This ^

Though I have read the lore of the first two Fallout's extensively and find it to be rather interesting, I just cannot bring myself to play turn-based games. Fallout 3 is flawed certainly, and has various holes in the plot and the logic; but I can't help but always enjoy playing it. The world is so detailed and interesting to wander through it makes me forget all of its shortcomings which (as I play on pc) can be easily remedied.
New Vegas on the other hand has a much more interesting plot, better written dialogues, and companions that are useful. Problem is, the world building is a tad sub-par. So I'll give two answers; 3 for the world and Vegas for the story. I can only hope that Obsidian and Bethesda work together to make Fallout 4 for the perfect game.

My irrelevant and opinionated ranking;

1. Fallout 2
2. New Vegas
3. Fallout 3+DLC
4. Fallout 1
5. Fallout 3
I loved FO2 for its variety and world. While many RPG's stick you on a pretty rigid combat path, it lets you branch out into a lot of other styles. letting you do everything from becoming a boxing champion to simply carting around sandwiches. The sense of variety makes it feel more like a fully thought out world than just a giant dungeon. But what really sells it is the characters, who all seem to have a unique attitude and outlook. I guess that's what kinda let FO1 down. Sure, it had some very memorable NPC's (the Master, Harold, Loxsley) but they were few and far between. While the writing was truly horrible (Cough! Cough! Fallout 3! Cough!) it just didn't pull you in or leave a mark in the same way Fallout 2 did, with even very small roles like Stuart the boxing instructor making a bigger impression than even major characters from the first game like Ian and Killian. What really clinched it though was the time limit. In FO1 I generally found myself to busy frantically outrunning the water chip timer to really immerse myself. True it added to the plot's urgency, but it left me feeling too rushed to really get invested in the world. So, second one wins for me.

As for the next gen games, it was an easier pick. The sense of exploration and design in Fallout 3 is just amazing... But even in the good quests the problems with the voice acting and writing emerge. Blood Ties was a fun quest... But while not awful, Ian and Vance's acting just kind of felt a little forced. Lucy was even worse. When you tell her what happened to her parents she has a very hysterical and over the top reaction, with lots of NOOOOOOOOs and the like. While the hamminess of the acting certainly didn't help the main problem was mostly in just how over the top and soap opera-ish the dialogue sounded. Just compare it to the scene in FO2 where you tell Marcus about finding the murder victims. He doesn't scream, roar or rage about it. He just quietly lets it sink in and resigns himself to telling their families. The restraint really helps, it’s just seems more natural and is actually more subtle. This kind of thing is pretty common in the game as a whole. While the plot with your Dad was a good attempt at trying to give the story an emotional edge, the narmy acting and writing really let things down, with supposedly big moments like the end dilemma getting shot down simply because characters like Sentinel Lyons are just too thinly sketched to really get a reaction from us.

New Vegas on the other hand is a good example of a strong execution winning out over a weak premise. The personalities of the characters (especially the companions, who IMO were done to a standard worthy of Bioware) gets you to actually care about where the story is going, even if the story lack a bit in surprises. The local politics of places like Freeside felt a lot more compelling and relatable than most of FO3. For example, having to broker a deal with local criminals to help the Followers felt more understandable than Tenpenny Tower, where the presence of rich people in a world without an economy just leaves you scratching your head. While the exploration and locations weren't as memorable as FO3, they were still pretty fun and when balanced out with the better writing it pretty much swings things in NV's favour.

Another area it wins out is the villains. While I know a lot of people prefer the Enclave, I found the Legion a lot more threatening, which gave NV a much greater sense of urgency. For all their advanced technology, the Enclave in FO3 never come of as capable or motivated enough to be a credible threat. The only success’s they have in the entire game are killing one unarmed scientist, killing a few sods who were unlucky enough to stumble across their camps, and blow up Liberty Prime in a battle they lost anyway. When you consider that they fall apart purely of their on accord on account of infighting between Autmn and Eden, they don't seem very organised or dedicated either, and after Project Purity they're pretty much on the defensive or on the run for most of the game, meaning that they never generate a proper sense of menace. The Legion on the other hand go on the offensive right from the start. When the game begins they've already sacked a town within enemy territory, destroyed Camp Searchlight and conquered a small empire in covering over 4 states. Throughout the game they give of a sense of threat, as they destroy Camp Charlie, attack Bitter Springs and try to blow up the monorail, in contrast to the Enclave who just twiddled their thumbs in a few desert camps and made vague threats about using the water to blackmail local communities to obey them, even though most of them seem to be doing fine without it (I know Eden had bigger plans, but that prompted Autmn and most of the organization to turn against him). Not only does the Legion's threat feels direct, but also feels deeper than simple tyranny. While the Enclave just came off as thugs in power armour, the Legion will attack you on a more profound level, taking away your culture and identity, which combined with their apparent love of sixual violence, give them a degree of psychological menace. And perhaps worst of all, they come off as extremely capable, having spies planted in NCR's elite officers and being suicidally loyal to Caesar, always making you feel that their bark's as bad as their bite.

Well, thanks for listening to the deranged ramblings of a neurotic Scotsman who thinks he's way smarter than he really is!

Fallout 2!

New Vegas, didn't like 3, didn't play the others.

This forever and always.

Fallout 3,

I liked its atmosphere, and overall its held me the most out of any Fallout game.

Fallout3 is my mine

it was completely different, story was something i had never seen before in a game. the guns were cool and are still cool.vioce acting was perfect .side missions were many.
never gets boring .

Original series; Fallout 2

New Series; New Vegas

In order of preference:

1. Fallout 3
2. Fallout
3. Fallout: New Vegas
4. Fallout 2

I haven't got round to Tactics yet, I will eventually though.

Really?

Let me be the First to say i like the entire series.
But Fallout 3 introduced me into it i still have yet to play F1, F2, and Tactics.
1 or 2. Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas

Yeah, I kind of lol'd at that too. F3's voice acting was really cheesy alot of the time, but each to his own I guess. Then I do prefer the voice acting of Killing Floor which is MEANT to be cheesy.

I like New Vegas the best so far, but I'm starting to enjoy Fallout 2; maybe once I finish it, I'll like 2 better than NV.

Fallout, especially with the restoration project; Mutant Invasions for the win.

Fallout 2 for introducing me to Fallout.

Fallout Tactics for showing how the combat should be done.

Fallout 3 for showing how to integrate those into one massive game of exploration of the tactical play of the stories, role-play and combat.

Ooooh, that game has some brilliant voice acting.

"IT'S RAINING MONEEEEY!"

I have not played Fallout 2 or Tactics, so I can't judge them.

1. Fallout 1- Easily the best Post-Apocalyptic game ever. Realistic world and immerssive one at that.

2. Fallout New Vegas- Not as good as Fallout 1, but very close.

3. Fallout 3- Erm, I would rate it lower if I could. The exploration was ok, but not much is going for this game.

Well, as with smoking, you're never too young to start. So get it done.


Kudos, I you get the reference.

Hard for me to say right now i played F1, Working on Playing F2, played FNV, and F3, and have not played Tactics.

But from what i have played so far i would say F3.

This, I haven't had the pleasure of trying F1 or F2, but I will definitely give them a shot. Fallout 3 gave me MUCH more of a post apocalyptic feel than New Vegas did, but then again New Vegas is all about the development of society and the things that hinder it.

Yah i enjoyed F1 and i am enjoying F2. F3 looked like it was nuked 10 years ago but i liked it anyways i loved the music and i loved the feel of the whole game while i was playing it.

And yet, it was only after visiting the forums that the scales fell from your eyes, and you decided that this game you had loved previously was suddenly not much kop anymore. Which is interesting.

Oh, to be young and suggestible again.

:whistling:

Played them all (except BoS and Tactics), it's really tough to choose between NV and FO3. Both have pros/cons vs. the other game, but I might have to favor NV. It's tough, because blowing up Megaton and watching Liberty Prime storm the Jefferson Memorial were my favorite moments of both games. NV just had more little "interesting moments". You should probably wait until all of the NV DLC's are out though. Point Lookout and the Pitt added a lot to FO3. Hated Anchorage, Broken Steel, and Zeta. Dead Money probably falls between those two groups in my book.

Can't blame him for seeing the light. If you catch my drift. :fallout: