Rank them

2>1>NV, although I will admit 1 has a superior atmosphere, and some of its quest are better written. But it's just less polished, and as far as the game go, a bit less enjoyable than 2. When you played Fallout 2, going back to Fallout 1 and constantly being stuck in door way because you can't push them, seeing them die (because companion management and invertory is inexistant) it's fucking frustrating as hell. That alone makes I have like 10 playthrough of Fallout 2 but barely 2 with Fallout 1.

That ps2 one was cool as fuck and got me into the series. After that I'd say 3, New Vegas and 4

FNV > Fo1 > Fo2

NV>1>2>4

2 isnt a fun game, or fair, or tells a good story. its an overrated mess that is only remembered because you can dick around for 5 mins as a boxer or pornstar. it still has the shitty rng combat 1 has, but 1 least had a good central villain and did a better job leading you to where you need to go, and was way less bullshit than 2(fucking 6 raiders with smgs+dogs right outside of starting town) rng encounter LMAO literally only soultion is to reload save and hope you don't get it again. also its way of leading the player is shit compared to the masterpeice of 1's main quest. fi you just want a game to dick around in then unironically just play fallout 3

fallout 1 is great Tho, and actully deserves to be on top 10 masterpeices of all time lists

NV>1>2.

2 is fucking dogshit,there are way too many pop culture references, theres like 30 star wars references for fucks sake, completely ruins the gritty atmosphere that fallout 1 had
get better taste you absolute pleb

2 is a bigger game with more shit to do and QoL improvements, but 1 benefits from having a very tight focus, an utterly macabre and disturbing atmosphere that 2 completely drops in favor of quirky humor, and much better pacing.
I love both games but there's a reason I played through 1 five times and never touched 2 again after my first run.

modded New Vegas>1>vanilla New Vegas>2

Attached: m14.jpg (1600x902, 495K)

They're all shit really.

FO2 > FNV > FO1

NV>3>1>=2>>>>>>>Feces>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>BoS
Never played tactics

>3 better than 1

OS fallouts have shit gameplay and defending it is hardcore nostalgia fagging

New Vegas > 2 > 1

And really, 2 and 1 should be equal because the combat system of both has aged like milk.

new vegas is boring trash

2 > 1 > 3 > NV

2>NV>1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Didn't play tactics or Brotherhood (thank god)

2 is the best post-apocalyptic depiction in video games. New Vegas is 2 done better with actually interesting writing instead of almost everything being a fucking joke

Fallout 1
>gameplay
8/10
>graphics
a bit dated now
6/10
>replay value
9/10 until you try the 1 int mode, then drops to 1/10 after
>overall
8/10

Fallout 2
>gameplay
6/10
>graphics
6/10
>replay value
3/10
>overall
6/10

Fallout New Vegas

>gameplay
9/10 just for the hilarious bugs and content and a 10/10 modded to how you want it
>graphics
6/10 unless modded, then up to a 10/10 if your rig can handle it. weakest problem of the game.
>replay value
9/10
high value due to a fair amount of possible endings, docked a point because most of them are slide shows with text to explain what happened. Still, better than most of their games. At least there are some more evil endings possible and not technically bad (death) endings like most games
>overall
7/10 unmodded and 11/10 fully modded with difficulty/graphics and with all expansions.

Attached: 1553483242610.jpg (542x337, 122K)

3 has shit gameplay too tho
I say this as a zoomer who started with 3
Can't even aim down the sights, the gunplay is clunky as hell, the animations look mediocre at best
The only things that make it a good game are
A the atmosphere, which FO1 does better
B the npcs/quests which FONV does better
C the open world which is admittedly, on par with FO2

>2 is the best post-apocalyptic depiction in video games

Meant 1 obviously

I just played them recently (I'm 21 years old) and found the gameplay good, maybe you're just a pleb?

1 was pure kino and was the direction the series should have taken in identity and feel. 2 is a memefest with no substance. NV is fun for children/teens but is manchild tier in philosophies when taken serious and is ultimately no better then 3 and 4.

Attached: heh.jpg (600x600, 21K)

2>1>NV

if NV had more time easily would have been the best for me

But its bullshit because my first playthrough was on ps3 and it was a hot mess on there

>11/10 fully modded with difficulty/graphics and with all expansions
my nigga

>ps3
I am sorry for your lots

on PS3 literally the bigger your save file gets the worse the performance will be

I would argue 3 has serviceable game-play. it's not good but it's not game-killing. OS games even with combat speed maxed is some of the slowest and most tedious bullshit the time. Who wins boils down to who is who crits first until you get power armor and just faceroll everything. One party turn-based was a mistake.

only really weird combat I thought was melee as it felt a bit disconnected, most of the ranged weapons were manageable and not bad, unless you had a real beef with staying as realistic as possible.

There were areas in the game that I couldn't play in because the performance was so bad that it would crash especially in the DLCs

Dead money was the best one

NV > 2 > 1

3 definitely has serviceable gameplay, but so does 1 & 2
I never thought they were that slow and tedious except in the worst of situations, like starting a gang war in New Reno where you get a salvadore guy to accidentally shoot a Bishop guy who accidentally shoots a hooker and then you have the entire maps npcs killing each other
After you've done that everything else in the game feels fine

my only gripe with the combat is that at the beginning when you don't have your main weapon stat at 100% it's just a coin flip, you either miss or hit

>Dead money was the best one
In terms of story it could be said that yes, meanwhile in terms of level design and enemies not so much, but that's how I feel about the other DLCs too

NV = 1 = 2

F1>F2=NV.

Attached: 1550474667541.png (711x960, 1.12M)

Who is the best Fallout waifu and why is it Moira?

Attached: BestFalloutWaifu.png (1200x675, 727K)

NV>1>2>3>>>>>>>>>

I bet as these folks basing FO2 couldn't make it past the Temple of Trials.

>immortal undead unless you broke an appendage
>start out with no gear
>BEEP BEEP BEEP
>"what was that?" *explosion*
>tripwires everywhere, traps everywhere, no stealth skill? fuck you!
>*you are in combat and cannot save

Attached: 1514426330571.jpg (228x221, 11K)

Name a more kino moment in the franchise than the encounter with The Master.

Attached: FO01_NPC_Master_B.png (803x414, 491K)

dumb zoomer

>Who is the best Fallout waifu

Attached: Dr Usanagi.jpg (1904x1071, 228K)

1>nv>2
Fuck fallout 2

He's right y'know

I played them in 2015 when I was like 23 you enormous queer

NV>1>2>Tactics>3>4>BoS>76

This

1>NV>2>4>3

haven't played the rest

based 1-bros, 2 is the very definition of bloated, NV did it right.

New Vegas, New Vegas, New Vegas, New Vegas, and 3 (I haven't played any others.)
youtube.com/watch?v=5HRY4LUl5lc