Which Fallout game is best of these 3

Kyleran

Grunty said:

I didn't like the way S.P.E.C.I.A.L and the perks worked in FO4.  You couldn't make a gibbering cretin with off the charts Charisma.

Yes you could,  I did one playthrough with Charisma at 10 and intelligence at like 3.

Grunty

Kyleran said:

Grunty said:

I didn't like the way S.P.E.C.I.A.L and the perks worked in FO4.  You couldn't make a gibbering cretin with off the charts Charisma.

Yes you could,  I did one playthrough with Charisma at 10 and intelligence at like 3.

Not with the idiot response choices to NPC chats you had available in 3 and NV.

ConstantineMerus

Kyleran said:

Grunty said:

I didn't like the way S.P.E.C.I.A.L and the perks worked in FO4.  You couldn't make a gibbering cretin with off the charts Charisma.

Yes you could,  I did one playthrough with Charisma at 10 and intelligence at like 3.

There's an irony in there... Hmm..

someforumguy

GOTY Fallout NV. It was an improvement over FO3 for me.

FO4 became boring very fast. I even made sure to play it with mods to make the character customisation more interesting. The quests were very boring because of how limited the dialogue options are. The settlement building is annoying because of how bad the system works (out of the box), so I used sim settlements mod to auto build them. All in all I think I just prefer more RPG in that sandbox. The only redeeming factor for me was the improved combat.

Kyleran

Grunty said:

Kyleran said:

Grunty said:

I didn't like the way S.P.E.C.I.A.L and the perks worked in FO4.  You couldn't make a gibbering cretin with off the charts Charisma.

Yes you could,  I did one playthrough with Charisma at 10 and intelligence at like 3.

Not with the idiot response choices to NPC chats you had available in 3 and NV.

Think you just gave me my next build when I do a replay of FNV, I'm curious to see what the charismatic idiot response choices are.

Kyleran

MisterZebub said:

DMKano said:

My vote goes to FO3 as the best one on the list

Mmmm. I'd say my favorite is Fallout NV, but yeah I agree FO 3 holds together best. In my not so humble opinion, none of the three hold a candle to the original Fallout 1 and 2. Turning it into an FPS RPG really sucked a lot of the life out of the game world for me.

That's how I felt when I played FO3 when it first came out. I don't recall it much, but my disappointment over the switch to FPS RPG meant I didn't try FNV until just last year. (Nor will I replay FO3)

I can hold a grudge for a very long time.

Bloodaxes

Scorchien said:

Thanks for all the great feedback folks , went with Fallout NV and all DLC only 20$ ...

Since no one seems to have mentioned it, something to be weary if you're like me with Fallout New Vegas Ultimate Edition is that it starts you with a shitton of weaponry.

This may be good or bad depending on the person. It's true you can opt to not use them, but why give them to me from the get go if I shouldn't use them? It ruined the balance early on. So, keep that in mind if you haven't started the game yet.

Maurgrim

None, Fallout series are overrated.

Kyleran

Maurgrim said:

None, Fallout series are overrated.

None.

How would you know then?

I could say FIFA soccer is overrated but having never played any on what basis could I make such a statement?

Perhaps it's something you read?  Your brother in law did play and told you so?

Kyleran

Bloodaxes said:

Scorchien said:

Thanks for all the great feedback folks , went with Fallout NV and all DLC only 20$ ...

Since no one seems to have mentioned it, something to be weary if you're like me with Fallout New Vegas Ultimate Edition is that it starts you with a shitton of weaponry.

This may be good or bad depending on the person. It's true you can opt to not use them, but why give them to me from the get go if I shouldn't use them? It ruined the balance early on. So, keep that in mind if you haven't started the game yet.

I played the GOTY edition and don't recall starting out with any over powered weapons, but I didn't follow the story line.

Early on I forged directly east of the starter town and battled endless rad scorps with my trusty .22 calibur squirrel rifle, the double barrel shot gun and a lot of save / reloads.

I like extra challenge. 

I just remembered FNV seemed to have a bit smarter enemy NPC AI.  In my rad scorp adventure I would snipe them from high cover but it would take 2-4 shots to kill depending if I got crits or not.

They would start off running a standard patrol pattern but once I started putting shots in them if they couldn't reach my position they often would retreat out of range or not come out from behind the hills and walls.

This forced me to shift position or even come down to the canyon floor where the double barrel was instrumental in finishing them (and save / reload for trying again)

Assassination squads and deathclaws often exhibited similar tactics.  FO4 NPCs didn't seem to be quite as smart, I could almost always bait them into coming after me, even if I was in high cover.

Bloodaxes

Kyleran said:

Bloodaxes said:

Scorchien said:

Thanks for all the great feedback folks , went with Fallout NV and all DLC only 20$ ...

Since no one seems to have mentioned it, something to be weary if you're like me with Fallout New Vegas Ultimate Edition is that it starts you with a shitton of weaponry.

This may be good or bad depending on the person. It's true you can opt to not use them, but why give them to me from the get go if I shouldn't use them? It ruined the balance early on. So, keep that in mind if you haven't started the game yet.

I played the GOTY edition and don't recall starting out with any over powered weapons, but I didn't follow the story line.

Early on I forged directly east of the starter town and battled endless rad scorps with my trusty .22 calibur squirrel rifle, the double barrel shot gun and a lot of save / reloads.

I like extra challenge. 

I just remembered FNV seemed to have a bit smarter enemy NPC AI.  In my rad scorp adventure I would snipe them from high cover but it would take 2-4 shots to kill depending if I got crits or not.

They would start off running a standard patrol pattern but once I started putting shots in them if they couldn't reach my position they often would retreat out of range or not come out from behind the hills and walls.

This forced me to shift position or even come down to the canyon floor where the double barrel was instrumental in finishing them (and save / reload for trying again)

Assassination squads and deathclaws often exhibited similar tactics.  FO4 NPCs didn't seem to be quite as smart, I could almost always bait them into coming after me, even if I was in high cover.

I haven't played it for long, but I distinctly remember when you launch the game you get a prompt from every dlc you have and giving you some items from the get go. I had grenade launchers, laser guns, snipers and what not from level 1. 

Aethaeryn

I liked the depth of Vegas. . some new ideas in 4. . but
I am going to go with 3.  Simple. . fun.  It was the most straight-up enjoyable for me.  Solid tight story etc.

Aethaeryn

thunderC said:

Fallout 3 was my personal favorite. Something about fallout 3 captured that Americana 1950's vibe so well, It was very immersive. Dont get me wrong i love all 3 of the games but New Vegas felt a little too sci-fi and Fallout 4"s explorable world didn't feel quite as massive in scale to me despite actually being larger (I think). 

This was my experience as well.  I will also add (shamefully) that Fallout 3 is one of the few games I finished in one "run".  Typically I move on about 70% through a lot of games and come back later. . maybe depending on backlog.  FO3 got me through to the end without leaving it.  Pretty rare for me (It is a problem).

Kyleran

Bloodaxes said: hu

Kyleran said:

Bloodaxes said:

Scorchien said:

Thanks for all the great feedback folks , went with Fallout NV and all DLC only 20$ ...

Since no one seems to have mentioned it, something to be weary if you're like me with Fallout New Vegas Ultimate Edition is that it starts you with a shitton of weaponry.

This may be good or bad depending on the person. It's true you can opt to not use them, but why give them to me from the get go if I shouldn't use them? It ruined the balance early on. So, keep that in mind if you haven't started the game yet.

I played the GOTY edition and don't recall starting out with any over powered weapons, but I didn't follow the story line.

Early on I forged directly east of the starter town and battled endless rad scorps with my trusty .22 calibur squirrel rifle, the double barrel shot gun and a lot of save / reloads.

I like extra challenge. 

I just remembered FNV seemed to have a bit smarter enemy NPC AI.  In my rad scorp adventure I would snipe them from high cover but it would take 2-4 shots to kill depending if I got crits or not.

They would start off running a standard patrol pattern but once I started putting shots in them if they couldn't reach my position they often would retreat out of range or not come out from behind the hills and walls.

This forced me to shift position or even come down to the canyon floor where the double barrel was instrumental in finishing them (and save / reload for trying again)

Assassination squads and deathclaws often exhibited similar tactics.  FO4 NPCs didn't seem to be quite as smart, I could almost always bait them into coming after me, even if I was in high cover.

I haven't played it for long, but I distinctly remember when you launch the game you get a prompt from every dlc you have and giving you some items from the get go. I had grenade launchers, laser guns, snipers and what not from level 1. 

When I reinstall I'll watch for that. I recall the gunner dlc loading some special weapons or. Mods being available for sale but I never had enough caps to really buy any.

Perhaps my trusty squirrel rifle and double barrel were some of the OP weapons you speak of.  

I do recall using the grenade launcher much later on to tackle death claws at range, but early on they gave no advantage.

dlld

New vegas was equal or better then fallout 3 in about every way except the map funnelling you in a quite linear path although that only really became an issue on additional play throughs (of which there was many on my end). But I really enjoyed 3 even though it seems popular to hate on it.

Fallout 4 is technically a better game, the mechanics of the direct game/gunplay graphics and so on, the story wasn't necessarily bad, it was alright but it just didn't really fit with the kind of game it is, unless you're the person who skips all the sidequests and 100% focus the mainquest. The DLCs were quite disappointing too. FO4 was good but when you compared it to it's main competitor witcher 3 it felt like it just didn't really do enough to move itself forward which is probably it's biggest flaw over anything else. Voted new vegas.

Bloodaxes

Torval said:

dlld said:

New vegas was equal or better then fallout 3 in about every way except the map funnelling you in a quite linear path although that only really became an issue on additional play throughs (of which there was many on my end). But I really enjoyed 3 even though it seems popular to hate on it.

Map funneling seems to be an Obsidian design trait. Pillars is like that too. The games look open on the surface but after a short play time the linearity stands out. NV did a better job hiding it than Pillars, but the side-story DLCs feel bolted on in the clunkiest fashion.

They also share some mechanics Pillars and NV share a version of the reputation system. They're not identical but nearly so and the most obvious of their ported systems.

This thread has made me want to play FO3 so I can compare. If it hits $5 in the fall sale I'll pick it up.

If you don't mind using such sites: https://www.allkeyshop.com/blog/catalogue/search-fallout+3/

It's a search engine listing all other key selling sites. I really like using it because it keeps updates on what games are discounted, which games are the most played, and it also has a news section that shows new games being released and such. 

(I've been looking at that site more than here if I have to be honest)

Panther2103

New Vegas was the best IMO. 

I enjoyed all 3 of them though. 

Maurgrim

Kyleran said:

Maurgrim said:

None, Fallout series are overrated.

None.

How would you know then?

I could say FIFA soccer is overrated but having never played any on what basis could I make such a statement?

Perhaps it's something you read?  Your brother in law did play and told you so?

Played all Fallout games since the first one, sure they are OK games not writing home about so yeah they are overrated.

Robsolf

Kyleran said:

Grunty said:

I didn't like the way S.P.E.C.I.A.L and the perks worked in FO4.  You couldn't make a gibbering cretin with off the charts Charisma.

Yes you could,  I did one playthrough with Charisma at 10 and intelligence at like 3.

As we've come to find in the social media age, that, in no way, defies reality.

Kyleran

Torval said:

dlld said:

New vegas was equal or better then fallout 3 in about every way except the map funnelling you in a quite linear path although that only really became an issue on additional play throughs (of which there was many on my end). But I really enjoyed 3 even though it seems popular to hate on it.

Map funneling seems to be an Obsidian design trait. Pillars is like that too. The games look open on the surface but after a short play time the linearity stands out. NV did a better job hiding it than Pillars, but the side-story DLCs feel bolted on in the clunkiest fashion.

They also share some mechanics Pillars and NV share a version of the reputation system. They're not identical but nearly so and the most obvious of their ported systems.

This thread has made me want to play FO3 so I can compare. If it hits $5 in the fall sale I'll pick it up.

I thought of picking up FO3 but Steam didn't actually make it easy to find, and when I finally did it came with a warning that FO3 wasn't optimised to run on versions of Windows 7 or higher.

I have Win 7, anyone know if there is any serious problems running FO3 on it?

Gobstopper3D

Depends on what you find most important.  For me it's New Vegas.  I think it has the best mix of story and shooter elements of all of them.  FO4 is more of a shooter with a streamlined RPG or RPG elements and FO3 is better on story, but the shooter aspect isn't all that good, imo.

I have tried different builds, but always end up with Sniper/Stealth as my favorite.  Better for new players as well.

Kayo83

New Vegas IMO, followed by 3, then 4. Cant go wrong with NV or 3... both excellent games. Even though Id give NV the win, 3 isnt far behind.

Fallout 4 is a product of the time it was released in, unfortunately. Much easier, with hand holding convenience and even less "open" than before overall. Good game none the less its just ... ill put it this way ... you are less likely to replay 4 or even continue much past post-game than the other two. Fallout 3 and NV? I still play those. Fallout 4 I played a few days after beating it then it collected dust for a few months before I decided to sell it back.

JeffSpicoli

Kayo83 said:

Fallout 4 is a product of the time it was released in, 

You pretty much nailed why FO4 is last on my list. I can't help but wonder if I'll be applying that same sentence a month or 2 from now after playing FO 76 Because based on what we know it sure feels that way.

Kyleran

OG_Zorvan said:

Kyleran said:

Torval said:

dlld said:

New vegas was equal or better then fallout 3 in about every way except the map funnelling you in a quite linear path although that only really became an issue on additional play throughs (of which there was many on my end). But I really enjoyed 3 even though it seems popular to hate on it.

Map funneling seems to be an Obsidian design trait. Pillars is like that too. The games look open on the surface but after a short play time the linearity stands out. NV did a better job hiding it than Pillars, but the side-story DLCs feel bolted on in the clunkiest fashion.

They also share some mechanics Pillars and NV share a version of the reputation system. They're not identical but nearly so and the most obvious of their ported systems.

This thread has made me want to play FO3 so I can compare. If it hits $5 in the fall sale I'll pick it up.

I thought of picking up FO3 but Steam didn't actually make it easy to find, and when I finally did it came with a warning that FO3 wasn't optimised to run on versions of Windows 7 or higher.

I have Win 7, anyone know if there is any serious problems running FO3 on it?

I never had any issues with it on Windows 7 that I can recall. But I always get the "unofficial patches" when playing FO/TES games, so that could be a reason as to why. Also, FO 3 was never given an official LAA .exe that I'm aware, so you'll need to do that yourself for the game to use more than 2gbs of ram ( Gamebryo, king of the shit engines ). Nexus should have an LAA patch along with the unoffical patches.

Thanks for the info, much appreciated but generally I'm far too lazy to do anything but push the "begin install" button.

AlBQuirky

Kyleran said:

Torval said:

dlld said:

New vegas was equal or better then fallout 3 in about every way except the map funnelling you in a quite linear path although that only really became an issue on additional play throughs (of which there was many on my end). But I really enjoyed 3 even though it seems popular to hate on it.

Map funneling seems to be an Obsidian design trait. Pillars is like that too. The games look open on the surface but after a short play time the linearity stands out. NV did a better job hiding it than Pillars, but the side-story DLCs feel bolted on in the clunkiest fashion.

They also share some mechanics Pillars and NV share a version of the reputation system. They're not identical but nearly so and the most obvious of their ported systems.

This thread has made me want to play FO3 so I can compare. If it hits $5 in the fall sale I'll pick it up.

I thought of picking up FO3 but Steam didn't actually make it easy to find, and when I finally did it came with a warning that FO3 wasn't optimised to run on versions of Windows 7 or higher.

I have Win 7, anyone know if there is any serious problems running FO3 on it?

It's a Bethesda game, of course there are bugs! I also run Win 7 and had no major problems with FO3. There are mods for Fallout just like mods for The Elder Scroll series. I don't recall anything majorly game breaking when I first played it.

GoG has all the Fallout games in their library, except Fallout 4.