Pathfinder
Member
Thanks!
If I'm new to the Fallout series, which game should I start with?
- Thread starter Pathfinder
- Start date
Thanks!
New Vegas is the best RPG of this last generation. Like nothing even came close. Fallout 3 has a lot of problems but judging by all the GOTY awards most people don't seem to care or even notice, so you might like it more than me. So try 'em both out is my recommendation. If you have fun go back and play the first two. They take more getting used to due the isometric style but they're fantastic RPGs. FO2 especially might be the best RPG ever made.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
If youre only going to play one of the 3d fallout games, go for New Vegas. It embarrasses Fallout 3 in just about every conceivable way.
FlyingSaucer
Banned
That's not a very good deal, honestly. $5.99 for vanilla, whereas the Ultimate Edition tends to go to that price regularly during Steam sales. And, with New Vegas, you really want the DLC.
You need to make some changes to the ini. Google around for "inumhwthreads" for a guide of what values you need to change.
Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas all take place in the west-- California, Nevada, Utah. 3 takes place in the east (DC area) and has its own canon. You lose nothing by skipping 3.
Voysa Reezun
Banned
Fallout 1 + 2 are great games, but if you don't like those isometric CRPGs, it might throw you off a whole lot. Sacrilege here, but I much prefer the first-person shooter/RPG hybrid that Fallout is now to what it was before.
I'd say play 3 and then NV because NV does a ton of things better than 3, but 3 is just mindblowing even today in a lot of ways. Stepping out of Vault 101 for the first time is a rush. So yeah, start with 3, enjoy your 125+ hours in that, and then get another 125+ hours in NV with wholly-improved gameplay.
I'd say play 3 and then NV because NV does a ton of things better than 3, but 3 is just mindblowing even today in a lot of ways. Stepping out of Vault 101 for the first time is a rush. So yeah, start with 3, enjoy your 125+ hours in that, and then get another 125+ hours in NV with wholly-improved gameplay.
Octavianus
Banned
Play 1 and 2, skip the others.
Alternately, if you want a first-person stealth and diplomacy game, play Fallout New Vegas.
ArkkAngel007
Member
Start with Fallout 3 and then play New Vegas if you're just interested in playing the same style. Fallout 2 as a starting point is my recommendation though if the isometric style isn't a bother.
Gotta say, the anti-FO3 stuff in here is embarrassing. It's not written in the traditional manner of Fallout and suffers the typical pitfalls of Bethesda titles, but it's still a damn good game. Plus playing it before NV can highlight what Obsidian improved upon in NV.
The Derrick Protocol
Gotta say, the anti-FO3 stuff in here is embarrassing. It's not written in the traditional manner of Fallout and suffers the typical pitfalls of Bethesda titles, but it's still a damn good game. Plus playing it before NV can highlight what Obsidian improved upon in NV.
The Derrick Protocol
Fallout 1 is to Baldur's Gate what Fallout 2 is to Baldur's Gate II: from a good game that is somewhat barebones in some aspects and which hasn't aged particularly well, to one of the best games of all time. You can start with 1 if you want, but the meat is in Fallout 2.
If you don't care about Fallout as a series, and you just want to get into Bethesday's version of Fallout (which has its own different set of merits), start with 3. I personally liked it more than New Vegas, but New Vegas has a much, much better plot and narrative.
If you don't care about Fallout as a series, and you just want to get into Bethesday's version of Fallout (which has its own different set of merits), start with 3. I personally liked it more than New Vegas, but New Vegas has a much, much better plot and narrative.
Hip Hop
Member
I don't know why people are recommending Fallout 1 or 2.
They don't hold up well at all today, like at all. I became a huge fan of the series with 3, and you couldn't pay me to play those old games, it will definitely turn someone off that isn't a fan. They are not the same gameplay form from the newer releases.
I suggest Fallout 3 and New Vegas, that's all you pretty much need really when it comes to storyline. They aren't all connected together, they are just in the same universe. Go from there.
I advise against Fallout 1 or 2.
They don't hold up well at all today, like at all. I became a huge fan of the series with 3, and you couldn't pay me to play those old games, it will definitely turn someone off that isn't a fan. They are not the same gameplay form from the newer releases.
I suggest Fallout 3 and New Vegas, that's all you pretty much need really when it comes to storyline. They aren't all connected together, they are just in the same universe. Go from there.
I advise against Fallout 1 or 2.
veloxStrix
Banned
Play 3 and New Vegas. Skip the originals. They are a different kind of game entirely and not at all what you are going to get with any new release.
They're practically the same. I consider them different sides of the same coin.
Not sure there is such a thing as a good first-person stealth game. But yeah, you can certainly "stealth" (crouch) a whole lot in New Vegas.
When there's an "I'm new to Assassin's Creed" thread, nobody seriously suggests the 2D platformer. It might be a good game, but it isn't representative of the series. Given this is an "I'm new to Fallout" thread, well....
ArkkAngel007
Member
Maybe, just maybe, some people aren't bothered by the older look, gameplay, or isometric view. Better to recommend it and allow them to decide then to impose upon them.
It's just like the Fallout 3 trashing. It has a weaker narrative and mission design than Obsidian's New Vegas, but it's still good to where someone should at least have the opportunity to form their own opinion.
It's not like these games are much of an investment (monetary-wise) at this point. Even with DLC I'd be surprised to see them more than $15, and Steam sales usually bring them to around $5-8
And given this is about their interest in the Bethesda developed Fallout 4, would it not be more apt to recommend their game over Fallout 3 in your example?
I don't see how a lack of [traditional] Fallout [2] humor suddenly makes Fallout 3 a shitty game not worth a recommendation in this case. They asked for a starting point, not the single game, high-chair pick.
It is, unfortunate though it may be, representative of what Fallout is now. Fallout 3 will give you the best idea of what to expect from Fallout 4. Playing Skyrim is more relevant to the Fallout series right now than playing 1, 2, or New Vegas.
Hip Hop
Member
I mean, he said he is excited for Fallout 4. Those older games are very different from that. The best way he will get set up for that is to play the newer games. Like I said, the old style might just turn him off from the series, so I wouldn't go for those for first impressions. That is my advice.
harriet the spy
Member
2>NV>1>3.
But 3's peaks are very high, so it might be worth playing it for a bit. The open-world aspect is pretty mind blowing at first. Until you feel there is something wrong with it (hard to describe, but it feels you can go everywhere, but that you are stepping outside of the boat in the pirates of the Caribbean ride: everything becomes fake and you're not supposed to be there. Nothing was designed with the level of precision, consistency, and world-building an open world like this requires). Then it becomes quite a bit of a bore IMHO.
(Also action quickly becomes very boring; a flaw that NV has but sidesteps by much stronger story).
But 3's peaks are very high, so it might be worth playing it for a bit. The open-world aspect is pretty mind blowing at first. Until you feel there is something wrong with it (hard to describe, but it feels you can go everywhere, but that you are stepping outside of the boat in the pirates of the Caribbean ride: everything becomes fake and you're not supposed to be there. Nothing was designed with the level of precision, consistency, and world-building an open world like this requires). Then it becomes quite a bit of a bore IMHO.
(Also action quickly becomes very boring; a flaw that NV has but sidesteps by much stronger story).
He said he wants to be as prepared as possible for Fallout 4. The best way to prepare for that is to play the good games that are representative of the series and why people like it. He shouldn't play Fallout 3 first and use that as a baseline to compare the other games to. He should play the other games first, then play Fallout 3 so he can properly lower his expectations.
TimeEffect
Member
Can someone give a detailed explanation of what made NV better than 3?
I'm going to rebuy NV for PC... was bug ridden on launch so I ignored it and didn't think PS3 handled it well.
But I never got into it after that, despite loving and finishing FO3.
I need to play NV before 3, so I'm pretty excited to hear it's better. I recall some differences, but I assume there are more critical nuances that fans love about NV
I'm going to rebuy NV for PC... was bug ridden on launch so I ignored it and didn't think PS3 handled it well.
But I never got into it after that, despite loving and finishing FO3.
I need to play NV before 3, so I'm pretty excited to hear it's better. I recall some differences, but I assume there are more critical nuances that fans love about NV
Red Liquorice
Member
Skipping to end of thread so sorry if it's already been asked but are the PS3 versions of the last two games any good?
I had them both on 360 but never finished New Vegas before (my second) 360 shit the bed and died. Wouldn't mind a reply of both but only if they play ok on PS3.
I had them both on 360 but never finished New Vegas before (my second) 360 shit the bed and died. Wouldn't mind a reply of both but only if they play ok on PS3.
ArkkAngel007
Member
I understand that, and if they are just interested in what they see in Fallout 4 then FO3/NV are the best bets. Personally I'm not big on 1 or 2 style either as I too went in after 3, but admittedly that was probably more of a lack of patience on my part with other games in the wings.
But your post came off less as advice and more of something else. Some people can deal with "backtracking" in game design in a series or the history of the industry than others. For instance, I'm good going back to play old Resident Evil titles from REmake/new-age, but playing Rebellion's original Alien versus Predator is headache inducing from Sierra's AvP2.
Luckily, there's Youtube to at least give a good indication before they shell out on GoG for those titles.
After all, it isn't like we're talking about Fallout Tactics.
The order shouldn't matter in that regard, unless you believe OP is too stupid/ignorant to understand what developer worked on which game and is incapable of managing their expectations.
All I was arguing was that Fallout 3 shouldn't be all together skipped as a whole like some argue.
Plus:
That is generally how I view approaching things. I saw Tomorrowland and Mad Max back to back without much expectations, and if I had seen Tomorrowland after Mad Max than I would have left that theater in a bit of a sour mood.
Unless we're trying to get OP to not buy a Bethesda game
Kacho
Member
Not really. They look worse and perform worse as far as I remember.
NV:3::world
isney WorldOr I guess this video is kind of entertaining and explains the differences pretty okay.
I agree with most; start with Fallout 2, which is imho the best isometric WRPG there is (fuck Baldurs Gate ;P). The first one isn't bad but has so many infuriating flaws while the second one is basically perfect (with mods of course).
Fallout 3 is great but a bit too action heavy, haven't played NV yet.
Fallout 3 is great but a bit too action heavy, haven't played NV yet.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Especially FO3 GOTY but both of them suffer from the huge bugs that Skyrim had, only they never got patched for them. So, the longer you play, the more often the game freezes, crashes, and just plain doesn't work.
I'm not going to go into extraordinary detail, but the writing is a lot better. The games played pretty much the same, to my memory. Certain skills and abilities are of more consequence as well - so there's some mechanics rebalancing that was well-received. I liked the setting better and the more ad hoc related "quests", but ymmv on those.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
If you intend to play both 3 and New Vegas, play 3 first. I love 3 (it's a really good game), but it's hard to go back to after New Vegas.
Red Liquorice
Member
A coherent story, memorable characters and companions, very good writing, great sidequests, much better gunplay than in F3, Fallout lore that is coherent with Fallout 1+2, better RPG system and some of the best DLCs (especially Old World Blues).
The writing is the most often referenced improvement. General dialogue is better, characters are more memorable.
The overall quest design is more interesting, with more options for tackling situations in individual missions and for the grand objective. Rather than a binary good/evil based on actions that nobody even sees, New Vegas also includes a reputation system where you gain favor with groups based on how your actions affect them or mesh with their ideals. And if nobody saw you steal something, then you didn't steal it. A small change itself that makes for a more believable world.
I played New Vegas on PS3 and it was a pretty rotten experience. I've since replayed it on PC. It didn't look nearly as good on PS3 obviously and I hear 360 was better, but they aren't incredible looking games in general today. The big problem was that it was buggy as all hell though. It crashed constantly. I eventually started entering every door I saw just to create a new autosave because I lost so much progress early in the game.
Audible Phonetics
Member
Can you play fallout with out ever playing any of the previous games? Or are they all sequels of each other?
Pathfinder
Member
For the record, I am fully aware of the style changes between FO1/2 and FO3/NV.
I'm no stranger to the top-down style RPG's, nor the 3rd person style RPG's. Both have their merits, and I wouldn't have any problems managing my expectations for either.
No direct sequels, they start all over the place in the timeline. Fallout 2 was 80 years after Fallout, Fallout 3 was some time after that. New Vegas took place on the opposite side of the country from 3 with completely different characters. There are references all over the place to previous games, but nothing really relies on knowledge from earlier games to understand.
ArkkAngel007
Member
There's some references, but more or less they are rather independent of one another. Fallout 1 and 2 are the closest to not being the case, but even then that's mostly in the premise iirc.
For the record, I am fully aware of the style changes between FO1/2 and FO3/NV.
I'm no stranger to the top-down style RPG's, nor the 3rd person style RPG's. Both have their merits, and I wouldn't have any problems managing my expectations for either.
That's good. Hopefully you get into it better than I. FYI though, I think you quoted the bit of me and Caereth debating about Fallout 3 and Vegas, and not classic FO vs shooter FO
Fallout 3 runs pretty poorly on PS3 and New Vegas somehow managed to run even worse. But if there's absolutely no way you could play them on PC, I'd say yeah give them a shot on PS3.
Pathfinder
Member
That's good. Hopefully you get into it better than I. FYI though, I think you quoted the bit of me and Caereth debating about Fallout 3 and Vegas, and not classic FO vs shooter FO
I may have, sorry. I'm trying to follow multiple threads.
Audible Phonetics
Member
There's some references, but more or less they are rather independent of one another. Fallout 1 and 2 are the closest to not being the case, but even then that's mostly in the premise iirc.
That's good. Hopefully you get into it better than I. FYI though, I think you quoted the bit of me and Caereth debating about Fallout 3 and Vegas, and not classic FO vs shooter FO
Thanks great to know. I was concerned about that.
They're sequels in the way that World War 2 was a sequel to World War 1-- one happens chronologically after another, and sometimes people and places in one are referenced in another, but they're distant enough that they can each stand alone.
Kadin
Member
I have both 1&2 at GOG but I'm just going to jump into 2. While it's downloading, I'm reading the manual and it has a good bit of history about what happened. Is this essentially the story of 1? I played 1 briefly many years back but when I last tried it, I just couldn't get into it.
I'm seeing a lot of suggestions to play 2 in here which leads me to believe it still holds up well.
I'm seeing a lot of suggestions to play 2 in here which leads me to believe it still holds up well.
EmCeeGramr
Member
The "theme park" complaint is one of the most pervasive problems that people have with FO3.
A lot of what exists in the Capital Wasteland feels less like plausible locations and subplots and more like Bethesda just had a list of possible "neat post-apocalypse things" that they brainstormed in early pre-production meetings and decided to throw them all in the final game anyway. Many of them make very little sense if you step back and think, "Wait, how the heck does this even work in this world?"
The first few pages of the Fallout 2 manual (which I referenced earlier today as the best manual ever written and stand by that, for proof see the recipe section and remember that it was wire-bound and looked great) are the story of the first game as is considered canon in the second. It breaks it down by the location names in the original game, basically walking you through actual areas as they were set up.
If you had problems playing the first game for whatever reason though, you may not like the second either. They're very similar. The biggest difference is that there's no deadline looming overhead.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll