Should I play through Fallout 3 before starting NV?

[DatedSandwich]

If you have both NV and FO3 on the PC you can use the mod "Tale of Two Wastelands" which makes the entirety of Fallout 3 playable in New Vegas as a mod. This means you can use one character for both games, and they've tried to make a believable transition between FO3 and NV (After you're done in FO3 you get on a train and become a courier, 9 years later you get shot by Benny.) Somehow, it also makes New Vegas a much more stable game, fixed all the stuttering and crashing that I had.

Sounds like there were missing assets in FONV. Thst mod sounds awesome will be getting asap. Can you provide a DL link?

Yeah, this page has the download as well as installtion instructions, it's not too difficult, especially if you're used to modding, but the instructions are there for those who aren't.

http://www.taleoftwowastelands.com/content/alpha-download

 

[Leemaster777]

Besides some incredibly minor exposition in a general world-building sense, there's nothing in Fallout 3 that you need to know.

And you're not alone, I'm not a fan of Fallout 3 either. But I love the absolute balls off of New Vegas. The Mojave is just a much more interesting place than the Capital Wasteland, and alot more colorful, too (the Capital Wasteland just turns into an ocean of grey to me after awhile).

Literally the only thing that Fallout 3 has over New Vegas is the beginning, everything else is better in Vegas, ESPECIALLY the ending.

Also... if you run around in New Vegas with a cowboy hat and a revolver, while Radio New Vegas is in the backround, you feel like a post-apocalyptic cowboy lawman. And it's awesome.

Oh, and Hardcore mode isn't really a must at all. I'd really recommend it for a second playthrough, rather than the first. If only so you don't have to worry about lugging around food, and can focus on fun stuff and story.

 

[B5Alpha]

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.

Well, you'll like Vegas more than. Throughout the game you can make several locations change hands between the various factions, and at the end there's a slideshow of how everything you did effected the wasteland. You also hear the results of several of your adventures over the in-game radio.

 

[Roxas1359]

Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout New Vegas represent a chain of games focusing on the same general area and series of events. Fallout 3 is mostly unrelated and takes place on the east coast instead of the west.

So it isn't necessary to play it to understand New Vegas at all. New Vegas is actually replete with references like Rose of Sharon Cassidy being the daughter of John Cassidy and running into Marcus again. But I don't think there is even a single reference to Fallout 3 in the whole game or even a nod that it exists at all.

If you don't like Bethesda games(I can sympathize just play New Vegas then skip Fallout 4 and wait for obsidian to make the next good one.

If you have Veronica she references the Outcasts and Lyon's Brotherhood back east, but you need to dig a bit into her dialogue options for her to say it. Other than that I can't think of any references to FO3 in New Vegas unless you count the mods like the Mojave Bounties or A Tale of Two Wastelands.

OT: I'd suggest FO3 before New Vegas. The reason is because once you play New Vegas you'll find it really difficult to go back to Fallout 3. Fallout 3 is really a side game in the Fallout Universe only connected to 1, 2, and Tactics with the idea that the world was nuked. Fallout New Vegas feels more like a continuation from Fallout 2 as you meet characters or descendents of characters you met in previous Fallouts. Heck the Followers of the Apocalypse and N.C.R were barely starting out in Fallout 2 and by New Vegas they've developed a lot. New Vegas returns to the formula that yeah the world was nuked, and now there are factions fighting for dominance in this new world. Meanwhile, Fallout 3 stills seems to be under the struggle of still trying to even start a faction, let alone have a war between two of them.

 

[svenjl]

I put a lot of hours into Fallout 3, but ultimately got bored and didn't finish it. I think NV is better paced in terms of story and action. Interaction with NPCs is also more meaningful imo. There aren't a huge amount of graphical improvements at face value but there are some nice touches and I think overall NV plays better. I haven't finished it yet mind you, because I decided to play it in more manageable chunks. Hardcore mode will add meaning but could also make for a grind.

 

[JagermanXcell]

NV is pretty much the better version of Fallout 3, minus the smaller map (seriously why can't I explore the mountains Obsidian!). Play FO3 first before you get into the nitty gritty successor.

I really enjoyed Fallout 3, I could care less about the story linking Fallout 1 and 2 cause I never played them, but once I saw the vast improvements in NV I literally creamed at how absolutely superior it was. Hardcore mode made things a bit more interesting, not very much but it was something. I'm a sucker for revolvers and western themed games, so NV's mix of western and post apocalypse setting was my cup of tea. The karma system was still there and still pointless but the faction system saved it, along with the DLC's being much better then 3's. Not to mention the ending shows off all of your actions, cause they actually matter even during the well written story. How'd they screw that up in 3? idk, all I know is Obsidian fixed it, and I thank them big time for it.

Its a good thing you're playing theses games on PC. I had the unfortunate luck of buying a Bethesda game on a PS3...
Dat 1fps gameplay.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

As usual in these threads, there are at the very least two kinds of people: Those that prefer FO3 to NV and those that prefer NV to FO3.

I think FO3 just has to be played, at least once, no questions asked. I think the DLC-added missions are ranging from pretty fun to absolutely hilarious.

I personally didn't like NV much because of certain content I just plain can't accept and because the whole thing ended up pissing me off on a hitherto unprecedented level, so I eventually took to just killing pretty much anyone and wiping out any and all members of all the big factions on sight; the game could not quite follow my hate-derailed train of thought, so it chose to ignore portions of my stance and (deplorable) actions.

Still, if you can get it cheap, don't mind gambling, have no problems being pretty much insta-killed by invasive species such as Mexican wasps of Certain Doom or fire-breathing Barnies, absolutely do get NV.

I just think that starting out with FO3 is the better choice. I love Fallout 1 & 2, but I actually liked the ride through 96% or so of FO3. NV pissed me off bad so I can't give any proper numbers on that one. If you play games for the fun bits, the weird bits and the action bits, both titles offer plenty of those. I just think that FO3 was the more diversified, more rounded package of the two. They both have - at times severe - reliability issues and might crash or quit to desktop badly. Just let your gut feeling guide you. Try to make sure to have at the very least 3-4 hours of uninterrupted play when you first start out - and do save often. Oh, and absolutely do use multiple save game slots, just in case the game derps out on you.

Also, FO3 saw me enthralled with exploration. Just walk through the desert, you might just find the most incredible things hard to describe or properly put into words that make sense to other people. NV, over large stretches, just made me want to hack a car into the game. Or a Harrier jump jet. Just to skip the tedious walking followed by way too much touchy feely talking. KILL THEM ALL! RHAAAAA! DEATH TO ALL OF THEM!

Hardcore mode might be enjoyable to you, it might also just plain kill you at the most inappropriate times possible. Your call.

 

[Kaymish]

well you don't "HAVE" to play FO3 before NV since they are not really linked in anyway but FO3 was many times better than FONV but still each to their own i suppose except if you dont agree with me you are a fool

 

[SomebodyNowhere]

you should probably do 3 first, but they do stand on their own. Each one had mechanics that I really would have preferred were in the other(3s percentage based speech challenges, NVs faction reputation system), but as a whole they are both solid games.

 

[Xdeser2]

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.)

I'd say yes, because if its your first foray into the newer fallout titles, It has a FARRR better tutorial than New Vegas, which pretty much just plops you down in the middle of nowhere and doesn't explain the mechanics well at all.

It's hard to say which I personally like better. They're both great examples of how different devs can make something startlingly different form essentially the same concept. Each shows off the specific devs strengths and weaknesses, Fallout 3 has a much more interesting world to explore with alot more implied narrative and farrr more interesting secrets that encourage exploration, while New Vegas has better writing and characters, as well as a significantly longer (and stronger) main storyline, with more tie-ins to the previous games.

However, the consensus you'll find here is that Obsidian does everything better than Bethesda, and you should only play New Vegas... >.>