It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Pheace: CC seems the most obvious to me
avatar
amok: the good news is that you can ignore CC completely. it is just mods only, and you can get them elsewhere like Nexus. I got over 100 hours on F4 now, and never clicked that button once
Well i can't get them at Nexus the prick owner banned me forever
Post edited June 05, 2018 by fr33kSh0w2012
avatar
Qwertyman: I'm actually a pretty big fan of most of Bethesda's games. Yeah, I wish they would have continued to make Fallout games isometric, turn-based RGPs, but I still ended up enjoying Fallout 3 and NV quite a bit. Never did play 4. I had a blast with Dishonored, though I never played the second one. I'm a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls games. And some of their non-series games like Prey and Rage were actually pretty solid.

All that said, if the Kotaku article ends up being correct, then my interest in the game will have went from 100% to 0%. I'm just not into online-only survival FPS's. Not my thing.

We'll see I suppose.
avatar
tinyE: better, Fallout 3 or NV? I have stumbled upon very dissenting opinions here.
I leaning toward NV and then #3.
NV is a better RPG, has better factions, better storylines, interesting quest lines, dialogue and DLC. It also added iron sights, which was an improvement on shooting mechanics than Fallout 3. I enjoyed 3 a lot more than I did 4, but I played and enjoyed 4 for entirely different reasons, mostly because mods made playing legos with settlements a lot more enjoyable than the vanilla game offered, even after the DLC workshop releases. Far Harbor was actually a very good DLC, and I kind of wish their writing team put as much effort into the main storyline as they did in that one particular area.

3, has its own flaws and issues, mainly in its braindead writing, but it has some interesting areas, some interesting quests and some interesting DLC.

If I was going to make a list, it'd probably be as follows.

1. Fallout 1. (Despite the time limit keeping me from really enjoying the sandbox, it's the progenitor and really captured a hostile atmosphere through the excellent Aphex Twin inspired soundtrack that Mark Morgan put together.)

2. Fallout NV. (It had everything I wanted in a modern successor to the isometric games. Elements from Van Buren, a real continuation to 2's story, updated combat from 3, better dialogues, stories, world, quests, better crafting, and interesting philosophies and factions.)

3. Fallout 2. (Yeah, the pop culture references can be tiring, but it still has a lot of the atmosphere that 1 had, along with another excellent soundtrack from Mark Morgan, with some no brainer upgrades from 1, no time limits, more factions, more towns, more stories, more stuff, more everything. I will still fire this up without reservation.)

4. Fallout 3. (This, unlike 4, actually did try to create a Fallout RPG, as opposed to 4's being a Fallout themed RPG, but we'll get to that. Like I said, it had some interesting locations, a large world to explore, and despite me hating what they did with the Brotherhood, and the retarded main story line in the vanilla version, I played it to completion multiple times, with multiple characters and will fire it up once a year.)

5. Fallout Tactics. (I'm a tactical RPG nerd. I love games like Jagged Alliance, FF: Tactics, Shadowrun, etc. Yes, it does have some pretty tedious management aspects, yes, it strayed away from core BoS values quite a bit, and yes, the battles could get long and arduous, but it was still pretty decent, and that's why it ranks just a little higher than 4 for me.)

6. Fallout 4. (Man, oh man. While I didn't buy into original hype and get this at launch and/or pre-order it, I did get it fairly early and I was so unimpressed by the main storyline, that to this day, I have yet to finish it. It's Borderlands wearing a Fallout skin suit and completely disregards a lot of what makes Fallout, well...Fallout. Shit dialogue, shit dialogue wheel, really uninspired factions, aside from the BoS actually returning to their core roots and values. What actually saved this game for me was the settlement building aspect, and mods for the settlement building aspect. Even after workshop DLCs, Beth missed some glaring options that should have been included with any GOOD building game, which is 1, the ability to remove all debris, 2, the ability to literally scrap everything in your building range, so you can start with a blank canvas and really create immersive towns, 3, better and easier settler management, which required mods to really fix and make worthwhile, 4, bugged out shop vendors that sometimes would just never appear, even when they were scripted to, 5, the ability to build wherever you wanted to, within reason. I mean, sometimes you really like a location and the ability to just plunk down and build would have been a great addition. I will mention that the DLC is hit or miss. Far Harbor's probably the best of a mediocre batch, as Nukaworld was just...meh. I mean, being able to create your own raider gang should have been an option from the getgo, but that just further proves me point about 4 being a bad RPG. That does not make it a bad game, per se, but it does really remove a core immersiveness that I feel is integral to what makes a Fallout game feel like a Fallout game. This is just my opinion and of course, people are free to agree or disagree.

7. Fallout: BoS (The only reason this is higher than Shelter is because I liked Dark Alliance style games. This was terrible.)

8. Fallout: Babysitter (It was a neat idea at first, but it really becomes tedious after extended play, and even having an updated exploration mod wasn't enough to make it more enjoyable.)
avatar
tinyE: better, Fallout 3 or NV? I have stumbled upon very dissenting opinions here.
I leaning toward NV and then #3.
avatar
LiquidOxygen80:
JESUS! Can't really ask for any more info can I? :P THANK YOU

I am not a fan of the first two. First time I played it and I started seeing movement points I said "No". I know TBS is a wildly popular genre but when I attack something I don't want to keep being told, 'You have two more points left (before you have to stand there defenseless while everyone takes shots at you)' :P

So I'll start with NV, IF I ever get my good PC back. :D
avatar
tinyE: So I'll start with NV, IF I ever get my good PC back. :D
While I strongly agree that NV is better, I'd recommend playing FO3 first. Simply because I'd find it harder to enjoy the 'lesser' game after playing the better one.
GR00T makes a solid point.
avatar
tinyE: GR00T makes a solid point.
And don't get me wrong: I had a blast with FO3 and thought it was a great, fun game. But I found NV to be much better.
avatar
tinyE: GR00T makes a solid point.
avatar
GR00T: And don't get me wrong: I had a blast with FO3 and thought it was a great, fun game. But I found NV to be much better.
except Dead Money DLC. that was a horrendous slog.
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: 8. Fallout: Babysitter (It was a neat idea at first, but it really becomes tedious after extended play, and even having an updated exploration mod wasn't enough to make it more enjoyable.)
Do you mean Fallout Shelter? Cause I actually really enjoyed that one :D
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: 7. Fallout: BoS (The only reason this is higher than Shelter is because I liked Dark Alliance style games. This was terrible.)
I absolutely loved all of the BGDA games that came out around that time, except for one. That "Fallout" game was the first game I ever returned to the store simply because I was downright offended by it. I guess it shows what we could've expected from Interplay, had they kept the franchise. In retrospect, though, they only pissed me off by doing the same thing every other Fallout-named game seemed intent on doing: nerfing my favorite weapon. Turing the turbo plasma rifle into some sort of multibeam laser weapon was a little over the top, though. Plus disrespecting The Bomb: making radiation just a form of poison (probably due to the fantasy roots of the engine), and all things that glow, and only things that glow are radioactive (a mistake made by Tactics as well, although to be fair 2 was heading in that direction). Of course disrespecting The Bomb is one of my main gripes against 3 as well, given that the destruction of DC looks more like WW2 conventional damage than the aftermath of even a single nuclear strike (and don't get me started on Megaton's pathetic bomb). In fact, the sort of fighting that was going on in the capital at the time of the game could easily have produced the damage we see; it's almost as if DC completely avoided the nukes.
I will keep saying this: I don't care what Bethesda does with the franchise, I will always be happy with 1 through New Vegas.
avatar
StingingVelvet: I just try to take games for what they are. Fallout 3 lacks in those areas dramatically, but it's very fun for what it is IMO. New Vegas is maybe in my top ten games at this point and Fallout 3 wouldn't get into the top 100, but it is what it is.
avatar
GreasyDogMeat: I guess I hold Fallout 3 in higher regards as I judged it less as a Fallout game and more as their 'next game after Oblivion' and found it to be a HUGE improvement in almost every regard.
I can see that. I thought Skyrim was a huge improvement on both Oblivion and Fallout 3 in a lot of writing and such areas, but Fallout 4 was probably a step back again. Obsidian really blew them out of the water all around IMO, and I'm not an Obsidian fanboy... Pillars of Eternity was surprisingly meh in my opinion and Alpha Protocol is too flawed to love.
@LiquidOxygen80
Great list and reasons! With the exception of Tactics my list is almost the same. For whatever reason that game just became a chore for me despite loving the X-COM series. I don't put it low on my list as an insult though, its obvious that a lot of love and care went into that game. Far more than the console BoS game which I rated a bit higher because I have a thing for console action RPGs... even bad ones.

avatar
kizuxtheo: I will keep saying this: I don't care what Bethesda does with the franchise, I will always be happy with 1 through New Vegas.
As much as I rag on Bethesda for certain decisions they made if nothing else we got Fallout 3 & New Vegas with them owning the franchise. So... well said.
avatar
LiquidOxygen80: ...
Mainly I agree with that list. Only I would put 2 on the first spot, (yes, even higher than 1) and I would switch BOS and 4.

Or, focusing on Bethesda's track record: FO3 was OK. NV was good. But with FO4 they really dropped the ball. So not sure what to expect from the next entry. But since they aren't going to release it DRM-free, it's a moot point anyhow, since I'm not going to buy it.
Honestly, a lot of my list was based on my personal preferences and biases, which I fully admit to. Shelter probably does deserve a higher spot than BoS does, but I've just grown so bored with that style of mobile game in general, that just the thought seems more like work than entertainment, which is how I judge enjoyment level in whether or not I think a game will "go the distance."

1 being at 1 is probably more of a nostalgia choice for me, as if I were really being honest with myself, NV would probably be number 1, bugs and all, because I always have multiple playthroughs on deck with it, and there's never been a point where I've ever uninstalled it, much like 2. 1 was my first Fallout game, and I played it when I was in high school, thinking that this was what an RPG should be, as I've mentioned in other threads that I've never had a large amount of fondness for games based and rooted in fantasy, like D&D, unless it was immersive. (With the exception of Dark Alliance, which was fast paced and actiony, along with darker fantasy realms like Warhammer, or KuF, or Kohan, or LotR.)

Things like Shadowrun, Cyberpunk, Arcanum, Bloodlines, Alpha Protocol or Deus Ex are right up my alley and scratches my itch in a way that stereotypical fantasy probably never will.

1's biggest flaw was the time limit. I'd have way more hours spent with it if it wasn't for that one factor, because I really enjoyed the feeling of really venturing out into this huge scary unknown wasteland, then ultimately being told that you'll never really have the time to explore every nook and cranny, except via multiple playthroughs. Even with the water merchant deals, you still have that to contend with, and it really hangs an air of disappointment over every playthrough I've had with it recently. I still very much enjoy it, and I REALLY enjoy its soundtrack, its villains, its factions, and the fact that unlike Bethesda's iterations, has super mutants that are very much in full control of their faculties, are confident in their own superiority, highly intelligent and well designed.

As for 2? Frank Horigan. So much to find, so much to do, so much to explore, so many options. Yeah, I get that the pop culture references are dated and its a lot like how annoying Gearbox made Claptrap's meme related jokes in Borderlands 2, delivered with all the aplomb of Peter Griffin falling through the stairs in Family Guy. But I feel like it makes up for it in so many other ways, you really can't hold it against the game's writing.
I pretty much could have written the same post, LiquidOxygen.