Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Brycen, Mar 10, 2018.
As of 2018, which Fallout was better by comparison?
There is only one Fallout.
New vegas took (damn near almost) everything that I loved about 1/2 and dialed it up to 11. It removed or fixed most of Fallout 3s problems. (The only notable problems remaining are running ghouls and acknowleding fallout 3 as canon) It has the most and the best. Quantity and quality. It's no contest. The only one that comes close in terms of quality is the original and in terms of scope not even fo2 comes close.
Although official products, if we're really honest, 3/4 don't belong on the list of options.
fallout 4 obviously
Fallout Brotherhood of Steel is not on the list but it's clearly the best.
NV is my favorite. Also my favorite game of all time, overcoming my beloved Super Metroid.
FO2 in second.
This is gold Jerry, GOLD!
LOVE this pixel art, even though I've never hang up with Goris or Dogmeat.
FO1 next. It is awesome, but playing it is making me want to be playing 2 instead. Best ambiance in the series. And look, I'm a big supporter of the more evolved ambiance of FO2 and NV.
Then FO3. Fun game. Kind boring all that bullet sponges enemies. Half of the DLCs are a piece of shit.
FO4 is a terrible game. I have not played since February 2016. I bought it in January of the same year. I hate it.
The only thing I REALLY envy in this game is the CC. I was seeing my albums today and I found my two characters. This is vanilla and I think the result is sensational.
I would give an arm for NV to be like this. Oh well, beauty does not pay the bills.
I guess it should be the obvious one here. To quote one person:
I'd just like to get out there that fallout 2 too often teeters on, and at times surpasses, the levels of stupidity found in fo3/4 to even hold a candle to the original or new vegas.
Eh maybe that's a bit harsh but it's a mixed bag of great world building and mind-numbing stupidity. Something 1/NV aren't. You'd hafta be a madman to choose fo2.
Based on replay value:
1. New Vegas
2. Fallout 2
4. Fallout 3
5. Fallout 4
I really don't think this ranking should be controversial or surprising in any way. New Vegas gets the top because it combined the best mechanics of Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout 3. Fallout 4 gets the bottom because it scrapped most of the original mechanics and ripped people off with its DLC season pass. Among other things...
Fallout: Nevada, keep your old trash in the closet, grandpa.
Overall I'd consider it a tie with the first game. Fallout has better fiction and is tighter and more cohesive as a whole, but there's just more to play in 2 whilst not being substantially different. And while the game has some of the worst ideas in the whole series.... like talking deathclaws, the good tends to outweigh the bad in the big picture. And when that's the case, I can tolerate a handful of out of place jokes and puns. To give a bit of perspective to that, I would be able to tolerate (though not leave uncriticised) the stupidity in Fallout 3's writing and setting and other similiar faults if I had fun playing the game. As it happens, it is not possible.
New Vegas is substantially better than what all else the series has to offer, but is nowhere near the first two. It suffers too much from its heritage.
I can see where you are coming from with that. Two words that killed New Vegas: quest markers.
Yes agreed. Quest markers are a lame way of guiding the player especially in an RPG.
Ha no. Just look at the final confrontation with frank horrigan and compare that with the master or Caesar. Just doesn't compare. Not saying it doesn't have great stuff. But it's the mixed bag of the franchise.
Try several truckloads.
I just don't see why people like fo2 above the others. It's a bag full of gold and shit whereas 1/NV are pure gold.
I don't evaluate these games based on singular events or characters.
And since you mentioned Caesar... as well written as the major NPC's in NV might've been, they always felt specifically written for the occasion, like being designed as events, as opposed to being organically parts of the world. That gave them quite artificial feel inspite of their merits. Characters in Fallout 2 (and Fallout) were less elaborate, but felt more like persons than said "events". Some of that might be due to the presentation, but nonetheless, that's how they came out to me.
There isn't that much. People are in the habit of overstating the amount and importance of the puns in Fallout 2 because as glittering gems of hatred we're programmed to seek out and focus on the shitty aspects while shrugging off the merits. And because these days (with this series) people don't tend to care about gameplay anymore, but are all about how well some characters, dialog options and quests are written, New Vegas gets a pass from all its faults and inherited design crud.
I suppose it's because while it largely offers more of the same as the first game in a bigger form, the setting is also more varied, versatile and colourful. Fallout is quite monotone by comparison (by design, no doubt). And NV is not "pure gold", it would be if it had the gameplay to compare but all it has is few characters and quests.
Would I be crazy to admit that I favor Fallout 2's gameplay over New Vegas? I mean, the isometric, targed shots system and turn based combat with flavor text providing description over FPS, VATS system, real time combat where the deaths can be described as best as "getting ragdolled/gibbed/pulverized"?
Come on, New Vegas has a lot more than that to offer. There are tons of traits and perks, regular checks for all skills and SPECIAL, memorable locations, unique items, cool enemies, ambiguous moral choices, and multiple endings to name a few. It's not perfect but neither is Fallout 2. Fallout is the closet this series has to a "golden" game in terms of focus. (And guess what, neither of us call that our favorite.)
I wouldn't call you crazy, the text descriptions are certainly more interesting than watching Gamebryo blow up everyone's body parts like watermelons for no reason. Ignoring New Vegas's option for garbage real time combat, I find the gameplay pretty similar. I honestly prefer Bethesda's V.A.T.S. though because it feels smoother and quicker to select to me. Until it fucking glitches.
As much as I love FNV, it's baffling for me to think that game has better, and quite simply more entertaining gameplay than FO1.
Fantastic story, characters and setting aside, FNV is still too close to FO3/TES in the way it plays. One of my favorite games, but inferior to the groundbreaking majesty that is Fallout. However, if it played like the originals it would probably be the best.
So I'm kinda puzzled how so many people here think it's the best...
So for me it goes:
I've played very little of Fallout 4, but I wouldn't include it on my list regardless of game time.
Fallout definitely wins for originality, considering it's well... the original. I also feel like the world is a lot more cohesive and complete since it doesn't have to rely on any other game for its backstory. It's pretty fucking polished. Especially compared to Fallout 2. The only thing that bumps it down in peoples' minds is that it lacks content and replay value. If you prioritize quality over quantity, I can see where Fallout would be the best.
Also, on the topic of gameplay, I'm probably in the minority here, but I actually like a few of the Elder Scrolls style additions to New Vegas. They don't take anything away from the RPG mechanics in my opinion, and sometimes I find it fun to explore and collect stuff. If that's not your thing though, I can see where Fallout and Fallout 2 would be preferable.
I love New Vegas but quite frankly, the gameplay is garbage (i like the trait system though and i like some of the perks). I pretty much only see gameplay as a vehicle of interaction with the world, characters and setting. And to me, those three are the ones that matter the most to me in this series.
I guess it's one of those cases where i can tolerate crummy gameplay for the sake of everything else.
The 13-0 score of NV vs F3 shows just how bad people are hating on beth lmao.... 2 games so similar to each other getting ranked so differently because of a dev name.
Whats even worse is that F1 isnt winning, makes you wonder what sort of 'fans' are commenting here.