Choosing the Fallout game for you.

So I was inspired to write this piece after reading one of the most ridiculous pieces I've ever read.

In a "The Verge" article titled "Where to start in Fallout?", the author states right away that their opinions are based on one hour of gameplay for each game (No, really). They also declined to talk about Fallout & Fallout 2 as well.

I don't think I need to explain how ridiculous it is to be giving weighted opinions on a slew of games that you only played for a single hour each.

To make it even more laughable, though, their response to the first inevitable "What about FO1 and FO2?" comment included (Word for word) such gems as "-those games are really only good for lore-hounds and street cred anyway" and my favorite "They're historically worthwhile more than they're a good gaming experience.".

This guy really played each game for a single hour and has all these opinions. Honestly, I am more amused than anything, but I'm secondly concerned that this guys' bad takes may sway some new blood into skipping out on two great games or even just picking the wrong game for the wrong reasons in general.

Before I go deeper, I want to warn that I'm pouring myself out on this one. I'm typically concise rather than verbose, but I'm not holding back on this article, so strap yourself in for a long read.

I have put at least 30 hours into every Fallout game but Tactics and 76. The whole premise of Tactics just didn't pull me in and the 10'ish hours I put into 76 were all I needed to loathe it and delete it from my console.

That said, I can do a deep dive into the pros and cons of the others, any of which I would recommend.

Let's start with the juiciest bit, though, shall we? Should you start with Fallout & Fallout 2?

That depends on your age, taste, and gaming background. I know some younger guys/gals that are into retro games, but the general rule is that Gen Z have very low tolerance for many of them. They are used to high framerates & resolution, modern 3D graphics, and smooth intuitive UI & controls. Fallout may run at 60FPS (Which was quite impressive for its time) but it delivers on none of the others. It's a 2D, isometric, turn-based RPG.

Fallout's biggest flaw, in my opinion, is the UI and control configuration. Even for its time, those controls were kind of bad. Especially when you compare it to the likes of Diablo where most things were done by mashing left-click on everything. In contrast, Fallout's character commands rotate through three modes: Attack, Movement, and Inspect/Action. These modes are rotated through by right-click and then performed by a left-click. Many players, especially younger ones, find this setup a bit clunky... and it is.

However, I don't think it's fair to dismiss these games altogether over this. This game is a dopamine-fix factory once you get the hang of things.

Most fans aren't going to shame you for "save-scumming" either, since the initial learning curve demands lots of trial & error. After all, that's part of the charm of the game anyway. You're going to have lots of moments like

"Oops, I know not to do THAT now. Loads previous save"

Once you've gotten to a point where you have this game figured out and it's under your thumb, you're hooked.

Then you move onto Fallout 2 and it's bigger & better with quality of life features Fallout lacked (Like being able to type in cap amounts in barter).

Turn-based oldies aren't for everyone, though. That won't stop me from urging you to give these a fair chance anyway. At the very least, play them for long enough to have a valid reason to not like them, unlike that guy who played them for an hour and had some pretty heavy opinions somehow. I'd say, play it until you successfully get the water chip in time. If pulling that off doesn't get the endorphins flowing, this game really isn't for you.

Anyway, before I get into the others, I'd like to go into more detail about why I loathe 76. It's a decent game in its own right, but it just isn't a good FALLOUT game. Key & defining elements are missing and other elements that don't belong are there. Your choices are meaningless, as they lead to the same results either way. The illusion of choice is egregious, in my opinion. The gore and obscenities are also missing. How is this a Fallout game if I'm not violently decapitating or maiming my enemies with a rocket-propelled super-sledgehammer?! It just feels like they took a generic 3D MMO and slapped a Fallout skin on it. If you're looking for an MMO that happens to look like Fallout, maybe you'll like Fallout 76. If you're looking for the definitive Fallout experience, 76 isn't it.

So let's get into the others. Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Fallout 4.

In my opinion, and there seems to be a lot of consensus on this, is that these are all equal games. They are all bad at some things and each one is better than the others at some things.

Fallout 3 has the best story... at least up until the anti-climactic end (Which I will not spoil here, sorry). Though Liberty Prime is definitely a high-point for the entire franchise. It also has the worst graphics because it's the eldest of the three, though I'd say they have aged well and still hold up. The map is a lot more linear than other Fallouts. It's the classic annoying trope of "You can't cross into the next area because it's blocked off by what should be traverse-able rubble". This leads to you being railroaded at times in linear fashion rather than the truly open-world experience one might hope for it to be. There's still a fair amount of freedom for wanderlust, just not as much as the other games offer.

Fallout: New Vegas has a great story from start to finish. Unlike Fallout 3, there are multiple endings and they are all satisfying. The map truly is open and very little of it is off-limits, aside from a few small parts on the outskirts of the map meant for late-game story progression. Unfortunately, a large section (The entire area north of New Vegas city) of the map is barren (Gameplay wise). The buildings can't be entered, enemies are scarce, it's just empty with little or nothing to do. The story goes that Bethesda rushed Obsidian to finish the game prematurely and the result is that that portion of the map had to be left that way. Then the southwest area has very high-level threats like Deathclaws. This means that the bulk of the game is confined to what amounts to a smaller world to interact with.

My own personal gripe (Although not a big deal) with New Vegas is with the graphics engine Obsidian used. Everything has a weird sheen or gloss to it. Like everything is made of wax. I'm not too fond of it. I actually prefer the Fallout 3 aesthetics to that.

Fallout 4 is a tough one to nail down. I don't think the story is as bad as everyone else says, but I do agree that it's way too short. This is a game that you could probably beat within 3 hours if you know what you're doing. Still, the graphics and visual presentation are phenomenal and immersive. I like the intro music, but I feel like the in-game music is a little TOO dreary. The controls & UI are the most fluid & intuitive of all the games as well. Some say it's dumbed down, but even as a fan of the other games, I still liked it.

The thing that really sets Fallout 4 apart though is the settlement & crafting system. The concept is actually cool, but the execution does leave a bit to be desired. You can build your own house (Or houses, if you like) and set up your own shops, but there's a lot of drudgery in making it all happen. Getting too deep into it induces a bit of monotony & fatigue and not all players are a fan of that. Many purists bash it in general as a deviation from the Fallout experience in the first place.

Fallout 4 is a bit divisive. It's a love it or hate it game for most, although I'm one to see both sides of things.

All things considered, I think the best and most definitive Fallout experience is gotten from Fallout 1&2, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas. Fallout 4 isn't a bad choice, but I just don't think it's the BEST choice. If you end up hating all of them, perhaps Fallout 76 is your game.