Father Watson wrote:
Jack. wrote:
Father Watson wrote:
The original two Fallout games were quite brilliant for the time they were created. And I do feel as though 2 really was an incredible game. But personally, I'd have to go with Fallout 3 for my best.
I could give a bunch of reasons why I personally view it as best, but I'll leave that for a bit later.
Ah, and BTW: Fallout 4 was not the worst Fallout - this was:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel
I'd argue because Fallout 4 had hundreds of devs on it, not to mention Bethesda is a huge company and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel was made with a small team and Interplay at that time were facing Bankruptcy, not to mention the insane hype for Fallout 4 made it 100 times worse in my opinion.
That's a very valid argument. There was a lot of hype for it. Hype that was so great that I doubt anything they could've released could've met our expectations.
I mean, c'mon. There were like three expansions compared to the four in Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, only two of which actually introduced a brand new area with its own map. At least with Fallout 3's Broken Steel, it added to the end-game.
Fallout 3's DLC was very mixed for me, I loved some of it and hated some of it. Fallout New Vegas was the same for me, I loved Old World Blues and Lonesome Road but found the other 2 boring, especially Dead Money however Dead Money does have a brilliant story it't just a shame they weren't able to animate that story well enough.
I've personally never played any of Fallout 4's DLC but from what i've heard it's not bad, Nuka World looked wacky with a pretty boring story however there was a lot of freedom present in it from what I saw, The Far Harbour one apparently has a brilliant story but i've not seen much of it at all and I can't remember the other one (if there was another one)