On Nov. 10, 2015, "Fallout 4" was released unto the world, and people rejoiced. And as with all things these days, it was not long until people started complaining about everything they could think of. The obvious comparisons to other games were made, especially to "Fallout 3" and "New Vegas." As time went, a common complaint emerged from the masses: people thought there was not as much freedom of choice in the story, and that this consequently led to the player having less freedom. There is no point debating this point because it is true. The karma system is gone, and there aren’t as many endings as other role-playing games today. However, I believe the reason for this is not because of the quality of the games, but because each game is trying to accomplish different things in terms of storytelling. This is why I believe "Fallout 4" accomplishes something great with its story: it makes you really think, and I’ll explain why. For the sake of this article I’m only going to talk about the modern installments of the "Fallout" series, as I have not played the original top-down games.

Obviously, spoilers for all three games are ahead. A spoiler-free summation of my points can be found at the end.

In "Fallout 3," the question is: When will you become good? As great of a game "Fallout 3" is, there is essentially no choice in terms of overall story morality. You have choices in how you handle minor events in the world, such as do you give a homeless man purified water to help his thirst? There are also more significant choices: save Megaton or blow it up. But no matter your karma or choices, to beat the story, you must clean up the water of the capital wasteland. You choose whether or not to use the Enclave’s FEV virus to kill the Wastelands' mutants or not, but the fact of the matter is there is only one ending regardless of your choices.

"Fallout New Vegas" goes the complete opposite direction and asks: Will you be good or bad? The additions of the settlement reputations, clothing affecting settler perception, and multiple factions to side with gives the player much more freedom. Become a Mojave vigilante or a murderous scoundrel? Help Caesar with his conquest or restore order with the NCR? Choices like this were available to some extent in "Fallout 3," but now there were multiple endings which changed based on your choices. People lauded this game for the freedom it provided, and I agree with this point. But I believe this game was set on accomplishing something different from "Fallout 3." "Fallout 3" focused more on the story and less on player choice. Does this make it a worse game? No. It makes it a different game.

Now we get to "Fallout 4." After people freaked out about how the Xbox One lived up to its name by only getting one frames per second, they started to freak out about the lack of freedom, and how that made it a bad RPG. The beloved karma system was gone, and at first, I thought this meant it was going to be a straight-to-the-point RPG like "Fallout 3." I was wrong. The more I played, the more I realized that "Fallout 4" isn’t trying to be a straightforward RPG or a totally open world RPG. I believe it is meant to present a story with one big question in mind: what does it mean to be good? The story revolves around the humanoid robots, the Synths, and the game forces you to decide what you think about them. There are three main factions to side with: the Brotherhood of Steel, the Railroad, and the Institute. Each faction presents a different viewpoint on Synths and you have to choose which one you think is right. The hard part is the fact that none of them is objectively correct. There are bad Synths, so the BoS could be correct. Most Synths believe they’re human, so the Railroad could be correct. And Synths are man-made robots at the end of the day, so the Institute could be correct. I played this game at the same time as two of my friends, and we all chose different paths for different reasons. Before I chose my ending, I had to actually stop playing and think about the validity of each possibility, and that element of choice is what makes this game great. There isn’t one good ending like in "Fallout 3," and there aren't a variety of different endings like in "New Vegas." What you get is a story that tests you morally and forces you to stop and think about what you believe, a rare venture in modern gaming.

To collect my points, I believe that all three games ask the player different questions. If you just want to experience a great story, "Fallout 3" is for you. If you want to experience an open world full of choices, "Fallout New Vegas" is for you. But if you want a story that tests you morally and makes you think, "Fallout 4" is for you. Regardless of what you want in a story, all of the games are fantastically made and are examples of the power in modern gaming. Just be ready to drop a couple hours into each. OK, maybe a couple hundred…