Just give it to me straight without bias Any Forums. Are the Bethesda Fallout games good?

Just give it to me straight without bias Any Forums. Are the Bethesda Fallout games good?

Attached: capsule_616x353.jpg (616x353, 111.34K)

with an absolute shitload of mods they can be good but the base games are usually just ok.

Without the Bethesda fallout games,nobody today would even have heard of fallout.

I've only played FNV so far. It was a fun if not very flawed game.

Why don't you play them for yourself and form your own opinion?

No, they suck and they aren't Fallout. Bethesda just bought the IP and then they made a post-apocalyptic game with a completely different feel and a story that reads like actual shitty fanfiction based on the story of the original games.
At least they had the decency of quarantining their bullshit on the East coast away from real Fallout. New Vegas has issues, mainly because it was built upon the core of Fallout 3, but at least it feels like a Fallout game.
The original Fallout is absolute kino, really sad that a lot of people are filtered by it.

3>NV>4>76

if you don't care about fallout lore, good characters, good characters, or quality control
its fine

best atmosperhic dark kinos sir. exploration was good so much.

3 is great, New Vegas is good, 4 is ok, 76 is dogshit

No

Fallout 1, 2, New Vegas is objectively better than 3.
However 3 is an above-average game, vastly better than the average shitty nigger game like halo or some shit

I played Fallout 3 and New Vegas at launch. Didn't play the previous games until way later, after even Fallout 4. I like both 3 & NV and the first two games a lot, but for different reasons. Overall, I will always like Fallout 3 and NV the most because that's what I played first and what got me into Fallout.

Attached: CQzdYTqWcAAa8c3.png (250x250, 40.81K)

Yeah, but not by the standards of the original games, it's basically a new series, which is less rpg and more open world shooter.

Bethesda are reverse shit-makers. Each new game they developed has lower quality, but just not enough for bethesda-drones to be angry. F3 was shit, but after f4, f3 became classic. Same with f4 and f76. Same with all tes. Same gonna be with starfield.

Fallout 3 is more like "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" where they revived a dead series with a weird/dumb rehash made by new people, and then they kept making their own content.

This reads like some redditor whose knowledge of Fallout came from video essays

Fallout threads on this board have been ruined by (You) hungry retards who think liking one entry in a franchise more than another is a substitute for a personality.

Good is an overstatement, even if we take them at face value and not as a Fallout title. (In the latter case they'd deserve a much harsher rating.) The thing is that Bethesda games scratch a specific itch and the alternatives are / were not plenty. So generally speaking, they're suitable to fuck around and eventually get a playthrough out of them. Your lack of prior knowledge or connection to the franchise will even come handy here. I'd say get their Complete Editions for dirt cheap and jump into them with no expectations.

What's hard to predict is how dated F3 will feel like for someone who (presumably) grew up on modern open-world games. F4 is definitely better in this aspect but you can tell both games suffer heavily from console limitations. While on the technical side New Vegas is basically a F3 spin-off, it is by far the best 3D Fallout (and RPG) of all. Obsidian integrated a lot of concepts and ideas from Black Isle Studios' (the original Fallout devs) cancelled Fallout 3 (codename Van Buuren) and it shows. Plus they had some key people there who worked on F1/2 too.

Last but not least, the original Fallouts are considered CRPG classics by many for a reason. Yes, even if they're 20-plus y/o. I don't know how well-versed you are with the genre, but it's definitely worth to give them both an honest shot sometime.

>It was a fun
That's because F:NV wasn't developed by Bethesda, user.

1:RPG
2:sequel to 1, do not play first
Tactics: Extra Credit
BOS: Amusing shit
3: God tier exploration
NV: Good story and quests
4: OCD simulator
76: technically a game

3 is great, NV is a flawed masterpiece, 4 is dogshit for mass effect enjoyers

>Are the Bethesda fallout games good
3 is a decent game, even without mods you can get some joy out of it, but fallout 4 needs an unofficial patch just to be playable, and 76 has the same issue but will never get a patch.
Go for 4 for gameplay (and mod the shit out of it) go for 3 for a stable game (although you still should mod it)

Bethesda games are weak but enjoyable enough if you turn your brain off.
If anything they're built on being half finished so you can mod them to be whatever other better game you want.

4 is just a better 3

By no means. 3 is great because the world actually is intricate and heavily detailed with a million tiny Easter eggs. 4 had nothing and was nothing.

Mediocre. They like others have said vastly improved by mods. So wait about a year before picking them up so all the dlc drops and the mod clmmunity has started to bare fruit.

It reads like it was written by someone who played F03 after they played NV. Because that's exactly how it goes.

>3:God their exploration
I don't get where this meme came from, but it makes it very obvious who played F03 when they were 8 and just have nostalgia for the game.