Didn't feel like finishing the game as there are much better tactical games on the market right now. It differs quite a bit from the previous titles in that it has a more linear structure and combat-heavy approach.

This change alone wouldn't be enough to justify the game being bad, but unfortunately it's quite repetitive and boring, plus the difficulty spikes out of nowhere, which doesn't add to the overall enjoyment.

Still, it's fun to see a non-mainline Fallout game try something different.

I think I'd genuinely rather play Fallout Shelter. I saw some people say that Fallout 2 plays sexual assault for laughs but I never really felt that way. This game? On the third mission a raider woman has a slave that very comedically talks about how his "little tribal" had "things done to it" and now it has a rash and smells. This game also toes the line between portraying this chapter of the Brotherhood as fascists and portraying them as the "tough but fair" heroes of the wasteland. It just made me uncomfortable with its writing really. But beyond that, the gameplay just suuuucks. It's SO boring. Fallout has a decent combat system but it has always been carried by its many different ways to tackle a situation. This game eliminates that and puts the focus completely on this janky ass combat. I'm talking somehow MORE jank than Fallout 1 and 2. It's horrific really. I tried really hard to give it a chance but, just, no. Just no. This still has my favorite power armor design though.

This review is a really lengthy one for people contemplating playing the game at all. Particularly those that played Fallout 3 but aren't sure if they want to get into this one. My review will mostly be comparing and contrasting the two, and I'll be talking about all major aspects to consider with Fallout Tactics:

The big thing about this game is that there is essentially no lore to it whatsoever. If you know a little bit about the calculator and the midwestern brotherhood and what they stand for, congratulations! You already know basically all there is to know about this game lore wise and don't need to play it at all. Otherwise, the Midwestern Brotherhood of Steel chapter is mostly like how everyone says it is, but from experience I'll tell you that they're essentially a Fallout 4 BOS in that they're essentially this quasi-fascist military group that's all about results. They're always practical about achieving their goals, but they sometimes use means that make some of the locals hate them for it. People say that they're accepting of mutants, ghouls, etc. but this is missing the full picture. Not everyone in the BOS is like this, in fact most NPCs and General Barnaky don't like them at all, but they begrudgingly work with them to achieve their big picture goals. Which is to just share their knowledge with everyone else, expand their reach, and tame the wasteland. In fact they don't much like tribals even.

The difference between this BOS chapter and FO4 BOS is that they're less hating of these groups in that they are willing to work with them. The elders in this game are more tolerant because they care more about their main objective, and this must apply to everyone because the elders write the rules as the end game slides state. In short, Tactics BOS' non-human hating mentality isn't as dominating as it is in 4, but both chapters harbor the same beliefs and are extremely efficient. However, I gotta say that I like this FOT's BOS chapter more than FO4's when it comes to these aspects as well. Even FO3's. In FO3 they're not exactly tolerant of ghouls either, so technically you could argue that this is actually the most liberal chapter of the bunch, but don't get confused and think that they are, they're still far from it. They pretty much take initiates like jedi take in younglings. Perhaps with even more coercion involved, except they only seem to take in adults. And they have no problems killing civilians to meet their goals in general.

Anyways not trying to make a debate about it, but I see a lot of misinformation about these facets with this game, when it becomes very obvious if you play it as that's all they ever really talk about. In general I hate the BOS as a faction period and think they're so overly redundant, so don't have much of a stake with them, but this is probably my favorite BOS chapter of them all because they are easily the most competent chapter. Fallout 1 is probably the most pure to the BOS as an organization though, which isn't surprising as it's the first game. Otherwise, I'm surprised by Todd Howard's refusal to make this game canon as pretty much everything from this game doesn't conflict with his games at all. In fact he adopts so much from this game that I'm not sure why he's chosen to leave it semi-canon/non canon. If you ask me this is the only fallout game I think that guy has ever even played. Everything down to the armor, the BOS using zeppelins, the BOS working with locals away from their og chapter, Todd retconning lore, having little to no lore that adds anything to the original timeline, the BOS being a repetitive faction. I can go on and on.

For better and worse, this game created some good and bad trends for Bethesda fallout games. Some good is that the game creates a greater emphasize on combat. This was seriously lacking with the first two games. And while story is way more important and should be at the forefront, this franchise desperately needed to modernize, and I give Todd that with FO3. However, this game created a really bad precedent in that the story is non-existent and the gameplay is super repetitive. The FO3 story is about inconsequential to the franchise as this one even though the final consequences in FOT are greater.

But unlike FO3, FOT has more room for a making a sequel off of itself. With FO3 the main quest is just unimportant in general and pretty much rhymes a lot with this game. The side quests mostly dealing with cultists are a huge bore and get repetitive quickly just like with this game. However, FO3 at least makes up for this with great DLC and settings for those DLC. The worst DLC for FO3 (Anchorage and Zeta) have some of the coolest settings out of any DLC in the franchise. The only thing that I deeply hate about the relationship between FOT and FO3 is that it gave Todd Howard the horrible idea to overuse the BOS as a faction. So much so that I'd rather FOT didn't exist if it meant that I didn't have to see the BOS for the next couple of titles.

I will say this game has some of the best weapon variety I've ever seen in the franchise, but some of it is just redundant. In particular the energy weapons, and pistol selection. All of which starts to appear very similar to another and are totally useless in game. They serve more as novelties. A lot of weapons go unused, even the end game energy weapons. The MP-38 was my personal favorite, but it just becomes useless after a few missions. The vehicle selection is the best out of any game because there is only one other game that has vehicles. Nonetheless it's awesome that this game has tanks and APCs.

One huge difference from every game you need to know about this one is that you work with a team always. You don't have to, but it's basically mandatory. Especially on the hardest difficulty. And you have to individually move them for most of the game just to survive. This makes doing everything way more redundant, especially looting. Looting constitutes the vast majority of the game. 30 of my 40 hours of game time was probably just looting. Only by the very end of the game does you team become unstoppable really. Even still you still have to watch out for some enemy attacks.

Not my style to control 6 players. On the flip side, this does at least leave room for you to play as deathclaws, mutants, and ghouls in your group which is a welcome change. It was hilarious when I was able to do one close quarters mission purely with deathclaws. It was funny to watch 5 of them tear one guy apart. This is the only game in the series that lets you do this. On the other hand the game adds a lot of useless and unnecessary lore to each character. So much so that a lot of characters and their different skills and backgrounds becomes super predictable and redundant.

The game honestly finds a great balance between the seriousness of Fallout 1 and the overused/over the top contemporary pop culture references in Fallout 2. I did think the cutscenes and art were pretty cool in this game. It had some of the coolest art in the franchise. Personally I think it gets the retro theme the best. But ultimately the big problem with this game is the lack of pretty much any lore and it's age. The originals are super good because although they play just like this one, the stories are just that good which carries them as some of the best games in the franchise. The only worthwhile thing about the gameplay is that it polishes all the mechanics of the first two. But it's still too dated and not much different from the first two games. Sure there's a lot of quality of life improvements, but ultimately the gameplay shares all of the same negative traits as the first two entries in the series. It's not until FO3 that very revolutionary improvements such as making Fallout an FPS game are made. Which I also gotta give Todd credit for.

Ultimately when deciding to play this game, it really depends on whether or not you think this game is "more canon" than Bethesda entries, who officially does own the rights currently but ultimately have proven that they know fuck all about Fallout. They also just have a terrible writer that also isn't connected with the original creators of the game. This isn't a problem per say, but it's a problem when the games are shit and they become unnecessary to the franchise as a whole. An example being Disney's expanded canon with Star Wars and all the irrelevancy it has to George Lucas's Canon. But like with Disney canon, that doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't try to enjoy some of the content that we genuinely enjoy, and I'm not writing this review to bash Bethesda at all. My review is more so there to explain that even original parent companies can be equally as shitty as absorbing companies. I'm merely trying to highlight the similarities and differences so that you can decide yourself if FOT is right for you.

FOT is technically kind of the classified as being created by the original company, Interplay, but not really. None of the original developers wrote this game. Only a small off-branch of Interplay plus another Australian studio were involved. As I understand it, the Australian company did most of the work anyways. This game really isn't really considered canon by Bethesda either. So it's technically less relevant than Bethesda games, and in my opinion neither respective titles are necessary as is.

Only Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas matter really, officially speaking. Even then, you could just argue that only FO1 matters in that case. But that's just me, and this all depends on the person. Ultimately up to you, but as someone who's played every game, I stress that FOT really isn't necessary, canon, or important at all like some people claim. It's greatly encouraged to skip Tactics canon wise, if the gameplay wasn't enough reason already. It's just that it can be considered canon in your mind because it does fit much nicer to the og games than Bethesda games that carry much more significant retcons. Tactics works fine with the originals, plus the Midwest BOS chapter is a powerhouse that's a welcome addition to the BOS lore. And I don't even like the BOS at all.

However, I really can't recommend the game at all even as someone who has played all Fallouts. It's almost as unnecessary as Fallout 76. I still enjoyed FOT somewhat, but it's just isn't enough at all. Plus I beat the game on insane/tough guy (hardest difficulty) and it took me around 40 hours. That combined with the repetition, the widely hated controls, and lack of story all make this game really not worth it for 90% of Fallout players. Even if you just want to satisfy your completionist bone, I urge you to understand that this game still isn't necessary or worth it. But if you think you can tolerate it and have literally nothing else in your life to do, then maybe go for it.

As I was getting at, FO3 vs FOT really just emphasize the differences between players. You gotta ask yourself if you prefer this one that shits on the lore less but isn't that important for the franchise, or FO3 which is the king of gameplay but shits on the lore. Personally I find 3 to be more enjoyable and worthwhile because neither stories are necessary, but FO3 is at least more fun gameplay wise. The key takeaway if you're on the fence is that you can most definitely skip this game, it's not required for the franchise any way you look at it (bethesda fan, og fan, or both), and I can't say I recommend it at all versus spending 20-40 slow and boring hours of your life on literally any other game you want to play instead. That said, I still enjoyed certain aspects, but I'd never play it again. Remember that the vast majority of this game is simply spent looting. This game in essence was supposed to just be a cash grab, but it's way more tolerable and borderline acceptable about it versus it's sequel that I will review next.