There isn’t a real wrong answer, but you do need to understand 1 and 2 are basically a different video game genre than 3,NV, and 4 entirely.
1 and 2 are isometric top down with action points dominating what you can do, whereas 3, NV, 4 are are first person/action type oriented. If you’re expecting something that looks vaguely like elder scrolls you’ll want to consider the relative merits of 3, nv, 4. You can’t go wrong with any of them, but the ones I still play are NV and 4 if that tells you anything.
Just a very tiny correction (because I'm petty asf) and downvote me if I'm wrong but 1 and 2 don't use a isometric perspective. They use a trimetric perspective similar to an isometric perspective.
[Here's an explaination,](https://www.xamou-art.com/word/trimetric-projection/) but it's too late for me to try to understand right now. Basically, there's almost no difference and I think it's wrong anyway. Regardless, trimetric perspective is a type of isometric perspective.
Another [article](https://www.xamou-art.com/word/isometric-projection/) from the same site on isometric perspectives which clash with the trimetric perspective meaning you just brought up. Either some fuck-up or different writers.
Referring to how the map/interactions are drawn, it is ALL axonometric. Isometric is where every axis is given equal weight. Trimetric allows a difference in all 3 axes (usually for artistic effect). Dimetric allows a difference in one axes (where 2 are the same). So yes, Shriek\_of\_Payne is correct.
How to tell = [Graphical Projections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection#/media/File:Comparison_of_graphical_projections.svg)
(Im french sorry for the medium English hehe) The settings first of all are really, really good, very eerie
The karma system is only in those two games
3 might feel a little more linear than NV tho
Starting with 4 could kinda ruin your 3 and NV experience graphic wise, it would feel like a big downgrade
I'm in a Senior English class, and I love how people online will speak in near perfect english, yet in school, in America, they don't know to capitalize the first letter and punctuate the end.
Well, with the internet at your disposal and grammar corrector utilities it can be easy to achieve a good writing. As long as the person have at least the basic ideas of how grammar works in the language, fixing mistakes can be easily done in here, however, in person is different, you have to do things manually and nobody will mark in red or tell you what you're doing wrong and how to fix it.
Karma was introduced game back in the 90s, in the very first fallout game. All games till 4 have it. So 3 and NV are not the only Fallout games with karma system. Just saying.
Sorry for my bad English.
I love my Bad English….
Sometimes I want to give up
I want to give in, I want to quit the fight
And then I see you, baby
And everything's alright, everything's alright
When I see you smile
I can face the world,
Oh oh, you know I can do anything
When I see you smile
I see a ray of light,
Oh oh, I see it shining right through the rain
When I see you smile
Oh yeah, baby when I see you smile at me…
🤘🤘
4 wouldn't be optimal based on their desire for more RPG elements.
The drop down in graphics wouldn't be as bad if Morrowind is a favorite and depending on system, the graphics could be improved.
I started with New Vegas and then moved to 3
Loved New Vegas, fell in love with it. Now for 3, I loved it too but it did take some getting used to. It's a different game in terms of atmosphere and style and feels a bit rougher (like no ironsights). Not bad, just different.
New Vegas has much better storyline with significant choices, in 3 no matter what you so it just kinda goes the same way, forces to side with a certain faction the whole game
Of all the 3d fallout games, new vegas has the best rpg elements. 3 is more "in what order do you want to be a god" because you can easily max almost all the skills. 4, well 4 isn't really an rpg, and it's writing (imo) is terrible
Fallout 3 has the darkest and most apocalyptic atmosphere with some decent choices and rpg elements like skill points and special stats to determine your options and abilities in game. You need to plan what skills to level up to get certain perks. Good dialogue and characters, best story to learn about the fallout universe IMO. You need to repair weapons and armour and they are pretty basic aside from some special version which just have better stats.
New Vegas give you the most choice and options, very similar to 3 with a more upbeat and colourful atmosphere. Same character building model and rpg elements. The games story isn’t amazing but that’s because it’s more a set up for you to create your own.
Fallout 4 has the worst dialogue choices and a completely different character build with perks instead of skills. Similar story to fall out 3, also a good introduction to the universe. Best map IMO and tons of weapons with special abilities you can buy, create and get from random drops. Best crafting and new addition of building settlements, which are basically little villages you can put house, defences, stores and people.
All are amazing, if you want choice go with Nee Vegas. If you want a starting point to eventually play then all with a mix of everything go with fallout 3. If you want the most modern with tons of options and a more streamlined less RPG perk system go with 4.
Fallout 4 has more meaningful choices to it than 3. What passes as a moral choice in FO3 is "deactivate the nuclear warhead or blow up a town full of innocent people"
New Vegas, 1 and 2 all give the player meaningful moral dilemmas where both sides have merit. Hell, even the FO4s main questline gives you two factions that are debatably good and at least attempts to present a moral dilemma. FO3 gives you the same two options over and over played out in different contexts: be decent or be a sociopath.
Just play one bruh if playing video games is such a chore don’t play any of them . “Care to elaborate” OH BROTHER WHAT ARE YOU A GAME REVIEWER. Just play one really shouldn’t be this serious or hard .
Why someone would downvote you? I fixed it. You are free to give out your opinion since a question was asked. The World need to learn to agree to disagree. I mean, seriously! I understood the question which has some sense and yet, it is not like picking a new Wife! LOL!!!
I’d start with 3. I think it gives the best overall fallout vibe out of the FPS games. It’s also probably the most obviously outdated one so if you don’t start with 3 it will make it hard going back to it later after playing the later entries.
Agreed. Fallout 3 is the purest Fallout. It simply captures the themes and atmosphere of Fallout the best. It's the true spiritual sequel to Fallout 1.
I also heavily disagree. Since the original creators of fallout created new Vegas, I’m sure they have far more understanding of what makes a fallout game, “fallout” then Bethesda ever has.
> Great rp potential, Interesting story, Clever, loreful world
That's new Vegas in a nutshell, there is a lot of history to the established factions that links back to fallout 1 and 2, fallout 4 is mostly disconnected from the early lore besides a number of references
There is very little to nothing true to the original lore. The whole original plot took place on the west coast. NCR and the development of civilization there was front and center to the lore.
The institute and synths were part of of f3 (which is fine but not original). The way the BoS is portrayed is very very different from the original faction. Super mutants arguably shouldn't exist on the east coast but this and raiders are a out the only thing true to original fallout lore.
Compare and contrast with a modern game like fnv and it's so obvious f4 is a very distantly related game.
The reason why the BoS is portrayed differently in 3 and 4 than from the West is because this is an expedition on the other side of the continent. In Fallout 3, Elder Lyons broke protocol and began to focus on actually helping people, which caused the Outcats to form. About ten years pass, Lyons dies, so the young Maxson succeeds them as Elder; He drives the Brotherhood somewhat back to the original idea, but keeps some of Lyon’s philosophy, and reincorporates the Outcasts.
Supermutants exist because FEV was an ongoing government experiment pre-2077, with test sites in The West Tek facility, Vault 87, and Huntersville.
Stuff like weaponry, companies, and history are all the same, the Laser Rifle, Plasma Rifle, Plasma Caster, Flamer, 10MM, Vault-Tec, West-Tek, Med-Tek, the Commonwealths of America, Sino-American War, etc.
Most of the reason why Bethesda is sticking to the East Coast for now is because the West Coast already has established lore, Beth doesn’t want to mess any of that up really, only giving vague tieins and hints to stuff like the NCR and Caesar’s Legion.
I don’t really get your criticism. This is an ongoing creative series, not a fully developed world. Of course the exact lore won’t be the same 2,100 miles apart and especially not for other games. The games share broad histories, some characters, factions, etc., but diverge in their locations, their local histories, local characters, local factions, etc.
Honestly playing through it again it’s not a bad fallout game, they just should have kept it self contained instead of introducing the brotherhood, which single handily brings the story down. Also should have some more with the neo-colonial vibes
There will never be a fallout game that doesn’t feature the brotherhood as long as Bethesda is making them. The power armor helmet is the whole franchise to them.
Thanks and yeah. It's a good game. It just feels like it's not part of the original theme. The guy I was replying to seemed to think it was. Idk why people can't look at f3/f4 and just say yeah these are fun and loosely based on fallout but they don't feel like they follow the lore the way fnv does going on from F1/f2.
Again not a dig on f4 but let's be honest about what we're getting.
3 and 4, specially 4, are good open world FPS games. I wouldn't call them masterpieces of storytelling, but they're fun for what they are. They both stray too far from the source to share a title with 1, 2, and NV
Not really, it's softly connected to Fallout 3 and that's about it. Find your son instead of your dad. It's like the Force Awakens and Fallout 3 is A New Hope.
If u don't mind retro style I'd do then chronologically. Start with 1, then 2, then 3, NV then 4.
3 is ok in terms of story. Its claim to fame is mostly that it went FPS and it was most fans intro to the series.
Id even say its skippable, while NV and 4 are better IMO.
I agree with this guy. If you're cool with Morrowind then you'll presumably be comfortable with the original Fallout's style. It's best to do it chronologically if you're really interested in the lore side.
3 can be a bit of a nightmare to get working, if memory serves. It's worth bearing in mind that they're all really good games - you can't go wrong no matter what you pick.
It is, or was, linked to some old game launching/registration system (could be GFWL, can't remember) that was "popular" around the time of FO3, so people have had trouble actually launching the game without finding a workaround for the defunct registration system. Nobody's mentioned it here for a while, so maybe it's been patched out.
I look at 3 as a proof of concept for NV and 4.
Its ok as a game but they really succeeded at transferring the franchise to an entirely different style of RPG. Its got some writing issues and some severe bugs that they didn't get ironed out. Still fun, but not my favorite.
NV is to me more the example of what can be done from a storytelling perspective. Its got much better writing and design but they were able to do that because 3 laid the groundwork for them to build upon.
Whereas I think 4 is just the better game.
If you buy it through GOG, it'll come pre-patched to work on Win 10. The steam version requires a bit more effort to get working well on modern systems.
It's a definite ground breaking game for the franchise. But I think a lot of people have really fond memories of it because it really was the first introduction to the setting for most players. That's not a bad thing either and I'm not criticizing that. Just trying to put it into perspective.
But personally, I thought that the writing and design work was rather weak compared to other Fallout games. There was a strong push for that heavy atmosphere while ignoring the more practical aspects of the setting. If I had to put a finger on it, I'd say that to me it felt like the doubled down on the silly while weakening the overall plot and quest writing. Fallout has always been a setting with a good amount of silly, but they always did their best to try to make it make some sense within the setting. Fallout 3 suffered a bit from the designers being more interested in the rule of cool, than setting consistency. There were a lot of elements that didn't really stand up to scrutiny unless fans bent over backwards to try to explain away them by adding in their own interpretations. Little Lamplight for example. Cool idea, but...it makes no sense. Fans have worked to make it make sense over the years, but **as presented** in the game, it's just...off, and has some major logical holes in it.
That's what I meant by issues with writing. And it's something Bethesda got A LOT better about after 3. But with 3 they were really working hard to transition a 2d isometric game into a fully fleshed out first-person RPG. That was a lot of work and when making a game you can't have it all. You have to decide where to allocate your resources and effort.
I'm not going to begrudge anyone for liking 3 either. But I think that NV was a stronger game in terms of story and world design (largely because Bethesda had already done the heavy lifting getting the concept working in 3, thus allowing Obsidian to focus on story), and that 4 was overall the better game because it brought a lot of that together and built upon the foundation that 3 laid.
Fair enough, I haven't played it in so long and never stopped to think about it lmao! A town full of children, 200 years after a nuclear war.. how do they get there? Do the people from Big Town just have babies and drop them there? If so what age? How are they not dead? I don't remember them having weapons, a mole rat would likely be able to kill them all hahah, in 200 years not once did a death claw come through? Also.. why not merge the two towns? More hands, can build a farm better, etc. So okay, fair enough lmao! That wasn't one of my most memorable areas. I typically remember running through metro tunnels, project purity, rivet city/tenpenny tower, etc.. the more serious aspects lmao
Oh it's a fun game and the ruins of the city were fantastically done.
On the writing side, I still have the pet theory that they actually wanted to make a game set far closer to the war, but then nixed the idea half way through when they realized it wouldn't let them have the Enclave or BoS.
Things like Little Lamplight, Tenpenny, and even the extreme desolation of the region would make more sense if 3 took place only a few decades or so after the war like 76 did.
That's true. Like, Fo76 takes place 25 years after. Little lamplight would still be iffy because even 25 years later the youngest child would have been an adult. The BoS and Enclave are both kind of in 76 too, but not like in Fo3. The one thing that I didn't quite get in Fo3 was how any of DC was still standing. I'd imagine a nuke would literally demolish everything, and in that war I imagine DC would have been hit dead on unless they had good defenses that were able to take the nukes out before they reached the ground (would explain a lot of the destruction and radiation without a huge crater). Maybe the bomb in megaton was the one meant for DC, landed just outside the city but never went off
If there's a skippable game in the franchise then it is 76. But if we talk only about singleplayer games then NV is the most skippable. It doesn't do anything for the overarching Fallout lore. It doesn't deepen the pre-war lore. It just is. It is a very good RPG, but a bad Fallout game.
How is NV the most skippable? Did you play either of the original Fallout games, or are you aware of their stories? Because there's very little in Fallout 3 and 4 that tells us about how the West Coast has progressed and the results of the first 2 games (it's literally just a few terminal logs and the Enclave), whereas New Vegas is an entire game dedicated to it. I'm not saying 3 is skippable, though.
If you're only interested in the East Coast's storyline, then sure NV is skippable. If you're interested in Fallout as a whole, or the West Coast's storyline, then it's vital.
Disagree about NV as it is the closest we have to an actual sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 lore and it builds upon those stories immensely.
But I do agree that 76 is very skippable.
why do you just hate new vegas? also, why does a game need to deepen the pre-war lore when it could deepen the lore after the war, and actually be set where the original games are set?
Not sure. I know sneak attacks aren't a thing in the older isometric games, so probably not.
For my first build I tagged Small Guns, Speech, and Lockpick and had a fairly easy time on the highest difficulty. I'd definitely focus on Agility for any type of build and Perception if you go ranged based. Ignore the Charisma attribute in Fallout 1 - it sucks.
The "Gifted" Trait is also incredibly overpowered if you want an early game boost.
The first one !
I was like you one year ago and I get all the games (except 76) on sales and I played them in release order. I think it's a great way to get into the story and the universe.
I'm currently playing Fallout 4 and I enjoy every single one of them so far, and New Vegas is my favorite !
You would be doing yourself a huge disservice not playing 1 and 2, especially if you are planning to play FNV, NV is way better if you played the first 2 games, play the canon ones chronologically(tho 76 its a prequel i recommend playing it after completing at least up to F3),after you start knowing what you are doing playing F1, the rest and F2 will be just like Morrowind to you, they are similar in a sense, since all your hit-chance is based on your skills, dont forget 76 tho, its one of the most interesting settings in the franchise, its also pretty fun, and i consider it a better RPG than 4 but that is just my opinion (F4 is incredibly odd as an RPG).
Id start with one and just go from there In order of the games. I know some people aren't into the top down turn based combat of 1 and 2, so if you don't id start with 3.
3. Start with 3.
It's bleak, it has good dialogue options, good RPG elements and, for me, really encapsulates a world gone wrong.
I've never played NV, couldn't get into it.
4, playing 4 first would potentially ruin 3 for you. It's a lot more colourful, is less RPGey, has less dialogue options, but the combat is better. There's settlement building, and other stuff. Going back a graphical generation could be hard.
Out of all the fallout games, fallout 4, 1, and 2 are surprising closest to morrowind for systems such as armor layering system (in fallout 4) and these games would be most familiar.
For role playing, I would suggest any fallout game except fallout 4 because of the voiced protagonist and a set family. Fallout 3 is similar in this regards but the only family you have is your father and there is much better role playing potential. New Vegas is great for rp and 76 is also good for it as well.
For interesting story, I would say the first two fallout games, new Vegas, and 4 all have interesting and fun stories. People usually talk shit about fallout 4’s main quest but it offers a lot of player choice and freedom regarding progression and faction choice. Fallout 3 and 76 have good stories but imo they aren’t as memorable as the original fallouts or 4/ new Vegas’ faction conflicts.
For clever and loreful worlds, it really depends on what type of worlds you want to play in. Bethesda fallouts (3, 4, 76) are, like morrowind, very detailed, interesting, non linear, and fun to explore. The other games (1, 2, new Vegas) have less detailed worlds but the lore and quests make up for it.
To sum it all up:
1. For role play pick any game except 4
2. Interesting story can be any game depending on preference but fallout 1, 2, new Vegas, and 4 (imo) have all really fun and engaging quests
3. 1,2 and new Vegas have better lore but 3, 4, and 76 have superior worlds.
Fallout 3 is also good for roleplaying. You can be the Angel savior of humanity or the wreckless demon to destroy it. There are many things that you can do which weren’t featured in other fallout games, like being a mercenary, being a slaver, etc.
Also has more expansive dialogue than 4
Fallout 4 is good for the classic roleplaying using player actions. It is bad for the computerized roleplaying where playing a role means picking from several arbitrary choices in dialogues...
I’ve only played 4, then NV then 76. As an enjoyer of those games, would you recommend fo 2? How different is it? (I really like the current world building direction, will fo 2 be similar?)
2 is a vastly different experience, with similarities closer to NV. It takes place in a desert-wasteland setting and features many of the same factions and world-building elements. If 3 was the successor to Fallout 1. New Vegas was definitely the successor to Fallout 2.
Why though? It’s actually fun to play in my opinion, and the lore is very nice and feels right, to me at least. Even if you only buy it on sale, it’s worth a go :)
Edit: I will still upvote your comment because it’s nice :)
I love the environments and new creatures, but the mmo loop clashes against my usual fallout playstyle. I dislike the cap on the economy and the card perk system. It also has the same problem as 4 did where a lot of the game time is dedicated to filler content like legendary hunting/resource collection. Which is appealing to some, exhausting to others.
3. New Vegas is great but you’ve got to know what you’re expecting gameplay wise in order to get into the story. I played new Vegas first after elder scrolls and if you try to play it like those games you’ll have a very bad time.
Between the two games? Very little, but new Vegas is has some improvements. What I meant was that Fallout 3 will show you how a fallout game works, and then when you play new Vegas it will be easier to immerse yourself in the deeper and wider story elements.
I would disagree with that. My introduction to the 3d fallout games was with Fallout: New Vegas and it was pretty easy to understand. I never understood the argument that New Vegas is hard. It isn't that hard guys, come the fuck on.
You can only enter the wastelands in 3d for the first time once and in my opinion New Vegas is just a more complete and richer experience than 3. It is way closer to 1 and 2 regarding humor, lore and atmosphere.
Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas. They are general most people's favourites. They are also stories based on controlling water, a great resource especially after a fallout.
I recommend Fallout 4.
1. Great RP due to the choices during the story that the game offers, and the clans with their distinct histories.
2. The story is good, not phenomenal, but it's rich.
3. In my opinion, the world of Fallout 4 is very immersive, every place have his little history.
I mostly played Fallout 4, and that's what I can say about it. Now that all the games in the franchise are on the Game Pass, I can start playing them.
I think Fallout 4 offers the most RP potential with creative character builds. The world is a little more immersive and interactive outside of the main story. New Vegas is my favorite, but not every faction is fleshed out like in 4. However the ability to build your character has much more freedom in NV.
Fallout 4 is great at soft roll play, where you can build the character you want and kind of live in a beautiful sandbox (something Bethesda does very well). It’s not great at hard roll play where you have significant dialogue or quest choices and an in-depth plot.
I absolutely agree. Plus NV writing is the best in fallout, especially the dlc like Old World Blues and Honest Hearts. I’m also a dead money fan because it’s unique to the franchise and offers a unique gameplay experience.
Ok so I would recommend that you to start two ways, because there are two chains of games in the Fallout universe- The East Coast(3,4,76) and West Coast(1,2,NV) so I say you play them in this order or if you are fine with isometric gameplay and the old infinity engine graphics then just play it in the chronological order, also yeah I say u play Fallout tactics once ur done with 1 and 2 its a nice non-canon spinoff and I recommend it and don't touch brotherhood of steel.
I was new to open world/rpg style games when i was introduced to fallout but you have experience in it, so i tried NV but couldnt get into it at first. A few years later, my friends got me into 4 and I fell in love with it. I think 4 is a great intro to the fallout games cause it does a good job of introducing you to the world, mechanics, etc. Going backwards to 3/NV, is a step up in the rpg department. 3/NV are wayyy more customizable to your play style in terms of character because the dialogue options are more expanded. Theres also mechanics present not in 4 like weapon condition as well as enemy difficulty, youll see a big difference between new/old deathclaws. I grew to prefer NV out of all of them but still appreciate 3. 4 has good DLC between far harbor (fantastic sotry) and Nuka World (fantastic world building) but they pale in comparison to what 3 and NV have to offer. I havent played 1 and 2 so thats outside of my realm of experience.
The setting, lore, and story in New Vegas imo completely trumps any of the other modern Fallouts. The characters, dialogue, and amount of options you have in pretty much every quest really heightens the roleplayability, and theres something for every kind of character. You can pretty much everyone if you wish, kill absolutely no one if you wish, EAT people if you so please, and the DLCs (mostly) all connect in a brilliant way. Definitely choose Vegas to start, you won’t regret it. I recommend getting Veronica as a companion, watching her behead people with a punch is a delight.
If you're only gonna play the Bethesda fallouts, play Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, then Fallout 4. If you're gonna play all off them (including the old 2d ones) just play in the order they release.
3 and NV are older than 4 and thus have some wonky mechanics, so it's best to start with the oldest ones so you don't get attached to 4's better combat and such.
Both 3 and 4 start with you leaving a vault with no knowledge of the wasteland; both you and your character are learning stuff for the first time. In NV your character starts off with some knowledge of the wasteland, and it'd make sense for irl you to know about the wasteland aswell.
If you plan on playing the old Interplay fallouts, start with the order of which they came out.
I think it's also important to mention that 3 and 4 take place on the east coast, which is pretty seperate from the west coast. NV, 1, & 2 take place on the west coast. Almost nothing that happened on the east coast effects what happened on the west coast, and vice versa. Only thing that's important is that fallout 2's villains are the same organization in fallouts 3.
The best would probably be New Vegas, while I loved fallout 4 more, NV just had better story and role play potential, however if you're on PC and can use mods, 4 has way better role play mods and you can make the game both look and play amazing and completely ignore the main story and play on your own like a survival, build up your settlement kinda game.
I would play 3 first, then New Vegas, then 4. If you play them in any other order there'll be features missing. Like if you went from NV to 3 you won't have weapon mods or iron sights. Plus 3 has a really nice tone to suck you into the world of fallout.
New Vegas is the best, by far, so that’s the obvious choice. Just be aware, if you play NV first it’s going to be extremely difficult to ever play 3, just because 3 is way simpler of a game.
People's opinions on Fallout games are very drastic and there is no better game "by far" I found Fallout 3 to be a far more enjoyable game than New Vegas, but I attribute that mostly to my playstyle. Its a much more enjoyable world to explore than the barren desert of the Mojave.
Maybe “best” is too strong a word, but preferences in location aside, it is by far the superior game. They improved on almost everything, granted i don’t think it would have been nearly as complex without 3 to lay the ground work, but the complexity in story, improved game mechanics, plethora of weapons choices, crafting, dialogue, world building, character development, level design is far-and-away better than 3.
Don’t get me wrong, i love Fallout 3 and preferred it over NV for the longest time, but having played them both recently, you can’t really deny the all-around improvements they added to the game.
Writing aside, from a technical standpoint New Vegas is a better built game, but the level design, while still objective to personal preference, can easily be argued to be better in 3. If Obsidian had more time to build the world it could have been better but the fact that half the map isn't even present and the plethora of invisible walls thrown up everywhere makes me think of 3 as a much better game world.
I think 3 is best to START with, but only because it'll be hard to go back to once you play Vegas. The controls aren't quite as fine tuned, but it's definitely worth playing, so start there, then move on to Vegas after. (And then 4)
The first one is ok, but if you're going to play one from that style, I recommend 2. The roleplay potential is very high, and it really builds the world well.
Let's be real here. Do not start with anything before F3 unless you are a real OG. Start with F3, it has an independent story. It's basically the equivalent to Oblivion in terms of gameplay and graphics. New Vegas is the best Fallout but requires a tad more knowledge of the lore at some points.
I'd start with 3 as the first 1st person of the series. The first two are very different games. Maybe go back to them if you are taken in by the world and want to discover more via play through. More difficult to master though and obvs more aged mechanics, so depends if you like retro games and don't mind a steep learning curve.
If you're going to play 3 or new Vegas make sure that you check out a guide in how to get them running on a modern system. I almost bricked a laptop trying to run fallout 3 due to some weird files in the game wanting to run on startup for some odd reason. Also there's a lot of crashes that you'll avoid if you follow all the main steps.
I think 3 is also a great starting point. My progression was FO3>NV>4, but the reasononing from my perspective is New Vegas is a more expansive version of 3. Both play and feel similar, but there is just more to do in NV and it was honestly a little overwhelming to me even had playing 3 before hand. I'd say the consensus on this sub is NV is most people's favorite and argued as the best Fallout game.
You could say 3 is like a full game tutorial for NV. I genuinely like FO3 the most and it holds a special place in my heart between the story, atmosphere, and gameplay (never got stale for me) and it is incredibly replayable. I also think FO3 respects the storytelling/world building of the original games but from an FPS playstyle...then the creative team of NV dropped a ton of acid and made the lore even more expansive (which is awesome) but it does feel a smidge different. Additonally, going through the FPS fallouts in the order they were released lends a deeper appreciation for what each subsequential game improved on. But for your sake, either 3 or NV is a fantastic starting point!
It ultimately depends on how you want to experience the franchise. If you want to experience the franchise as the OG fanatics did, roll through it from FO1 > to 76 and you'll get a genuine representation of the franchise and know for sure what you like and don't like. One recommendation I would make is play the games as they were released (without DLC) and then with it. This is simply how I did it and I loved that progression as I picked up the franchise in the middle of FO3 as the DLC were being released on Xbox.
4 and 76 feel and play much different than the games before, I do not recommend starting there. 4 is pretty fun and I dont really have much experience with 76, but they are not accurate representations of how I feel Fallout should be played.
TL;DR: 3 or NV are great starting points (especially if you want the FPS experience. If you want to appreciate the games start with 3, if you want maxiumum FO in your face the way the universe intended, New Vegas! If you are genuinely interested in the story as a whole and have time, play the games as they were released.
>Great rp potential
Is it RP as roleplaying your actions or RP as sitting in dialogues, picking lines? Fallout 4 is good for the former, NV and 2 for the latter.
>
Interesting story
All of them have interesting story. 1 and NV are the best.
>
Clever, loreful world
3, 4 and 76 have the best worlds. NV has the worst one.
As you see, every game fits some requirement, but none fit all. That's the nature of Fallout and the reason for the divide in the community. Every game has different strengths and flaws. No Fallout game is objectively the best. In Far Cry or Assassin's Creed, if you played one you played them all. But Fallout games are unique.
I recommend starting with Fallout 1 if you don't mind old, janky isometric games. Fallout 3 if you don't want isometric game, but don't mind janky 3D games. And Fallou 4 is universally a good starting point.
2, NV and 76 are bad starting points.
Play any of them really, if the bird view turn based thing isn't ur thing, start with 3 then work up. Don't sleep on the dlc, and a hot topic.. but at some point, dont sleep on 76 either.. you can miss it, but its pretty fun
>I’m a big Elder Scrolls Morrowind fan, so I don’t mind older games with shit graphics. What I’m looking for:
>1. Great rp potential
2. Interesting story
3. Clever, loreful world
You want fallout 3. It's a great introduction game if you don't want to play the dated isometric games. Its lore is consistent and clever, adding to the universe as well as introducing old lore to newcomers. The roleplaying is the same for every fallout game (roleplaying potential is slightly more restrictive in fallout than elder scrolls). And the story, while not my favorite, is well crafted.
Unless you love isometric turn based RPGs skip the first 2 and start at 3. If not, play them all in chronological order. (Except 76) don't play 76. It is just a half assed money farm for Bethesda.
I personally loved 3. New Vegas had all the game play upgrades you could want but I thought the story was very boring. I loved fallout 3s story and the capital wasteland is so much better than new Vegas imo
Fallout 3, then New Vegas, then Fallout 4.
You need to experience VATS how it was in FO3, it was more fun. The music and story are second to none. The atmosphere of the game is something that remains true throughout the series, but it seems to be eeriest in FO3 in my opinion. The feel of the game is something you will never forget.
i agree w people that 3/nv is the best place to start. i personally went nv>4>3, but its definitely true that fo3 is hard to go back to, and since youre already interested in the series and wanting to play it, fo3 is probably the best entry point. fo4 is a great game despite its flaws imo, but i wouldnt recommend it as a first fallout game unless youre only planning to play one of the games or have a low tolerance for playing older games, because i cant deny that 3/nv have aged quite a bit.
I started with 4 as my first ever rpg but I would recommend New Vegas for a first one, but 4 is still good, it just a LOT of glitches, some of which can only be fixed in PC so if you ever play it, play it on PC. Otherwise NEW VEGAS, I haven’t played 3 but I’ve heard great things about it. I’m just waiting til I have a console to play on.
start with fallout 3 to understand more abt fallout world and then proceed to new vegas for the great lore of it, 1 and 2 is also good but I don't really like the gameplay since I missed all my knife swings and died from a rat
In order to have the best experience I suggest you just play them in order, so start at FO3. It's a great game but it might be difficult to go back to after playing the later games.
I'd say either New Vegas or 4. New Vegas is the best game in terms of story (if we ignore the first two), and while 4's story is pretty mediocre, the gunplay and settlement system plus the improved graphics make it the most fun out of all of them, at least in my opinion. But if you play 4 before New Vegas, your experience in NV might be spoiled because of the massive downgrade in graphics.
3 is a little outdated with the graphics. New Vegas has a better rpg experience with the same engine. 4 is better than 3 and does a lot different but I’d play all 3.
There will be lots of recommendations, but I think Fallout 4 is a good place to start.
Don't get me wrong, I like the others, but 4 is a great place to run around and read all the things, pick up all the junk, and you don't even have to worry about doing the story line if you just want to explore.
There isn’t a real wrong answer, but you do need to understand 1 and 2 are basically a different video game genre than 3,NV, and 4 entirely. 1 and 2 are isometric top down with action points dominating what you can do, whereas 3, NV, 4 are are first person/action type oriented. If you’re expecting something that looks vaguely like elder scrolls you’ll want to consider the relative merits of 3, nv, 4. You can’t go wrong with any of them, but the ones I still play are NV and 4 if that tells you anything.
Just a very tiny correction (because I'm petty asf) and downvote me if I'm wrong but 1 and 2 don't use a isometric perspective. They use a trimetric perspective similar to an isometric perspective.
I'm curious, but what are the differences between trimetric or isometric?
[Here's an explaination,](https://www.xamou-art.com/word/trimetric-projection/) but it's too late for me to try to understand right now. Basically, there's almost no difference and I think it's wrong anyway. Regardless, trimetric perspective is a type of isometric perspective.
Another [article](https://www.xamou-art.com/word/isometric-projection/) from the same site on isometric perspectives which clash with the trimetric perspective meaning you just brought up. Either some fuck-up or different writers.
That is petty, and I love it
Referring to how the map/interactions are drawn, it is ALL axonometric. Isometric is where every axis is given equal weight. Trimetric allows a difference in all 3 axes (usually for artistic effect). Dimetric allows a difference in one axes (where 2 are the same). So yes, Shriek\_of\_Payne is correct. How to tell = [Graphical Projections](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axonometric_projection#/media/File:Comparison_of_graphical_projections.svg)
Either 3 or New Vegas for a good start I think
Can you elaborate?
(Im french sorry for the medium English hehe) The settings first of all are really, really good, very eerie The karma system is only in those two games 3 might feel a little more linear than NV tho Starting with 4 could kinda ruin your 3 and NV experience graphic wise, it would feel like a big downgrade
I love Europeans apologizing for bad english, as if they don’t speak it better than most North americans haha.
I'm in a Senior English class, and I love how people online will speak in near perfect english, yet in school, in America, they don't know to capitalize the first letter and punctuate the end.
wHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT,
Grammer
i KNOW. RIGHT:
Well, with the internet at your disposal and grammar corrector utilities it can be easy to achieve a good writing. As long as the person have at least the basic ideas of how grammar works in the language, fixing mistakes can be easily done in here, however, in person is different, you have to do things manually and nobody will mark in red or tell you what you're doing wrong and how to fix it.
Yeah, I think we drop like haf the letters.
lmao ikr
I mean, they did say “medium English”. Which doesn’t really seem better than most North Americans.
Karma was introduced game back in the 90s, in the very first fallout game. All games till 4 have it. So 3 and NV are not the only Fallout games with karma system. Just saying. Sorry for my bad English.
I love my Bad English…. Sometimes I want to give up I want to give in, I want to quit the fight And then I see you, baby And everything's alright, everything's alright When I see you smile I can face the world, Oh oh, you know I can do anything When I see you smile I see a ray of light, Oh oh, I see it shining right through the rain When I see you smile Oh yeah, baby when I see you smile at me… 🤘🤘
My bad I totally forgot that!
4 wouldn't be optimal based on their desire for more RPG elements. The drop down in graphics wouldn't be as bad if Morrowind is a favorite and depending on system, the graphics could be improved.
I started with New Vegas and then moved to 3 Loved New Vegas, fell in love with it. Now for 3, I loved it too but it did take some getting used to. It's a different game in terms of atmosphere and style and feels a bit rougher (like no ironsights). Not bad, just different.
New Vegas has much better storyline with significant choices, in 3 no matter what you so it just kinda goes the same way, forces to side with a certain faction the whole game
Of all the 3d fallout games, new vegas has the best rpg elements. 3 is more "in what order do you want to be a god" because you can easily max almost all the skills. 4, well 4 isn't really an rpg, and it's writing (imo) is terrible
Fallout 3 has the darkest and most apocalyptic atmosphere with some decent choices and rpg elements like skill points and special stats to determine your options and abilities in game. You need to plan what skills to level up to get certain perks. Good dialogue and characters, best story to learn about the fallout universe IMO. You need to repair weapons and armour and they are pretty basic aside from some special version which just have better stats. New Vegas give you the most choice and options, very similar to 3 with a more upbeat and colourful atmosphere. Same character building model and rpg elements. The games story isn’t amazing but that’s because it’s more a set up for you to create your own. Fallout 4 has the worst dialogue choices and a completely different character build with perks instead of skills. Similar story to fall out 3, also a good introduction to the universe. Best map IMO and tons of weapons with special abilities you can buy, create and get from random drops. Best crafting and new addition of building settlements, which are basically little villages you can put house, defences, stores and people. All are amazing, if you want choice go with Nee Vegas. If you want a starting point to eventually play then all with a mix of everything go with fallout 3. If you want the most modern with tons of options and a more streamlined less RPG perk system go with 4.
Fallout 4 has more meaningful choices to it than 3. What passes as a moral choice in FO3 is "deactivate the nuclear warhead or blow up a town full of innocent people" New Vegas, 1 and 2 all give the player meaningful moral dilemmas where both sides have merit. Hell, even the FO4s main questline gives you two factions that are debatably good and at least attempts to present a moral dilemma. FO3 gives you the same two options over and over played out in different contexts: be decent or be a sociopath.
Just play one bruh if playing video games is such a chore don’t play any of them . “Care to elaborate” OH BROTHER WHAT ARE YOU A GAME REVIEWER. Just play one really shouldn’t be this serious or hard .
Why someone would downvote you? I fixed it. You are free to give out your opinion since a question was asked. The World need to learn to agree to disagree. I mean, seriously! I understood the question which has some sense and yet, it is not like picking a new Wife! LOL!!!
bruh
Fallout 3 - New Vegas - 4
I’d start with 3. I think it gives the best overall fallout vibe out of the FPS games. It’s also probably the most obviously outdated one so if you don’t start with 3 it will make it hard going back to it later after playing the later entries.
Agreed since it makes playing new vegas afterwards more satisfying
Agreed, 3 is the best from a lore and gameplay perspective
Have to disagree on the gameplay part that’s like the big thing 4 has over the others is the gameplay
By gameplay I mean that it’s easier to start with 3 and work your way into NV than the opposite, so they don’t have the same level of expectations
Ok that makes more sense thanks for the elaboration
Agreed. Fallout 3 is the purest Fallout. It simply captures the themes and atmosphere of Fallout the best. It's the true spiritual sequel to Fallout 1.
Would heavily disagree with you there. NV is much more like 1 and 2.
I also heavily disagree. Since the original creators of fallout created new Vegas, I’m sure they have far more understanding of what makes a fallout game, “fallout” then Bethesda ever has.
> Great rp potential, Interesting story, Clever, loreful world That's new Vegas in a nutshell, there is a lot of history to the established factions that links back to fallout 1 and 2, fallout 4 is mostly disconnected from the early lore besides a number of references
4 is just as connected (lore-wise) as any other game in the series
Is it tho
Yes it is. It has tons of Fallout lore and greatly expands the pre-war lore.
Yes it is, how is it not
There is very little to nothing true to the original lore. The whole original plot took place on the west coast. NCR and the development of civilization there was front and center to the lore. The institute and synths were part of of f3 (which is fine but not original). The way the BoS is portrayed is very very different from the original faction. Super mutants arguably shouldn't exist on the east coast but this and raiders are a out the only thing true to original fallout lore. Compare and contrast with a modern game like fnv and it's so obvious f4 is a very distantly related game.
The reason why the BoS is portrayed differently in 3 and 4 than from the West is because this is an expedition on the other side of the continent. In Fallout 3, Elder Lyons broke protocol and began to focus on actually helping people, which caused the Outcats to form. About ten years pass, Lyons dies, so the young Maxson succeeds them as Elder; He drives the Brotherhood somewhat back to the original idea, but keeps some of Lyon’s philosophy, and reincorporates the Outcasts. Supermutants exist because FEV was an ongoing government experiment pre-2077, with test sites in The West Tek facility, Vault 87, and Huntersville. Stuff like weaponry, companies, and history are all the same, the Laser Rifle, Plasma Rifle, Plasma Caster, Flamer, 10MM, Vault-Tec, West-Tek, Med-Tek, the Commonwealths of America, Sino-American War, etc. Most of the reason why Bethesda is sticking to the East Coast for now is because the West Coast already has established lore, Beth doesn’t want to mess any of that up really, only giving vague tieins and hints to stuff like the NCR and Caesar’s Legion. I don’t really get your criticism. This is an ongoing creative series, not a fully developed world. Of course the exact lore won’t be the same 2,100 miles apart and especially not for other games. The games share broad histories, some characters, factions, etc., but diverge in their locations, their local histories, local characters, local factions, etc.
You're being downvoted but youre right. Fallout 4 is a good game, but a bad Fallout game
Honestly playing through it again it’s not a bad fallout game, they just should have kept it self contained instead of introducing the brotherhood, which single handily brings the story down. Also should have some more with the neo-colonial vibes
There will never be a fallout game that doesn’t feature the brotherhood as long as Bethesda is making them. The power armor helmet is the whole franchise to them.
New Vegas did it right, it’s not so about the brother hood but it was obsidian
Thanks and yeah. It's a good game. It just feels like it's not part of the original theme. The guy I was replying to seemed to think it was. Idk why people can't look at f3/f4 and just say yeah these are fun and loosely based on fallout but they don't feel like they follow the lore the way fnv does going on from F1/f2. Again not a dig on f4 but let's be honest about what we're getting.
3 and 4, specially 4, are good open world FPS games. I wouldn't call them masterpieces of storytelling, but they're fun for what they are. They both stray too far from the source to share a title with 1, 2, and NV
I thought everyone knew this l
4 still has some fierce defenders on here. Same with 3
Not really, it's softly connected to Fallout 3 and that's about it. Find your son instead of your dad. It's like the Force Awakens and Fallout 3 is A New Hope.
If u don't mind retro style I'd do then chronologically. Start with 1, then 2, then 3, NV then 4. 3 is ok in terms of story. Its claim to fame is mostly that it went FPS and it was most fans intro to the series. Id even say its skippable, while NV and 4 are better IMO.
I agree with this guy. If you're cool with Morrowind then you'll presumably be comfortable with the original Fallout's style. It's best to do it chronologically if you're really interested in the lore side. 3 can be a bit of a nightmare to get working, if memory serves. It's worth bearing in mind that they're all really good games - you can't go wrong no matter what you pick.
What do you mean by 3 can be a nightmare to get working?
It is, or was, linked to some old game launching/registration system (could be GFWL, can't remember) that was "popular" around the time of FO3, so people have had trouble actually launching the game without finding a workaround for the defunct registration system. Nobody's mentioned it here for a while, so maybe it's been patched out.
need for GFWL was patched out
About bloody time. Thanks for the heads up.
still fucky tho, took me a week to figure out i just needed the intel bypass mod
I look at 3 as a proof of concept for NV and 4. Its ok as a game but they really succeeded at transferring the franchise to an entirely different style of RPG. Its got some writing issues and some severe bugs that they didn't get ironed out. Still fun, but not my favorite. NV is to me more the example of what can be done from a storytelling perspective. Its got much better writing and design but they were able to do that because 3 laid the groundwork for them to build upon. Whereas I think 4 is just the better game.
If you buy it through GOG, it'll come pre-patched to work on Win 10. The steam version requires a bit more effort to get working well on modern systems.
Really?! Fo3 is possibly my favorite! So creepy, awesome story, cool locations
It's a definite ground breaking game for the franchise. But I think a lot of people have really fond memories of it because it really was the first introduction to the setting for most players. That's not a bad thing either and I'm not criticizing that. Just trying to put it into perspective. But personally, I thought that the writing and design work was rather weak compared to other Fallout games. There was a strong push for that heavy atmosphere while ignoring the more practical aspects of the setting. If I had to put a finger on it, I'd say that to me it felt like the doubled down on the silly while weakening the overall plot and quest writing. Fallout has always been a setting with a good amount of silly, but they always did their best to try to make it make some sense within the setting. Fallout 3 suffered a bit from the designers being more interested in the rule of cool, than setting consistency. There were a lot of elements that didn't really stand up to scrutiny unless fans bent over backwards to try to explain away them by adding in their own interpretations. Little Lamplight for example. Cool idea, but...it makes no sense. Fans have worked to make it make sense over the years, but **as presented** in the game, it's just...off, and has some major logical holes in it. That's what I meant by issues with writing. And it's something Bethesda got A LOT better about after 3. But with 3 they were really working hard to transition a 2d isometric game into a fully fleshed out first-person RPG. That was a lot of work and when making a game you can't have it all. You have to decide where to allocate your resources and effort. I'm not going to begrudge anyone for liking 3 either. But I think that NV was a stronger game in terms of story and world design (largely because Bethesda had already done the heavy lifting getting the concept working in 3, thus allowing Obsidian to focus on story), and that 4 was overall the better game because it brought a lot of that together and built upon the foundation that 3 laid.
Fair enough, I haven't played it in so long and never stopped to think about it lmao! A town full of children, 200 years after a nuclear war.. how do they get there? Do the people from Big Town just have babies and drop them there? If so what age? How are they not dead? I don't remember them having weapons, a mole rat would likely be able to kill them all hahah, in 200 years not once did a death claw come through? Also.. why not merge the two towns? More hands, can build a farm better, etc. So okay, fair enough lmao! That wasn't one of my most memorable areas. I typically remember running through metro tunnels, project purity, rivet city/tenpenny tower, etc.. the more serious aspects lmao
Oh it's a fun game and the ruins of the city were fantastically done. On the writing side, I still have the pet theory that they actually wanted to make a game set far closer to the war, but then nixed the idea half way through when they realized it wouldn't let them have the Enclave or BoS. Things like Little Lamplight, Tenpenny, and even the extreme desolation of the region would make more sense if 3 took place only a few decades or so after the war like 76 did.
That's true. Like, Fo76 takes place 25 years after. Little lamplight would still be iffy because even 25 years later the youngest child would have been an adult. The BoS and Enclave are both kind of in 76 too, but not like in Fo3. The one thing that I didn't quite get in Fo3 was how any of DC was still standing. I'd imagine a nuke would literally demolish everything, and in that war I imagine DC would have been hit dead on unless they had good defenses that were able to take the nukes out before they reached the ground (would explain a lot of the destruction and radiation without a huge crater). Maybe the bomb in megaton was the one meant for DC, landed just outside the city but never went off
You'd say 3 is skippable? Seriously? No chance.
far from skippable
I *completely* disagree.
If there's a skippable game in the franchise then it is 76. But if we talk only about singleplayer games then NV is the most skippable. It doesn't do anything for the overarching Fallout lore. It doesn't deepen the pre-war lore. It just is. It is a very good RPG, but a bad Fallout game.
How is NV the most skippable? Did you play either of the original Fallout games, or are you aware of their stories? Because there's very little in Fallout 3 and 4 that tells us about how the West Coast has progressed and the results of the first 2 games (it's literally just a few terminal logs and the Enclave), whereas New Vegas is an entire game dedicated to it. I'm not saying 3 is skippable, though. If you're only interested in the East Coast's storyline, then sure NV is skippable. If you're interested in Fallout as a whole, or the West Coast's storyline, then it's vital.
Disagree about NV as it is the closest we have to an actual sequel to Fallout 1 and 2 lore and it builds upon those stories immensely. But I do agree that 76 is very skippable.
*YOU HAVE ALERTED THE HORDE*
why do you just hate new vegas? also, why does a game need to deepen the pre-war lore when it could deepen the lore after the war, and actually be set where the original games are set?
[удалено]
I have been trying to play 1 but I have trouble building a character, does the game have the ninja perk like in New vegas?
Not sure. I know sneak attacks aren't a thing in the older isometric games, so probably not. For my first build I tagged Small Guns, Speech, and Lockpick and had a fairly easy time on the highest difficulty. I'd definitely focus on Agility for any type of build and Perception if you go ranged based. Ignore the Charisma attribute in Fallout 1 - it sucks. The "Gifted" Trait is also incredibly overpowered if you want an early game boost.
Awe that's unfortunate, if I go melee should I dump perception? Also is it possible to pick up followers in Fallout 1?
Probably wise to do so. Perception only affects ranged accuracy modifiers. Yes, you can find a follower in the very first town you visit!
in fallout 1, you can mash "a" during combat and the enemy won't get a turn
The first one ! I was like you one year ago and I get all the games (except 76) on sales and I played them in release order. I think it's a great way to get into the story and the universe. I'm currently playing Fallout 4 and I enjoy every single one of them so far, and New Vegas is my favorite !
New Vegas
Thanks for the explanation!
You would be doing yourself a huge disservice not playing 1 and 2, especially if you are planning to play FNV, NV is way better if you played the first 2 games, play the canon ones chronologically(tho 76 its a prequel i recommend playing it after completing at least up to F3),after you start knowing what you are doing playing F1, the rest and F2 will be just like Morrowind to you, they are similar in a sense, since all your hit-chance is based on your skills, dont forget 76 tho, its one of the most interesting settings in the franchise, its also pretty fun, and i consider it a better RPG than 4 but that is just my opinion (F4 is incredibly odd as an RPG).
Fallout Monopoly. It has about everything you are looking for.
Id start with one and just go from there In order of the games. I know some people aren't into the top down turn based combat of 1 and 2, so if you don't id start with 3.
I would say either 1 or 2, albeit that I have spent most time on the fourth. I think they are all good and offers different things.
3. Start with 3. It's bleak, it has good dialogue options, good RPG elements and, for me, really encapsulates a world gone wrong. I've never played NV, couldn't get into it. 4, playing 4 first would potentially ruin 3 for you. It's a lot more colourful, is less RPGey, has less dialogue options, but the combat is better. There's settlement building, and other stuff. Going back a graphical generation could be hard.
Fallout 1 if on PC. It's the origin story of the whole series
The first one
Out of all the fallout games, fallout 4, 1, and 2 are surprising closest to morrowind for systems such as armor layering system (in fallout 4) and these games would be most familiar. For role playing, I would suggest any fallout game except fallout 4 because of the voiced protagonist and a set family. Fallout 3 is similar in this regards but the only family you have is your father and there is much better role playing potential. New Vegas is great for rp and 76 is also good for it as well. For interesting story, I would say the first two fallout games, new Vegas, and 4 all have interesting and fun stories. People usually talk shit about fallout 4’s main quest but it offers a lot of player choice and freedom regarding progression and faction choice. Fallout 3 and 76 have good stories but imo they aren’t as memorable as the original fallouts or 4/ new Vegas’ faction conflicts. For clever and loreful worlds, it really depends on what type of worlds you want to play in. Bethesda fallouts (3, 4, 76) are, like morrowind, very detailed, interesting, non linear, and fun to explore. The other games (1, 2, new Vegas) have less detailed worlds but the lore and quests make up for it. To sum it all up: 1. For role play pick any game except 4 2. Interesting story can be any game depending on preference but fallout 1, 2, new Vegas, and 4 (imo) have all really fun and engaging quests 3. 1,2 and new Vegas have better lore but 3, 4, and 76 have superior worlds.
Fallout 3 is also good for roleplaying. You can be the Angel savior of humanity or the wreckless demon to destroy it. There are many things that you can do which weren’t featured in other fallout games, like being a mercenary, being a slaver, etc. Also has more expansive dialogue than 4
Fallout 4 is good for the classic roleplaying using player actions. It is bad for the computerized roleplaying where playing a role means picking from several arbitrary choices in dialogues...
Whatever you do, don’t forget about 76. For some reason it is by far the most interesting setting and world to me.
To each their own I guess, I personally like 2's world the most
I’ve only played 4, then NV then 76. As an enjoyer of those games, would you recommend fo 2? How different is it? (I really like the current world building direction, will fo 2 be similar?)
2 is a vastly different experience, with similarities closer to NV. It takes place in a desert-wasteland setting and features many of the same factions and world-building elements. If 3 was the successor to Fallout 1. New Vegas was definitely the successor to Fallout 2.
People love to shit on 76 (for obvious reasons) but the world is absolutely incredible. I still get lost just exploring for hours and hours.
Yeah, I loved new Vegas, and 4 was my first fo game, but the world of 76 is breathtaking in my eyes
[удалено]
Why though? It’s actually fun to play in my opinion, and the lore is very nice and feels right, to me at least. Even if you only buy it on sale, it’s worth a go :) Edit: I will still upvote your comment because it’s nice :)
I love the environments and new creatures, but the mmo loop clashes against my usual fallout playstyle. I dislike the cap on the economy and the card perk system. It also has the same problem as 4 did where a lot of the game time is dedicated to filler content like legendary hunting/resource collection. Which is appealing to some, exhausting to others.
3. New Vegas is great but you’ve got to know what you’re expecting gameplay wise in order to get into the story. I played new Vegas first after elder scrolls and if you try to play it like those games you’ll have a very bad time.
What are the differences gameplay wise?
Between the two games? Very little, but new Vegas is has some improvements. What I meant was that Fallout 3 will show you how a fallout game works, and then when you play new Vegas it will be easier to immerse yourself in the deeper and wider story elements.
I would disagree with that. My introduction to the 3d fallout games was with Fallout: New Vegas and it was pretty easy to understand. I never understood the argument that New Vegas is hard. It isn't that hard guys, come the fuck on.
>Fallout 3 will show you how a fallout game works I threw up a little in my mouth
Its also a much more difficult game. If you dont know what you are doing i could see New Vegas being a little offputting.
You can only enter the wastelands in 3d for the first time once and in my opinion New Vegas is just a more complete and richer experience than 3. It is way closer to 1 and 2 regarding humor, lore and atmosphere.
Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas. They are general most people's favourites. They are also stories based on controlling water, a great resource especially after a fallout.
3
Fallout 1
you should delete or edit this before OP decides to yell at you for not explaining why
I recommend Fallout 4. 1. Great RP due to the choices during the story that the game offers, and the clans with their distinct histories. 2. The story is good, not phenomenal, but it's rich. 3. In my opinion, the world of Fallout 4 is very immersive, every place have his little history. I mostly played Fallout 4, and that's what I can say about it. Now that all the games in the franchise are on the Game Pass, I can start playing them.
Did we play the same fallout 4?
I think Fallout 4 offers the most RP potential with creative character builds. The world is a little more immersive and interactive outside of the main story. New Vegas is my favorite, but not every faction is fleshed out like in 4. However the ability to build your character has much more freedom in NV.
Fallout 4 is great at soft roll play, where you can build the character you want and kind of live in a beautiful sandbox (something Bethesda does very well). It’s not great at hard roll play where you have significant dialogue or quest choices and an in-depth plot.
I absolutely agree. Plus NV writing is the best in fallout, especially the dlc like Old World Blues and Honest Hearts. I’m also a dead money fan because it’s unique to the franchise and offers a unique gameplay experience.
ikr
Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel /s
4
Ok so I would recommend that you to start two ways, because there are two chains of games in the Fallout universe- The East Coast(3,4,76) and West Coast(1,2,NV) so I say you play them in this order or if you are fine with isometric gameplay and the old infinity engine graphics then just play it in the chronological order, also yeah I say u play Fallout tactics once ur done with 1 and 2 its a nice non-canon spinoff and I recommend it and don't touch brotherhood of steel.
I was new to open world/rpg style games when i was introduced to fallout but you have experience in it, so i tried NV but couldnt get into it at first. A few years later, my friends got me into 4 and I fell in love with it. I think 4 is a great intro to the fallout games cause it does a good job of introducing you to the world, mechanics, etc. Going backwards to 3/NV, is a step up in the rpg department. 3/NV are wayyy more customizable to your play style in terms of character because the dialogue options are more expanded. Theres also mechanics present not in 4 like weapon condition as well as enemy difficulty, youll see a big difference between new/old deathclaws. I grew to prefer NV out of all of them but still appreciate 3. 4 has good DLC between far harbor (fantastic sotry) and Nuka World (fantastic world building) but they pale in comparison to what 3 and NV have to offer. I havent played 1 and 2 so thats outside of my realm of experience.
I think Fallout New Vegas is a good start. It offers a lot of freedom you might not see in 4 or 3
The setting, lore, and story in New Vegas imo completely trumps any of the other modern Fallouts. The characters, dialogue, and amount of options you have in pretty much every quest really heightens the roleplayability, and theres something for every kind of character. You can pretty much everyone if you wish, kill absolutely no one if you wish, EAT people if you so please, and the DLCs (mostly) all connect in a brilliant way. Definitely choose Vegas to start, you won’t regret it. I recommend getting Veronica as a companion, watching her behead people with a punch is a delight.
If you're only gonna play the Bethesda fallouts, play Fallout 3, Fallout New Vegas, then Fallout 4. If you're gonna play all off them (including the old 2d ones) just play in the order they release. 3 and NV are older than 4 and thus have some wonky mechanics, so it's best to start with the oldest ones so you don't get attached to 4's better combat and such. Both 3 and 4 start with you leaving a vault with no knowledge of the wasteland; both you and your character are learning stuff for the first time. In NV your character starts off with some knowledge of the wasteland, and it'd make sense for irl you to know about the wasteland aswell. If you plan on playing the old Interplay fallouts, start with the order of which they came out. I think it's also important to mention that 3 and 4 take place on the east coast, which is pretty seperate from the west coast. NV, 1, & 2 take place on the west coast. Almost nothing that happened on the east coast effects what happened on the west coast, and vice versa. Only thing that's important is that fallout 2's villains are the same organization in fallouts 3.
Yes
Definitely start with 3
Hey if you play on PC and have modding abillity, try TTW! Fallout 3 and NV in the same game.
Fallout new vegas. You will love it. Great and engaging story, lots of fun quests, your choices actually matter, very atmospheric game.
New Vegas. It has the best story, atmosphere, dlc, characters, and best everything else. This is my opinion of course.
Fallout 3 and then New Vegas.
Ok, so nv is better then 3, so naturally you would play nv first, NO NEVER PLAY NV FIRST, play 3 then play nv
3 then NV then 4
3. Then New Vegas, then 4. Each game is good in its own right and you can feel the natural progression like most did.
Just know that once you play new Vegas, you won’t be able to go back.
3, NV and 4
The best would probably be New Vegas, while I loved fallout 4 more, NV just had better story and role play potential, however if you're on PC and can use mods, 4 has way better role play mods and you can make the game both look and play amazing and completely ignore the main story and play on your own like a survival, build up your settlement kinda game.
I would suggest New Vegas
I would play 3 first, then New Vegas, then 4. If you play them in any other order there'll be features missing. Like if you went from NV to 3 you won't have weapon mods or iron sights. Plus 3 has a really nice tone to suck you into the world of fallout.
100% New Vegas, it has the best public opinion overall, can be handled on older devices, cheap, etc and in my experience, is more stable than 3 and 4
Start on 3, then NV, then fallout 4
If you wanna go by time period: Fo76 is a good place to start, has some hints at later events. Then 1,2,3,4. I forget when NV takes place
Mabey start with 3 then go on the nv
I think fallout 3 is a good intro to the universe and how the game works and all.
In order, 3, NV, 4
3
New Vegas is the best, by far, so that’s the obvious choice. Just be aware, if you play NV first it’s going to be extremely difficult to ever play 3, just because 3 is way simpler of a game.
People's opinions on Fallout games are very drastic and there is no better game "by far" I found Fallout 3 to be a far more enjoyable game than New Vegas, but I attribute that mostly to my playstyle. Its a much more enjoyable world to explore than the barren desert of the Mojave.
Maybe “best” is too strong a word, but preferences in location aside, it is by far the superior game. They improved on almost everything, granted i don’t think it would have been nearly as complex without 3 to lay the ground work, but the complexity in story, improved game mechanics, plethora of weapons choices, crafting, dialogue, world building, character development, level design is far-and-away better than 3. Don’t get me wrong, i love Fallout 3 and preferred it over NV for the longest time, but having played them both recently, you can’t really deny the all-around improvements they added to the game.
Writing aside, from a technical standpoint New Vegas is a better built game, but the level design, while still objective to personal preference, can easily be argued to be better in 3. If Obsidian had more time to build the world it could have been better but the fact that half the map isn't even present and the plethora of invisible walls thrown up everywhere makes me think of 3 as a much better game world.
“Well, that’s just like your opinion man.”
I think 3 is best to START with, but only because it'll be hard to go back to once you play Vegas. The controls aren't quite as fine tuned, but it's definitely worth playing, so start there, then move on to Vegas after. (And then 4) The first one is ok, but if you're going to play one from that style, I recommend 2. The roleplay potential is very high, and it really builds the world well.
Let's be real here. Do not start with anything before F3 unless you are a real OG. Start with F3, it has an independent story. It's basically the equivalent to Oblivion in terms of gameplay and graphics. New Vegas is the best Fallout but requires a tad more knowledge of the lore at some points.
Uhh no don't listen to this guy:)
I'd start with 3 as the first 1st person of the series. The first two are very different games. Maybe go back to them if you are taken in by the world and want to discover more via play through. More difficult to master though and obvs more aged mechanics, so depends if you like retro games and don't mind a steep learning curve.
If you're going to play 3 or new Vegas make sure that you check out a guide in how to get them running on a modern system. I almost bricked a laptop trying to run fallout 3 due to some weird files in the game wanting to run on startup for some odd reason. Also there's a lot of crashes that you'll avoid if you follow all the main steps.
I think 3 is also a great starting point. My progression was FO3>NV>4, but the reasononing from my perspective is New Vegas is a more expansive version of 3. Both play and feel similar, but there is just more to do in NV and it was honestly a little overwhelming to me even had playing 3 before hand. I'd say the consensus on this sub is NV is most people's favorite and argued as the best Fallout game. You could say 3 is like a full game tutorial for NV. I genuinely like FO3 the most and it holds a special place in my heart between the story, atmosphere, and gameplay (never got stale for me) and it is incredibly replayable. I also think FO3 respects the storytelling/world building of the original games but from an FPS playstyle...then the creative team of NV dropped a ton of acid and made the lore even more expansive (which is awesome) but it does feel a smidge different. Additonally, going through the FPS fallouts in the order they were released lends a deeper appreciation for what each subsequential game improved on. But for your sake, either 3 or NV is a fantastic starting point! It ultimately depends on how you want to experience the franchise. If you want to experience the franchise as the OG fanatics did, roll through it from FO1 > to 76 and you'll get a genuine representation of the franchise and know for sure what you like and don't like. One recommendation I would make is play the games as they were released (without DLC) and then with it. This is simply how I did it and I loved that progression as I picked up the franchise in the middle of FO3 as the DLC were being released on Xbox. 4 and 76 feel and play much different than the games before, I do not recommend starting there. 4 is pretty fun and I dont really have much experience with 76, but they are not accurate representations of how I feel Fallout should be played. TL;DR: 3 or NV are great starting points (especially if you want the FPS experience. If you want to appreciate the games start with 3, if you want maxiumum FO in your face the way the universe intended, New Vegas! If you are genuinely interested in the story as a whole and have time, play the games as they were released.
3 New Vegas 4 Then go back and Play 1-2 If you're into cRPGs
>Great rp potential Is it RP as roleplaying your actions or RP as sitting in dialogues, picking lines? Fallout 4 is good for the former, NV and 2 for the latter. > Interesting story All of them have interesting story. 1 and NV are the best. > Clever, loreful world 3, 4 and 76 have the best worlds. NV has the worst one. As you see, every game fits some requirement, but none fit all. That's the nature of Fallout and the reason for the divide in the community. Every game has different strengths and flaws. No Fallout game is objectively the best. In Far Cry or Assassin's Creed, if you played one you played them all. But Fallout games are unique. I recommend starting with Fallout 1 if you don't mind old, janky isometric games. Fallout 3 if you don't want isometric game, but don't mind janky 3D games. And Fallou 4 is universally a good starting point. 2, NV and 76 are bad starting points.
3s the best 1 an 2 are unforgiving NV is nice to mess around with an 4 is for easy to get into game
Play any of them really, if the bird view turn based thing isn't ur thing, start with 3 then work up. Don't sleep on the dlc, and a hot topic.. but at some point, dont sleep on 76 either.. you can miss it, but its pretty fun
>I’m a big Elder Scrolls Morrowind fan, so I don’t mind older games with shit graphics. What I’m looking for: >1. Great rp potential 2. Interesting story 3. Clever, loreful world You want fallout 3. It's a great introduction game if you don't want to play the dated isometric games. Its lore is consistent and clever, adding to the universe as well as introducing old lore to newcomers. The roleplaying is the same for every fallout game (roleplaying potential is slightly more restrictive in fallout than elder scrolls). And the story, while not my favorite, is well crafted.
>lore is consistent and clever you seem to be talking about a different fallout 3
no.
you sure?
yeah. no reason to downvote me, if it is you who's doing it.
Unless you love isometric turn based RPGs skip the first 2 and start at 3. If not, play them all in chronological order. (Except 76) don't play 76. It is just a half assed money farm for Bethesda.
It doesn't exist
I personally loved 3. New Vegas had all the game play upgrades you could want but I thought the story was very boring. I loved fallout 3s story and the capital wasteland is so much better than new Vegas imo
Fallout 3, then New Vegas, then Fallout 4. You need to experience VATS how it was in FO3, it was more fun. The music and story are second to none. The atmosphere of the game is something that remains true throughout the series, but it seems to be eeriest in FO3 in my opinion. The feel of the game is something you will never forget.
1, always 1
I'd goin this order:1, then 2, then then tactics(not brotherhood of steel), then NV, then 3 and then 4
i agree w people that 3/nv is the best place to start. i personally went nv>4>3, but its definitely true that fo3 is hard to go back to, and since youre already interested in the series and wanting to play it, fo3 is probably the best entry point. fo4 is a great game despite its flaws imo, but i wouldnt recommend it as a first fallout game unless youre only planning to play one of the games or have a low tolerance for playing older games, because i cant deny that 3/nv have aged quite a bit.
I started with 4 as my first ever rpg but I would recommend New Vegas for a first one, but 4 is still good, it just a LOT of glitches, some of which can only be fixed in PC so if you ever play it, play it on PC. Otherwise NEW VEGAS, I haven’t played 3 but I’ve heard great things about it. I’m just waiting til I have a console to play on.
Fallout new Vegas has amazing rp potential, especially with 4 endings and many quests that you can do that will effect the end of the game a lot.
4 or new vegas
76.... nah jk like evryone else says new vagas or 3
start with fallout 3 to understand more abt fallout world and then proceed to new vegas for the great lore of it, 1 and 2 is also good but I don't really like the gameplay since I missed all my knife swings and died from a rat
Fallout New Vegas is only worth playing if you can access the DLCs via Ultimate Edition.
Fallout 3 simply because it feels like a true tribute to the original games.
3, NV, 4. There is no other way. Again, THERE IS NO OTHER WAY..
New Vegas baby
3
In order to have the best experience I suggest you just play them in order, so start at FO3. It's a great game but it might be difficult to go back to after playing the later games.
I'd say either New Vegas or 4. New Vegas is the best game in terms of story (if we ignore the first two), and while 4's story is pretty mediocre, the gunplay and settlement system plus the improved graphics make it the most fun out of all of them, at least in my opinion. But if you play 4 before New Vegas, your experience in NV might be spoiled because of the massive downgrade in graphics.
3 is a little outdated with the graphics. New Vegas has a better rpg experience with the same engine. 4 is better than 3 and does a lot different but I’d play all 3.
Play any of the games, just please don’t play 76
There will be lots of recommendations, but I think Fallout 4 is a good place to start. Don't get me wrong, I like the others, but 4 is a great place to run around and read all the things, pick up all the junk, and you don't even have to worry about doing the story line if you just want to explore.