New Vegas was just better. Just like OG Fallout writing was superior. Guess who wrote New Vegas?
Fallout 3 is magical, but it’s Harry Potter and Vegas is Gandalf.
Fallout 3 is a power fantasy. Nothing against that, but it’s not what drew me to the series in the first place.
I’d like 3 a whole lot more if it didn’t have the subway maze.
They all looked the same to me and I never ended up where I wanted.
fun little-known fact, the subway maps in fallout 3 are both functional and accurate to how the “subway maze” is laid out in Fallout 3! inaccessible stations and tunnels will be darkened out, and you can navigate by following the lit-up portions. for some reason this is never mentioned in-game, but it made following playthroughs way more enjoyable
That would probably be fun for anyone familiar with the DC subway system. 😂
That ending was to fix a crash that would be caused if you selected that choice. I know, because I got that bug. They patched it out pretty damn fast with this stupid thing.
Don’t kill me but 3’s map is better, Bethesda is better at making a Bethesda game map than Obsidian was.
3’s map felt less like an open world and more like a series of individual maps thanks to needing the subways to get anywhere. It’s the mass effect elevators dialed up to 11.
Different strokes for different folks, Mojave wasteland is hella empty in comparison. I like having a billion different points of interest half of them unmarked that tear me off of my journey into unpredictable directions.
Honestly oblivion and Skyrim did a better job than either of them at presenting a world that feels open and lived in
Weird way to spell “Morrowind” twice.
I really should have just said elder scrolls
I was at a bar the other day and some people I’d met were talking about Oblivion being better than Skyrim because it was less handholdy, and the world was more interesting due to that. I said “nah, nah, if that’s what you care about, Morrowind is where it’s at”. A guy quipped that I was showing my age in saying that.
I suppose I was, but I stand by it.
Morrowind makes you feel like you’re in an actual world. You have to actually follow directions, instead of having the magic quest marker arrow.
Also - you can fuck up. Oblivion and Skyrim are so weakly written that basically none of the factions have any flexibility in who can die (and when a quest wants someone to die, there aren’t always other options). Morrowind can handle if you decide you want to off Uncle Crassius for trying to put the moves on you.
That’s something that’s missing from the Bethesda Fallouts. I guess 3 will let you kill Three Dog but that’s kind of it. There are very rarely choices or consequences.
I like the scroll that makes you jump really high. That made me laugh so hard I thought my spleen would explode.
All open world games face the challenge of building a world that gives the illusion that it’s real, and will continue to tick over regardless of what the player does. Little things like the falling wizard in Morrowind stick out to me as things that made the world feel immersively real.
I’m playing Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 at the moment, and something I’ve been enjoying is how the world feels like a real world, where I feel a sort of “fear of missing out” when I am playing dice at a tavern and only able to overhear snippets of an interesting conversation a couple of tables over. It makes the world feel like it’s really alive, and not just a set of actors on a stage (even though that’s definitely what it is). Illusory depth, used skillfully, is pretty powerful. It’s cool to reflect on the ways in which this game is similar to other open world RPGs that came before it.
I agree that the lack of killability of many Bethesda NPCs makes the world feel dead. My late best friend said that one of the highlights of New Vegas for him was being able to kill basically the first Caesar’s Legion person you meet: he arrived in the town where people were being crucified and went “oh hell no” and killed the edgy Rome cosplayers. He especially loved the fact that they sent assassins after him for the rest of the game.
Depends on what you want out of a map I think.
NV’s layout provided much better narrative pacing, which really let the story shine.
But 3 allowed for much better exploration, plus it set a much stronger tone visually.
Both are a pale comparison to 2.
The writing in 2 is just incredible.
Fallout NV is the better Written game, but Fallout 3 is the better Designed game. Fallout 4 is worse than both in every way.
You are wrong in two counts out of 3.
4 is far better in gunplay, courtesy of the folks at Id.
Sure, for the first few levels, until you get to the point where everything is a bullet sponge and now it stops mattering how good or bad gunplay feels when every enemy takes 5 minutes to kill if you use anything other than the highest damage weapons in the game. Late game Fallout 4 is just bad to play, it feels awful and makes you hate the combat after a while. At that point, I’d take the crappy gunplay of Fallout 3 or NV any day. (I’d give NV the slight edge over 3 on that, due to having actual iron sights instead of a generic zoom effect when aiming.)
Lol, fair points. Kinda reminiscent of the jump from Morrowind to Oblivion in that regard.
But that doesn’t change the fact that it is better in a myriad of ways related to combat. Enemies actually take cover, guns have recoil, you can lean, VATS has uremoved mechanics that add a layer of strategy, power armor is vastly improved, etc, etc.
Even if the bullet spongey enemies do turn it into a chore after a while. tbh, 3 had this problem too, though not as bad. Albino Radscorpions come to mind. But I wasn’t looking to nitpick in my original reply.
If we are getting nitpicky though, throwing out the term ‘‘better designed’’ is quite a large umbrella to gloss over the myriad of design choices that 3 simply don’t hold a candle to NV on.
In a couple ways sure. Its map encourages exploration more than NV, and it sets a stronger visual tone.
But in no other way is it better designed than NV. Leveling is less impactful with many perks just being stat increases. Many dungeons are pointless copy paste jobs that are mostly fluff and filler content(the equivalent of bullet sponge enemies really, they become a chore after a while). Quest design isn’t as bad as many folk say, but is on the whole less inspired than NV.
Combat is either tied or just worse in every way (understandable since NV was able to simply improve on the framework 3 built). Damage threshold was simply a better system than damage resistance that largely solved the bullet sponge problem.
Heck, even glossing over NV’s superior writing fails to acknowledge how large of an impact this has on overall design. With the increased choices becoming a mechanic in of itself that 3 largely lacks. The improved interconnectivity of the world creating greater value to the actions of the player. All directly tying into the RPG mechanics, which tie back into the players build in ways 3 never even attempted.
I could go on, but I digress.
It’s enough to clarify that NV is the overall best designed game in most regards, with the hands down best writing.
3 has the strongest visual tone. (Though 4’s city design does nail the retro future aesthetic the series originally had)
3 and 4 are largely tied for ‘‘most explorable map’’.
And 4 is the hands down winner in gunplay feel. Even if that title is significantly diminished by terrible enemy scaling. (and has the worst writing, and worst quest design, and a terrible dialogue system, and…)
Alright, here goes:
In regards to combat, Fallout 4 has the best early game experience, as the gunplay is well made, but overall, it is a very lacking combat system that is just decent gunplay and that is it. Fallout 3 and NV both encourage strategy, partly due to the less than stellar gunplay, but also due to how characters are handled due to the fact it is an RPG. In Fallout 3 and NV, it matters a lot what weapons I decide to specialize in, not just for bonus damage, but also more options in combat and having a better time using the higher end weapons. Fallout 4 fails this entirely, as weapon “perks” only give damage increases and nothing else, meaning Every character you make in Fallout 4 is the same experience combat-wise. Fallout 3 cares less about its weapon skills, so NV gets the edge here as it cares a lot about combat in an RPG sense. Every time I play Fallout NV, I have to think about what weapons I intend to use late-game, my favorite run was using unarmed combat. Overall, NV wins Combat Design over the other two, but I’d still say Fallout 3 wins over 4 due to your choices still mattering more than just using the biggest weapon you can find, seeing as the 10mm is still useful all the way to the end of the game against some enemy types.
Exploration obviously goes to Fallout 3, as it has the most rewarding sense of exploration out of all of them. Right out of the tutorial, you can just go anywhere, pick a direction and start walking and you Will find something interesting, whether that be a neat quest, a fun encounter, something strange, or even something downright depressing, in a good way. You also are not often forced to navigate the map in a particular way, and rarely encounter obstacles designed to force you to stop exploring and stick to the path, unlike Fallout NV with its frequent invisible walls or massive canyon walls to keep you on the path they want you to take. Speaking of, NV doesn’t just have the opening tutorial, it has an entire 3rd of the game dedicated to being what feels like an extended tutorial, as you are stuck walking what I call the “horse-shoe” of the bottom part of the map, going from set piece to set piece, slowly being hand-held through the world and taught how the game works before finally being allowed to play the damn game. Sure, technically you can go north out of Goodsprings, but shut up, no new player is going to seriously consider that, even players who have beaten the game before likely won’t bother, and this results in the first several hours of every new game of NV being the Exact Same Damn Experience. For an open world RPG, this is Cancer, and that isn’t even getting into the fact that half of the time, when you Can explore, all you find when you go to check something out is either A; an empty building with some loot and maybe some enemies, B; random NPCs that have nothing to do except maybe trade with you, or C; literally nothing at all, just a random structure with nothing around. Fallout 4 also has this, as often most areas you can explore are just another dungeon with nothing interesting inside, just enemies to kill and junk to loot, but at least it lets you go exploring early on so it beats NV on this, but falls very short of 3.
Visual themes, this is always going to be debatable and up to personal opinion. Some people prefer the colorful (ew) world of Fallout 4, some prefer the cold quiet oppressive desolation of Fallout 3, and I guess some will prefer the empty deserts of NV. Personally, 3 feels the most Fallout to me, as it constantly reminds you that no matter how good things are going, no matter how wacky things can be, this is a dark place, this is a future you want to avoid, you don’t want to be here and you were better off in that vault. It constantly pushes in your face the horrors humanity is willing to unleash on itself, along with the inhuman consumerism that consumes us to this very day and where that leads to.
Quest design, now, this is where you again have to get a bit opinionated on, because is it better to have Technical or Emotional design philosophies behind your quests? Fallout 4 fails at both of these constantly, so we won’t even bother to go too deep on that one, but 3 and NV take two different approaches to quest design. NV takes the approach of wanting to create as many options as possible (usually) even if that undercuts the tone of the quest and the story it tries to tell, so it does create a great technical experience due to how many ways you can approach a quest, but often they end up being… a bit dull and uninteresting. Sometimes the quests do have interesting stories, but often they just aren’t memorable, fun to replay and see how you can approach it in different ways, but you’ll forget what it was even about after a while. Fallout 3 goes the other way, the quests are simple, sometimes too simple, but they are often focused more on delivering on the emotions of the quest, leaving you with something memorable, whether it be something you laughed at, something you thought was awesome, or just something that tickled your brain in a fun way. You’ll leave a lot more Fallout 3 quests with memories of what it was like doing it the first time than you will with NV quests.
Now then, writing, this is a BIG one and BOY does Fallout NV know how to both knock it out of the park and completely BOTCH it. Let’s start with 4 as again, easy, it sucks for many reasons; the limited dialog options that often all mean the same thing, the limited choices, the flat dialog, the assumption the player will care about things without ever giving them a reason to care about said things, and so on. Fallout 3 is also fairly easy, the writing is simple, it doesn’t get into complex topics very often, focusing more on either fantastical scenarios (that are fitting for the setting) or giving the player relatively straight-forward situations to deal with. To me, Fallout 3 is Star Wars, the original, in that nothing is complicated, just go with the vibes and have a good time, but doesn’t often miss the target, outside of the original ending of course. NV on the other hand is the Star Wars Prequels, it is complicated and complex, sometimes discussing hard topics and trying to make the player question things about themselves or the world, but sometimes you get those moments where they had ideas but didn’t know how to follow through and fell flat. Take the main conflict for example, in Fallout 3 it is simply good guys versus bad guys, nothing complicated but not inherently bad. In Fallout NV, the main conflict is between a corrupt government, a corrupt billionaire, a robot that says Yes to anything you want, and the most objectively evil faction since the Enclave, all while the writers are whispering in your ear going “Oh man, so many shades of grey am I right?” No, you have 2 shades of grey, one that is barely a color, and the blackest black you could have. Skyrim has the same problem, choose between a government with issues or racist idiots, OOOOOOH so complex! When NV writing works, it WORKS, but when it doesn’t, boy does it suck the air out of you. I still give NV the credit in writing overall, but the fact that I so often felt that “oh… that’s it?” feeling always made me prefer Fallout 3’s simple writing that only failed me with the ending. (Which, BTW, I didn’t have any companions with me, so I wasn’t even aware of the big problem everyone had with it until years later.)
Speaking of, Companions, real fast here cause NV just wins. 3’s companions are kinda shit, it took a long time for me to even learn about them, and the companions in 4, while fun sometimes, also often fall flat after a while. I like them, but NV companions are just more interesting as people.
Now then, you’ll notice I didn’t say anything about Overall game design yet, and that’s because BOY is it complicated and BOY does NV fail often here. Let’s start with the tutorial; Fallout 3 has that long ass tutorial, yes, I get it, but think back to the very first time you played it. For me, it was awesome, I loved it, by the time I left the vault I was genuinely curious where the FUCK my dad went, and I was invested in who my character was as a person, heck I was even worried about the people of the vault and what might happen to them. You learn how to play the game, and you get invested in your character, but on repeat playthroughs, yeah, it will get tiresome. Fallout 4 tried this same thing and FAILED miserably at it, you don’t feel connected to your spouse or kid, you don’t feel connected to your character, you don’t care about that random form you filled out for your stats, nothing, you just feel like it is something you have to sit through. Fallout 3’s opening didn’t wear on me until my 4th or 5th time through, but Fallout 4’s was so bad I have never replayed the game without mods, just because I don’t want to sit through that terrible opening. NV’s opening, while it has a good cutscene to get you to care about the main plot, boy is Goodsprings bland and boring. Half the people feel like they didn’t want to be reading those lines, their characters are boring and uninteresting, and the opening conflict is even more bland black VS white than Fallout 3. Doc is great, I like that part, but once I leave that office I can’t WAIT to get out of Goodsprings, fuck that dump.
Next up, the various mechanics of the games… well, looks like I am hitting the character limit, so I should probably stop here, but suffice to say: NV has a lot more mechanics than 3, and most of them suck. Survival is useless, ammo recycling is forgettable, different ammo types barely matter unless you play on high difficulties, disguises are pretty useless, damn near every new thing is just pointless or actively makes the game worse, like Reputation which actively conflicts with the morality system, pick one dammit.
Oh, and I don’t blame NV for the bugs, they all have shitty bugs and NV needed more time to cook anyway.
Well, I’m about to do a lot of agreeing and disagreeing with you. So before I get to all of that, I wanted to genuinely say thanks for writing me that essay. This may surprise you, but it’s pretty rare for anyone to listen to my inane Fallout ramblings. Much less fire back with as much obvious passion on the subject.
That being said, allow me to respond in kind.
I flat out agree with your assessment of the combat in 4. The RPG elements grind against the action oriented combat, and both are made worse for it. Though when the numbers come out right, I stand by 4 having the highest combat ‘‘fun ceiling’’ of the series due to the vastly improved combat mechanics. Even if it has the lowest floor as well due to the poor interplay with the RPG elements. If you were to remove the Leveling and Enemy scaling from these games, there is no doubt which one would be the most fun to play.
Also you may be overselling the need to strategize in 3/NV. Even on Very Hard, it’s never been… difficult. With the abundance of aid items and no penalty to using them, to the abuse-ability of VATS, to the broken items and perks, you are basically never going to need to strategize. (Speaking of unarmed runs, is ‘‘Super Slam’’ a strategy?)
As far as Exploration, your points on NV I mostly agree with. Though to say you ‘‘find nothing’’ while exploring is an overstatement. I stumbled on Vault 11 by just exploring for example. Just look at NV’s map and you’ll see that any direction you head will take you to a very interesting location with a great story attached. I’d argue the problem with NV’s exploration isn’t the destination, but the journey. The game usually railroads players to where it wants you to go. Taking away the feeling that you ‘‘discovered’’ anything at all. That combined with a fairly boring map layout rife with invisible walls, with little to look at that isn’t the next point of interest, makes getting to the interesting locations very lackluster.
What you call the horseshoe, I’ve been calling the racetrack, and it’s a great example of the design philosophy in this regard. Though I do believe while this hurts exploration, it helped Obsidian control the narrative’s pacing. So it’s a trade off.
Between 3 and 4, I think this largely depends on what you consider the point of exploration is. 4’s crafting mechanics meant every building was worth investigating. And as you got further up the crafting tree, revisiting old locations took on new value as junk you used to overlook now contained needed components. That combined with the more dense, diverse, interesting and intricate building layouts, helped by improved verticality, meant for the first time in a Fallout game players were actually scavenging.
I actually prefer 3’s exploration for much the same reasons you mentioned. But a friend of mine prefers 4 for the aforementioned reasons. And he clearly enjoyed exploring 4 as much as I did 3. To the extent that I’m not confident in saying either form of exploring is the ‘‘better form’’.
Visually speaking, overall I do agree that 3 felt the ‘‘most Fallout’’. Actually I prefer the original on this front, but we aren’t talking about Interplay Fallout at the moment. Suffice it to say, the tone and visual story telling in 3 is its greatest strength, and hands down the best of the Bethesda era games.
Though 4’s retro futuristic building designs are by far the most accurate to the setting of the original games. Which I appreciate. Especially since 3/NV are mostly just ‘‘bombed out modern day’’ aesthetics.
Which brings me to the discussion of Quest and Story designs.
We are going to have to agree to disagree on our opinions regarding the emotions brought about by the quests it would seem. While both 3 and NV occasionally have stories that fall flat, I would say 3 has far more of them that fall flat. For me, NV had far more that made me feel the emotion of the quest, leaving me with something memorable, funny, thought was awesome, and/or tickled my brain, with the added benefit of greater agency to make me “part of the story”, and not just a passenger.
And tbh, I think you might be forcing your opinion a bit hard by making the claim that 3’s narratives do this better. Just focusing on the side quest’s, NV has far more quests that check the aforementioned boxes for me. You may not have liked Goodsprings, but an old west showdown where you have to rally the town? That absolutely tickled my brain in a fun way. Honestly similar to “The Replicated Man” from 3, where the take on classic movie plots was enjoyable enough that the incredibly flat story telling can be forgiven. The introduction to the Legion at Nipton, the lottery? Actually terrifying to think about. The Boulder City showdown, a high stakes hostage situation, actually awesome. Vault 11, Vault 22, all of the amazing companion quests, the Ghouls in Rockets, The Kings, the list goes on an on.
3 had some bangers as well, the Replicated Man, Tenpenny Tower, Agatha’s violin, Arefu’s Vampires, the Republic of Dave, the Canterbury Common Superheroes, Oasis, Stealing Independence. I actually think 3 doesn’t get enough credit for how many fun side quests it had. But I wouldn’t say they were definitively more memorable/funny/emotional/brain tickling than anything NV had to offer.
And NV had an extra trick up it’s sleeve to elevate every quest. The inter-connectivity of the narratives. Where almost everything in 3 was taking place on a proverbial island, with basically no quests informing or impacting another, NV’s quests all built off of and flow into each other in a way that meant the more you played it, the more impactful/memorable/funny/emotional/brain-tickling the others were thanks to their combined meaning.
The main stories however we flat disagree on. 3’s Main story was… terrible for two main reasons. It was boring (which I get is just my opinion… but I’ll elaborate in a moment), and its design directly took players away from the best elements of the game. New Vegas on the other hand has a far more interesting story, and used it to encourage players to engage with its strongest elements.
As for which story was more engaging, I get that this is opinionated, but I’ll just start by saying I didn’t care about the main story of 3 at all upon leaving the vault. It never gave me a reason to. I didn’t care about finding Liam Nissan, and once I did it was by accident through exploration, I didn’t care about project purity (Nor did anyone else, some folks worshipped radiation, and the rest seemed to only rarely be shown to be having any water related crisis), I didn’t care about the Enclave, I didn’t care about the BoS. They were all just so under written that I barely know why they were doing anything at all and I keep forgetting characters. And the story elements were so generic and uninspired that I was just bored. I only actually finished the story once Broken Steel came out, and even then just to see the new content and used the main quest to power level a new character. And the ultimate choice for all of that was “Do you want to commit a genocide by injecting FEV into the water purifier?”. In the end, it was a poorly told story, with weak stakes filled with boring characters and nothing interesting to say. You may think people over embellish NV’s shades of gray, but 3 didn’t even have a compelling choice to ask the player. It was honestly the worst part of the game for me.
While NV also centers the plot around control of a resource generating installation, it uses this as a motivator to a far more intriguing exploration of the human condition. With better written factions and introducing a far more memorable cast of key characters. Compare House, Caesar, Benny, and Yes Man to Liam “your dad” Nissan, Lyons (both of them), Autumn and Eden. Now honestly tell me 3 had the better written characters with more engaging motivations and personalities?
Frankly, 3’s main story fell super flat, and is usually left out of discussion on why the game was great for a reason, where NV’s main story is still being discussed and debated to this day. So even if it’s just opinions, the overwhelming difference in how many people feel strongly about it seems to imply we could take the average and determine which games main story made a “stronger impact”.
And as an aside, I think you might have undersold the quality of the shades of gray in NV by simplifying it to the NCR v Legion dichotomy. The real shades of gray are found in how you decide the fate of all factions. It not as simple as who wins, but how everyone lives together after.
On to which game’s main story is better “designed” from a game play perspective, this one is no doubt going to NV. To preface this, remember the best part of each game. The greatest strength of 3 was it’s exploration, where for NV it was its narrative agency. 3’s main story barely had anything to do with exploration, taking you to only a few locations. It would instead have you spending hours on engaging with the worst part of the game, i.e. the dialogue and the stilted attempts at “cinema”. From the Vault intro, to Tranquility Lane, to the entire stretch of time from entering the Purifier with your dad until you make it to the Citadel, from the moment you get the GECK until you escape Raven Rock, and finally the attack on the purifier, all take you away from exploring the world and instead ask you to sit and watch the game at it’s worst.
NV on the other hand constantly asked you to engage with it’s strongest element, making narrative choices. Which may not be your cup of tea, but it’s hard to argue it wasn’t what people who do like the game love about it.
I meant to go on to game mechanics, but I seem to be hitting the character limit as well, so I’ll leave those points for what they are.
I have just 125 hours played in Fallout 3, vs. 1600 hours of Fallout New Vegas. The story in 3 isn’t nearly as timeless as New Vegas.
The only negative about 3 is the crazy ending.
Those are some thick rose tinted glasses
Okay maybe one of a lot of issues lol. But that ending was a slap in the face.
Yep, so bad and stupid that they retconned it with… what was it, the third dlc/major patch for the game, something like 9 months later?
For me nv and 3 are interchangeable in ranking more or less… I usually just chuck them both into the nr. 3 spot on the list
Thanks to TTW I largely consider them both to be the same game nowadays
No matter what’s going down. We can all agree that our hearts have had no home in Fallout since 76 was released. What the fuck is that.
What the fuck is that.
It is a Fallout themed amusement park. And it is enjoyable as hell as such.
I like 4, but refuse to pay money for an online-only Fallout game. They should not be rewarded for that with my money. I wish more people did likewise. If people would stop wasting money on shit, they’d stop making shit.
Avid fan of fallout new vegas here. Slight dislike for fallout 3 ( felt weirdly long ), and slight dislike for fallout 4 ( good game, shit fallout ).
I love Fallout 76. Fight me <3
It’s nowhere near fallout new vegas for me, wrong category altogether. But it’s beautiful, it managed to grab the goofy parts of fallout character perfectly, the grim storytelling is there and it’s level is proper. Gameplay is fun. So yeah.
Now however, I witheld from touching it until last year as I was not touching the steamy pile of bat guano it was at launch buuut…
100% this. I am die hard Fallout fan, F2 was always the best one to me, FNV and F1 were fantastic, I hated F3 and I liked the aesthetics and gameplay of heavily modded F4 (although not the story, even mods didn’t help enough for that).
And I actually enjoy F76. One just need to treat it as fallout themed amusement park rather than as a serious Fallout game.
Fallout 3 feels like every three steps I have to load a new area
I actually felt like that playing Half Life 2 many years ago
Fallout Tactics>Fallout 2>New Vegas>Fallout 4
Fallout Tactics had some fun custom maps and mods for multiplayer and thus will always have a place in my heart.
Tactics let you be a team of ghouls, supermutants, and a deathclaw rolling about the wastes. I was all about that game.
I bought fallout 3 on recommendation and sold it again a few weeks later. It was boring as hell.
I hate the cartoony schtick of new Vegas. I like my fallout games slightly more serious. It feels like I’m playing a kids game sometimes.
So you don’t like FO1 or 2?
I’ve never played them
It is never too late to educate yourself.
Totally, and it was constant too! Like the ‘‘Mechanist’’ vs the ‘‘AntAgonizer’’, come on, this is supposed to be a serious post apocalypse! Or the Republic of Dave? Or Little Lamplight? Liberty Prime? Gary! The entire Wasteland Survival Guide questline!
And even when NV was trying to be serious it just came across as cartoony! Like Big Town, or the mustache twirling Mr. Burke, or Oasis, or Arefu.
Edit: okay, maybe, the sarcasm was unnecessary. I do get what you mean, visually speaking 3’s tone was much more serious.
But narratively, NV’s tone was far more mature and serious. To the extent that when I play TTW (which I do quite a lot…), it’s the Capital Wasteland that feels like I’m playing a kids game, and I get whiplash at how much more mature the Mojave’s subject matter is.
fallout 4 > all other fallout games
now that’s an unpopular opinion.
It certainly has the better gunplay and loot’n-shoot loop, but that’s about it, like bethesda tried to import a lot of Borderlands in FO4 as they could
I definitely choose it over both 3 and New Vegas. It loses to 1 and 2 though.
