Have you played all 3? Did you complete them all? How do you rate them?
What game do you think has the best campaign?

Have played about 12 hours of FO3, 2 hours of Stalker and I haven't played Metro at all. However from what little I have played of it I think I would enjoy Stalker the most.

Best campaign? They all have pretty average stories tbh

have put 200+ hours into fallout 3 and each of the stalker games according to steam, i adore them frankly, and they both open up something fierce if you decide to mod them,

both of them have their problems and bugs, some are fixed with offical patches, others community patching and mods, both have done me well

this doesn't help you in the slightest, but i rate them both awesome and they both have the best campaign :P seriously, they are radically different games with their own worlds and whatnot, so if you like one you will probably like the other

Fallout 3 is the best "all round" game out of the three imo, so it gets my vote. However stalker was an interesting game with some neat features.
I never played Metro 2033 so I can't comment on that game really other than its probably the better looking game in terms of graphical fidelity.

Stalker, like the story more and the gameplay is better.

3 very different games, albeit with similar themes. stalker was first and foremost an fps but very rpg like in how you interacted with the world and lvled up by getting better equipment

fallout 3 was more of a turn based rpg the way i played it.

Im only just past the part in metro where you have to set explosives while unlimited enemies attack a machine guard nest but so far it seems very arcadey

Metro 2033 is by far the best graphics with all the fancy effects and the story is not quite so broken up like the other games. But it's linear and isn't as long as I would have liked.

I didn't enjoy Fallout 3 (i really liked the original) and I think its highly over-rated and ridden with bugs (not sure about unofficial patches or anything). It just feels really boring.

Stalker is so cool with its free roaming exploration aspect and it was scary =( There is a cult following for this game which still exists today.

Games are too different to compare imo

Fallout 3 - A Good aRPG but not outstanding with mediocre writing driving a bland but serviceable story (with occasional great bits), decent gameplay and ok combat and an enjoyable and compelling open world. Succeeds with its quantity of content rather than the quality of it. FONV pretty much vastly improves all of these (except combat which is only marginally better), and the game world which is and feels smaller.

STALKER - Very good survival shooter with RPG mechanics. Very good open world, but crappy writing and poor plot. Interesting premise that is much better explored in the latter 2 entries. All have exceptional atmosphere and are genuinely creepy.

Metro - FPS. Excellent setting but blandly told with a lot of cliched elements but still interesting to explore. Excellent emersion and mechanics but a bit too finnicky and poorly implimented in places. Linear but really well paced and tense. Shooting ranges from really fun to really shit depending on weapon choice. Balance is strange.

All are good to great. Choose based on your preferred genre.
RPG (FO3)
Shooter (Metro)
or Hybrid (STALKER)

Overall I thik I prefer FO3 over the other 2 (but I like the STALKER sequels more than FO3) due to the mods and my adoration of the setting (even if Beth ****ed it up severly in places)

Ive heard nothing but good things about Stalker, wondering if I should check it out. Does it work ok on windows 7?

cryocore wrote: Games are too different to compare imo Fallout 3 - A Good aRPG but not outstanding with mediocre writing driving a bland but serviceable story (with occasional great bits), decent gameplay and ok combat and an enjoyable and compelling open world. Succeeds with its quantity of content rather than the quality of it. FONV pretty much vastly improves all of these (except combat which is only marginally better), and the game world which is and feels smaller. STALKER - Very good survival shooter with RPG mechanics. Very good open world, but crappy writing and poor plot. Interesting premise that is much better explored in the latter 2 entries. All have exceptional atmosphere and are genuinely creepy. Metro - FPS. Excellent setting but blandly told with a lot of cliched elements but still interesting to explore. Excellent emersion and mechanics but a bit too finnicky and poorly implimented in places. Linear but really well paced and tense. Shooting ranges from really fun to really shit depending on weapon choice. Balance is strange. All are good to great. Choose based on your preferred genre. RPG (FO3) Shooter (Metro) or Hybrid (STALKER) Overall I thik I prefer FO3 over the other 2 (but I like the STALKER sequels more than FO3) due to the mods and my adoration of the setting (even if Beth ****ed it up severly in places)

New Vegas has a smaller map than FO3?

Stalker was the most immersive and gripping. Fallout 3 was humorous and quite addictive. Metro 2033 is a bit like when you have to empty the dishwasher or put the laundry on.

FO3. Couldn't stand playing the other two for long enough to judge them fairly.

FO3. I enjoyed what I've played of Stalker, haven't checked out any of the later ones though.

Metro2033 was a massive disappointment. It's just a linear game with heaps of on-rail parts like CoD. I stopped playing it very quickly, no idea why people said it was good.

Fallout 3 was great for me the first few times I played it, can't see myself going through it again though.

Haven't played Stalker, yet though I've heard it's amazing.

Metro I gave a shot after hearing so much about it, found it ok, just too linear and a generic horror FPS. To me horror only works when you can't defend yourself with guns (atleast in gaming).

Metro was okay, but got boring fast. Played STALKER SoC, persisted for like 4 hours, but ended up really not enjoying it. FO3 on the other hand, I loved, and poured many hours into. Strongly recommended.

Played STALKER about half way, not sure why I stopped exactly. but if I remember correctly, the performance was really bad on my PC.

Played METRO 2033 demo, I've got the full game on steam, I just cbf installing and playing it right now..

Finished Fallout 3. Its the best out of these 3, although New Vegas was overall better than 3.

I've only finished FO3 out of all of them, so I'll go with that.

Stalker if you come from an fps background. Fallout if you come from an rpg background.

Stalker had that xfactor for me.

im playing Stalker CoP with the complete mod

its such an awesome improvement in all aspects of the game

plus its fun to use the "wish granter" mode where you can find an open area and spawn 30 Freedom guys and 30 Duty guys on the otherside, and watch them fight it out, and then sneak off and pick off the survivors, or throw in a controller or 20 and watch shit fly

I think Metro 2033 is quite good so long as you play on ranger hardcore, else the baddies are boring bullet sponges. FO3 I thought was bad in a lot of respects- but New Vegas is amazing. Never played Stalker.

CoRk wrote: Never played Stalker.

you're missing out on the bed guy!

STALKER is creepy as ****, but all of those games just feel a little bit 'clunky'. Like the movement is weird, particularly Fallout 3, which really annoyed me to the point that I couldn't enjoy it. Metro 2033 is quite linear compared to the other two, so STALKER is my recommendation

I've played all 3, finished all the STALKERS and Fallout 3. I got bored of Metro 2033 so I stopped playing that. But I love the atmosphere of STALKER and some of the mods really make the atmosphere more creepy and surreal. The story for STALKER isn't the best but everything from the weather, sound, events, weapons and enemy etc make me get sucked into it!

If you have all three, get Metro 2033 out of the way, it only takes 5-6hrs to finish which is tiny compared to the other two.