Kotaku ranks the Fallout games

My favorites are FO2 and FOT. These two are PC games, not interactive movies, in case someone confused the terms.
I've seen NV but I would never list it as my favorite. Without nexus, that game would be a same hopeless mess that BOS is.
See how the actors in TES can fly high and hover, but not in NV. It's not gamebryo limitation, it's the greedy dev.
They will probably make a flying hovercraft which you can bring down with an RPG, but only in DLC.
You won't get that by default. Especially not the top down tactical view, which was proved possible in gamebryo btw.
So it's a standard case of consolitis, and a continuous effort to ruin PC games with controller compatible shite.
Tell me why should we care about kotaku rank and WTF is kotaku anyway. It looks like an ad network for zenimax and vivendi.
The amount of trust I will put in that site equals the amount I will put in any sales representative, which equals zero. Nada.
 
1fps-warlock said:
My favorites are FO2 and FOT. These two are PC games, not interactive movies, in case someone confused the terms.
I've seen NV but I would never list it as my favorite. Without nexus, that game would be a same hopeless mess that BOS is.
See how the actors in TES can fly high and hover, but not in NV. It's not gamebryo limitation, it's the greedy dev.
They will probably make a flying hovercraft which you can bring down with an RPG, but only in DLC.
You won't get that by default. Especially not the top down tactical view, which was proved possible in gamebryo btw.
So it's a standard case of consolitis, and a continuous effort to ruin PC games with controller compatible shite.
Tell me why should we care about kotaku rank and WTF is kotaku anyway. It looks like an ad network for zenimax and vivendi.
The amount of trust I will put in that site equals the amount I will put in any sales representative, which equals zero. Nada.
Click to expand...
You can bring down Vertibirds in FO3 with whatever weapon. In New Vegas, the factions don't use Vertibirds for transport frequently, that's why you rarely see Vertibirds in that game, not because some greedy conspiration. And are you seriously comparing NV to BOS just because you can't have isometric camera? Well, another nonsensical Beth hater... BTW, NV was developed by Obsidian, not Beth. Go and do some research about who the fuck are those guys, please.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kyojinmaru said:
You can bring down Vertibirds in FO3 with whatever weapon.
Click to expand...
I was unaware of that, I had quit before they let me out of the vault, tbh.

Kyojinmaru said:
In New Vegas, the factions don't use Vertibirds for transport frequently, that's why you rarely see Vertibirds in that game, not because some greedy conspiration. And are you seriously comparing NV to BOS just because you can't have isometric camera? Well, another nonsensical Beth hater... BTW, NV was developed by Obsidian, not Beth. Go and do some research about who the fuck are those guys, please.
Click to expand...

Well, I tend to get annoyed when a PC game sequel isn't actually designed for PC.
My point is that you can have both the fliers and isometric camera in gamebryo, but they (Obsidian) don't deliver.
They design stuff like invisible walls in open world and auto-aim instead.
Why should I be interested in who they are? I only comment on what they did, their identity is irrelevant.
 
Well, Obsidian is run by the refugees from Black Isle, they have people, important ones, that made Fallout 2 and were making Van Buren. Also they have the God Almighty from Fallout, it's creator, Tim Cain. (Sadly he joined the team after they made New Vegas)

The limitations and desing flaws were probably ( most of them anyway) due to the time they had to make the game ( common trait with Obsidian games), IIRC one year and half, so they couldn't create enough content, polish them, etc. Anyways, with less time to make the game than Bethesda had with Fallout 3 they have made a game that is in the right direction to be a Fallout game.

Things that would make in Van Buren were adapted to New Vegas, like Caesar's Legion, NCR-BOS war, Boulder Dome ( Big MT scientist) and etc.
 
For me, 1 and 2 vie for the top spot. 2 has a more lush story world, with more going on, more to discover, and more humor, but I prefer the main quest line in 1, especially because the Master struck me as the more interesting villain. But I really can't decide between them. Then, obviously, New Vegas, then 3. I cannot fathom ever putting Fallout 3 above New Vegas, or either of the originals.
 
Yamu said:
"maybe the American government isn't always on the level," "yes, girls have a place in the vidgy-games too," "maybe women can actually be kickass adventurers instead of dead-eyed housewives," and, "sometimes girls like to tee-hee other girls in their hoo-hoos."
Click to expand...

Yams, If I ever happen to have a child, then I want you to explain to him/her/it the concept of sexuality when it grows up.
 
I'd rank Fallout 2 as the best, but I completely understand why others would go for Fallout 1. For me, the longer story and more areas make up for some of the areas where it lags behind 1.

So I'd rank them 2, 1, NV, 3. However, I've always considered Wasteland the father of Fallout so I'd rank that between Fallout 1 and NV. I'm not ranking W2 yet since I've just recently finished it and haven't had enough time to really decide its place in history.
 
1. Fallout 2
2. Fallout
3. Fallout New Vegas
4. Fallout Tactics
5. Fallout 3
6. Fallout Brotherhood Of Steel
 
I think it's obvious the person who wrote this is younger and played the newer games first. It's expected.

F1>F2>NV>F3>FT

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
The Vault Dweller said:
I think it's obvious the person who wrote this is younger and played the newer games first. It's expected.
Click to expand...

F2 was her introduction to the series, actually (and from the sound of her earlier article, possibly one of the first non-educational games she ever played). It was a huge formative experience for her, and you can see how the place it holds in her heart colors her opinion of the other games:


  • Though she laments the genre change, registers lukewarm feelings about VATS, and even brings out the "Oblivion with guns" complaint that would normally mark her as a fellow glittering gem of hatred, 3 plays up the Enclave/Vault Experiment concepts that she found so significant in 2 and it zealously takes up the torch of the "whatever, logic be damned, the players will love it" design philosophy that 2 brought to the series. First prize.
  • New Vegas, however, has to rate lower even though she recognizes the writing was better, as it takes other concepts from Fallout 2 (primarily, the idea of a prominent gambling mecca) and deals with them in a way that, by 2's rubric (inconsistent as those standards may at times have been), doesn't compare-- and honestly, even Obsidian was a little disappointed with how partitioned and empty The Strip and outer Vegas ended up. The tone was also less cinematic than 3's (or 2's).
  • Likewise, to someone whose idea of Fallout was defined by 2, 1 would doubtless seem like a lean, understated, mechanically inferior entry into the franchise, and in fairness all of those points hold true, even if many of us see the first two as strengths more than weaknesses.

Don't mean to armchair psych it, that's just what jumps out at me. She does recognize all the facts of the matter, even if she chooses to weight them differently than some people, so I'm not inclined to take exception. More than yet another example of old Fallout vs. new Fallout, I think this article highlights the major differences in franchise philosophy between "Fallout 1 fans" and "Fallout 2 fans," and it's an interesting cutaway view of the mechanisms, so baffling to many of us, that can cause intelligent, old-school players to (arguably) legitimately rank 3 over New Vegas even though they recognize its flaws.
 
I guess story-wise, 3 does draw on 2 more directly, but I was a little surprised at the order, because New Vegas is lauded for its treatment of gender and sexuality, in comparison to a lot of other games. But then again, that's certainly not all there is to it.

I thought New Vegas felt more like an actual Fallout hub than anything in Fallout 3, especially Freeside. The Strip was a bit empty, but I always chalked that up to technical limitations. It was mostly the outdoor area, it seemed like the indoor ones were well populated.
 
1. Fallout
2. Fallout 3 + Pitt (not other addons)
3. Fallout New Vegas (no addons)
4. Fallout 2
5. Fallout Tactics
 
Fallout > Fallout 2

That's it for me, really. I played Tactics (a lot, actually), but it's just nowhere as good as the originals. I never played any of the new games and don't plan to. That's mostly because my gaming days are over.

I'm a purist.
 
The same...Tactics is a nice little post apocalyptic game, all references to the Fallout universe "removed" would actually improve the game IMO. Let it stand on its own two feet.

F1 - F2 - I haven't played the FPS's. :twitch:
 
For me it goes Fallout 2 >> Fallout 1 >> NV >> Tactics >>>>> 3>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BoS
Fallout 2 is my favorite game of all time, It will always beat the other Fallouts in any list.

Fallout 1 isn't bad, but it feels so much more confined in comparison to 2.

New Vegas felt alot like Fallout 2 to me, so I ended up liking it immensely.

Despite all the canonical errors in Tactics, I feel like it holds up fairly well.

About the only thing 3 did well was some of the exploration.

I played through BoS.. then I unlocked the Vault Dweller and I was confused.
 
I have this strange feeling I've participated in this same conversation once or twice before...

Anyway, I put Fallout 1 a bit ahead of Fallout 2 for the following reasons:

1) All the new GUNZ and equipment in Fallout 2 don't really improve the game. In fact, they unbalance the combat even more and contribute to exacerbating the Monty Haul problem that is even worse than the same problem that existed in Fallout 1.

2) In Fallout 1, the Overseer and your own Vault are not intended to be completely sympathetic. In fact, the Overseer is a jerk. The tribals you're supposed to be helping in Fallout 2 are suppsed to be symathetic, but instead they're thouroughly annoying (especailly after you've played the game twenty or thirty times) and you can't betray them like you can betray the vault in Fallout 1. Even worse, you can't just massacre them. In addition, saving Vault 13 is only the first part of Fallout 1, whereas saving your sub-jerkwater village takes up the whole game in Fallout 2.

3) The best quest in Fallout 1 (The Glow) is better than the best quest in Fallout 2 (not even sure what that would be).

4) Fallout 1 has an "Ask About" button. I never realized how much I missed this little feature until I replayed Fallout 1 some time ago.

5) The Master and the Children are much better villains than the President and the Enclave. In fact, over the years I've come to despise the Enclave. They and their whole reason for existing end up being farcical, which makes them impossible to sympathize with or take seriously. The Master is not farcical, and you never have trouble taking him seriously. It's even possible to symapthize with his motives.

There's a lot to like about Fallout 2 as well, of course. It's not all bad, by any means. In fact, it's very, very good. Almost as good as Fallout 1.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top