I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks like this

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks like this

>3>4>NV>1>2

prove me wrong, you cant etc etc

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78
youtube.com/watch?v=WrQs9ugQiOA
youtube.com/watch?v=A34poZ6paGs
youtube.com/watch?v=jVyjRhSX92E
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>3 and 4 being above anything
That's where you're wrong, kiddo.
youtube.com/watch?v=mLJ1gyIzg78
youtube.com/watch?v=WrQs9ugQiOA
youtube.com/watch?v=A34poZ6paGs
youtube.com/watch?v=jVyjRhSX92E

You have one of the most disagreeable opinions I have ever seen on here. Only once have I seen a less correct opinion, and it was in a LoZ thread.

Think about that.

What as the opinion

>those videos
>that obnoxious unintelligent voice

jesus christ you have shit taste

>correct opinion
is this like alternate facts?

NV>3>2>1>4

I think you may meant to use

it's pretty similar to "prove me wrong". it all belongs in the same thread

>Fallout 2 worse than 1

>2 being better than 1
huh I guess you also like 2nd gen of pokemon better than 1

fuck off todd

>haha lol xd everyone who likes recent fallout games is todd xddd
remember 2011 when this wasn't le ebin maymay?

That's literally the only thing he got right.

>here watch these 15 hour long videos because I dont have a thought in my head to think for myself

You have shit taste.

Almost there bro, but this is the correct answer

4 > 3 > NV >> 2 > 1

I'd rate:

4>NV>3> not played

4 has all the same concepts as the previous titles but basically more of it, and more in general. The only thing it has less of is the amount of responses you can give in dialogue, which given you only choose one of the multiple options anyway, I don't see how that's a big deal.

>4 has all the same concepts as the previous titles but basically more of it, and more in general

You make me proud user.

NV is literally shit tier, bland story and poor writing, boring gameplay and overall lackluster

I'm playing NV now.

I don't think I can finish it. The gameplay and story is fine and all, but man, the technical quality is awful, even with a bunch of 'fixer' mods. I quit the first time I played it on release b/c it was truly unplayable.

I'll say it's the fallout with the most potential...

Yep and it was made exactly for nostalgia fags. They can't handle the truth tho.

You don't need bait to start a Fallout thread. It helps though

>___ > NV

lol

this desu

NV is on par with 3, they're almost identical games in gameplay etc. FO3's big downfall for me was how dull the map was, I was genuinely relieved when you found that area that had greenery in it (with a talking tree or some shit).

I dunno, I enjoyed them all in fairness, it's a great series, but FO4 was clearly the best. The customisation of weapons and armour, the varied map locations, the settlements and factions (settlements in particular I loved to bits), the story I really enjoyed, the vastness of it all and the general feels. It felt like you were in a living and breathing society of people struggling in a post apocalyptic world, I didn't get that sense from the others. One of my favourite games of all time in fact.

>Fo4 is clearly the best
Subpar shooting mechanics>the best

I've recently realised a couple of reasons why NV appeals to Master Race. Obsidian are primarily a PC game developer, whereas Bethesda had been developing games on consoles, as priority, for a number of years prior to that point - so the PC fags were always going to leech onto it. On top of that, it wasn't marketed as a main title, so that just basically lends itself perfectly to their desire to be on the edge and not going along with something that appears to be a mainstream release. On top of that 4 introduced mods to consoles, so inevitably this put the Master Race into defence mode and decided to attack it.

Not wanting to bad mouth NV too much, it was also a great game, but anyone who's looking at it from a non-biased viewpoint can quite clearly see it's not as good as 4.

>subpar shooting mechanics
>literally the same as 3 and NV

FO4's shooting mechanics is infinitely better than 3 or NV. The VATS system in those literally froze the entire game and allowed you to sit back, take a rest, line up multiple head shots with auto aim and clear out any enemy that comes at you. If you did attempt to do non VATS shooting in NV or 3, it was so piss poor, there was absolutely no encouragement to do so.

In FO4 you'd naturally use non-VATS shooting for most enemies, whereas the more tricky battles, you'd use VATS, which is much better balanced. The non VATS shooting in 4 was really good as well, the collision detection was absolutely spot on, dare I say if they introduced a multiplayer using those same mechanics, it'd work really well. The guns were well balanced and the changes and amendments you made to them actually made a noticeable difference. There wasn't just a definite best set up for guns, you'd set up to reflect your own personal style and preferences.

I hope that this is ironic for your sake. Fallout 4 is just a mediocre game. World is bland, dialogue is awful, story is awful, main character is bland, tone and asthtetic is unfitting, shooting is okay, internally inconsistent, and little replay value.

See

>The shooting isn't as terrible as in nv/fo3 and therefore is good
No

Is this all satire

NV>2>1>3>4

Like pissing into an ocean of piss

I don't know if people are even being ironic anymore by putting 3 and 4 high up in terms of ranking.

Brotherhood of Steel is the worst fallout game anyway.

No, you are just being red pilled

>3>4>NV>1>2
your opinion belongs in the trash.

I respect your opinion, even if it's wrong.

I unironically think Fallout 3 had a better story than New Vegas or 4

what does that make me?

>saying Fallout 4 is better than any of the prior games of the series

kys. Fallout 4 is more a shooter than it is a RPG

What makes 3 better than NV or the classics?

Can't have an opinion without explaining it.

Wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Incorrect

Absolutely nothing

It's a better shooter than BoS

Different strokes for different folks.

I never replayed 3 or NV, I replayed FO4 twice to side with the different factions and see how it played out in the latter stages of the story, also to play as the mother instead on one of those.

The world isn't bland, far from. It's incredibly detailed, has tons of completely hidden locations and snippets of very touching stories you can access as you're in the wasteland. The settlements feature makes it so that every item you can find can potentially be of use. The story for me was really memorable and had a number of surprising twists and turns. As a father I can really relate to the tunnel vision approach to just wanting to find his son.

I think the RPG elements were great, because not only were you grinding towards building up your character, you were also grinding to build up your ability to customise weapons, armour, power armour and your settlements. The environment was vast and varied. And I think you're underplaying the combat, it was top drawer. Rarely have I come across a shooting game where the different adjustments you make to a gun make any real difference. The changes fro, one scope to another, or one perk to another often gave you a completely different gun to work with.

I don't like 3 or 4 but it takes a special amount of autism to make videos that last hours just to explain why they're bad.

>I think the RPG elements are great
You almost had me, user. Cheers.

3 had a far better setting, nice plot and good gameplay while NV and the classics were:
>hurr ur this guy and you must do this, why? because fuck you LOL xd

...

oh my god not this fag again

are you gonna be in here shilling for the next 5 hours too

NV>1>2>3>4

Exactly this, in Fallout 3 you actually experience freedom and your choices do matter.

What?

1 and 2 had just as strong reasons to do what you had to do as 3 did

How many layers of irony are you all on?

this 2bh in NV the ending is literally the same except for the faction you join
>le control of le unimportant dam
huh so deep

A person who prefers mood, atmosphere and set pieces over verisimilitude and character building.

The only thing I disagree with is the RPG elements.

With 4's system, the lack of skills means you can't really specialise in one area. For example, in the original Fallouts, you can basically go through the entire game WITHOUT fighting anyone if you build enough charisma. Or, you could invest into medical to be a healer for your team rather than a fighter.

It also comes back to the fact that because of the lack of backstory in other Fallouts other than a starting point (You grew up in a vault, you grew up in a village) means that you could be anyone. The problem lies in the fact that in 4, you are always a father/mother from Pre-war frozen in a vault (When cryogenic freezing was shown to be imperfect in Fallout 2) before having the institute steal your child, making you chase them down to get your son back. Role player doesn't just stop at what equipment your character has, it extends to being able to make choices YOUR choices, or choices that align with the character you are rolling.

>NV=1=3>2>>>>tactics>>>>>brotherhood>>>

NV has much better mood and atmosphere...

I see mommy didn't give you enough money for Fallout 4. I feel sorry for you.

>obsidianiggers actually believe this

I do! And please, the term is "Obsidiot".

FO4's shooting was fantastic I it's own right, even compared to other FPS games. Destiny for instance, which I've played a lot of and has a fair amount of customising available for weapons, wasn't as good as FO4's shooting. And that was a dedicated shooter. The collision detection is the main thing you want to look at, which in 4 was absolutely spot on. Outside of that you want to look at how well balanced guns are in comparison to each other. I'd often carry an entire selection of guns in 4 because of how different they can perform in various situations. The big guns weren't just a cheese for every situation, you'd often be better off sniping, using grenades etc. How your choices and customising of guns makes such a difference is really impressive too. No other game I've seen has had that effect on its weapons based on how you set them up/customise them. The legendary perks that you can get offer that something special, and will require you to do a lot of farming to find your perfect weapon. The melee weapons are genuinely cool as fuck. VATS was awesome but wasn't anywhere near as OP as previous, so you'd use it when needed but just nowhere near as regularly as in NV or 3.

>Setting
Fallout 3's setting was generic post apocalypse while Fallout 1+2 were post-post apocalypse when society started to form again.

>Plot
The plot about a water purifier when Fallout 1 literally had an entire speech about the radiation particles could just be filtered by simple dirt?

>>hurr ur this guy and you must do this, why? because fuck you LOL xd
(You)

Fallout 1: Your vault's water chip broke. Without it, your vault is going to dehydrate. Also the vault experiment was seeing the reaction of a vault dweller in the post-apoc world

Fallout 2: Crops are dying so you need to grab the GECK to save your village.

Fallout NV: You got shot in the head and are looking for revenge because you manged to survive.

As for why I don't like 3, you are railroaded into a character by showing a backstory from your birth and giving you a canonical age of 18.

>>le control of le unimportant dam
Having trouble swallowing all those cocks user?

Face the truth, you are wrong.

>4 has all the same concepts as the previous titles but basically more of it, and more in general
But this game has like, what, 2 hub towns in the whole game? 3 if you count the Institute?
Not to mention that nearly every quest is "go here and get this thing/kill these raiders/talk to this person". Don't even get me started on the dialogue. Fallout 4 has the worst quests and dialogue I've ever seen come out of a triple A RPG before.
If this is bait that I fell for, then well done

It's subpar. I'm not going to read every long block if text you write about how much of a shill you are for bethesda.
Don't bother m8. Another thread with another marketer and another bored user who wants a reply

Fallout 2 is Borderlands tier writing. You can't go 10 fucking feet without a lolsorandum reference being shoved in your face.

>I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who thinks like this
No, there's plenty of people who think like that. What do they all have in common? A dislike for fallout.

I know most of the thread is trolling, but I genuinely thought New Vegas was pretty boring. You just walk around a desert. Hey, there's nothing inherently wrong with that because deserts can be beautiful and desolate places, but New Vegas suffers from the same "everything is made out of cheap plastic" look that every other Gamebryo game suffers from.

On top of that, the desert they made was just boring and uninteresting. There's so little to do besides dungeon dive in the same vaults over and over again or wander into communities that are supposed to be larger than they are (but can't be because the engine can't handle more than tiny communities of people) or too big and too empty. I didn't care at all for any of the factions because there's never any reason to give a shit about them or their mission in the wasteland. It was fun for an hour pretending to be Radiation Clint Eastwood, but it quickly became boring because there's nothing to invest in and the atmosphere it tries to create constantly hindered by the game itself. Some of the characters are good, many aren't, (most are literally copy-pasted SURE WISH FOR A NUCLEAR WINTER HAHA types), and the overall plot is meh.

"Post-apocalyptic Western"/Weird West is such a great idea, but it's a shame that NV is such a bad example of it. Honestly a 5/10, and not in the IGN "It's shit but we'll lose our bonus if we say that" 5/10, it's an okay-but-flawed game where you always feel reminded of the better game it could have been.

It's a shame it had to be made on Gamebryo. Any other engine and it would be great.

I haven't played the earlier titles (before 3) but I can't see how you'd see out NV or 3 by avoiding fighting - you can't get out of some situations relying on charisma, as is the case in 4, but I don't remember these being are more common than in 4, unless I'm mistaken. Even if I am, the games core mechanic is that of a FPS, 99% of the perks and character development is focused around what you can do in combat, so to try and avoid that would be missing out on such a massive part of the game.

I think the voice acting definitely does take away from complete flexibility of your character, I agree with that, but I think the backstory was necessary to carve the actual main storyline of the game, which I really enjoyed. I also think the karma system was very basic in NV and 3, which plays a big part in the RPG elements. It resorted to simply: do something good=good karma=you're a good person, or do something bad=bad karma=you're a bad person. FO4's karma system was multilayered. Numerous things are taken into account like even the type of enemies you choose to kill, whether you hack or lock pick in general (not just if its in places you're not supposed to) as to how a companion or faction will view you. And each had their own particular likes and dislikes so you had to balance what you did, who you did it in front of and when, to make sure you don't piss off the wrong people.

I agree with you on many points especially the weapons mods, being them melee or ranged. On FO3 or NV on any playthrough there was literally not a single point that I didn't just pick a certain type of weapon (melee/meme lasers/muh assault rifle), on 4 I had to actually manage my weapons and mix them with mods to ensure I was ready for encounters because, who would've guessed, in this game damage resistance actually counts for something

>hey look its the tardis

>BWWWWWOOOOO WOOOOP IM DANCING TO DUBSTEEEEEP BWWWWOOOOOO

yeah, same tier

This entire thread reeks of underage b8. Anyone who actually bothered playing the games can tell that the correct order is 1>2>tactics>NV=3>4>>>BoS.

>has a fair amount of customising
There's nothing praiseworthy about the weapon customization in fallout 4. The fact is that if you want realistic gun mechanics, then there aren't really that many customizations you can throw in. What fallout 4 did was simply reducing the weapons into a few select "base" ones, which you then had to outfit with scopes and stocks. In the end you didn't have more weapons than fallout new vegas. It was a stupid mechanic that shoudn't have been in there. The reloading system from fallout nv was better and actually made sense.

Nice shit thread

If you don't want to read my posts, you're not obliged to. However my points are fairly irrefutable, so I wouldn't blame you for turning a blind eye anyway, because you'd have no reply.

I have no particular concern or interest for the developer of a game, just simply whether I enjoy it or not. I know for the PC fags, the fact that Obsidian developed NV is very important and a main driver as to why you defend it.

I disagree. Everything looks like playdoh not plastic. And new vegas is a great game. The characters are amusing and great. The writing does a good gob of making many characters interesting and occasionally threatening. Plenty of dialogue options and plenty of locations to discover. Very nice asthtetic and and memorable moments. Solid game.

>people falling for this bait

Come on now

>Plainly irrefutable
You sound like one of those youtube bethesda fanboys. Fo4 is shit, like it or not.

2>=NV=1>Tactics>3>>>>BoS

The Karma system is something I didn't like in 3. Tenpenny tower showed how broken it was.

Let the ghouls in and kill everyone? Hooray, you are a good person!

In the older games, the Karma system didn't do much at all.

But anyway, as for the backstory, the game's roots came from being able to solve any problem in many ways. Fallout 4, a lot of missions can only be solved by killing. In the original Fallouts, I could be a two timing psycho, a kind hearted warrior who would spare people, a pacifist or anything on the spectrum because the game gave you all the options to do that. Fallout New Vegas has gimped version of this, but it still can be done. Fallout 3 is even more gimped but it is there. Fallout 4 is pretty much the same playthrough, difference being equipment and which faction you choose.

Perhaps I am.

Then again, I don't think Fallout 3 even had a mood. The color palette and the map suggest a very somber tone, but every other piece of side content seems to be intended to be humorous, and the underlying story is a pretty two-dimensional Good vs. Evil struggle.

New Vegas had some off-beat moments, and some less than stellar writing as well, but it seemed more consistent in portraying a war-torn region of Mojave, and it didn't shy away from some less than wholesome stuff that can happen during a war either.

>t. nostalgia cuck

I wasn't commenting on what game had more weapons, I'm saying that the actual customising of the weapons made real, tangible differences to each gun and the end result would be that each player would have very different set ups, depending on their play style. The various changes you made to weapons made significant differences to how they'd perform. Tons of games have the ability to customise your guns, but more often than not the changes that are made are either insignificant, or there are simply the clearly best set ups to have - which isn't really customising a weapon, it's just building it up as quickly as possible to get it to the best.

>game has plainly defined moral choices
>good guy choices usually make the game easier

This always annoys me. Being a good person is much harder than being a shitty person.

I'm saying you have the same amount if not more options of what guns to use to fit your play style in NV, since you can't really craft a non conventional gun.

>3 and 4 being above anything

That's because most of the time, the "bad" choice are stupid, like telling someone you've just met to go fuck himself. Obviously this is never a choice that will be beneficial to you.

As I say, I didn't play any of the earlier ones (1 or 2), but as I understand it they were real out and out RPGs, so I'd imagine there would be much more flexibility on things like that. There definitely were circumstances in 4 were you could out stories in other ways than just killing, but I do accept that killing was the main focus throughout. For me though that just falls in line with the nature of the story, the guys after his son, he doesn't have time for this shit.

I don't dislike NV or 3, I'm here now without any means to play games and I'd love to be able to jump on either of them and would thoroughly enjoy playing either, I just think FO4 took what they had and made improvements to it.

No point ranking the spin-offs.

1 = 2 = NV

>He doesn't have time for this shit
He does however have enough time to fuck around in the wasteland instead of looking for his son.

I don't understand this concept of supporting a games developer? It's not like a band or music group, each game varies hugely from title to title, so I'd only be interested in the qualities of each individual game.

For instance, Squaresoft have made some fucking horrendous games, but they've also made some of the greatest RPGs ever made, and my favourite game of all time. It doesn't mean I'd support or back Squaresoft as a developer irrespective of the game they release - in fact I'd question the mentality of someone who does focus on the developer, it's senseless.

Because zenimax and bethesda probably have enough money lying around to last a life time you faggot shill.

Ah but there's the difference, in FO4 the game doesn't end with the main story like in the earlier titles, much of that can be done afterwards, and for me it was ; )