Best Fallout game

What is the best fallout game that you have played?

  • Fallout

    Votes: 40 29.0%
  • Fallout 2

    Votes: 46 33.3%
  • Fallout Tactics: BoS

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Fallout : BoS/PoS you choice

    Votes: 3 2.2%
  • Fallout 3

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Fallout: New Vegas

    Votes: 42 30.4%
  • Fallout Shelter ( I know, for completeness)

    Votes: 1 0.7%
  • Fallout 4

    Votes: 2 1.4%

  • Total voters
    138
Honestly though, both PoS and 4 are equal as a just a games. Exhaustive battles with damage sponges? Check. Shooting? Check. Unfitting music? Check. Non-canon? Check. Wrong visuals and aesthetic. Guess. Unoptimized yet ugly? You're right.(if it's not clear: go look Baldur's Gate Dark Alliance on YT, it released in 2001 and compare to PoS. Do the same for STALKER/Rage and 4) So they are somewhat the best fallouts from the end (or bottom) at start* and sharing one white throne.**

*Meaning for slow on understanding: worst fallout games.
** this one
 
Last edited:

**THIS one :twisted:
image-1.jpg
 
View attachment 4441 I don't understand why people gravitate towards the Bethesda Fallout spin offs. What's the appeal? Ignorance?
The people making their games brag about skipping dialogue because they lack the attention span for it and fill their season pass with 50% crafting dlc and some copied quest from a mod.

I doubt their hardcore fans are any different. Bethesda makes games by the ultra casual gamer, for the ultra casual gamer. This is no longer debatable after Fallout 4.
 
Never played the classics/tactics sucked.
FO3 is eh
Never really had fun with FNV
FO4....just doesn't work
So you do not like ~any~ Fallout game?

Tactics was a mission based RTS/hybrid centered on the combat; (which IMO had arguably the best turn based combat of the series). It was not really set out to be much of an RPG.

The 'classics' [ie. the core ~actual~ Fallout series], are incredible RPGs; and FO3 & 4 are purposely not. Purposely, because that would impose an incompatible pacing with the shooter crowd, and would impose accountability upon the player for the PC's actions... and that seems to be a strict no-no in Bethsoft games. :(

They should never have been allowed to touch the series; it's all Interplay's fault... Interplay's actions were tantamount to those who sold an original set of Goya prints to those silly brothers that defaced them all with clown heads.
 
Last edited:
So you do not like ~any~ Fallout game?

Tactics was a mission based RTS/hybrid centered on the combat; (which IMO had arguably the best turn based combat of the series). It was not really set out to be much of an RPG.

The 'classics' [ie. the core ~actual~ Fallout series], are incredible RPGs; and FO3 & 4 are purposely not. Purposely, because that would impose an incompatible pacing with the shooter crowd, and would impose accountability upon the player for the PC's actions... and that seems to be a strict no-no in Bethsoft games. :(

They should never have been allowed to touch the series; it's all Interplay's fault... Interplay's actions were tantamount to those who sold an original set of Goya prints to those silly brothers that defaced them all with clown heads.

I like the fallout games, I just don't have a favorite.
 
So I've played most of F2 to really have an opinion on it.
My order looks like this
New Vegas > F1 > F2 >>>>F3 >>>>>>> F4 >>>>>>>>>>>>>BoS
 
New Vegas > F1 > F2 >>>>>>>>>>> F3 = F4 = BoS
fixed

Fixed.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If I had to rank the games, it'd be something like this:

Fallout 2
Fallout (by just a slight margin for 2 feeling better as a game whilst having worse worldbuilding and narrative)

New Vegas (a bit meh overall, would be up there with the rest of them if the gameplay was different and more in line with the originals)
Tactics (a nice combat romp, but not really a Fallout RPG)

Fallouts 3, 4 and BoS are practically their own series of games that have very little if anything in common with how the series was. They are all messy, mechanically bonkers, and written and designed by people apparently complete strangers to the series.
 
They are all messy, mechanically bonkers, and written and designed by people apparently complete strangers to the series.
Well, to be honest if all of them were complete strangers to the series, there wouldn't be so much common plot pieces directly stolen from 1 & 2 in F3. Which is bad but it's the opposite of 'complete strangers'
And F3 does quest design quite well after all if you look more precise. You have your choices, different approaches and a bit of C&C. But it's all side content rather than main.
Which F4 lacks completely. You won't see anything like Moira's survival book quest from the gameplay standpoint, you won't see anything like tempenny tower quest, you won't see perks involved in dialogs, you won't see anything. You will see that shooter mechanics done better. Which doesn't say much, considering what Fallout 3 had instead of proper first person combat. And considering what modern FPS can offer and what Id Software can offer in Doom 2016, the ranged combat in F4 sucks donkey dicks.
So yeah, fix reversed.
 
Last edited:
Well, to be honest, if all of them were complete strangers to the series, there wouldn't be so much common plot pieces directly stolen from 1 & 2 in F3.

I find that to be one of the biggest highlights of being strangers to it: looking merely at the broad strokes surface and copying it (and pasting on top of a completely different gameplay and presentation). They didn't care enough to dig deeper and creating stuff that matches but doesn't outright copy like Obsidian did. They just wanted the retro apocalypse setting that was already thought out by others so they didn't have to think for themselves.
 
Back
Top