Kotaku Ranks The Fallouts

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Because I feel like trolling Tagaziel, here is a newspost about Kotaku ranking the Fallouts. Just the main ones, no spin-offs, except she includes New Vegas, which is a spin-off. Spoiler: it goes 2-3-New Vegas-1.<blockquote>Full disclosure: this entry has a lot of personal significance for me—it altered how I viewed America and its politics, and it gave me a safe space to explore my sexual identity. But objectively, I see it as the pinnacle of what Fallout has to offer: a zany, post-apocalyptic game with an incredible amount of choice, a smart critique of American ideals—all packaged in a more cerebral genre than the modern titles. (It's a turn-based RPG.) The modern games feel too easy by comparison, and not in the good way.

This is a game where you can choose to strategize a way to get to the final boss in 30 minutes (it's very difficult, but do-able)—or opt to explore for dozens of hours. And if you do decide to explore, you can do all sorts of stuff—from becoming a porn star or a made-man, to being able to talk to the AI responsible for ending the world. It's the sort of freedom and versatility that most modern games that brag about "choice," and "consequences" can't touch.</blockquote>Personally I think I'd go 1-2-New Vegas-Tactics-3-BoS (which I never finished), with 1-2 not far apart and Tactics-3 also close together as spinoffs. What about you guys?
 
Hm...

Fo1 - FNV - Fo2 - Tactics - Fo3.

Though, Fo2 / FNV is pretty much on the same level for me.
 
Brother None's rankings match what I'd probably end up going with after a round of deliberation that would be far too long for such a frivolous question. 1 and 2 are so close for me that, depending on the criteria I feel like using that day, 2 sometimes takes the lead. 2 is also so flawed, though, and New Vegas manages to avoid most of those flaws so well, that I'm often tempted to commit the sacrilege of bumping NV up to second place and knocking 2 down to (a near dead-even) third.
 
There's already a topic about this ridiculous top in another subforum, would have been cool to link it.

BN's rankings match mine too, but I'd probably not rate FOT so low.
 
Brother None said:
Personally I think I'd go 1-2-New Vegas-Tactics-3-BoS (which I never finished), with 1-2 not far apart and Tactics-3 also close together as spinoffs. What about you guys?
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly concur.

FO1 was the best, since it had the best setting and was coherent/consistent in setting, story and mood. While not without issues and in retrospec too short (I did not think this at the time though), I remember it most fondly of all.

FO2 was great in it that it fixed a lot of annoying problems with the interface (correct change, inventory, etc) & gameplay (follower, etc). It was however inconsistent in setting, story & mood. The quality of the location also differs greatly.

As for the others listed... Well, if FO1/FO2 were motorcycles then by comparison the others are bicycles (and some are tricycles at best). ;)
 
Izual said:
There's already a topic about this ridiculous top in another subforum, would have been cool to link it.

BN's rankings match mine too, but I'd probably not rate FOT so low.
Click to expand...

Oh heh. Didn't see that. I usually move threads like those into the news forum in those cases. Ah well.
 
Smart bastards - they kill two birds with one stone! Not only do they place F1 last, but also don't place F3 first! Now they can get so much traffic from angry fans. But hey, don't listen to the cynical me, it's not like Kotaku is known for nerd-baiting, or anything...
 
The comments section makes me wonder how come the "amusement park" styled games that Beth pulls off resonate so well with so many people? I mean are they not bothered from the lack of coherent and logical setting (+godawful writing) or do a large portion just write it off "it is a game: its not supposed to make sense"? :?

I unfortunately never played Fallout games before Fallout 3. Having playing New Vegas, I thought it was awful compared to how magnificent Fallout 3 in terms of story and characters
Click to expand...

My preferences: F1-NV-F2-Tactics-F3
 
What? fo3 is Fallout?
I rather choose Wasteland(as Fallout 0 or Fo1 is just remake of Wasteland) and Arcanum.

for FPS, I rather choose STALKER than fo3 for Fallout
Of course, it's just joking but fo3 isn't fallout.
it's just part of TES or prototype of skyrim
 
2=1>NV>3>Tactics

However I liked exploration in Fallout 3 most of all Fallout games, including NV.
If Fallout 3 had more logical world and better writing, it could have been really great. I still enjoyed it a lot though.
 
Well, you can't deny that many, many really consider Fo3 the best of the series. I wouldn't expect such a list to look different from a source like kotaku.
 
For me Fallout 1 with it's totally... let's just say undeveloped companion-controlling system was absolute garbage, and Oblivion With Guns is an FPS, not a crpg, just as the Elder Scrolls series became less and less of an rpg with each sequel, so I would say: 2, Tactics, 1.
I have never been playing with NV, and Fallout 2 was the first in my life from the series, so after Fallout 2, the first game doesn't really had a chance.
 
My ranking is this:

Fallout 2 - Fallout: New Vegas - Fallout - Fallout 3 - Fallout: Tactics.

I really, really couldn't stand Tactics. For me personally it is by far the worst, although I never played (nor did I ever want to play) BOS or BOS2.

While I love Fallout's story, it's just really not possible for me to rate it higher than F2 or FNV. The dialogue is great, the characters, story and setting are great. But it is just so lacking in every other way compared to F2 and FNV - I get so pissed off when I play Fallout because it's just got so much stuff that pisses me off mechanically compared to the second one and New Vegas, especially in terms of the interface and companion control. I rate it higher than Fallout 3 on the strength of it's writing and world design. That said, I feel Fallout 3 did a better job stylistically, artistically and atmospherically, and I think it was more fun to play, but it was just atrocious in terms of the writing.

Fallout 2 and FNV to me each have the 'complete package' - they are very fun to play gameplay-wise and mechanically, they nailed the style, art & atmosphere, they have great dialogue and they have great writing. Fallout and Fallout 3 both have SOME of these criteria, but are lacking significantly in other areas. But they're both still great in their own ways - even if Fallout 3's writing & messing with the lore pisses me off, and Fallout's crappy interface, primitive followers, etc pisses me off too, I still enjoy them for what they are. Just not as much as F2 and FNV.
 
Here's my preferred ranking:

Fallout - 2/NV - Fallout 3 - Tactics

I preferred the tighter-feeling world design of the first to FO2, and FO2/NV is pretty much a tossup. There's a lot in New Vegas that I really, really like, and the game does get more challenging on "very hard".

Between Fallout 3 and Tactics, these games occupy similar positions in the series. I think they were both pretty abusive to the lore, and the passage of time has simply obscured that for Tactics. Not being a huge fan of tactical games, I simply had more fun with FO3, and I also feel that it nailed the aesthetic of the first game better than Tactics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top