on here.

As for the witcher, what makes it more of an rpg? It really didn't have factions and it did have character interactions I guess....you didn't make your own character, and the character development was basically the same as fallout 4.

I'm not even getting into the modable weapons and settlements. I think there is a lot more to like in Fallout 4 then this site gives it credit for. I did a lot of side areas and picked up a lot of the tapes around that gave a lot of back ground. Did no one else see these?
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
5,749
I probably have an unusual ranking of the Fallouts compared to most fans of the series.

FO3>FO1>New Vegas>FO2 and haven't played 4.

I loved the atmosphere and exploration of 3, and it was the first Fallout I played. Having "fallen" for the franchise, I decided to visit the original for the first time. It took a while to get used to the interface and some of the mechanics, but I'm glad I persevered. FO1 has that Troika/Tim Cain brilliance that I wish was still around making new games (RIP Troika). A lot of choices for solving most quests, and honest-to-goodness "role-playing," even for non-combat characters! Truly a classic for me.

I didn't care for New Vegas in my first playthrough, but for some reason, it clicked for me when I gave it a second chance. Not quite as good as 3 for me, and I really don't feel that the factions, writing, or characters are drastically better than 3 - if at all. A lot of it was pretty forgettable actually, in spite of a rather long, detailed playthrough. But I remember it fondly as a pleasant adventure.

I was very disappointed with FO2 after playing 1. I remember being very confused as to why so many die-hard Fallout fans view 2 as superior to the original. The writing seemed quite juvenile in the often cringe-worthy attempt to be funny at its worst moments, and broke the fourth wall way too often. The setting lacked consistency for me as well.

I have a hunch that 4 will battle it out with 2 for my least favorite of the series, with 1 and 3 being my favorites.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Messages
1,022
rune_74 said:
Well, I can't say I agree with you. The areas were much more interesting in fallout 4….where in NV they seemed a bit on the bland side. For instance there was a lab I found in Fallout 4 where it was mutated plants and had a lot of things to do inside in order to solve it with a lot of back ground….I think it is getting short changed by a lot of people on here.

As for the witcher, what makes it more of an rpg? It really didn't have factions and it did have character interactions I guess….you didn't make your own character, and the character development was basically the same as fallout 4.

I'm not even getting into the modable weapons and settlements. I think there is a lot more to like in Fallout 4 then this site gives it credit for. I did a lot of side areas and picked up a lot of the tapes around that gave a lot of back ground. Did no one else see these?
Click to expand...
Haven't played Witcher 3 yet (see my earlier comments :). My mention of Witcher really meant Witcher 1 & 2. Those games had really strong storylines and worlds and dialogue. Like I said, I'm not good at explaining why, I just know they felt like RPGs to me in a way that FO3 and FO4 don't.

I ran across all the stuff you've mentioned with FO4, but when it doesn't tie into the rest of the game in some sort of way (as opposed to just being just some information or a situation thrown at you in a vacuum), it doesn't seem as meaningful to me. As an example, if I walked into the nearest town after exploring that area you mentioned in your post, and some character there is like "yo we know what you saw out in the plant lab" and it leads to something, then that would be a big plus for me. I would personally refer to this as "world reactivity", and it's something Bethesda is extremely awful at - probably the worst in the industry.
 
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
3,471
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
2,714
Emerwyn said:
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.
Click to expand...

yes, Underrail is a better Fallout than FO3-4 will ever be

more originality, less generic, more hand-crafted content, more options and choices


and all done by 1 guy from a country people didn't know existed


aghahahaha

1yRyqCS.jpg
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2015
Messages
2,714
They should replace Pipboy logo with action toy of Todd Howard. I'd love that. ;)
 
Joined
Jun 5, 2015
Messages
3,898
Location
Croatia
Nerevarine said:
FO1 has that Troika/Tim Cain brilliance that I wish was still around making new games (RIP Troika). A lot of choices for solving most quests, and honest-to-goodness "role-playing," even for non-combat characters!... I remember being very confused as to why so many die-hard Fallout fans view 2 as superior to the original. The writing seemed quite juvenile in the often cringe-worthy attempt to be funny at its worst moments, and broke the fourth wall way too often.
Click to expand...
I really liked the humour and references in the second game (or remember liking them) which is one of the reasons I enjoyed it so much. However, I guess something like that relies very much down to personal taste.

You are right in that the freedom of Fallout 1, though. I remember reading an interview with someone, it may have been Tim Cain, who said the philosophy behind it was to aim for something like table top role-playing, where the player was allowed to solve problems with as much freedom as possible. None of the other fallout games have every achieved that as well, not even the second.
 
luj1 said:
yes, Underrail is a better Fallout than FO3-4 will ever be

more originality, less generic, more hand-crafted content, more options and choices


and all done by 1 guy from a country people didn't know existed


aghahahaha

1yRyqCS.jpg
Click to expand...
Well to be fair it was done by 3 people. Styg said on MattChat that all writing was done not by him.
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
3,819
Surprised at the lack of love for FO3. I've only played that and NV so far, but I thrived on both. 3 was the better experience for me as the atmosphere and world really absorbed me.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2015
Messages
480
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom