So, almost everybody knows that both Fallout the first and the second are amazing classics, which every player should play and respect (and worship!), but how about the viewpoints of newer games of the whole series?

I start myself, in chronological order:

Fallout Tactics

Gonna be honest with this one: I hacked my character to a point he was overly good at everything via character editor (it gave some humorous side effects as well).

Despite not being "a true fallout", it had some very good things in my opinion: extremely crispy graphics which has aged well and excellent combat.

TBH, if Fallout 1-2 would be remade in HD, I'd use the same engine what Tactics has...

Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel

Fact number one: It's a bad, bad Fallout game.
Fact number two: It's much, much enjoyable it CO-OP.

I actually enjoyed this a bit, mainly due CO-OP. It's simple ARPG, which says that it's Fallout. Worst offender IMO is that there's totally wrong music in game - Slipknot just doesn't cut. Even in last fight. Just no.

Fallout 3

Oh boy. I waited this game very, very, very much. "A new Fallout?! Count me in, boys!"

Too bad it didn't reclaim the hype I had on it. "I didn't ask for this."

Don't get me wrong, Fallout 3 WASN'T terribad game, no. It proved that Fallout series works on 3D and from 1st person viewpoint. Skill system revamp gave better reasons to use other skills (though lockpick and science are still, the best you can really get). Also, it really didn't bother that it was in East Coast.

What really annoyed me that it didn't couldn't make me interested enough. Something was missing. A sharp stick poking me. Itch that needed a scratch. Despite some good things, it deliver. Endless metro tunnels to go through. Some copy-paste locations. Story which didn't deliver in the end and not so interesting NPC either. It was a shame.

DLC wise, I'd raise both The Pitt and Point Lookout as the best DLCs of the game. Others were decent or worse. Those two were the best IMO.

Too bad Fallout 3 wasn't so good as I wanted to be...

Fallout: New Vegas

...But holy hell. FNV was different caste. A real sequel (or at least, closest to real sequel) to Fallout 1-2 (aka West Coast)? Better story with better writing, voice acting and NPCs? Landscape with more unique places in it? Moar loot to be looted? Hardcore mode to make vanilla a bit tougher (still, it's relatively easy on V. Hard - Same with Fallout 3, mind you)? Skill system improved from Fallout 3 even more (Still, Science is too good for it's own good. But that's my opinion)? New Vegas was something, what third SHOULD'VE been: a proper sequel, with spirit of the originals, yet something own of it's own.

DLC wise, Old World Blues is probably the best DLC is long time, in any game. Dead Money? Good atmosphere, but annoying at times. Honest Hearts? Rather mediocre. Lonesome Road? Pretty much same with Dead Money.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------

Now that being said, how about you people? What's your overall impression or level of enjoyment received from newer games of the series?

Fallout had great atmosphere and story. Even after playing the game for 15 years I still manage to find something new from time to time. A lot of effort went into making this game balanced for all character types. Some builds may have a harder time than others but I have yet to find a character that can't finish the game. I have also pumped up "useless" skills and found unexpected benefits from high levels. Whenever I see someone who says that a particular skill is useless I think that they just aren't using it correctly.

Fallout 2 was bigger, badder and funner in almost every way. There were more perks, side quests and weapons along with improved companions and a much larger world. However the, now dated, pop culture references and silly easter eggs took away much of the dark, hopeless atmosphere from the first game. The story was okay, but I felt it relied a bit too much on events from the original. Everywhere you went there was some reference that stood out and said "Hey! Remember this from Fallout 1!"

I felt that Tactics was a good game in and of itself, but it would have gotten a better reception if it did not have the Fallout name attached. It felt more like a post apocalyptic Jagged Alliance than a Fallout game. I did like the way it handled the turn based/real time combat decision. And more tactical games should let you crouch or go prone. I never finished it years ago, mainly because I wanted a third Fallout RPG experience. Maybe I should dig out the disc and try again.

BOS I rented for the PlayStation and never went beyond that. I was highly skeptical of a Fallout game made for a console and playing it didn't help any. Plus as a general rule I hate ARPGs, I find them to be little more than button mashers with XP.

The announcement of Fallout 3 was very exciting for me. I waited until Bethesda put out their minimum and recommended system requirement and I built a new PC specifically to play this game. I found the change of location to be refreshing. Just about every post apocalyptic game I had played took place in the southwestern US desert. It was nice to see how other pockets of civilization were developing. I did have some issues with the game. There were a lot of very interesting locations and I absolutely loved the subway stations. By contrast there were some places that just felt sterile and empty like they ran out of time and didn't finish all of the game, kind of like Broken Hills in FO2. I also found the game to be too easy. That's when I dove into the Mod scene. I used a number of mods and even created a few myself. Fallout 3 was a good first attempt with a new IP for the developers, but thanks to mods I can now play a great Fallout game.

I never played New Vegas. When my love for Fallout met my hatred of Steam it was a long hard fight where hate won a Pyrric victory.

I havent played Tactics but Fallout 3 is my favourite in the series. A good sense of homour and a fantastic grim setting. Nothing for me to complain about... and then there is New Vegas... The same thing with a boring plot, boring setting and way too much bugs.

I have no idea why New Vegas is any better then Fallout 3 considering it's pretty much a badly made expansion pack.

Tactics.

Has the best tactical combat in the series, neat graphics that look decent even today.
It's to Fallout what Icewind Dale is to Baldurs Gate. There is a story (on rails) and some (light) roleplay.
But the story is shallow, not very good and opposes canon.

I like it maybe more than it deserves, but it's real fun to clear a room of raiders with pump action shotguns,
or butcher supermutants with .50 cal machinegun. Vehicles are a nice addition as well.

FO3

Loved it. Sneaking about and exploring the wastes felt real for the first time. It was totally awesome to skulk around, see supermutants in the distance, a goup of raiders there and plan the route accordingly. Hated the level scaling and much of the plot.

FO:NV

FO4 it was not, but a well made expansion. Loved just about every single change or new feature it had. Liked the setting, plot, characters and sidequests better than FO3. Tastes vary of course, but the general halted feeling in the wasteland/desert, with everybody expecting things to go bad pretty soon fit my tastes like a glove.

Almost too much of that old FO2 feel and old friends though. Kind of think it'd have made a better game eg. without the mutant village, rather spending the effort towards the factions central to the plot.


--
Oh yah. All the FO3 and NV DLC's were worthless. Yes. Including the ones generally well liked.

Fallout 3:
First fallout game I played, loved it, was kind of short and too easy though, still loved it.
Never played the DLCs.

Fallout NV:
The next fallout game I played, years later, my favorite game of all time, basically best game ever, what else can you say?
Playing fallout 1 and 2 and then new vegas again made the game even better, since I know had a lot more background knowledge.
It is exactly what it should be - a modern and even better version of the original games.

fallout 2:
the third fallout I played, liked it very much, the only thing that bothered me is the sometimes annoying UI.
Still playable today and enjoyable.
a fantastic game overall

fallout: tactics:
a very good tactics game, but I really miss the RPG part, so I never even finished the game.
I also don't really like to control such large groups of characters.
I also really loved the looks and combat though, a new fallout game with that engine would still be fantastic even today.

fallout 1:
the last fallout 1 played.
It's also a very good game, but the UI is even more annoying than in fallout 2 and also I feel like the dialouges and quests are often kind of buggy and your actions aren't always registered properly by the game.

haven't played the console game.

My ranking would be this:

1. Fallout: NV
2.-3. Fallout 3 & Fallout 2
4. Fallout: Tactics
5. Fallout 1