Should I play through Fallout 3 before starting NV?

[Tactical Pause]

The point of this thread is pretty much in the title. I picked up Fallout: New Vegas for $5 on steam the other day, since it was a pretty great deal and I'd heard lots of good things about the game. The only problem is... well, I didn't really like Fallout 3. For some reason I just couldn't get into it. I tried playing it multiple times, but never got more than five or so hours in before giving up.

Now, there's no guarantee that I won't do this with NV (hey, $5), but assuming I will enjoy it, should I try to play through Fallout 3 before starting New Vegas? Is there any major reason to play 3 before NV, or are they only tangentially related?

(Bonus question: When I do play New Vegas, should I start on hardcore mode? It seems rather interesting.)

 

[mad825]

FONV is an indirect sequel. Also, a side-project.

Whether you'll like this will depend on what you disliked about FO3...Or any other Bethesda game.

 

[craftomega]

If you play NV it harder to to go back to FO3, where as going to NV after FO3 is a more natrual transition.

But its not a huge deal like playing ME1 after playing ME3.

 

[Tactical Pause]

FONV is an indirect sequel. Also, a side-project.

Whether you'll like this will depend on what you disliked about FO3...Or any other Bethesda game.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what turns me off of Bethesda's games, but my best guess would be that it feels quite aimless. Nothing I do matters, and at a certain point I feel like I'm just repeating the same few actions (get quest, find dungeon, clear dungeon, repeat) over and over with only minor deviations.

Please note: This is only how I feel, I'm not saying this is 100% true. I can't help how I respond to these games, so please don't take this as an attack.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I wouldn't touch Fallout 3 on the PC with a ten foot pole because I don't want to interact with GFWL in any way. So no, you probably shouldn't play it.

 

[Tactical Pause]

I wouldn't touch Fallout 3 on the PC with a ten foot pole because I don't want to interact with GFWL in any way. So no, you probably shouldn't play it.

I actually found a mod that just removes GFWL from the game completely. Since it has no online component, there are no negative side effects. It's pretty much the greatest mod ever, and I really wish it could be applied to more things.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I wouldn't touch Fallout 3 on the PC with a ten foot pole because I don't want to interact with GFWL in any way. So no, you probably shouldn't play it.

I actually found a mod that just removes GFWL from the game completely. Since it has no online component, there are no negative side effects. It's pretty much the greatest mod ever, and I really wish it could be applied to more things.

I don't care if I can mod it, if GFWL is a requirement I just won't play the game. There's no way I'm going to buy anything that uses that "service" since my using it would be seen by Microsoft as an endorsement of that abomination.

 

[Sketchy]

They're pretty much the same thing, so if you didn't like FO3, I doubt you'd like New Vegas.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

There isn't any story links between the two so no need. Fallout 3 is the better game though so I'd start with that anyway.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Pretty much nothing but certain factions connect the two games (and a one off reference to Moira). New Vegas is far superior from a story standpoint, even if it's world box is a little lacking. But you can spruce up the Mojave with some mods.

 

[bluepotatosack]

Hardcore mode doesn't actually add that much difficulty, so go right ahead.

And there's not any harm in skipping 3. If you really wanted to catch all the story threads, I'd say start with 1 and 2. AFAIC New Vegas was the far superior game overall. It actually felt like Fallout again.

 

[Moriim]

New Vegas improves upon Fallout 3 on a lot of fronts, primarily those associated with storytelling and gameplay. New Vegas is decidedly the truer sequel to Fallout 1/2 because of all of the lore-mongering that went on in FO3 as well as New Vegas' better understanding of the reference material. Also, Fallout 3's main story failed to engage me on any level besides

Spoiler

Holy crap giant robots destroying everything. Somebody went and saw Transformers

However, disregarding the previous games for a moment, I preferred FO3's atmosphere over NV's. It had the significant advantage of having much more interesting setting; buildings, infrastructure and the remains of society were visible almost anywhere you were in the world. I got a much greater sense of "post-apocalypse" while playing than I did in NV, which vibed more along the "alternate universe" part of Fallout's "nuclear apocalypse alternate universe." (Want to visit the Mojave Wasteland? Just go the Mojave Desert, practically the same thing)

It streamlines the RPG elements in comparions to the first two games, in the actual sense of the word (removing/reducing meaningless choices), rather than the market-speak sense of the word (ripping out depth for the sake of broad appeal), and for that I respect it.

All in all, the two are more than different enough to warrant playing it even if you didn't like Fallout 3, and as mentioned previously there's no story link between the two.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

I preferred the story of FO3, but overwhelmingly preferred the gameplay of NV. They are almost totally unrelated ot each other so it matters not which one you start with.

 

[Vrach]

I preferred the story of FO3, but overwhelmingly preferred the gameplay of NV. They are almost totally unrelated ot each other so it matters not which one you start with.

Pretty much this. I do overall prefer Fallout 3 because of the story though, and the gameplay's decent enough, even if NV's a lot better.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It makes absolutely no difference whether you play one, the other, both or in which order they're played. Obsidian did refine the FO3 formula somewhat for NV, but FO3 is is still brilliant.

The stories and characters aren't linked in any way and you don't miss anything whatever order they're played in.

The FNV Hardcore more isn't particularly hardcore. Apart from sleeping and drinking (in a world where drinking water makes you more thirsty and not less!?) there's not much difference to the mode (main ones are that ammunition has weight and companions can die). I'd say do it just because the only impact it really has is a little bit more immersion. Full list of differences here [http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Hardcore_mode].

For the price on Steam it's a no-brainer to buy it. That much game for so little is almost criminal. Once you've installed it, check out the FNV Nexus [http://newvegas.nexusmods.com/] for some cool mods.

 

[Snotnarok]

No, honestly I found the story to be entertaining in FO3 but the gameplay feels limited without mods. I think there's more pistol variety in New Vegas then there is regular gun variety in FO3 to put things into perspective.

Also I found the level scaling to make FO3 less interesting, the game just holding your hand babying you even on the harder modes. I was able to play around the game without going into any towns with little difficulty...on the hardest mode, I wasn't doing any story missions but it just really brings up how easy the game was.

 

[Easton Dark]

I don't care if I can mod it, if GFWL is a requirement I just won't play the game. There's no way I'm going to buy anything that uses that "service" since my using it would be seen by Microsoft as an endorsement of that abomination.

But it's not even a requirement. You don't ever have to use it. It's bundled in Fallout 3's download.

OT:

Fallout 3 haters in this thread ~make me sad~

Neither are related to each other, but I thought Fallout 3 was more interesting. If you felt your actions meant nothing in Fallout 3, New Vegas is more for you with its reputation system. It has better characters and dialogue as well. The world is 1/10 as interesting to explore though.