every answer is a wrong answer
every answer is a wrong answer
43 comments
-
Fallout 1 and 2! But NV was pretty good too
-
Having played the originals, I don't understand the hype. New Vegas is way better.
-
the isometric games excel in atmosphere (partly because of all the limitations), whereas new vegas is not quite as good at that but is in turn way easier to get into since you can just, like, walk forward by pressing W
-
Combat is way more interesting in 1&2 IMO, I never cared for Bethesda's "FPS-lite" gameplay.
-
They’re wildly different games though, it’s hard to say one is better across its 3 styles (1&2, tactics, first person). That being said having played all of them when they came out, 3 holds a special place in my heart of the beginning exiting the vault and entering the national mall and seeing the Washington monument all jacked up.
-
-
-
"I hate Cazadors with every fibre of my being."
"Aight, you're cool, head on in."
-
Deathclaws are just reused Terrasque assets!
-
-
I tried playing Fallout 4 and gave up because of the obstinate mouse acceleration. Tried it in VR and had a good time but the story didn’t hold me.
Is New Vegas worth my time? Should I start with 1 and/or 2 for the atmosphere and world building? Is 3 worth the effort to get into?
-
if you want to enjoy fallout then new vegas is probably the one to bet on, it's got the best combination of actual sensible story/worldbuilding and being playable.
fallout 3 is new vegas with worse story, and the first 2 games are new vegas but uh, less refined gameplay. But then they're also cheap as fuck so like just try them.. -
Here's the truth, I'm not sure.
I would say that most Fallout games haven't aged well and I don't think I would like them if I wasn't playing them with rose tinted glasses. Fallout 1 and 2 are classic RPGs. Isometric camera, minimal voice acting, and turn based combat, but if you are into that they are definitely worth it for the insane number of ways you can deal with the situations you get into and the different endings you can get. Fallout 3 is like Fallout 4, but with worse graphics and the worst gunplay that I've ever seen in a FPS. It's an action/adventure game with RPG elements, there aren't many decisions you can make that actually make a difference. It can still be a good bit of fun and is interesting, but the writing isn't the best and the PC port is a nightmare to get running on modern hardware. New Vegas kinda fixes the problems from 3. Better writing around factions and companion characters, more choices that actually have an affect on the world and the ending you get, and some of the best DLC I've ever played in a game. But it is far from perfect, it still feels awful to shoot a gun and empty locations really show off the short production cycle of the game, but NV is easier to get running than 3.
Personally, in my extremely biased opnion, I'd recommend New Vegas. Less finagling required to get running than the others and it actually feeling like the skills you pick make more of a difference than "do you want pew-pew guns, zappy guns, or do you prefer things that go kaboom?" It's $10 on steam and pretty regularly goes on sale for $5 (used to go on sale for $2.50, but hasn't since the Fallout show dropped)
-
-
I was thinking the other day that none of Bethesda's games are actually entirely good. They can be fun, but they're also all kind of bad. Fun and good are two different measurements.
Like, they all have a bad system of tracking health and damage. In like all of them, from Morrowind to fallout4, you get the situation where you hit a naked bandit square in the face with a sledgehammer and he doesn't really react. He's level 30 and you're level 10, so it doesn't count.
They all do stealth kind of badly. Kill a dude, his buddy yells and then a minute later goes back to idly standing there over the corpse. It's been more than 20 years and there's been like no innovation from Bethesda on this.
The engine they've been using is bad. It feels like 2002. Can't climb over waist high barriers. Projectiles get stuck on invisible walls because the textures and hit boxes don't align. Can't dodge or lean or even really duck. Lots of loading transitions, still. Also fuck off with these hacking and lockpicking mini games. Either make it a player skill check or a character skill check. Both is the worst.
I want a different company to make a fallout game. Larian I'm sure would knock it out of the park. Rockstar would probably make something more "cinematic" than my taste but undeniably good. Even Ubisoft would probably make a solid wasteland to explore. (Yes yes, everyone likes to make fun of Ubisoft and the map full of markers. But be honest: that's what a lot of fallout3 and 4 are. Going to map markers to collect duct tape. Except when you actually get there in a Bethesda game, the movement and combat sucks)
-
Bethesda's engine is wild because while it's absolutely horrible in some places, it's unparalleled in others. Item persistence is something they do better than anyone. Go into a house in Skyrim and drop 300 wheels of cheese then fuck off and go do something else. Come back and those 300 wheels of cheese will still be there, exactly where you left them. Now realize it's doing that for EVERY item in the game. That's crazy.
On the other hand, you can't climb ladders because their engine doesn't know how to handle that.
-
That is cool, yeah. I had all my neat-but-heavy equipment on display in the fighter's guild in Morrowind, and they never disappeared.
Though I think Larian's games can also do that. Speaking somewhat naively because I've never worked on video games, it doesn't sound that hard to persist the state of items in a region if you're already loading a bunch of stuff.
It also highlights a bit of bethesda jank- an NPC will have a totally sincere, heartfelt, conversation with you while surrounded by 300 wheels of cheese, and not remark upon the cheese at all. To be fair, I don't think anyone else has NPCs that react to the environment believably, either.
-
that's true with an asterisk, the cheese wheels may well clip into something and detonate, scattering cheese wheels everywhere and killing everyone in line of sight
-
-
-
Fallout 3 was my introduction, if you dont count the time I tried to torrent the original fallout back in like 2005.
I like them all in different ways. But I honestly stopped caring about the lore and worldbuilding around the time of 4. It was clear it was becoming too much of a power fantasy and less about being a role playing game. T-45 on the first mission sequence? come on.
-
power armor got a new mechanic they had to show everyone how it works
better than the other games where you have to wait eons just to use it, and all it is is armor that weighs a ton
-
The new mechanic of fusion cores kind of sucks though. It's not fun having to manage the 20 minute batteries.
all it is is armor that weighs a ton
In the original, armor made a big difference. The Bethesda games suffer from bad HP/damage systems. In the original it made you nearly immune to small arms fire and lasers. It was a big deal.
If they wanted to have the stupid minigun death claw sequence early on, they should've had you find just the frame. No armor, just the ability to use heavy weapons.
Now you can keep power armor cool, and still do the stupid intro gimmick.
Or have the set on the roof damaged so it can't walk.
Anything other than fusion cores would probably be better.
-
Power Armor was a reward for survival rather than a deliberate early-game event to show off the shiny coat of paint of graphics, animations, and a random deathclaw spawn to hide the fact that most of the classic RPG mechanics were removed or dumbed down for a Fallout-themed Borderlands game.
-
-
-
The "I killed my own son on sight without knowing it was my son yet" kinda fallout player.
I love new Vegas and I still think it's the best fallout game all around, but it is absolutely getting long in the tooth. Even with HEAVY modding the game is showing its age at this point.
I just want a new vegas refresh/remaster that adds some life to the game and adds some modern creature comforts to the game.
-
giving it the same treatment that oblivion got, plus inviting the original devs to finish the things they wanted and make tweaks to the game, might be the single most redeeming thing bethesda could do.
-
-
Uhhh, we're 76 players?
-
NV > 1 > 2 > 3 > 4
For DLC/expansions New Vegas hit a home run, though 3 does have some good add on content.
There are no other Fallout games, I will accept no argument or evidence that says otherwise.
-
i've said for years now that FO4 is a good game (depending on what you consider important, but like clearly a lot of people enjoy it) BUT it's not a fallout game.
bethesda has shown over and over and over again that they can only make the same game wearing different costumes, and they aren't very good at making the costumes.
If they could be convinced to actually make something slightly different i think they could make sort of the ideal VR game, it'd just be a big world filled with details and environmental storytelling and all you do is explore and fight stuff, without bogging it down with attempts at being a proper RPG with a story and stuff.
-
Agreed. The meme of Fallout 3 just being ‘Oblivion with guns’ wasn’t unfair - they legitimately did a reskin.
I genuinely enjoyed FO4 for some of the survival elements like crafting and outpost building, but it felt very hollow in the world, plot, and setting. I was more invested in the railroad storyline than finding my kid.
When raiders get friggin power armor or the Brotherhood have a functional zeppelin gunship, I’m completely taken out of the “post apocalyptic” theming and scouring for resources feels trite.
-
-
-
Fallout 3 is objectively the best game in the Franchise. NV is for little babies who don't have the cognitive capacitiy to make decision on their own, so they only play games with linear level design.
-
43 comments