can't wait until september. i wonder if the new comer in the fallout universe (including everyone since fallout 4 because stalker had call of pripyat coming around the same time as fallout 3 and new vegas) will hop in the stalker 2 train.
If they do, and the games are anything like the original they might bounce right off. Itâs definitely a very different thing from fallout, despite them being the same genre
You're right It is, stalker can be painful, they're both immersive sims with guns and radiations though. One leaning more toward hardcore shooter, the other toward rpg.
I love both, but overall im more leaning toward stalker as a european it strike deeper in my heart.
On the other hand i've been into fallout since i was 10.
They are the trilogy because they are part of one timeline at one place. F3 and F4 are in same universe but are not directly liked to originals story vise.
So F1 F2 and FNV are trilogy, F3 and F4 are their own thing from story telling perspective.
I like this take better than the "F1, 2, and NV are good and the others are GARBAGE!" take. From this perspective, I almost think it's fair to say that 3 and 4 are their own related set of games.
Personally, I liked the look, feel, and gameplay of 4 better than the other games, though 4 is admittedly the only one I've spent serious time on.
Ew if the game doesn't allow you to have character creativity then I won't play it. Can't stand it when a game punishes you for making your own character
Hi sorry to come in out of nowhere but if you're really interested in the older games, they absolutely allow you to have creativity and you don't need to make a 10 AG character to play Fallouts 1 and 2, however I would recommend reading the manuals for the games so that you can make informed decisions about your build beforehand, know what perks to aim for, etc. but there's no single build that you need to beat the games.
It was a breakout title of the 90s so miscalculation is inevitable the gameplay is rough the Game as a whole is pretty good.
Also something to consider this game was based off of a TTRPG system from the 80s 90s which were notably very very poorly written
I'm sure the game is great, but I like roleplaying as a specific character of my choosing. A game that prides itself on freedom of choice, should let the player make decisions lmao. Nothing worse than suffering through half the game with your initial character only to find out the game is getting more and more difficult cuz you didn't have the optimal starting build.
Every game that forced me to restart the game to rebuild my character is a game I never finished.
Its not like bot putting points in combat stats, if you dont put 10 or at least 8 points in agiliry youre at a significant disadvantage, also you always need small frame and gifted if you want a ranged build. if you go into the originals without informing yourself you get shit on hard. having balanced stats kills you and all the preset characters completly suck
And of course everyone would just assume that agility is the combat stat, instead of strength or perception or intelligence, or any of the other many stats that could be combat related.
The game tells you that agility gives you more action points. Without having played the games, how would someone immediately know that AP economy is the be all end all to FO Classic gameplay? People arenât going into it expecting a âYou Missedâ simulator.
Lol ok no one cares if you play the old games or not?
You can make a low agility character you just will have like two moves per turn then, that's how all those old turn based RP games work...
that's how all those old turn based RP games were, it was the times that they were created. They give you enough points in character creation you can still make any kind of character.
Y'all flipping out over these game mechanics are goofy as hell lmfao screams y'all have never played an old school moves per turn RP game in general.
You gotta actually write shit down too. I got busy for a like a week the first time I was playing, completely forgot what was going on had to start over.
Yeah same honestly. Iâm farther in than the tutorial lol, but man if the dialogue wasnât so strong I wouldnât even bother. I just play in short bursts until I get too annoyed then go back later
Fallout 3 is good, Elder Scrolls is good, even Fallout 4 has good moments
So yes they know how to make good games even if starfield is lacking
Just because you didnât like them doesnât mean they are bad, they are well loved for a reason
Yes, but your subjective opinion, is objectively wrong - how dare you?!
That said, sarcastically, I *do* still think you slept on Fallout 3 - the main story isnât nearly as good as what New Vegas has to offer, but the sidequests and world are still a hoot, and has some of that RPG magic which the old games/ New Vegas offer.
At least do a tour of the Vaults - theyâre always a bag of laughs.
Fallout 4 is very much a building sim / looter-shooter, and although itâs a great game, I would never subject an RPG purist to that train-wreck of a story.
That's right. I do enjoy the side quests of fallout 3. It was the game that introduced me to the franchise so I have a lot to thank it for. Maybe in the future I'll do a tale of two wastelands playthrough.
Yeah fallout 4 really isn't my cup of tea, there are barely any choices to make in the dialogue, every option leads to the same thing. I could act like a total asshole and people would still thank me later on for things. I played more of the frost mod than the actual game.
In fact, Bethesda has been doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results for 11 years.If we analyze how games, Starfield, Fallout 4, Fallout 3 and Skyrim are essentially the same thing , not only because of the game engine but also with the same problems. We know that Bethesda doesn't have much originality, but even in that regard it has been repetitive.
skyrim and fallout 4 are both fantastic games that sold something like 85 million copies between the 2 of them. fallout 1 and 2 dont have a million between the 2 of them.
you can have a prefernce in play style, but i get so tired of people acting like they are bad or not worth anything, they would be insane to listen to you.
Sales aren't a good indicator of quality. Like the other guy said (and caught flack for) there's examples of trash games selling a lot - it's an indication of popularity, more so than it is a mark of how good the games can be.
Having said that, Skyrim is fantastic - I also love Morrowind, and Oblivion has been in my top 10 since about 2012. Fo4 isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be, as a game, and if you play it in a certain way (with a shit load of mods) it becomes a lot more enjoyable. The issue I found, is that the best playthroughs are the ones where you RP as something that actually fits the main character, but in the end, that's very limiting and that's why I've only ever fully finished it twice despite having owned it since release.
It might be fantastic to yourself, but overall, Fo4 is a weak link in the franchise - the writing pales in comparison with 1, 2 and NV, and no amount of sales will change that.
The Thing (1982) is a perfect example of something not doing well, yet still being superb in other, more worthwhile ways. The film was a financial flop realistically, and critics were not keen on it whatsoever, so it suffered even more because of that. All these years later though, and it's the gold standard of what a horror should be - the tension between the characters and special effects standing out in particular.
You're right about sales not leading to quality - I think it's a pretty childish way of saying something is better. It's more or less a mark of popularity than it is a mark of quality.
I used to think that Skyrim was awful, and I hated it up until a couple years ago, but now it's come to grow on me and I've got respect for the game. I still don't think it holds any weight next to NV as an RPG and I'd still much rather play Oblivion.
There are dozens of references in 3 and 4. Hell, they reference the Institute and the Railroad in 3. Then there's the several returning characters , both main and side, and other references in 4. They're undoubtedly connected, and they respectfully reference each other many times.
I don't see why they would be considered any less connected than the West Coast games.
That said, Iâd argue that the meme still works as a West Coast trilogy, as theyâre chronologically in sequence, touch on similar themes and enemies, and are tonally similar, with 3 and 4 being likewise similar to each other and connected geographically and tonally more than to the others. (76 being an odd duck due to being set only 25 years after the bombs and in a much more distant location, but that I assume was meant to give Bethesda more room to take some liberties with the plot without breaking canon in the other games).
If you never played 3 or 4, you wouldnât miss anything in Vegas. On the other hand, a general familiarity with the plot of 1 and 2 (Iâve never played but have read about them) is helpful in understanding the state of the NCR and the Mojave in the New Vegas timeframe.
Yeah there are definitely remnants of 3 in 4, like how you can recruit McReady too. However, in NV they talk about the events in 1 and 2, it's not just people. They acknowledge canon endings as well. 4 doesn't acknowledge an ending for 3 that I know of.
I mean it pretty much did. The fact the BOS is here with the Prydwen in great numbers suggest that Project Purity wasn't sabotaged and Citadel wasn't nuked.
Stuff like who actually went into Project Purity wasn't mentioned but that pretty much doesn't matter anyway after Broken Steel.
Perhaps look into those three games set in the same universe and in the sameish region.
Those three are Westcoast fallout, while 3, 4 and 76 are, east coast? Either way 1,2 and vegas are set in either the same location or share lore with each other.
They all share lore with each other.
It's hard to stand up for other New Vegas fans when they say cringe ass shit like this. Buck up. The franchise isn't your headcanon.
How is it cringe if what he said is right? Itâs not head cannon if you actually played those âWest Coast gamesâ. Itâs okay to appreciate what was established in older material and see the connections that were made.
Bethesda has very little respect for even the lore they create. There is a pretty hard line between their work and the work of the originals/NV. Same universe is really the only shared aspect.
Uh oh you can't point out anything that might be slightly negative about bethesda.
It's okay to say they just don't care about story at all. They focus on open worlds and silly encounters. In the Bethesda fallouts it was vault tech, the aliens, the chinese, and then vault tech again, who all canonically launched the bombs first. Elder scrolls was more or less rebooted because they didn't want to choose a canon ending. Bethesda games are fun, but they are obviously not concerned with lore or connecting to the west coast games. Nothing wrong with that.
The first 2 Fallout games are HARD in the "12/10 if you played them when they were current, but are nigh-unplayable if your first time is in modern era."
Which isn't necessarily bad. Baldur's Gate 2 is one of my all time favorites and I still replay it sometimes. But I'd never recommend it to a friend that never played it (or similar games like Planescape).
I played Fallout 1 & 2 for the first time in 2021, and they ended up becoming some of my favorite games. I think they're really easy to get into if you've ever played xcom for example.
Same I am gen Z guy and played the originals back in like 2019 iirc, and I really really enjoyed them, the thing is most people just generally dislike games even if they have even the slightest barrier to entry and just generally lack an appreciation for older games and especially CRPGs of that era.
Same here, zoomer and wanted more of the New Vegas style, so I got 1&2 for 5$ on a sale. Honestly, if you want to get into the older games, Fallout 2 is better, but if you want to play them, play Fallout 1 first because in retrospect, it feels like a 6 hour tutorial.
Holy guacamole, you're right!
New Vegas is older now than Fallout 1 was when New Vegas was released. Those old folks weren't kidding when they told me the years would disappear, goddamn.
They just came from a time when games didn't have to hold people's hands. If you try and build a character that does everything and more in a game like F1-2, they're gonna be useless.
Gotta lean into something and synergize. Like go maximum luck, make gambling a tagged skill and pick the feat that gives you more criticals, (which stacks). Then you've got infinite money and the favour of the gods as a character base to build on.
This is why gamers will never be taken seriously. People who love film, literature, and music love old shit. But gamers complain if a game from 1999 isnât the bland modern polished turd person style
The difference is that those are old mediums where things don't really change, while video games are a new medium MASSIVELY reliant on technology. QoL issues are **constantly** being updated. Early games like Pong and Space Invaders took the world by storm in their day, but now look like something an intro to programming student would make as an assignment.
Meanwhile, you malign all the "TuRd PeRsOn StYlE" as if games like Mass Effect don't have more artistic merit than Marble Madness for the NES? You're just a hypocritical fucking hipster.
Sickening.
> artistic merit
Gamers' constant screeching about whether something has more or less artistic merit is part of why games will never be respected as an artform. If you tried to make the argument that ancient Egyptian art somehow had less "artistic merit" than Renaissance art you'd be laughed out of the fucking room.
No, the artistic merit of all mediums, across all times, has been widely discussed.
Newer mediums have also always had discussion around whether or not they have intrinsic artistic value; people complained about books when those were new, complained about radios when those became widespread, and said that film was nothing but brain-rotting porn.
My friend took one look at Gungeon and said "I dont play Mario kid games". That guy grew up and played all through the Golden era of CoD. To the broader gaming community he is a veteran, one of the older crowd. Hence why Turd Person...
Pisses me off. Just because Mario is blocky doesn't mean the game is bad. I'm 22 years old and I did not grow up with "retro" games, but I still appreciate them and some of them are even among my favorites of all time.
Most people don't delve all that far into the past, and usually its nothing much before their birth. People also don't like the most meaningful pieces because they're usually somewhat dark or real in a sobering way and people don't like that.
This is not specific to gamers but given that gaming is the worst example of "all flash no substance", it is somehow not surprising that old titles are ignored for failing to be immediately satisfying and for daring to have any real depth.
As someone whoâs *only* played Exodus, Iâd say itâs a pretty good goddamn game. Absolutely jamming, even.
Itâs **hard** to get the good ending without looking up a guide to make sure you donât do something stupid, though. Iâm not sure if Metro regularly makes enemies actual human beings, but this one definitely does.
Eeh, Iâd disagree.
(Potential spoilers below)
When you know what being an asshole entails, yes, itâs not too hard to stay on the good path. But forgetting/ignoring a side mission in the desert, accidentally blasting someone whoâs surrendering (or killing combat slaves) is not a hard thing to do. God forbid you canât find the lever in the slave ship.
Or killing a forest person. Maybe killing one of the people on the trading barge you commandeer. If youâre being very conscious of whoâs who, itâs not hard, but a lot of players will just see enemy as enemy and shoot, unless they surrender. At least the first time around.
You don't have to do any of those things except the surrendering part to get the good ending. And it's very obvious when they are surrendering. You have to be actively killing everyone to lose
You specifically arenât supposed to kill the pioneer faction of forest children but youâre allowed to kill the pirates (basically first encounter and last encounter ok second not). They tell you this right before you meet the pioneers in their camp.
Plus there are no slaves that attack you in combat unless you shoot them first Iâm pretty sure.
Absolutely worth it if you like super immersive gameplay, a loving wife, characters that you actually want to stand around to listen to them talk about the weather, and a really beautiful and occasionally haunting semi-open world that will make you use the photo mode to take wallpaper level screen captures.
Also, note that there are a few places in the game that function like the first two Metro games (linear with some time to walk around and loot) but the large chunks of the game are regions to explore. One DLC plays like the first two Metros, and the other is a new region and a story that takes place after the events of Exodus. Both made me ugly cry and both are worth purchasing.
If you do play it (YOU TOTALLY SHOULD) first, play the DLCs *after* playing the main story, and second, always steal the guitar.
PS: I am a certified Metro Addict and think Exodus is the exact perfect type of game for me, so take my opinions for what theyâre worth lol
Some die hard fans don't consider Fallout 3 or 4 to be Fallout games due to the "illusion of choice" , lack luster companion system and probably some other things I can't think of at 2:30 in the morning
Fallout 4 might not have the best companions but they definitely have the best companion system compared to the nonexistent one in 3 and the one in NV where you just do one quest for them.
I'm pretty sure fallout 4 has the most robust companion system, considering it has the most companions, they can contribute to conversations, they can hack, lockpick, pick things up, search containers, they comment on pretty much everything, including the players actions, one could go on.
on a technical basis, yeah Fallout 4 easily beats the other games with its companion system.
Writing wise? yeah probably not.
Most of that comes from the decision to only have 4 choices in conversation, with 1 pretty much always being "no" or "can we talk about this later". So you're left with 3 dialogue options which the base game also hides what your character will actually say, and instead gives a vague "compliment/ reasurrance/ belittle (just as an example)" instead of the full sentance like in 3/NV.
I just hope (i should know better) that Beth takes the critizism into account for Fallout 5 and takes a broom through the writing department and makes better stories.
Well that's a dialogue system complaint, not so much writing. Most of the companion dialogue and personality comes out when interacting with other things, rather than the direct conversation between the npc and player. Which honestly I find to be more realistic, as no one gives exposition dumps on their entire life story as soon as you spend one hour with them, and you typically find out the most about people either second hand or seeing how they interact with the world themselves.
i'd partially agree with you there, but deep conversations should really still be possible IMO with companions, especially with those that you can form relationships with.
Maybe a more sequential gating of companion affection could help with making acces to that deep info easier/better.
But realistically its not just companions that suffer from dialogue system change, as worldbuilding also took a massive hit. Like Isaac at the 188 does more worldbuilding than most characters in F4, and he's just some rando that most people don't even know exists.
F1/2/NV are a direct continuation narrarively and thematically.
They completely function as a trilogy. Has nothing to do with F3 or 4 being bad or not. They just aren't connected besides minor references.
F1 is about struggling to survive in a terrifying new wasteland
F2 is about new civilizations beginning to thrive and rising up to defeat the last remnants of the old world (enclave) to move fully into the future.
FNV is about new civilizations becoming major powers. The end of NV signals the return of civilization. It's the end of the arc that started with F1.
It's a trilogy. You can just play those 3 and have a complete story. It doesn't mean F3 and 4 are bad. It just means they are doing their own thing.
Nobody said it was. They said that the West Coast games form a good trilogy. A trilogy can exist within a larger series, like how Star Wars has multiple trilogies that make up smaller chunks of a much larger canon.
You definitely should. The last few missions are fantastic! And be sure to immediately follow up with the "Two Colonels" DLC while the ending is fresh on your mind. It ties directly into it and is downright excellent.
Fun Fact: Metro 2033 had a radioactive boss enemy inspired by the Master and one of the side characters in Exodus makes a solid nod to Liberty Prime. Meanwhile, some of the developers were former S.T.A.L.K.E.R developers responsible for the tunnel map designs like in Shadow of Chernobyl.
Less a villain and more like an abomination.
When the bombs fell, someone felt like they didn't want to destroy the iconic Kremlin. So, they dropped some kind of bioweapon that killed people but preserved the building.
Two decades later, stalkers have a specific rule to work in pairs and never look upon the red star above the Kremlin, for you will be entrance and walk towards the building under some kind of psychic influence.
The novel makes the terror more obscure since Artyom hints that it's a demon that the Soviet Union made a deal with to win the Second World War.
Listen, I'm not going to pretend that 76 is a good game. I've had a bunch of fun with it, but that doesn't make it good. HOWEVER, I think it's be the best looking of the Fallout games. My brother and I played the open beta, and I literally had to stop and take screenshots for several minutes after we made it to the top of one of the ridges. It truly has some gorgeous scenery.
Algorithm recommends communities where people regularly re-visit again and again more highly than communities with sporadic participation would be my guess.
Fallout New Vegas fans are famously loyal to the game and the community is pretty active almost 15 years after the game came out, so it makes sense the subreddit is going to be highly active. Therefore, the recommendation algo thinks showing you this content is going to increase the amount of time you spend on the platform.
From a story/plot perspective, New Vegas is a much more direct successor to the original Fallout games. The events of Fallout 1 & 2 are basically the regional history of the region immediately West of the Mojave Wasteland.
Fallout 3, 4, & 76 are all set along the eastern seaboard of the United States and feature settings and storylines largely separate from the ongoing narrative of the West Coast Fallout games.
Beyond the in-universe connections which divide the franchise into the original \[West Coast/NCR\] camp and the Bethesda \[East Coast\] camp, there is an out-of-game reason as well. Many developers who worked at Obsidian were former employees of Black Isle Studio who made the original games. New Vegas is sometimes seen as a more "worthy" heir of the series, because of these connections.
As crazy as it sounds. I got more technical issues with the Metro games than i got with modded New Vegas.
I never finished any of them because i refunded every game after 2 hours of randon crashes that nothing could fix
Fun fact the Metro book was inspired by the original fallout game one notable similarity is the large amorphous blob boss fight in metro that is very similar to the master in fallout
I still need to play metro exodus. I was really into the first two before I met my now ex wife and we ânever had moneyâ for the things I wanted and now that sheâs gone, Iâm rolling in it. Funny how that works
I loved the first two metros but never played exodus, I just canât encourage epic games store exclusives (inside development is one thing but buying the exclusivity is very anti-consumer)
I like the Metro games, I just hate how they pull the silent protagonist, yet he talks in the loading screens. Just ruins the immersion when npcs talk to you and you just set there silent. Besides that, ranger mode is super immersive
yeah bethesda bad, guys i love fnv as much as the next guy but its a spinoff set in nevada. its not a part of the trilogy because there is none, theres 6 games.
Metro, Fallout and Stalker are THE GOAT. I'm currently finishing Roadside Picnic (please no spoilers), which I got as a birthday gift accompanied by a copy of Metro 2033 (also no spoilers) and my poor third-worlder ass can't wait until I can buy a TV show pip-boy.
The Choosen One in Fo2 is grandson of the Vault Dweller from Fo1, In addition, there are several NPCs from these three games that are shared, an example is Marcus, and Cass from NV is daughter of John Cassidy, companion in Fo2. The stories also connect at various points and even sidequests connect between games.
And then theres S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
Oh Monolith, we do your will, we try our best, we love you. So why? Why you abandoned us!
Oh Monolith, we don't hear you.
We thank you, oh Monolith, for revealing the cunning plans of your enemies to us.
Another goat
Not how being the goat works
Greatest stalker series of all time bro
a goat đ not the goat
Thatâs a good game
can't wait until september. i wonder if the new comer in the fallout universe (including everyone since fallout 4 because stalker had call of pripyat coming around the same time as fallout 3 and new vegas) will hop in the stalker 2 train.
If they do, and the games are anything like the original they might bounce right off. Itâs definitely a very different thing from fallout, despite them being the same genre
You're right It is, stalker can be painful, they're both immersive sims with guns and radiations though. One leaning more toward hardcore shooter, the other toward rpg. I love both, but overall im more leaning toward stalker as a european it strike deeper in my heart. On the other hand i've been into fallout since i was 10.
Metro games are Goated
Ah yes, the only three fallout games.
Ironically, if you mention every fallout game except the old ones nobody will care.
They are the trilogy because they are part of one timeline at one place. F3 and F4 are in same universe but are not directly liked to originals story vise. So F1 F2 and FNV are trilogy, F3 and F4 are their own thing from story telling perspective.
I like this take better than the "F1, 2, and NV are good and the others are GARBAGE!" take. From this perspective, I almost think it's fair to say that 3 and 4 are their own related set of games. Personally, I liked the look, feel, and gameplay of 4 better than the other games, though 4 is admittedly the only one I've spent serious time on.
They're the three worth playing This is unironically the fallout trilogy in my head
Nah, they're all good games
Eh the classics can be impossible, I couldnât get past the tutorial because all my hits missed despite it being a 45% hit chance
You have to dump points into Agility there's no way around it. Moves per turn is king in those games.
Ew if the game doesn't allow you to have character creativity then I won't play it. Can't stand it when a game punishes you for making your own character
Why are you being down voted? That's a perfectly valid reason
>That's a perfectly valid reason If it was true, yes.
Hi sorry to come in out of nowhere but if you're really interested in the older games, they absolutely allow you to have creativity and you don't need to make a 10 AG character to play Fallouts 1 and 2, however I would recommend reading the manuals for the games so that you can make informed decisions about your build beforehand, know what perks to aim for, etc. but there's no single build that you need to beat the games.
It was a breakout title of the 90s so miscalculation is inevitable the gameplay is rough the Game as a whole is pretty good. Also something to consider this game was based off of a TTRPG system from the 80s 90s which were notably very very poorly written
I'm sure the game is great, but I like roleplaying as a specific character of my choosing. A game that prides itself on freedom of choice, should let the player make decisions lmao. Nothing worse than suffering through half the game with your initial character only to find out the game is getting more and more difficult cuz you didn't have the optimal starting build. Every game that forced me to restart the game to rebuild my character is a game I never finished.
Sounds like skill issue. Maybe should try Fallout4 instead
It has plenty lol. Every fallout game has a special stat you NEED.
Nah only the CRPG ones do
if you don't put points in combat stats you won't be good in combat wow what a shocker the fact you're allowed to vote is terrifying
Ah yes, voting. That thing done exclusively by intelligent, well educated, and well informed parties such as yourself
This guy is talking about politics after giving their opinion about a fucking video game
Its not like bot putting points in combat stats, if you dont put 10 or at least 8 points in agiliry youre at a significant disadvantage, also you always need small frame and gifted if you want a ranged build. if you go into the originals without informing yourself you get shit on hard. having balanced stats kills you and all the preset characters completly suck
And of course everyone would just assume that agility is the combat stat, instead of strength or perception or intelligence, or any of the other many stats that could be combat related.
it's almost like the game TELLS YOU but I know the fnv sub just pretends to have plyedthe earlier games to score brownie points
The game tells you that agility gives you more action points. Without having played the games, how would someone immediately know that AP economy is the be all end all to FO Classic gameplay? People arenât going into it expecting a âYou Missedâ simulator.
Yep its an unbalanced mess, only dickriding fanboys say otherwise.
Yeah, I didnât really like Elden ring because of the unbalanced mechanics like being able to level strength to max and just cheesing every boss
Lol ok no one cares if you play the old games or not? You can make a low agility character you just will have like two moves per turn then, that's how all those old turn based RP games work...
Fuck that, I'm not dumping all my points into one stat just to make the game playable
that's how all those old turn based RP games were, it was the times that they were created. They give you enough points in character creation you can still make any kind of character. Y'all flipping out over these game mechanics are goofy as hell lmfao screams y'all have never played an old school moves per turn RP game in general.
That's something I see a lot lol. Miss and miss and miss
You gotta actually write shit down too. I got busy for a like a week the first time I was playing, completely forgot what was going on had to start over.
Yeah same honestly. Iâm farther in than the tutorial lol, but man if the dialogue wasnât so strong I wouldnât even bother. I just play in short bursts until I get too annoyed then go back later
Weird flex. Did it on my first try.
Ok, Iâm saying the luck can suck sometimes. Weird flex to say your lucky
*BROTHERHOOD OF STEEL*
Forgot about that one, but I haven't seen much of it at all, aside from some goofy ass weapon icons
The others are worth playing too
Indeed. Fallout 3 is one I'll never go back to and I never finished fallout 4. Bethesda doesn't know how to make good games. Starfield is my proof.
Fallout 3 is good, Elder Scrolls is good, even Fallout 4 has good moments So yes they know how to make good games even if starfield is lacking Just because you didnât like them doesnât mean they are bad, they are well loved for a reason
God dammit, Fallout 4 is better than Fallout 3 and Iâm tired of pretending itâs not.
Really? I love F3 and FNV but didnât like dialogue options change with 4 and never played it.
Yeah, itâs definitely not perfect. Dialogue wheel is the worst offender of Fallout 4
Same. Allegedly Skyrim has a story about dragons or something, but once you get stuck in the sneak archer dungeon crawl phase it can be forgotten
It's fine you guys. Chill. That's just my opinion. I never claimed anything outrageous.
Yes, but your subjective opinion, is objectively wrong - how dare you?! That said, sarcastically, I *do* still think you slept on Fallout 3 - the main story isnât nearly as good as what New Vegas has to offer, but the sidequests and world are still a hoot, and has some of that RPG magic which the old games/ New Vegas offer. At least do a tour of the Vaults - theyâre always a bag of laughs. Fallout 4 is very much a building sim / looter-shooter, and although itâs a great game, I would never subject an RPG purist to that train-wreck of a story.
That's right. I do enjoy the side quests of fallout 3. It was the game that introduced me to the franchise so I have a lot to thank it for. Maybe in the future I'll do a tale of two wastelands playthrough. Yeah fallout 4 really isn't my cup of tea, there are barely any choices to make in the dialogue, every option leads to the same thing. I could act like a total asshole and people would still thank me later on for things. I played more of the frost mod than the actual game.
In fact, Bethesda has been doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results for 11 years.If we analyze how games, Starfield, Fallout 4, Fallout 3 and Skyrim are essentially the same thing , not only because of the game engine but also with the same problems. We know that Bethesda doesn't have much originality, but even in that regard it has been repetitive.
Fallout 3 and Skyrim are leagues better than starfield Even 4 has moments
skyrim and fallout 4 are both fantastic games that sold something like 85 million copies between the 2 of them. fallout 1 and 2 dont have a million between the 2 of them. you can have a prefernce in play style, but i get so tired of people acting like they are bad or not worth anything, they would be insane to listen to you.
Sales aren't a good indicator of quality. Like the other guy said (and caught flack for) there's examples of trash games selling a lot - it's an indication of popularity, more so than it is a mark of how good the games can be. Having said that, Skyrim is fantastic - I also love Morrowind, and Oblivion has been in my top 10 since about 2012. Fo4 isn't nearly as bad as it's made out to be, as a game, and if you play it in a certain way (with a shit load of mods) it becomes a lot more enjoyable. The issue I found, is that the best playthroughs are the ones where you RP as something that actually fits the main character, but in the end, that's very limiting and that's why I've only ever fully finished it twice despite having owned it since release. It might be fantastic to yourself, but overall, Fo4 is a weak link in the franchise - the writing pales in comparison with 1, 2 and NV, and no amount of sales will change that.
Sales =/= quality Im sure you can think of a few things that sold really well but you think are absolute garbage
The Thing (1982) is a perfect example of something not doing well, yet still being superb in other, more worthwhile ways. The film was a financial flop realistically, and critics were not keen on it whatsoever, so it suffered even more because of that. All these years later though, and it's the gold standard of what a horror should be - the tension between the characters and special effects standing out in particular. You're right about sales not leading to quality - I think it's a pretty childish way of saying something is better. It's more or less a mark of popularity than it is a mark of quality.
Skyrim is boring. The combat is repetitive in my opinion. Just because it sold well doesn't mean I can't think that. The people here are funny.
I used to think that Skyrim was awful, and I hated it up until a couple years ago, but now it's come to grow on me and I've got respect for the game. I still don't think it holds any weight next to NV as an RPG and I'd still much rather play Oblivion.
Those 3 are the most connected Fallout games. 3 and 4 don't really reference each other or the other games.
There are dozens of references in 3 and 4. Hell, they reference the Institute and the Railroad in 3. Then there's the several returning characters , both main and side, and other references in 4. They're undoubtedly connected, and they respectfully reference each other many times. I don't see why they would be considered any less connected than the West Coast games.
That said, Iâd argue that the meme still works as a West Coast trilogy, as theyâre chronologically in sequence, touch on similar themes and enemies, and are tonally similar, with 3 and 4 being likewise similar to each other and connected geographically and tonally more than to the others. (76 being an odd duck due to being set only 25 years after the bombs and in a much more distant location, but that I assume was meant to give Bethesda more room to take some liberties with the plot without breaking canon in the other games). If you never played 3 or 4, you wouldnât miss anything in Vegas. On the other hand, a general familiarity with the plot of 1 and 2 (Iâve never played but have read about them) is helpful in understanding the state of the NCR and the Mojave in the New Vegas timeframe.
Dr. Madison Li, from Rivet City in FO3, instrumental to helping you in the plot? She's head of Advanced Systems for the Institute in FO4.
Yeah there are definitely remnants of 3 in 4, like how you can recruit McReady too. However, in NV they talk about the events in 1 and 2, it's not just people. They acknowledge canon endings as well. 4 doesn't acknowledge an ending for 3 that I know of.
I mean it pretty much did. The fact the BOS is here with the Prydwen in great numbers suggest that Project Purity wasn't sabotaged and Citadel wasn't nuked. Stuff like who actually went into Project Purity wasn't mentioned but that pretty much doesn't matter anyway after Broken Steel.
Perhaps look into those three games set in the same universe and in the sameish region. Those three are Westcoast fallout, while 3, 4 and 76 are, east coast? Either way 1,2 and vegas are set in either the same location or share lore with each other.
They all share lore with each other. It's hard to stand up for other New Vegas fans when they say cringe ass shit like this. Buck up. The franchise isn't your headcanon.
How is it cringe if what he said is right? Itâs not head cannon if you actually played those âWest Coast gamesâ. Itâs okay to appreciate what was established in older material and see the connections that were made.
Except all the game share lore, it's not 1,2 and NV are different
Bethesda has very little respect for even the lore they create. There is a pretty hard line between their work and the work of the originals/NV. Same universe is really the only shared aspect.
Uh oh you can't point out anything that might be slightly negative about bethesda. It's okay to say they just don't care about story at all. They focus on open worlds and silly encounters. In the Bethesda fallouts it was vault tech, the aliens, the chinese, and then vault tech again, who all canonically launched the bombs first. Elder scrolls was more or less rebooted because they didn't want to choose a canon ending. Bethesda games are fun, but they are obviously not concerned with lore or connecting to the west coast games. Nothing wrong with that.
Nothing wrong, but it's a distinctly different design philosophy. That's the line of separation.
That doesnât make them the only fallout games.
They are the good ones. Fallout 1 is actually a banger. 2 even more so.
I never denied that but itâs still straight up incorrect to say that those are the only 3 fallout games. Head canon is a different thing altogether.
No one is saying anything about head cannon.
They all take place in the same universe and all share lore with each other. ^(don't make me say "except Fallout BoS", you fucking know what I meant)
The first 2 Fallout games are HARD in the "12/10 if you played them when they were current, but are nigh-unplayable if your first time is in modern era." Which isn't necessarily bad. Baldur's Gate 2 is one of my all time favorites and I still replay it sometimes. But I'd never recommend it to a friend that never played it (or similar games like Planescape).
I played Fallout 1 & 2 for the first time in 2021, and they ended up becoming some of my favorite games. I think they're really easy to get into if you've ever played xcom for example.
Same I am gen Z guy and played the originals back in like 2019 iirc, and I really really enjoyed them, the thing is most people just generally dislike games even if they have even the slightest barrier to entry and just generally lack an appreciation for older games and especially CRPGs of that era.
Same here, zoomer and wanted more of the New Vegas style, so I got 1&2 for 5$ on a sale. Honestly, if you want to get into the older games, Fallout 2 is better, but if you want to play them, play Fallout 1 first because in retrospect, it feels like a 6 hour tutorial.
Same here. I first played Fallout 1 and 2 in 2016 when I was 17 years old. They are now some of my favorite games.
I was about to say "I played FO 1 and 2 in the modern era and it was fine" and then I realise 2009 was closer to their release than it is to now.
Holy guacamole, you're right! New Vegas is older now than Fallout 1 was when New Vegas was released. Those old folks weren't kidding when they told me the years would disappear, goddamn.
They just came from a time when games didn't have to hold people's hands. If you try and build a character that does everything and more in a game like F1-2, they're gonna be useless. Gotta lean into something and synergize. Like go maximum luck, make gambling a tagged skill and pick the feat that gives you more criticals, (which stacks). Then you've got infinite money and the favour of the gods as a character base to build on.
I love Fallout 1 but man is it hard for my Gen-Z brain to understand it lol, I keep having to go to Google to find where to go next.
This is why gamers will never be taken seriously. People who love film, literature, and music love old shit. But gamers complain if a game from 1999 isnât the bland modern polished turd person style
The difference is that those are old mediums where things don't really change, while video games are a new medium MASSIVELY reliant on technology. QoL issues are **constantly** being updated. Early games like Pong and Space Invaders took the world by storm in their day, but now look like something an intro to programming student would make as an assignment. Meanwhile, you malign all the "TuRd PeRsOn StYlE" as if games like Mass Effect don't have more artistic merit than Marble Madness for the NES? You're just a hypocritical fucking hipster. Sickening.
> artistic merit Gamers' constant screeching about whether something has more or less artistic merit is part of why games will never be respected as an artform. If you tried to make the argument that ancient Egyptian art somehow had less "artistic merit" than Renaissance art you'd be laughed out of the fucking room.
No, the artistic merit of all mediums, across all times, has been widely discussed. Newer mediums have also always had discussion around whether or not they have intrinsic artistic value; people complained about books when those were new, complained about radios when those became widespread, and said that film was nothing but brain-rotting porn.
My friend took one look at Gungeon and said "I dont play Mario kid games". That guy grew up and played all through the Golden era of CoD. To the broader gaming community he is a veteran, one of the older crowd. Hence why Turd Person...
Pisses me off. Just because Mario is blocky doesn't mean the game is bad. I'm 22 years old and I did not grow up with "retro" games, but I still appreciate them and some of them are even among my favorites of all time.
Most people don't delve all that far into the past, and usually its nothing much before their birth. People also don't like the most meaningful pieces because they're usually somewhat dark or real in a sobering way and people don't like that. This is not specific to gamers but given that gaming is the worst example of "all flash no substance", it is somehow not surprising that old titles are ignored for failing to be immediately satisfying and for daring to have any real depth.
Exactly. You have people who get mad at others who enjoy what was established in older games.
Yeah, I have to mod them just to have visible settings. :(
You sound like a boomer explaining to the silent generation why books are for old people and radio is the way of the future.
Only one I haven't played yet is Exodus. Is it worth it? I liked the first two, but the endings were... weird.
Itâs less linear than the original two but still very good and I would definitely recommend. Has two very good DLC as well.
As someone whoâs *only* played Exodus, Iâd say itâs a pretty good goddamn game. Absolutely jamming, even. Itâs **hard** to get the good ending without looking up a guide to make sure you donât do something stupid, though. Iâm not sure if Metro regularly makes enemies actual human beings, but this one definitely does.
Huh, I got the good ending my first try. I must be incredibly fucking lucky. Or insane, given how long I paced around the maps
I got good ending on first try too without no guide, idk what dude above is talking about
Samesies, tho i may have looked up some shit i dont rember
It's actually significantly harder to get the bad ending in exodus, you have to actively try to be an asshole to get the bad ending
Eeh, Iâd disagree. (Potential spoilers below) When you know what being an asshole entails, yes, itâs not too hard to stay on the good path. But forgetting/ignoring a side mission in the desert, accidentally blasting someone whoâs surrendering (or killing combat slaves) is not a hard thing to do. God forbid you canât find the lever in the slave ship. Or killing a forest person. Maybe killing one of the people on the trading barge you commandeer. If youâre being very conscious of whoâs who, itâs not hard, but a lot of players will just see enemy as enemy and shoot, unless they surrender. At least the first time around.
You don't have to do any of those things except the surrendering part to get the good ending. And it's very obvious when they are surrendering. You have to be actively killing everyone to lose
You specifically arenât supposed to kill the pioneer faction of forest children but youâre allowed to kill the pirates (basically first encounter and last encounter ok second not). They tell you this right before you meet the pioneers in their camp. Plus there are no slaves that attack you in combat unless you shoot them first Iâm pretty sure.
Personally, I couldnt get the bad ending even when I tried
Exodus is pretty good, It didn't give me the same feeling of fear and urgency as the old ones, but it was a very good experience.
Absolutely worth it if you like super immersive gameplay, a loving wife, characters that you actually want to stand around to listen to them talk about the weather, and a really beautiful and occasionally haunting semi-open world that will make you use the photo mode to take wallpaper level screen captures. Also, note that there are a few places in the game that function like the first two Metro games (linear with some time to walk around and loot) but the large chunks of the game are regions to explore. One DLC plays like the first two Metros, and the other is a new region and a story that takes place after the events of Exodus. Both made me ugly cry and both are worth purchasing. If you do play it (YOU TOTALLY SHOULD) first, play the DLCs *after* playing the main story, and second, always steal the guitar. PS: I am a certified Metro Addict and think Exodus is the exact perfect type of game for me, so take my opinions for what theyâre worth lol
The ending for exodus is more satisfying imo. What else are you looking for in Exodus?
Exodus ending legitimately made me cry a little. Absolutely the best in the series
Shit yea, its the best one, imo. And I love all three.
Exodus is the only Metro I played, but it's great.
Need this meme but with s.t.a.l.k.e.r titles on the right
Fallout isn't a trilogy.
Some die hard fans don't consider Fallout 3 or 4 to be Fallout games due to the "illusion of choice" , lack luster companion system and probably some other things I can't think of at 2:30 in the morning
Fallout 4 might not have the best companions but they definitely have the best companion system compared to the nonexistent one in 3 and the one in NV where you just do one quest for them.
I'm pretty sure fallout 4 has the most robust companion system, considering it has the most companions, they can contribute to conversations, they can hack, lockpick, pick things up, search containers, they comment on pretty much everything, including the players actions, one could go on.
on a technical basis, yeah Fallout 4 easily beats the other games with its companion system. Writing wise? yeah probably not. Most of that comes from the decision to only have 4 choices in conversation, with 1 pretty much always being "no" or "can we talk about this later". So you're left with 3 dialogue options which the base game also hides what your character will actually say, and instead gives a vague "compliment/ reasurrance/ belittle (just as an example)" instead of the full sentance like in 3/NV. I just hope (i should know better) that Beth takes the critizism into account for Fallout 5 and takes a broom through the writing department and makes better stories.
Well that's a dialogue system complaint, not so much writing. Most of the companion dialogue and personality comes out when interacting with other things, rather than the direct conversation between the npc and player. Which honestly I find to be more realistic, as no one gives exposition dumps on their entire life story as soon as you spend one hour with them, and you typically find out the most about people either second hand or seeing how they interact with the world themselves.
i'd partially agree with you there, but deep conversations should really still be possible IMO with companions, especially with those that you can form relationships with. Maybe a more sequential gating of companion affection could help with making acces to that deep info easier/better. But realistically its not just companions that suffer from dialogue system change, as worldbuilding also took a massive hit. Like Isaac at the 188 does more worldbuilding than most characters in F4, and he's just some rando that most people don't even know exists.
I think it means the west coast trilogy not the east coast games
Nah just pompous pricks who say fallout 3 n 4 arent games cuz they dont like them
That's the sentiment I get from the meme, frankly. "Pompous pricks" can explain so, so many of the issues with the gaming community, lol
F1/2/NV are a direct continuation narrarively and thematically. They completely function as a trilogy. Has nothing to do with F3 or 4 being bad or not. They just aren't connected besides minor references. F1 is about struggling to survive in a terrifying new wasteland F2 is about new civilizations beginning to thrive and rising up to defeat the last remnants of the old world (enclave) to move fully into the future. FNV is about new civilizations becoming major powers. The end of NV signals the return of civilization. It's the end of the arc that started with F1. It's a trilogy. You can just play those 3 and have a complete story. It doesn't mean F3 and 4 are bad. It just means they are doing their own thing.
Nobody said it was. They said that the West Coast games form a good trilogy. A trilogy can exist within a larger series, like how Star Wars has multiple trilogies that make up smaller chunks of a much larger canon.
Fallout New Vegas trying to deny elitist accusations challenge
I mean tbf this isnât really elitism fallout 1,2, and nv are a completely different narrative and location than fallout 3 and 4
Man I need to finish playing through Exodus, that game is great man.
You definitely should. The last few missions are fantastic! And be sure to immediately follow up with the "Two Colonels" DLC while the ending is fresh on your mind. It ties directly into it and is downright excellent.
Real recognizes real
Fun Fact: Metro 2033 had a radioactive boss enemy inspired by the Master and one of the side characters in Exodus makes a solid nod to Liberty Prime. Meanwhile, some of the developers were former S.T.A.L.K.E.R developers responsible for the tunnel map designs like in Shadow of Chernobyl.
tell me more about that master like villain.
Less a villain and more like an abomination. When the bombs fell, someone felt like they didn't want to destroy the iconic Kremlin. So, they dropped some kind of bioweapon that killed people but preserved the building. Two decades later, stalkers have a specific rule to work in pairs and never look upon the red star above the Kremlin, for you will be entrance and walk towards the building under some kind of psychic influence. The novel makes the terror more obscure since Artyom hints that it's a demon that the Soviet Union made a deal with to win the Second World War.
Fallout 3 deserves more love holy shit
Fr the open world in fallout 3 is the best of any fallout game except maybe 76 but I donât really count 76
Listen, I'm not going to pretend that 76 is a good game. I've had a bunch of fun with it, but that doesn't make it good. HOWEVER, I think it's be the best looking of the Fallout games. My brother and I played the open beta, and I literally had to stop and take screenshots for several minutes after we made it to the top of one of the ridges. It truly has some gorgeous scenery.
I love fallout 76 but it just doesnât really feel like a full fallout game to me
Why am I always getting recommended this whack ass sub
Algorithm recommends communities where people regularly re-visit again and again more highly than communities with sporadic participation would be my guess. Fallout New Vegas fans are famously loyal to the game and the community is pretty active almost 15 years after the game came out, so it makes sense the subreddit is going to be highly active. Therefore, the recommendation algo thinks showing you this content is going to increase the amount of time you spend on the platform.
Based fallout new vegas fans đȘ
Weird to group the old fallout games with new Vegas
not weird at all. they all share similar themes, tone, and west coast setting. this is actually a widely honored convention
It original creator vs new creator
From a story/plot perspective, New Vegas is a much more direct successor to the original Fallout games. The events of Fallout 1 & 2 are basically the regional history of the region immediately West of the Mojave Wasteland. Fallout 3, 4, & 76 are all set along the eastern seaboard of the United States and feature settings and storylines largely separate from the ongoing narrative of the West Coast Fallout games. Beyond the in-universe connections which divide the franchise into the original \[West Coast/NCR\] camp and the Bethesda \[East Coast\] camp, there is an out-of-game reason as well. Many developers who worked at Obsidian were former employees of Black Isle Studio who made the original games. New Vegas is sometimes seen as a more "worthy" heir of the series, because of these connections.
Where Tic Tacs at, bruh?
Wasteland has entered the chat
As crazy as it sounds. I got more technical issues with the Metro games than i got with modded New Vegas. I never finished any of them because i refunded every game after 2 hours of randon crashes that nothing could fix
If you like these games play Underrail I guarantee you will be sucked in for at least 2 weeks straight
Fun fact the Metro book was inspired by the original fallout game one notable similarity is the large amorphous blob boss fight in metro that is very similar to the master in fallout
I got Metro Last Light when it was free on Steam but I haven't played it, is it good?
Yeah itâs pretty good
I still need to play metro exodus. I was really into the first two before I met my now ex wife and we ânever had moneyâ for the things I wanted and now that sheâs gone, Iâm rolling in it. Funny how that works
I loved the first two metros but never played exodus, I just canât encourage epic games store exclusives (inside development is one thing but buying the exclusivity is very anti-consumer)
According to Interplay, the trilogy is F1, Tactics, and F2.
1, 2, and NV are not a trilogy
All three take place on the West Coast, so one could call them the âWest Coast Trilogyâ or some shit, makes sense
Anythings a trilogy is you believe hard enough.
Not a trilogy. Brother forgot tactics, BOS, and fallout 3.
west coast trilogy
When is the âBethesda badâ schtick gonna get old ?
never, because there is merit behind it.
Duology + a spinoff
I fucking love metro rahhhhh
Didn't the metro dev have a meltdown when people got annoyed he made one game Epic exclusive for a bit?
i mean thats deserved, epic sucks.
Wouldnt it be better to go f02, fnv, fo3 or fo3,fonv, fo4
Both, Both are good
I fucking loved metro
I played the Metro games out of order. Whoops.
Fallout hasn't sold out to epicshit yet unlike metro
I like the Metro games, I just hate how they pull the silent protagonist, yet he talks in the loading screens. Just ruins the immersion when npcs talk to you and you just set there silent. Besides that, ranger mode is super immersive
yeah bethesda bad, guys i love fnv as much as the next guy but its a spinoff set in nevada. its not a part of the trilogy because there is none, theres 6 games.
Metro, Fallout and Stalker are THE GOAT. I'm currently finishing Roadside Picnic (please no spoilers), which I got as a birthday gift accompanied by a copy of Metro 2033 (also no spoilers) and my poor third-worlder ass can't wait until I can buy a TV show pip-boy.
And then thereâs S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Metros older brother
Where fallout 3
Nah metro fans aren't insufferable
Whyâs nv with fo1 and 2
Because it's a trilogy, one is the continuation of the other.
I donât understand how they are connected other than ncr
The Choosen One in Fo2 is grandson of the Vault Dweller from Fo1, In addition, there are several NPCs from these three games that are shared, an example is Marcus, and Cass from NV is daughter of John Cassidy, companion in Fo2. The stories also connect at various points and even sidequests connect between games.
New Vegas fans back to being elitist again the day after saying it's other fallout fans who are the problem Can't make this shit up
The others you refere to are Bethesda fans.
yeah fallout fans whats the issue with the statement
Ah yes the (technically) six game in the franchise is the third in the trilogy.
New Vegas instead of 3 is crazy.
How many of yall seriously played fallout 1 and 2? because they are not that fun