I want to get into a really long rpg game so I decided to go

File: 12.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>386498342
>I'm really into deep RPG like Pillars of Eternity

Why do people ever even ask this question? Just play all of them in release order.

The consensus is that 3 and 4 are crap, all the others are good except tactics gets shit on often. A lot of people think 2 is best.

In my personal opinion it's 1 = new vegas > tactics > fallout 4 > fallout 3 > fallout 2. Fallout 2 is really a chore after the first half but whatever man. They all alright games. Play them in order faget.

They're all 8/10 IMO.

play all 3

>>386501867
But if I had to pick one I'd say NV

>>386498342
IMO
NV>3>4>1>2

>>386501958
>>386502803
1>2>NV>4=3
3 plays like oblivion with guns and is clunky as fuck. 4 at least has better gunplay and no pancake faces but it's no RPG

>>386499780
This

>>386503270
I'd say 4 is easily better than 3 because at least 4 is a decent action game instead of being mediocre to bad tier in literally every way

>>386503803
I originally had 4 over 3 but thought I was being too kind

File: 1419572373131.gif (63KB, 156x267px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 156x267px

>>386499780

Does Tactics get shit on here, or are you just saying in general?

I love Tactics, it's a classic example of a dev focusing on gameplay over other elements, and it shows in it's relative sophistication for the time. Still holds up today imo.

Either way, I never see it talked about here.

>>386503270
can't stand isometric crap

>>386504208
Underage.

>>386504208
Then you're missing out on some cool games

>>386499780
>Fallout 2 is really a chore after the first half
Holy shit this
Around the time that you get to Vault City it turns into this slog of wandering to Gecko, learning shit's fucked, going back to VC so you can get shit to start fixing Gecko's shit, going back and forth for years of in-game time while bandits armed with miniguns and bozars appear every other attosecond.
New Reno isn't even worth it after that since it's about as much of a slog and a bitch to navigate to the various casinos/bases too.
Seems like the entire game goes downhill by the time you hit Modoc.

>>386505230
Well I'm a dumbass and I figured the game out. I simply went elsewhere in between Vault City and Gecko.

>>386498342
Go with the first 2, if you didn't enjoy either go onto New Vegas with mods. I wouldn't touch Fallout 3, there is nothing redeeming about it. And Fallout 4 is more of a survival arcade shooter, than an RPG.

>>386498342
Play it in the nu-way. Memes aside it's the best way to experience it.
3->NV->1/2->2(if you played 1)->Don't play 4.

It's like Star Trek. TNG->OS->DS9->Voyager->Don't watch Enterprise.

>>386498342
New vegas is a good rpg. Fallout 3 is a kinda dumb rpg. Fallout 4 is a sandbox fps with some rpg elements.

The gameplay in 3 is pretty ass, while the gameplay in new vegas is a bit less frequent (more time is spent in towns and cities) but is marginally better in a variety of ways. The gameplay in 4 is great; guns all feel really fun to use (except the hunting rifle, which is left handed for some reason), and all of the enemies are fun to fight with unique mechanics and the actual act of exploring environments and scavenging stuff is way way better than the previous games. The tradeoff is that there are nearly no interesting NPCs, and nearly no conversations to be had with them.

The writing in general for fallout 3 is quite bad a lot of the time. It felt a lot like the devs came up with ideas and thought "man, that sounds like a cool fallout thing to put in!" and then put them in a bit haphazardly. There are a lot of really goofy quests that are completely disconnected from eachother, that each feel like a different episode of some fallout themed cartoon. New Vegas is a lot more cohesive and almost every quest and NPC in the game references the political situation in some roundabout way. New Vegas takes fallout a lot more seriously, while 3 is kind of a joke fallout, in a lot of way.