Ranking the Fallout Games: From best to worst

[Julio Franco]

In the 20+ years since the Fallout franchise was introduced to the world, all of the games have been met with praise---which means that ranking them isn't easy. It's especially difficult to pit the games against each other when you consider that the post-nuclear franchise underwent a genre change.

Read the full article here.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1589-fallout-games-ranked/

 

[Uncle Al]

I'm also a fan of Fallout 4. It was one of the better games I have played right beside Half Life. I think both could continue to play through a few more generations. Fallout could explore area's well beyond it's current geographic limitations and a few more creative vehicles wouldn't hurt either. Half Life remains "unfinished" which I personally see as a "sin against the gaming community" ..... Repent Brother!!!

 

[R00sT3R]

Quite honestly, I've found all of them to be tiresome & overrated...Don't think I've been able to stick at any of them for more than a dozen hours or so.

 

[Colonel Blimp]

Never played before 3, which I loved. Love 4 as well and go back to it from time to time, Nexus Mods helps make it more appealing as well.

Main reason is that I can't get on with games that are not first person in some way which is why I also didn't play GTA until V. Deus Ex as well come to think of it.

Maybe I'm weird.

 

[atari1980]

I'm also a fan of Fallout 4. It was one of the better games I have played right beside Half Life. I think both could continue to play through a few more generations. Fallout could explore area's well beyond it's current geographic limitations and a few more creative vehicles wouldn't hurt either. Half Life remains "unfinished" which I personally see as a "sin against the gaming community" ..... Repent Brother!!!

I liked it a lot at first, I think I have a good 400 hours in, there seemed to be so much to do and to explore. But the more I strayed from the main quest to find new locations and side stories, the more empty and artificial the world felt.

You know when you have to 'rescue' Emogene Cabot from Brother Thomas in the quest 'Emogene take a lover', I had this plan of waiting for everyone to sleep to rescue her since I didn't have the charisma high enough to convince Thomas to let me talk to her without giving him all my stuff.

..And I waited, and waited, and waited some more, until it was like 3-4 full day and nights, and not one person ever slept on their bed, ever.

This is what happens on most every quest, there's really only one way to finish a mission. The game doesn't let you be creative. Everything is superficial.

 

[OcelotRex]

Fallout 4 seems more concerned with keeping you busy shooting stuff and finding loot—which is fun, yes, but not really what Fallout games have traditionally been ‘about.’

I really dislike this train of thought. Fallout 1 & 2 still being the benchmark for "true Fallout" games near 20 years after their release is neglecting that games have evolved in the 20 or years since their release. The biggest issue most people had with Fallout 4 was that the Witcher 3 was released before it. It was an excellent game with a lot of progression from New Vegas.

 

[Polycount]

Fallout 4 seems more concerned with keeping you busy shooting stuff and finding loot—which is fun, yes, but not really what Fallout games have traditionally been ‘about.’

I really dislike this train of thought. Fallout 1 & 2 still being the benchmark for "true Fallout" games near 20 years after their release is neglecting that games have evolved in the 20 or years since their release. The biggest issue most people had with Fallout 4 was that the Witcher 3 was released before it. It was an excellent game with a lot of progression from New Vegas.

Something about Fallout 4 turned me off. Having played the originals and loved them (RNG/behind-the-scenes dice-rolling was a big part of classic RPGs, so a lot of us still love that stuff and play games like Pillars of Eternity/Wasteland), it just felt... Weird.

New Vegas was excellent, and probably the best way the franchise could have broken off from its CRPG roots (3 wasn't my favorite). It still had plenty of complexity and roleplay potential.

But, Fallout 4 feels "too" modern, in my opinion. A lot of stuff was simplified to the point of being boring for me, and you were essentially playing a Mass-Effect style fixed protagonist, what with the pre-determined voice acting and much of the dialogue being centered around saving your son. You couldn't really flesh out a blank slate as in past games, just alter the behavior/personality of a pre-determined character.

By contrast, I loved all of the Elder Scrolls games released so far, but each for different reasons. Morrowind scratched the CRPG itch due to its emphasis on leveling up and character-based gameplay, for example, whereas Skyrim and Oblivion were more just for the fun of exploring a medieval world. Probably felt that way because the ES games don't really have their roots set in CRPGs, but more in dungeon-crawlers like Daggerfall and Arena, so I didn't have many preconceptions about what a good Elder Scrolls game should/could be.

I also thought the Witcher 3 was great, but not a great example of a what a "true RPG" is to me. Personally, I like it when my games rely on character skills over player skills, in PnP fashion. Witcher 3's progression primarily focused on +10 swords/armor and perks, I would have rather had a slew of skills to level up and progress through.

Okay, back to work.

/rant

 

[Kibaruk]

I really liked F3 until it crashed, and the crashed again, and then again, until it was not even fun all of the quick saving I was doing to keep on playing.

I loved NV, it's been one of the few modern games that has really kept my attention from beginning to end, and how someone said already, nothing in that world felt artificial, independently on where you ended up there was always something to do besides exploring.

F4, mmm I did put in some hours but I felt it being oversimplified as well, I don't know, it is fun but it never really caught me, for as much fun as it was to see mutants over level until they dropped nice named weapons

 

[OcelotRex]

But, Fallout 4 feels "too" modern, in my opinion. A lot of stuff was simplified to the point of being boring for me, and you were essentially playing a Mass-Effect style fixed protagonist, what with the pre-determined voice acting and much of the dialogue being centered around saving your son. You couldn't really flesh out a blank slate as in past games, just alter the behavior/personality of a pre-determined character.

As far as the story goes it felt to me like a retread of NV: unite or conquer the wasteland through a faction. The decision to have voice acting and a central story felt like a necessary, modern improvement.

As to the simplification of the systems that helps achieve mass appeal so I can understand the developers' decision to do so. "Gamers" from the NES generation are now working with tons of disposable income but not the time to invest in all the AAA-titles available. Furthermore there are so many other distractions game companies need their games to have mass appeal to be considered successes. I find that mods tend to fill in the gap allowing crippling levels of difficulty if you choose to install them

By contrast, I loved all of the Elder Scrolls games released so far, but each for different reasons. Morrowind scratched the CRPG itch due to its emphasis on leveling up and character-based gameplay, for example, whereas Skyrim and Oblivion were more just for the fun of exploring a medieval world. Probably felt that way because the ES games don't really have their roots set in CRPGs, but more in dungeon-crawlers like Daggerfall and Arena, so I didn't have many preconceptions about what a good Elder Scrolls game should/could be.

Skyrim got a lot of the same criticisms that Fallout 4 got in being too simplistic. I see a lot of Skyrim in Fallout 4.

I think you hit it on the head though with preconceptions and major franchises. Hard-core fans want more of the same so any changes will be met with criticism. The problem is the hard-core fans will buy it no matter what and developers want new people getting hooked on the franchise.

 

[GeforcerFX]

Never could get into the original as a kid or trying to play it a few years later. My list goes

1.Fallout New Vegas
2. Fallout 4
3. Fallout 3
4. Fallout 2
5. the rest of them

I was very young for the first two fallouts, I have played them and enjoyed the 2nd one, Fallout 3 came out right in the prime of m youth gaming, blew me away, but then new vegas showed up and It definitely took top place for me. 4 adds elements of new vegas to a fallout 3 feeling world, and then adds new game play mechanics that I enjoy (settlement/ base building) so it get's second.

 

[TomSEA]

Fallout 3 rocked my world and still ranks as my #1 favorite game. It was the Washington D.C. theme that really grabbed me. I'm a 20-year military vet and a student of American history, so it clicked all my buttons.

Funny how most folks put Vegas at the top. I thought for a Fallout game it was fairly boring and skipped a lot of the side quests to finish it.

Still arguably the best series in gaming though with a nod to the Bioshock, Mass Effect and Witcher series.

 

[BSim500]

I really liked F3 until it crashed, and the crashed again, and then again, until it was not even fun all of the quick saving I was doing to keep on playing.

A lot of that was due to the GFWL DRM. The newer GOG version of Fallout 3 (both DRM-free and includes the Multiple Core CPU Fix by default) is very stable. Personally, 3 was my favorite out of the series.

 

[Polycount]

As far as the story goes it felt to me like a retread of NV: unite or conquer the wasteland through a faction. The decision to have voice acting and a central story felt like a necessary, modern improvement.

As to the simplification of the systems that helps achieve mass appeal so I can understand the developers' decision to do so. "Gamers" from the NES generation are now working with tons of disposable income but not the time to invest in all the AAA-titles available. Furthermore there are so many other distractions game companies need their games to have mass appeal to be considered successes. I find that mods tend to fill in the gap allowing crippling levels of difficulty if you choose to install them


Skyrim got a lot of the same criticisms that Fallout 4 got in being too simplistic. I see a lot of Skyrim in Fallout 4.

I think you hit it on the head though with preconceptions and major franchises. Hard-core fans want more of the same so any changes will be met with criticism. The problem is the hard-core fans will buy it no matter what and developers want new people getting hooked on the franchise.

You're quite right for the most part, but I wouldn't say voice acting or a central story is necessarily... necessary.

Other RPGs -- again, to use Skyrim as an example -- have sold exceptionally well without either of those things being present in any meaningful way. I sincerely do not think Fallout 4 would have sold worse had it lacked a voiced protagonist. The reason Bethesda's RPGs (specifically their RPGs, not their other published titles) have sold so well, in my humble opinion, is their emphasis on complete and total freedom, as well as roleplay.

Your character has no pre-set goals, no real backstory other than "prisoner" or "Vault survivor." Everything else is largely up to the player. However, that's the decision they made, and it's likely future RPGs from them will follow suit. That's what mods are for!

I also don't think there's anything wrong with "hardcore" fans voicing their frustrations with the current state of some of their favorite franchises, so long as it's done in a respectful manner. Personally, while I'm not one of them, I do think there are a lot of elements of the older ES and FO games that could actually work very well for a modern audience, but have simply been forgotten about. Spell creation, for example - a fun side addition that doesn't need to be overly complex, but got lost in the "modernization" of newer ES games.

 

[Capaill]

I enjoyed Fallout 1 and 2. And 3. Played NV but never enjoyed it as much. Also played a lot of Oblivion and Skyrim. Played Fallout 4 and enjoyed it. And then I discovered mods.
Replayed Skyrim with loads of mods and loved it. Replayed Fallout 4 with loads of mods and loved it. I'm still playing 4 to this day and typically have over 100 mods installed. I recently got the Season Pass so looking forward to the DLC. The new switches and doors are great fun for building. In the castle, I have repaired the walls and installed a kill switch beside the spawn point that instantly lowers the powered warehouse doors at both entrances. It was so satisfying to think of it and figure out the switches and wires on my own. I'm currently playing Survival mode with a P220 and Crossbow as my only weapons and I never take perks that make me tougher. Almost anything can kill me. But I enjoy it. I also use the Start Me Up mod so I don't care about Shaun and can roleplay my own way. I love that Bethesda has allowed me to play the game this way.

 

[Kazriko]

Eh, I think Tactics should be included, it's as much of a main entry in the series as New Vegas is. And it would give Fallout 4 a reason to not be dead last.

 

[Evernessince]

I'm also a fan of Fallout 4. It was one of the better games I have played right beside Half Life. I think both could continue to play through a few more generations. Fallout could explore area's well beyond it's current geographic limitations and a few more creative vehicles wouldn't hurt either. Half Life remains "unfinished" which I personally see as a "sin against the gaming community" ..... Repent Brother!!!

I don't think the author of this article thought Fallout 4 was good. After all, he rated it the worst of any game on this list.

I'm also a fan of Fallout 4. It was one of the better games I have played right beside Half Life. I think both could continue to play through a few more generations. Fallout could explore area's well beyond it's current geographic limitations and a few more creative vehicles wouldn't hurt either. Half Life remains "unfinished" which I personally see as a "sin against the gaming community" ..... Repent Brother!!!

I liked it a lot at first, I think I have a good 400 hours in, there seemed to be so much to do and to explore. But the more I strayed from the main quest to find new locations and side stories, the more empty and artificial the world felt.

You know when you have to 'rescue' Emogene Cabot from Brother Thomas in the quest 'Emogene take a lover', I had this plan of waiting for everyone to sleep to rescue her since I didn't have the charisma high enough to convince Thomas to let me talk to her without giving him all my stuff.

..And I waited, and waited, and waited some more, until it was like 3-4 full day and nights, and not one person ever slept on their bed, ever.

This is what happens on most every quest, there's really only one way to finish a mission. The game doesn't let you be creative. Everything is superficial.

That was one of the major complaints of Fallout 4, it didn't really have any choices. Many of the dialog options would produce the exact same result and it often felt like the player didn't even have an impact on the world. Having only a single main voice actor was an incredibly bad idea as well, it completely destroys the roll playing element of the game.

But, Fallout 4 feels "too" modern, in my opinion. A lot of stuff was simplified to the point of being boring for me, and you were essentially playing a Mass-Effect style fixed protagonist, what with the pre-determined voice acting and much of the dialogue being centered around saving your son. You couldn't really flesh out a blank slate as in past games, just alter the behavior/personality of a pre-determined character.

As far as the story goes it felt to me like a retread of NV: unite or conquer the wasteland through a faction. The decision to have voice acting and a central story felt like a necessary, modern improvement.

As to the simplification of the systems that helps achieve mass appeal so I can understand the developers' decision to do so. "Gamers" from the NES generation are now working with tons of disposable income but not the time to invest in all the AAA-titles available. Furthermore there are so many other distractions game companies need their games to have mass appeal to be considered successes. I find that mods tend to fill in the gap allowing crippling levels of difficulty if you choose to install them

By contrast, I loved all of the Elder Scrolls games released so far, but each for different reasons. Morrowind scratched the CRPG itch due to its emphasis on leveling up and character-based gameplay, for example, whereas Skyrim and Oblivion were more just for the fun of exploring a medieval world. Probably felt that way because the ES games don't really have their roots set in CRPGs, but more in dungeon-crawlers like Daggerfall and Arena, so I didn't have many preconceptions about what a good Elder Scrolls game should/could be.

Skyrim got a lot of the same criticisms that Fallout 4 got in being too simplistic. I see a lot of Skyrim in Fallout 4.

I think you hit it on the head though with preconceptions and major franchises. Hard-core fans want more of the same so any changes will be met with criticism. The problem is the hard-core fans will buy it no matter what and developers want new people getting hooked on the franchise.

The voice acting wasn't an improvement. When you are playing a Role Playing Game and you only have one voice actor, it's kind of hard to role play as anything when all your characters sound the same. Want to play a Psychopath? Guess what, your voice is still the same as the guy playing as the nicest guy in the wasteland. Zero replay-ability because you are always the same character.

Hard core fans are not against changes, they are against dumbing down of games to appeal to a wider audience. Divinity Original Sin and Original Sin 2 is a prime example that you can have your cake and eat it too.

I really liked F3 until it crashed, and the crashed again, and then again, until it was not even fun all of the quick saving I was doing to keep on playing.

A lot of that was due to the GFWL DRM. The newer GOG version of Fallout 3 (both DRM-free and includes the Multiple Core CPU Fix by default) is very stable. Personally, 3 was my favorite out of the series.

That fix is kind of required. FO3 was so poorly optimized that it would crash on many quad core systems. It's really the same for any modern Bethesda title as they all use the same ancient game engine.

As far as the story goes it felt to me like a retread of NV: unite or conquer the wasteland through a faction. The decision to have voice acting and a central story felt like a necessary, modern improvement.

As to the simplification of the systems that helps achieve mass appeal so I can understand the developers' decision to do so. "Gamers" from the NES generation are now working with tons of disposable income but not the time to invest in all the AAA-titles available. Furthermore there are so many other distractions game companies need their games to have mass appeal to be considered successes. I find that mods tend to fill in the gap allowing crippling levels of difficulty if you choose to install them


Skyrim got a lot of the same criticisms that Fallout 4 got in being too simplistic. I see a lot of Skyrim in Fallout 4.

I think you hit it on the head though with preconceptions and major franchises. Hard-core fans want more of the same so any changes will be met with criticism. The problem is the hard-core fans will buy it no matter what and developers want new people getting hooked on the franchise.

You're quite right for the most part, but I wouldn't say voice acting or a central story is necessarily... necessary.

Other RPGs -- again, to use Skyrim as an example -- have sold exceptionally well without either of those things being present in any meaningful way. I sincerely do not think Fallout 4 would have sold worse had it lacked a voiced protagonist. The reason Bethesda's RPGs (specifically their RPGs, not their other published titles) have sold so well, in my humble opinion, is their emphasis on complete and total freedom, as well as roleplay.

Your character has no pre-set goals, no real backstory other than "prisoner" or "Vault survivor." Everything else is largely up to the player. However, that's the decision they made, and it's likely future RPGs from them will follow suit. That's what mods are for!

I also don't think there's anything wrong with "hardcore" fans voicing their frustrations with the current state of some of their favorite franchises, so long as it's done in a respectful manner. Personally, while I'm not one of them, I do think there are a lot of elements of the older ES and FO games that could actually work very well for a modern audience, but have simply been forgotten about. Spell creation, for example - a fun side addition that doesn't need to be overly complex, but got lost in the "modernization" of newer ES games.

Yeah I'll be honest I'm not going to buy the next Skyrim or Fallout if they continue with a single voiced protagonist. Either they add multiple voices for different character types or don't do any voices at all. I do not want every one of my characters to sound exactly the same. They also need to increase the quality of their voice acting in general, it sucks.

 

[Kibaruk]

I don't think the author of this article thought Fallout 4 was good. After all, he rated it the worst of any game on this list.

I don't think that being in the last spot among excellent games makes a game bad, it simply means he liked the other ones better.

 

[Urgelt]

This is a tough subject, for a variety of reasons.

First: comparing isometric top-down turn-based RPGs to open world RPGs gets you deep into preference territory. Me, I prefer to spend my time in open world RPGs; turn-based iso RPGs feel awfully dated to me. My preferences end up placing Fallout 1 and 2 below the three Bethesda titles for that reason. I don't claim, any more than the author claims, that my preference is the 'right one.' It's just mine.

Second: Bethesda's support for modding makes me happy. FO3, FONV and FO4 all have support for modding, and a *lot* of content is available, for free.

Third: Without a doubt, FO1 and FO2 are superb story-telling creations and are the richest in irony of all of the FO games, which is an attraction for those old titles. (Clarifying note: FO1 and FO2 were not made by Bethesda. The others were, except FONV, which was made by Obsidian under license from Bethesda and shares virtually the same game engine as FO3.) Bethesda isn't all that great at narrative story-telling or character development. On the other hand, emergent stories - which emerge from game mechanics and the environment, as opposed to scripts written by writers - are a strength of the Bethesda FO games. Emergent stories make games less predictable and more fun on subsequent playthroughs, so there's that.

Fourth: settlement building in FO4 isn't everyone's cup of tea, but it sure is mine. For that reason, I'll forgive the narrative weaknesses of FO4 and place it at the top of my list of FO games. I've sunk far more hours into FO4 than any of the others, because I just can't quit building! I've gone so far as to add mods which provide more settlements: one that opens up all of the game's Red Rockets as settlement locations and another which adds a whole slew of settlements to Nuka-World. There are issues with settlement building that are displeasing, mind you - but it's a valiant first attempt at providing the player with some control over how the post-apocalyptic world looks and functions. I sure do hope that Bethesda expands on settlement building in future titles (and not just FO titles).

So, my ranking goes like this: FO4, FONV, FO3, FO2, FO1. Almost the opposite of the author's. (FO3 suffers a bit in my ranking because holy hell, but that game is unstable after you've racked up some hours playing it. It just gets worse and worse. FONV is much more stable on a game engine that's almost identical. FO3 is also roughly contemporary with Oblivion, which is the least stable of the Elder Scrolls titles and also suffers from instability the more hours you put into it.)

All five FO games deserve recognition as among the best games ever created. But there's a bright line separating the two iso turn-based titles from Bethesda's open-world titles. They aren't even in the same genres. FO1 and FO2 are also very, very old, and they show their age. It's almost unfair to all five games to be ranked at all, by anyone. The author did it anyway; and so did I, but I think we're both guilty of a pointless exercise.

 

[treetops]

I received a free demo of fallout 1 in the mail in the 90s when I was like 12, it seemed like the most awesome game ever. My parents would not buy it for me we already had so many SNES games, so I played the demo over and over, I probably played it more then any other fallout aside from 2. Then again I really haven't put much time into any fallout. I love multiplayer and by the time I got my hands on fallout I had games like diablo 2 and warcraft 3.

 

[Danny101]

I liked the backdrop and landscape of Fallout 3 over New Vegas. New Vegas expanded the character development better than 3. I never played 1, 2, or 4. On Fallout 3, the DLC's: The Pitt and Operation Ankorage were excellent. Fallout 3 did crash on me, but I usually averaged 2 to 3 hrs. gameplay before it happened so it didn't overshadow it. I still want to play 4, but decided it could wait. Fallout 3 would be my choice, because I was excited to play it after work and would plan what I was going to do all day long. By the time, I played on New Vegas and it's more drab wasteland, I didn't have the same excitement. No matter how much I want to play the bad guy, I still end up helping NPC's who don't try to kill me on site. Hard to find friends in the wasteland.

 

[nashathedog]

I'm too old and slow for multi-player twitch shooters so the Single Player Campaigns are what make or break a game for me and Fallout 4's didn't disappoint. I've put a few hundred hours into it so far and still haven't completed the main campaign or DLC's, I even enjoyed a lot of the music found playing around the Zone but that's probably my age showing, For me my all time favourite game franchises are Fallout, Metro & S.T.A.L.K.E.R.. With the loss of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 I've relied on Metro & Fallout to scratch my apocalyptic itch & although I was initially disappointed that Fallout 4 was using a dated game engine, in the end that didn't matter & I'm looking forward to Fallout 4.5 and beyond.

 

[astralcyborg]

I totally agree with your list.

 

[Prosercunus]

I would definitely put Vegas above Fallout 3 and maybe even Fallout 1.

 

[richcz3]

I would buy Fallout 3 using the Fallout 4 engine in a heartbeat.

I guess I'm in the minority on Fallout 4. The depth of individual quests/stories were seriously lacking in F4 compared to what was offered in F3. There was so much possibilities with F4, but a lot of concepts like the Settlements really felt unpolished. I'm talking about the base game. Never felt compelled to buy the DLC content.

 

[EClyde]

I enjoyed Fallout Vegas. I did not finish it though. My problem with games such as these is the necessity for me to play it constantly if I am to remember what needs to be done, what I have done and how the PIP helps. I don't play games that way(constantly) so they don't work for me. It's too bad or Ain't that a kick in the head?