If I'm new to the Fallout series, which game should I start with?

Like, you gotta ask yourself: do you actually want to play Fallout? or do you just want to dip into the franchise without requiring any effort from your part?

1 and 2 are the soul of the series.

3 and NV are the tourist modes. Fun and exciting, but ultimately shallow and unchallenging.

If you actually want to experience the entire franchise (skipping the shitty, mostly ignored cashgrabs) then you'll start at 1.

Tactics is a whole different ballgame since it's not an rpg. Safely skippable.
 
Fallout 3 was the first I played and I spent a good 300 hours on it without completing all the DLC. I personally preferred it over New Vegas.

I agree that New Vegas had a stronger narrative but the map felt emptier and for me that took out the thing I enjoyed most. Wandering aimlessly and discovering abandoned building, camps and caves.

I don't need a strong story to enjoy it, just the ability to have that sense of wonder and discovery that I think Bethesda do exceptionally well.
 
Ok I get why people love New Vegas. It's a pretty great game, but why do people dislike Fallout 3?

I played both and I think they are both fantastic. Fallout 3 was one of my favorite games of that generation. New Vegas was great but by the time I played it I was a bit fatigued on the whole formula. I still think it's a great game, but I wouldn't steer people away from playing either game.

By the way, if you can handle older games both fallout 1 and 2 are worth playing if you even remotely like the newer games.
 
Fallout 3 or NV.

I would suggest Fallout 3, assuming Fallout 4 comes this year, because Fallout 3 is less overwhelming with things to do (Fallout NV has something every 10 feet, if you can ignore those things then great) and shorter. You won't get burnt out by Fallout before Fallout 4 comes.
 
water_wendi said:
Can you elaborate on which mechanics were dated?
Click to expand...

I think for me personally there are a few things that prevent me from truely enjoying Fallout 2.

The interface is quite cumbersome, how you select weapons, inventory management. The resolution of the game doesn't help either. Yes, there are resolution mods out there but they merely make everything look tiny which the game wasn't designed for.

It makes sometimes clicking on the right thing harder then it should be.

Wasteland 2 was way better in that regard, however. It does severly lack the charm that the fallout games have.
 
Seiniyta said:
I think for me personally there are a few things that prevent me from truely enjoying Fallout 2.

The interface is quite cumbersome, how you select weapons, inventory management. The resolution of the game doesn't help either. Yes, there are resolution mods out there but they merely make everything look tiny which the game wasn't designed for.

It makes sometimes clicking on the right thing harder then it should be.

Wasteland 2 was way better in that regard, however. It does severly lack the charm that the fallout games have.
Click to expand...
The inventory sucks. And i agree with you on some of those super high resolution mods. This isnt a 3d game and theres a point when high resolution becomes detrimental. These are all UI complaints which i think are valid. Thanks for going more in detail on what you meant. Usually when some says "dated mechanics" they mean turn-based combat.
 
3 was a great place to start for me. I especially loved exploring the mall.

Fallout 1 and 2 are basically unplayable now though, don't get those. Bought them on sale and never made it past the first screen.
 
Beelzebufo said:
I had no motivation to play it haha. Snore fest for me. Exploration isn't fun when the graphics are bad and there's a top down view.
Click to expand...

zq6gV.gif
 
Are these games in any way connected to each other? Story wise. I dont have time to play any previous game, if its really good as people say I will jump to F4 directly.
 
Phoenix944 said:
I've only played Tactics, FO3 and NV. Maybe I should go back to play 1&2, are they better than Tactics ?
Click to expand...

Yes. They are also very different than Tactics. Tactics is combat only with scenario maps. Think of New Vegas made with Tactics engine and you have a good idea of Fallout 1 and 2 (2 even more so becaues NV is basically the sequel to Fallout 2).

Beelzebufo said:
I had no motivation to play it haha. Snore fest for me. Exploration isn't fun when the graphics are bad and there's a top down view.
Click to expand...
You are missing out.
 
BeforeU said:
Are these games in any way connected to each other? Story wise. I dont have time to play any previous game, if its really good as people say I will jump to F4 directly.
Click to expand...
1,2, and NV are connected, but not really in major ways. 3 and 4 may be connected, but I doubt in any really imporant way.
Lanrutcon said:
3 and NV are the tourist modes. Fun and exciting, but ultimately shallow and unchallenging.
Click to expand...
How?
 
BeforeU said:
Are these games in any way connected to each other? Story wise. I dont have time to play any previous game, if its really good as people say I will jump to F4 directly.
Click to expand...

Only Fallout 1,2 and New Vegas are connected in a grand plot that spans decades. 3 is its story as for 4, not sure but since it's in an entirely new city I would assume it's standalone plot wise.
 
BeforeU said:
Are these games in any way connected to each other? Story wise. I dont have time to play any previous game, if its really good as people say I will jump to F4 directly.
Click to expand...
In Fallout 4, I'm sure there will be characters and references to the plot from Fallout 3.
 
BeforeU said:
Are these games in any way connected to each other? Story wise. I dont have time to play any previous game, if its really good as people say I will jump to F4 directly.
Click to expand...

The games have common lore obviously, but I wouldn't say it's essential to play any of the previous ones. Some of the characters/factions are recurring and it's pretty cool to remember them from previous games (e.g. Harold, Marcus, Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave), but that's about it. I'm sure Bethesda wouldn't want to alienate newcomers either.
 
Play 3... it's hard to go back to Fallout 1 & 2 these days.. though I loved them back then.
 
BeforeU said:
Are these games in any way connected to each other? Story wise. I dont have time to play any previous game, if its really good as people say I will jump to F4 directly.
Click to expand...

IMO, Fallout 1, 2, and NV are pretty connected (heck in Fallout 2, your character is the grandchild of your character in Fallout 1).

There are a number of people in Obsidian who were on the Black Isle team that created Fallout 1 + 2 so they included many references in New Vegas. Basically, there was going to be a Fallout 3 codenamed Van Buren, but Interplay went bankrupt and sold the rights to Bethesda who made the Fallout 3 we know. When Obsidian was asked to make NV, they took ideas from Van Buren.

I honestly had a hard time seeing how Fallout 3 had any relation to the series... Sure, they threw out names like Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave, and Super Mutants, but it just didn't feel like part of the universe.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 (especially 1) are pretty dated though so it might be hard for newcomers to get into (doesn't stop me from playing them yearly).

Fallout 1 needs Fallout Fixt to help it run better on modern computers and remove most bugs. The best part is it's still being updated. I believe the next update is when the creator will move Fallout 1 onto the Fallout 2 game engine which should help immenesly.

Fallout 2 needs either the Unofficial Patch (recommend for first time) or the Restoration Project (a lot of cut content, but really fun). You can grab them from the bottom of the first post here.

Just remember that Fallout 1 and 2 are really old school - they don't have things like quest markers and such. You really need to talk to people, explore, and save everywhere. Fallout 1 does have an annoying time limit though (I think depending on which Fallout Fixt option you choose - you can remove it).
 
Opinion: 3 is a good game, but a bad fallout entry. 1 and NV are great games, and great fallout entries. 2 is GOAT, in gaming and of course by default in the fallout series as well.

I would recommend starting with NV for a modern gateway into the series. If you enjoy the themes and the lore, play 1 (pretty short) and 2.

Than play 3 as you get closer to 4 - playing 1 and 2 in between will prevent formula fatigue - and I think it makes most sense playing 3 as a final preparation for the upcoming game (which will feel more like 3 than a fallout game I presume).
 
Beelzebufo said:
3 was a great place to start for me. I especially loved exploring the mall.

Fallout 1 and 2 are basically unplayable now though, don't get those. Bought them on sale and never made it past the first screen.
Click to expand...

Huh? They are quite playable and fun (especially 2). they both require more investment to get into but once you get the hang of them they are quite fun and have great writing. If you like turn based games that focus on tactics vs quick reflexes they are great.

And honestly, if you never made it past the first screen you really can't say anything about them as you never played them.
 
Amused said:
Opinion: 3 is a good game, but a bad fallout entry. 1 and NV are great games, and great fallout entries. 2 is GOAT, in gaming and of course by default in the fallout series as well.

I would recommend starting with NV for a modern gateway into the series. If you enjoy the themes and the lore, play 1 (pretty short) and 2.

Than play 3 as you get closer to 4 - playing 1 and 2 in between will prevent formula fatigue - and I think it makes most sense playing 3 as a final preparation for the upcoming game (which will feel more like 3 than a fallout game I presume).
Click to expand...

This is an excellent suggestion. If you are wanting to get into Fallout before Fallout 4, follow Amuseds advice and do this.
 
But Fallout 4 will most likely lean closer towards Fallout 3 than New Vegas so if you want to get a taste of what's to come, go play Fallout 3.
 
So the series is on sale at Steam. Is it worth getting the GOTY/Ultimate versions? Specifically for New Vegas since I think I'll start with that one. $4.99 for the vanilla game vs. $11.99 for the Ultimate.
 
tim.mbp said:
So the series is on sale at Steam. Is it worth getting the GOTY/Ultimate versions? Specifically for New Vegas since I think I'll start with that one. $4.99 for the vanilla game vs. $11.99 for the Ultimate.
Click to expand...

Yes. Complete versions of both are well worth it. Especially New Vegas DLC.
 
tim.mbp said:
So the series is on sale at Steam. Is it worth getting the GOTY/Ultimate versions? Specifically for New Vegas since I think I'll start with that one. $4.99 for the vanilla game vs. $11.99 for the Ultimate.
Click to expand...

Ultimate. NV DLC is god tier.

Old World Blues has some of the funniest writing in gaming.
 
tim.mbp said:
So the series is on sale at Steam. Is it worth getting the GOTY/Ultimate versions? Specifically for New Vegas since I think I'll start with that one. $4.99 for the vanilla game vs. $11.99 for the Ultimate.
Click to expand...

With Beth..always wait for GOTY/always buy the GOTY.
 
I found New Vegas to be easier to play, so start with that one so you can get the hang of the franchise. Then, move to Fallout 3. Stick with the one that you like better until Fallout 4 comes out.

You can try Fallout 1 and 2, but they are completely different games in terms of gameplay. It's like an overhead turn based sort of deal.
 
Seiniyta said:
The interface is quite cumbersome, how you select weapons, inventory management. The resolution of the game doesn't help either. Yes, there are resolution mods out there but they merely make everything look tiny which the game wasn't designed for.

It makes sometimes clicking on the right thing harder then it should be.
Click to expand...
That's why it's best to choose 720p when you install the high resolution patch. It's still widescreen and looks reasonably sharp (on a 1080p monitor).
 
kind of no point in throwing in my 2 cents at this point, but...

Fallout 3 and NV are dirt cheap now. buy both... then, i'd play Fallout 3 first. if you're not really feeling it, don't feel obligated to keep playing, but do a few quests to get a grasp on the mechanics, then move onto NV.

I think it's important to play Fallout 3 first. not because it's the best game per se, it just establishes the mechanics best

Fallout 1 and 2 are great but lets face it, somebody new to fallout would probably put it down after five minutes unless they're already familiar with 90s crpgs (though don't let that discourage you from trying them out at some point)

again, all the games are dirt cheap, especially when it comes to digital sales. they're all great, don't listen to the hyperbole. but FO3 is probably your best bet as a starting point (assuming you want to get ready for FO4)
 
water_wendi said:
You are missing out.
Click to expand...

He's really not. Not everyone can put up with extremely dated graphics and gameplay systems. I know I can't. I loved Fallout 2 back in the day, but there's just no way I could go back to it today. Games have become much more refined in their systems, and graphics have obviously become much more pleasant to look at. Sure, there are plenty of hipster gamers who will scoff when someone says they don't enjoy an old game for these obvious reasons (though I suspect many of them enjoy talking about how much they enjoy these old games more than they actually enjoy the old games), but I promise we're in the majority.
 
I was new to the series last year and started with Fallout 3. I ended up completely hating it and somehow forced myself to finish the main quest just hoping it would get better. I wanted to enjoy the world but the game attached to it in 3 was just awful. I just cant stand Bethesda's stuff. My uncle told me how good the first 2 were for years but I never played them.

I got New Vegas at the same time as 3 for $5 and I keep debating whether to start it or not - wondering if its significantly different from 3.
 
Start with Fallout 3 and then go to New Vegas. I highly recommend you play 1 and 2 as well, but honestly 3 and NV are what Fallout is now. 1 and 2 are a nice history lesson and fun games, but anyone who tells you that you have to play them, or that 3/NV aren't Fallout, are living in denial. The game has changed, it's not that game anymore and that's ok.
 
BashNasty said:
He's really not. Not everyone can put up with extremely dated graphics and gameplay systems. I know I can't. I loved Fallout 2 back in the day, but there's just no way I could go back to it today. Games have become much more refined in their systems, and graphics have obviously become much more pleasant to look at. Sure, there are plenty of hipster gamers who will scoff when someone says they don't enjoy an old game for these obvious reasons (though I suspect many of them enjoy talking about how much they enjoy these old games more than they actually enjoy the old games), but I promise we're in the majority.
Click to expand...

I replay 2 at least once every 2 years or so and I still love it. No problems with me. But then again I can enjoy many different gameplay styles and graphics from different times. Old gamers may be less refined, but they still got something over most new games. In the case of Fallout it's depth. The original SPECIAL system is great.
 
That's a very subjective question. I see a lot of other people have posted so I'm probably not saying anything new here but:

-Fallout 3 is for people who want to get very immersed in the lore of the Fallout universe. You'll start in a Vault (an underground bunker built to house people from nuclear warheads) like most FO protagonists. In my opinion the main story is a little better in this one.

-Fallout: New Vegas has better gameplay overall (IMO). The physics engine is slightly tweaked and a TINY bit less buggy. The structure of the quests is also laid out a tad bit better (they're more descriptive in what you're supposed to do).

Overall both games are great and if you're gonna play either one, I suggest getting them on PC as there is no longer support for them on consoles. If you buy either one for PC there are numerous mods to improve gameplay performance as weel as lore-friendly, fan-created mods. Now that Fallout 4 has been announced I'm sure the modding community will be adding more than they have in a while.

If you're a noob to modding I suggest going to nexusmods.com. It's a great place for new modders to get mainstream mods. First and formost, get New Vegas/FO3 Anti Crash, as well as New Vegas/FO3 4GB. This will make EVERYTHING in the game run so much smoother (assuming you have at least 4GBs of spare RAM on you're PC)
A lot of people are suggesting you play the originals 1 & 2. This is not a bad idea. However, you need to be aware that these are essentially turn-based games. The reason I suggested FO3 or New Vegas is because I'm not the biggest fan of turn based games (unless you count Final Fantasy or SP: The Stick of Truth).
 
I own both Fallout 1 and 2 on GOG, kinda want to play them on my HP Stream 7. Anyone have any experience playing them with touchscreen?
 
BashNasty said:
He's really not. Not everyone can put up with extremely dated graphics and gameplay systems. I know I can't. I loved Fallout 2 back in the day, but there's just no way I could go back to it today. Games have become much more refined in their systems, and graphics have obviously become much more pleasant to look at. Sure, there are plenty of hipster gamers who will scoff when someone says they don't enjoy an old game for these obvious reasons (though I suspect many of them enjoy talking about how much they enjoy these old games more than they actually enjoy the old games), but I promise we're in the majority.
Click to expand...

Which gameplay system is outdated?
 
BashNasty said:
He's really not. Not everyone can put up with extremely dated graphics and gameplay systems. I know I can't. I loved Fallout 2 back in the day, but there's just no way I could go back to it today. Games have become much more refined in their systems, and graphics have obviously become much more pleasant to look at. Sure, there are plenty of hipster gamers who will scoff when someone says they don't enjoy an old game for these obvious reasons (though I suspect many of them enjoy talking about how much they enjoy these old games more than they actually enjoy the old games), but I promise we're in the majority.
Click to expand...

What makes you assume I do not find actually joy in playing Fallout 2? How you perceive Fallout 1 or 2 and experience them does not affect me and I enjoy Fallout New Vegas the very same way I enjoy 2 and despite enjoying FNV I find the isometric hand crafted graphics of Fallout 1 and 2 much more appealing. Calling someone a hipster for enjoying one of the greatest games of all time simply for its age is quite pretentious.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Will there be a Fallout game announcement to go with the new season of the show this December?
3
302
Stafford replied
  • Poll
Which Legendary Game Developer Should Sony Airlift in to Save Marathon?
2 3
105
1K
DonkeyPunchJr replied
Looking for the best Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas and Fallout 4 mods that are close to baseline
12
545
Strategize replied
If your new game has the word Fall in the title, I'm not fucking buying it.
2
60
3K
StereoVsn replied
  • Poll
Should the Final Fantasy series go back to the turn based combat?
3 4 5 6 7
322
2K
Idleyes replied
Top Bottom