If I'm new to the Fallout series, which game should I start with?
- Thread starter Pathfinder
- Start date
I had no problem getting into F1 like 2 or 3 years ago for the first time. In terms tone and style, it's completely distinct from 3 and New Vegas it's mind boggling and I still love those games.
It focuses more on the actual Role-Playing and conversations instead of the increased focus on scavenging and looting the later games do, which I don't mind that much but hope would be de-emphasized in F4.
I really need to finish my F1 walkthrough...
It focuses more on the actual Role-Playing and conversations instead of the increased focus on scavenging and looting the later games do, which I don't mind that much but hope would be de-emphasized in F4.
I really need to finish my F1 walkthrough...
D
Deleted member 125677
Unconfirmed Member
Just got started on this series. Chose to start with Fallout 2. Looks pretty good, with the high res mod. Downsamling doesn't seem to work though.
WAT?
I just played them this year when they were re-released on Steam and no way are they unplayable. Story in 1 and 2 is worth it alone.
UFO: X-COM now that is a dated game.
New Vegas felt more consistent, what you would have expected from a post post apocalypse society trying to rebuild, FO3 felt like a themepark with Bethesda trying to shove every "cool" location that managed to pop in their heads.
Akiyama_AE
Member
3 and NV thats where I started and I fell inlove with it because it was basically Elder Scrolls with guns and a post apocalypse world and I endured the ps3 versions
SpiceMelange
Member
The world felt more like Fallout to me than 3. (Played F1/2 before F3 was a thing)
Xion_Stellar
People should stop referencing data that makes me feel uncomfortable because games get ported to platforms I don't like
That's just it thought Fallout 3 was trying too hard to go for the "Classic Post Apocalyptic World Look" so much that it seemed like it was purposely ignoring established lore.As Fallout New Vegas showed (which takes place only 4 years after Fallout 3) there's no reason why the DC Area should have looked like that 200 years after the Great War as if settlements/civilaizations were still in their infancy years and that's without even going into the whole deal of recycling Super Mutants and the Enclave as antagonist. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed Fallout 3 alot but it's far from perfect and it's at the bottom of the list just right above Fallout Tactics IMO.
afternoon delight
Member
Personally the depth and variety of NPCs, factions, inter politics, creatures, trade routes, patrols, etc all felt a billion times more alive in NV than 3.
Edit: Xion said it better. Also, I'm biased- FNV is my game of the the 7th gen.
The world in FO3 feels more like a theme park than a consistently built world, like the one you find in NV. One of the things that made the first two games (and NV) so interesting was the ability to explore and be engaged in a post-apocalyptic society with various settlements, factions and power struggles. And that's where FO3 dropped the ball the most.
blacklabel93
Neo Member
Damn I thought obsidian was making fallout 4. I hope Bethesda takes a few lessons from FoNV and incorporates it into the game
I just started NV and the exploration is definitely better in the first two games. Clicking on an overworld map and letting the game either get me where I'm going or generate an encounter is a lot more fun than walking past rocks for minutes and through valleys with poison flies that block my path. A stealth character seems a lot less useful but hopefully I'm wrong.
ZombieSupaStar
Member
Having played 1, and 2 when they were new. And enjoying 3 also despite its shortcomings. I would say play 3 first. It's made by Bethesda who are making 4. If after 3 you want more fallout play new Vegas . If you want to get a few more reference in New Vegas watch some videos on 1 and 2s storyline.
Black Isle did 1 and 2 and it's on the west coast
Obsidian (with some old black isle guys) did new Vegas which is west coast
Bethesda did 3 and now 4 which are east coast
Black Isle did 1 and 2 and it's on the west coast
Obsidian (with some old black isle guys) did new Vegas which is west coast
Bethesda did 3 and now 4 which are east coast
afternoon delight
Member
So true. If you're on a PC, I enjoyed additional encounters and events mods to keep it interesting all the time. Sandstorms too. There's so much out there to make the walking part better... Fast travel was always dicey on a save file over fifty hours...
And stealth is absolutely worth it depending on your combat style, sneak attack criticals nearly break the game as I guess their meant to.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Besides those that have answered the thought and effort put in the world building is leagues apart. This video goes into how in New Vegas story and setting are linked.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvwlt4FqmS0
Moon_frogger
Member
If you can stomach old crpgs from the late 90s then start from the start. Fallout 1 and 2 are both amazing and on sale right now i think. Don't skip fallout 3, I also prefer new Vegas but 3 does many things better than that game. It's brilliant in several ways that new Vegas is mediocre, like unrestricted exploration for example. Too many invisible walls in new Vegas, although it's more non linear overall
Everyone should watch it and then proceed to binge hard on his other videos as well. I've been eagerly following Mr. B. Tongue since I saw his analysis of New Vegas a couple of years ago.
In addition to all the arguments about how the world does a much, much better job of being coherent, sensible, and just smarter overall (which are true but have been covered a lot), New Vegas's world design was just better on a mechanical level in terms of having interesting landmarks more evenly and consistently distributed throughout the playable space.
Fallout 3 crammed like 90% of the plot-important stuff into that one tiny little corner of the map that had Rivet City, the Brotherhood of Steel fortress, the Jefferson Memorial, along with the entirety of Downtown DC and the Metro. The remainder of the plot-related stuff, along with basically everything that wasn't explicitly part of the main plot, was distributed incredibly sparsely over a huge amount of space, so finding anything interesting was kind of like looking for a needle in a haystack. Then when you found something, Fallout 3 did a really poor job of fleshing out individual quests and locations - so you had sparsely distributed points of content that were neither particularly interesting on their own, nor able to form up into an actual 'region' because the next nearest point of interest was too far away.
It felt like you were basically either doing stuff in the small part of the game that comprised the Rivet City/Downtown DC 'metropolis', or you were wandering around in an empty field where you didn't really have anything to do.
New Vegas took a more thoughtful approach, and even though a good chunk of the game was still concentrated in and around the main 'Vegas' area, the rest of the game world was populated using something like a "hub and spoke" style of design, where you'd go through a series of central areas that contained and were surrounded by a good number of interrelated quests, content, points of interest, etc. Goodsprings is a mini quest hub, then you go to Primm and that's also a mini quest hub, then you've got the Mojave Outpost, through Nipton up to Novac, etc. There's Jamestown, and the Boomer base, and the main NCR base and Caesar's Fort, as well as a number of Legion-controlled and NCR-controlled outposts and towns down the river, the Dam itself, the Brotherhood of Steel bunker, the Khan settlement, etc etc. Just on a purely mechanical level, those are pretty much all hubs that connect to a number of different quests to do, places to explore, etc. They're not just isolated areas that you visit, complete a single quest/objective, and then immediately leave because you've exhausted the point of them.
The only thing that Fallout 3's world really did "better" was to be "more bleak", but that was almost completely accomplished solely by just being empty.
Agreed on that.
My biggest issue with New Vegas was how little the faction stuff mattered to effecting the game world. It basically just meant that pissing one faction off would randomly spawn enemies from said faction to fight you. Helping one faction doesn't really show much of an effect on the world either.
I marched into Caesar's outpost and
It effected nothing in the game world.
Not to mention the ending
Fallout 3's late missions and Broken Steel were better finales from a story perspective.
That said, the game world is filled with more purposeful and interesting side stuff than Fallout 3. Exploring is more interesting than 3 because you can find sidequests that are pretty fun and well written. The DLC in NV is great too. (So was FO3, but I liked NV's a little more). Tone is more in line with FO1 and 2.
I marched into Caesar's outpost and
murdered everyone inside and out. Caesar was killed, I looted his corspse, and he became unavailable to communicate with me for the rest of the game. Enemies still talk about Caesar like he is alive.
Not to mention the ending
is basically just a plug and drop whatever faction you end up with. Yay, they control everything. Felt like the "Wow! It's fucking nothing." meme.
That said, the game world is filled with more purposeful and interesting side stuff than Fallout 3. Exploring is more interesting than 3 because you can find sidequests that are pretty fun and well written. The DLC in NV is great too. (So was FO3, but I liked NV's a little more). Tone is more in line with FO1 and 2.
BobbyColtrane
Member
I keep trying to play Fallout 3 but I get worn down by VATS. Does anyone have a suggestion for the best Iron Sights mod?
Or should I just move on to New Vegas?
Or should I just move on to New Vegas?
kamineko
Does his best thinking in the flying car
I've replayed 1 and 2 in the past 6 months. If you can get into an iso turn-based RPG, then you will probably get into them.
I think skipping straight to F2 is a mistake. F1 is clunkier, but perfectly playable (especially with more recent mods/fixes) and, for my money, is a tighter, more interesting story. F2 is more of a lovable mess, the OG Obsidian game before Obsidian existed.
I think playing all the mainline games in order is a good time.
So far as the Beth-published games, I agree that NV is the better game, though I liked the idea and atmosphere of an east coast Fallout. The plot of F3 is pretty bad, it's true, but it's hard to go first, you know?
I think skipping straight to F2 is a mistake. F1 is clunkier, but perfectly playable (especially with more recent mods/fixes) and, for my money, is a tighter, more interesting story. F2 is more of a lovable mess, the OG Obsidian game before Obsidian existed.
I think playing all the mainline games in order is a good time.
So far as the Beth-published games, I agree that NV is the better game, though I liked the idea and atmosphere of an east coast Fallout. The plot of F3 is pretty bad, it's true, but it's hard to go first, you know?
GrandHarrier
Member
VATS is in New Vegas too. If you don't like VATS I'd suggest a melee build.
Dre_G_Writer
Member
Fallout 1 and 2 visuals
Fallout 3 and New Vegas visuals
Fallout 3 and New Vegas visuals
If you want to get a feeling of what Fallout 4 is, 3. Because that is the only one made by the same developer doing 4.
Now, if you want to play more than one, play Vegas or 2 next (if you play 2 next you'll get references made in Vegas. And you'll also get explained why you should dislike the bad guys in 3 because Bethesda did a horrible job of making them look evil. More like please take for granted that you should dislike these guys <- one of the many bad writing in the game).
Also, play 3 first cause you'll be disappointed in 3 if you play Vegas first. I loved 3 but it would have taken away from the game if I played Vegas first. Vegas does most of everything better than 3 did. And the one thing it didn't I don't think it was bad at, 3 was just really good at (atmosphere).
2 is awesome but don't expect to judge if you'll like 4 by it, it's a different game (and far better writing honestly than the latter 2. But combat and gameplay is really different. And exploration is more fun in the later games seeing as you get to explore the whole world vs. watch a line travel the map). It is my second favorite fallout (admittedly it gets second cause while I like turn based I really love the gameplay introduced by putting in Bethesda's game style. ANd despite me thinking 2 has the best side quests and writing, in the end I just enjoyed Vegas more cause it had a combo of good writing plus the Bethesda style gaemplay but improved).
1.... I guess is good to play to see how the series start but I wouldn't use it to judge any Fallout by (2 is far better). But it honestly was my least favorite Fallout and the one that I had a hard time getting into. For whatever reason I really wanted to get into Fallout so I tried several times to get into 1. Only recently did I make it that far in it and I still got annoyed at some point and gave up on it. It sounded awesome from what was described but it was 2 I was going by but I couldn't play 2 at the time as I had a Mac and I thought I should make myself play 1 first.
Order of Fallouts by which I enjoyed most: New Vegas > 2 > 3 > 1
I loved the atmosphere of 3 but I think this comment mostly gets it. I also think the large broken bridges towering above you added a lot to atmosphere too honestly (I notice they're back in 4). But yeah, a lot of the atmosphere was the empty feeling and large, broken structures that were abandoned and falling apart.
Now, if you want to play more than one, play Vegas or 2 next (if you play 2 next you'll get references made in Vegas. And you'll also get explained why you should dislike the bad guys in 3 because Bethesda did a horrible job of making them look evil. More like please take for granted that you should dislike these guys <- one of the many bad writing in the game).
Also, play 3 first cause you'll be disappointed in 3 if you play Vegas first. I loved 3 but it would have taken away from the game if I played Vegas first. Vegas does most of everything better than 3 did. And the one thing it didn't I don't think it was bad at, 3 was just really good at (atmosphere).
2 is awesome but don't expect to judge if you'll like 4 by it, it's a different game (and far better writing honestly than the latter 2. But combat and gameplay is really different. And exploration is more fun in the later games seeing as you get to explore the whole world vs. watch a line travel the map). It is my second favorite fallout (admittedly it gets second cause while I like turn based I really love the gameplay introduced by putting in Bethesda's game style. ANd despite me thinking 2 has the best side quests and writing, in the end I just enjoyed Vegas more cause it had a combo of good writing plus the Bethesda style gaemplay but improved).
1.... I guess is good to play to see how the series start but I wouldn't use it to judge any Fallout by (2 is far better). But it honestly was my least favorite Fallout and the one that I had a hard time getting into. For whatever reason I really wanted to get into Fallout so I tried several times to get into 1. Only recently did I make it that far in it and I still got annoyed at some point and gave up on it. It sounded awesome from what was described but it was 2 I was going by but I couldn't play 2 at the time as I had a Mac and I thought I should make myself play 1 first.
Order of Fallouts by which I enjoyed most: New Vegas > 2 > 3 > 1
I loved the atmosphere of 3 but I think this comment mostly gets it. I also think the large broken bridges towering above you added a lot to atmosphere too honestly (I notice they're back in 4). But yeah, a lot of the atmosphere was the empty feeling and large, broken structures that were abandoned and falling apart.
Ah, I liked gunplay in Vegas so much I skipped using VATs. Granted that is because of ADs but I like trying to pretend I'm actually aiming the gun and it was fun with how they did it. I didn't touch ADs in Vegas. I used ADs a lot in 3 (and when I tried to replay 3 I found the gunplay so much more ick and not all that fun but so into the habit of not using ADs I couldn't get myself to use it).
Shake Appeal
Member
Fallout 1. Then play Fallout 2. Then maybe play Tactics. Then stop.
VATS was pretty different under the hood in New Vegas compared to Fallout 3, though. In FO3 the bonuses for using VATS were a lot stronger than they were in NV, and your outside-of-VATS capabilities in FO3 were a lot weaker, comparatively, than they are in NV.
In New Vegas you mostly only bother using it if you're trying to clip a Cazadore's wings or if you're trying to hit an unpredictable enemy with a thrown weapon/grenade.
Pathfinder
Member
These kinds of statements are not helpful.
mario_O
Member
+1 and most people I know enjoyed 3 more than NV. We have a microcosm of Fallout 3 haters on Neogaf. The map in 3 is simply more interesting to explore.
His Majesty
Banned
Origin of the dislike is mostly due to the terrible writing, plot and quests in F3.
DidntKnowJack
Member
Fallout 3's the only one I've put any real time into. I played a little of New Vegas but it didn't click with me. As FO4 appears to be following the FO3 path (unless I'm sorely misinformed which is possible but the trailer gave that impression) I feel like I'm fine just having played that. I'm not advising anyone do the same, like I said my FO experiences are fairly limited.
That's interesting, thanks. I don't think of Fallout 3 as more bleak. I think of it as more alive, actually. Maybe it's just the color aesthetic. Greenish blue vs. orange.
Horse Detective
Why the long case?
I'm cool with admitting New Vegas has better writing and better distribution of things to do throughout the map.
But the strip is embarrassingly pathetic. I really mean that, the non modded design of it is boring as fuck. I get that classic Fallout fans think 3 is an amalgamation of things from the universe that are misplaced, but it never underwhelmed me the way New Vegas did at many points. I feel like defenders of NV often think it is without fault, and better in every way in comparison to 3 but it really isn't.
And to the OP, I think skipping 3 is a mistake, especially if you are planning to play 4. And I don't say that in defense of it, but because 4 is going to be more like 3 than NV. To say it is a bad game and totally skippable is stupid in almost every respect.
But the strip is embarrassingly pathetic. I really mean that, the non modded design of it is boring as fuck. I get that classic Fallout fans think 3 is an amalgamation of things from the universe that are misplaced, but it never underwhelmed me the way New Vegas did at many points. I feel like defenders of NV often think it is without fault, and better in every way in comparison to 3 but it really isn't.
And to the OP, I think skipping 3 is a mistake, especially if you are planning to play 4. And I don't say that in defense of it, but because 4 is going to be more like 3 than NV. To say it is a bad game and totally skippable is stupid in almost every respect.
Where did this Fallout 3 hate come from?Fallout 3 is great.
I'd suggest Fallout 3 OP, it's going to have more hooks into Fallout 4 than New Vegas (if any).
Fallout 3 is great, I really enjoyed FO3. Played through it three times and finished the DLC.
But in comparison to NV, FO3 falls short in many areas. Sometimes people when pointing out these short comings take things a bit far and say dumb shit like fallout 3 is not a good game. I just assume they are being hyperbolic, and don't actually mean what they are saying.
That said, If I had to tell someone where to start the series though, especially to get prepped for 4 I'd go with FO3. The reason is simple, 4 will be more like 3 than NV.
Fallout 3 is like typical Hollywood blockbuster. Fun, easy to get into, with few memorable moments but also falling apart when you stop for a second and think about a situation you just witnessed.
New Vegas is like arthouse movie from a country you never even heard about before. Beginning may difficult, but once you sink in, you're there until ride is over. And it actually feels like you gained something by playing it.
New Vegas is like arthouse movie from a country you never even heard about before. Beginning may difficult, but once you sink in, you're there until ride is over. And it actually feels like you gained something by playing it.
I couldn't stand playing Fallout 1 again later in my life! The story was fin but I stopped..forgot when. The old ass mechanics was really hard to get by. Glad I remember beating it when I was younger at least.
Nobody mentions tactics lol...
Question: What patches/mods are recommend for Fallout 2 on GoG?
Nobody mentions tactics lol...
Question: What patches/mods are recommend for Fallout 2 on GoG?
Fallout-NL
Member
Fallout 1 is by far the best game in the series. Incredible atmosphere and gives you a very good sense of what a post-apocalyptic world might be like. There's some humor here and there, but for the most part, that game plays it pretty straight and I love it for that. I never felt that those over the top, tongue in cheek, too on the nose attempts at satire were that series' most important feature. Fallout 3, NV and, to some extent, 2 feel more like post-apocalyptic theme parks to me. The first one is the real thing. Great combat, great writing and just a fantastic game that manages to give you a sense of freedom with its open world, but there's enough of a structure there so that it doesn't feel without purpose.
It's my favorite RPG of all time.
Basically this.
It's my favorite RPG of all time.
Basically this.
Octavianus
Banned
Yeah like five whole minutes. My god.
The Temple of Trials is definitely horse shit though
Honestly, the world actually making sense (mostly) was a big part of it for me. Fallout 3 had a bunch of kids living right next door to super mutants and a town build around a nuclear bomb for the lulz for christs sake.
It felt like Bethesda didn't really care if anything made sense at all (both in placement and the overal theme) and just wanted to put as much 'awesome' into it as possible without giving it much thought.
thewhitehawk
Member
Ditto.
No Little Lamplight.
texhnolyze
Banned
I'd recommend playing at least the 2nd game to know what Fallout is all about.
I really wished Fallout 4 would go back to the traditional turn based rpg just like the originals. But it's impossible and I know it. I'm one of those fans who were shocked after discovering Fallout 3 is not turn based anymore. I never finished 3 and NV up to this point. The new 3rd person combat turned me off, not engaging and satisfying for me. Other rpg elements are okay though. Perhaps I'm just too attached to the originals system and can't move on just yet.
I really wished Fallout 4 would go back to the traditional turn based rpg just like the originals. But it's impossible and I know it. I'm one of those fans who were shocked after discovering Fallout 3 is not turn based anymore. I never finished 3 and NV up to this point. The new 3rd person combat turned me off, not engaging and satisfying for me. Other rpg elements are okay though. Perhaps I'm just too attached to the originals system and can't move on just yet.
Sparrowhawk
Member
3 or New Vegas. I never played the first two games and going back to older stuff can sometimes be a pain. You should read up on the events of the first two games on the wiki, though.
Octavianus
Banned
I can relate.
I enjoy NV quite a bit due to the writing and how free the player is to effect things but the real time combat and camara perspective do nothing for me.
I'm doing a playthrough of 1 and NV side by side right now and I keep telling myself how I wish NV could have been more like the older games whenever I'm playing it. Moving from place to place and engaging in combat feels like a chore that I need to go through to get to the good parts.
Bethesda acquiring the Fallout IP is by far the most dissapointing thing that has ever happened to video games.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
I think both Fallout titles needed more variety really. Which FO4 looks like it aims to address.
Also, the Mojave felt... small. Like, not tiny, but limited in that New Vegas was the center and the rest felt a little bit deserted (appropriately I suppose).
ScottSullivan
Member
Falllout 2 is a little rough to play these days, the dated mechanics stopped me from getting into it
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i highly advise against this. Fallout 1 and 2 are not cinematic games and you will not get the same impact from watching someone else play it. The best thing about the games is deciding how to tackle problems yourself.
peanutbutterlatte
Member
People unfortunately won't accept that as a perfectly valid answer.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Can you elaborate on which mechanics were dated?
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll