If your willing to attempt and old school turn based rpg thats quit a challenge I'd pick up fallout 1&2 great games but a lot of people can't get into them because their turn based and give you have to figure everything out or use a guide especially for character creation, 3 would be a good place to start I'd go for the GOTY if you can find it the dlc was pretty good and adds a fair bit of time and gear, new vegas is my favorite of the series the best of both the old and ne the originals had great story and character along with the player having an impact on the world, 3 added fun gameplay. New Vegas as it is now is amazing their were issues in the beginning but they've all been fixed and the dlc is just amazing, I loved 3 but New Vegas is better in every way.
Thinking of getting into Fallout...
- Thread starter LITE992
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would suggest rolling a four-sided dice, and make that which game you start on. Because you will not get any sort of consensus from this site...
Fallout 3 with Broken Steel, that's worth it.LITE992 said:
New Vegas is iffy, personally it was very repetitive with the main arch and very few minor arches were okay, the color scheme was downright depressing and which I can understand but it was still unnecessary. The DLC being good? Not that I know of... the first was imbalanced and poor, the second was dull and imbalanced, the third was even duller and more imbalanced, and the fourth? I'm going to say the trend completes itself.
If you want bleak desolat despair with a feeling of rebuilding what has been lost pick fallout3LITE992 said:
if you want a more comedic and more colourful art style fallout go for fallout new vegas
or go waaaaaaaay back and play the first 2 (tactics if you can) so you can say
"oh hay it's that guy I helped from fallout 1 2"
or thiskane.malakos said:
EDIT: Finding the first two Fallout games can be found on Steam but the more modern adaptions are on PC and console, all comes down to personal preference. I'd recommend getting Fallout 3 first to gauge whether you like the gameplay/story/etc. then getting New Vegas.
Start with Fallout 3 unless you're into old school RPGs. New Vegas is good, but has nothing on Fallout 3.
I have a steam account but no way to pay for games at the minute/no way to play games properly on this PC. But thanks.Delsana said:
Hell yeah tell me about it.Nulmas said:Ah, this discussion never grows old
*snip*
One day, Bioware will rise from the dead, release Baldur's Gate 3, and we'll all sit around and argue which Baldur's Gate was better - 1, 2, 3, or New Vegas. Well, maybe not the last one. Probably New Amn or somethin'.
I didn't know they were on Steam and I'm sorry... I guess I'll just edit then. And yes, maybe I am because I can't get the money together.Delsana said:
Fallout 3 is one of my favorite games ever. It made me go back and play the originals, and play the broken New Vegas as well. Here's the lowdown:
If you want a good classic RTS/RPG game with 2D graphics and an interesting storyline, play Fallout 1. Follow that up with Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.
If you want a 3D FPS/RPG game with a giant sandbox world and really good graphics, play Fallout 3 GOTY edition. (Dogmeat levels up and Broken Steel adds 10 levels plus lengthens the storyline.)
If you want a glitchy 3D FPG/RPG that if you get past the bugs is pretty damn cool, play New Vegas.
If you want a good classic RTS/RPG game with 2D graphics and an interesting storyline, play Fallout 1. Follow that up with Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.
If you want a 3D FPS/RPG game with a giant sandbox world and really good graphics, play Fallout 3 GOTY edition. (Dogmeat levels up and Broken Steel adds 10 levels plus lengthens the storyline.)
If you want a glitchy 3D FPG/RPG that if you get past the bugs is pretty damn cool, play New Vegas.
I would actually recommend the Good Old Games versions more than the Steam versions for three reasons.Delsana said:
A. They're cheaper
B. No DRM whatsoever
C. They're optimized for newer machines and trust me its much easier to get them going that way than hunting for fan patches.
As for my opinion. Start with 1 + 2 and then New Vegas. FO3's story is shit and the characters unbelievable.
If you're interested in the entire IP, ALL of Fallout, rather than just the past few years, Fallout 1 & 2 are very cheap, have good stories. The gameplay is... not slow, but rather deliberate. Not for everybody. There are tons of Lets' Plays out there on the two games, so look some up if you wanna see gameplay.
If the gameplay of those two don't look appealing, don't play them. Simple as that, you won't enjoy it. And even better, you don't need to know the plot of the first two. You don't. The series is a bit like Far Cry, in the fact that they could all exist in the same universe, but no person you play has an impact on any other game in the series.
So yeah, if those don't look appealing, try Fallout 3. Its one of the best value-for-dollar games out there, its really fun, and the DLCs are worth getting. In fact you may not even want to get a patch for a while, as there are quite a few glitches that people like to use that were fixed in the patch (see Mister Sandman glitch).
But yeah, definitely Fallout 3, no matter what. If you're interested in the IP as a whole, go check out the first or second one. Don't go for the non-numbered entries in the series, like "Brotherhood of Steel". Just trust me on that, unless you become obsessed with the franchise. I haven't played New Vegas yet, so I can't give an opinion on that.
If the gameplay of those two don't look appealing, don't play them. Simple as that, you won't enjoy it. And even better, you don't need to know the plot of the first two. You don't. The series is a bit like Far Cry, in the fact that they could all exist in the same universe, but no person you play has an impact on any other game in the series.
So yeah, if those don't look appealing, try Fallout 3. Its one of the best value-for-dollar games out there, its really fun, and the DLCs are worth getting. In fact you may not even want to get a patch for a while, as there are quite a few glitches that people like to use that were fixed in the patch (see Mister Sandman glitch).
But yeah, definitely Fallout 3, no matter what. If you're interested in the IP as a whole, go check out the first or second one. Don't go for the non-numbered entries in the series, like "Brotherhood of Steel". Just trust me on that, unless you become obsessed with the franchise. I haven't played New Vegas yet, so I can't give an opinion on that.
Playing Fallout solely for the characters and story is like watching The Godfather for the special effects. Any installment in the series. The game's main plot can keep a dark tone, but it never takes itself to seriously. For every scene of a father martyring himself for his child there's a Republic of Dave, which I think is an important, and successful, design choice made for FO3.Lost In The Void said:
It really depends on your interests as a gamer. I would personally recommend playing all four canon games (Tactics produced a hearty 'meh' from me, and BoS... just no), but I realize that not all of them are for everyone.
1 and 2 are brilliantly written, with an expansive world, harsh tactical combat, etc. but a lot of modern gamers hate them for the crappy graphics, turn-based system, and harsh tactical combat.
Fo3 probably has the lowest writing quality of the bunch, but it's still a very good game. The GOTY edition also means that you'll probably get the most fun out of it for the least money. The DLC was pretty hit-and-miss (I loved Broken Steel and Point Lookout, Operation Anchorage and Mothership Zeta were decent but not as good as the main game and seriously unbalanced things when you took the gear they gave you into the rest of the world, and the Pitt was just crap), the main quest was pretty railroad-y and too short, the voice acting was crap and the animation could have been better, and it's still pretty buggy, but overall it's a very solid game, and probably the best starting point for a modern gamer since it's kind of disconnected from the main continuity of the others and it's closer to most modern games.
New Vegas is my personal favorite; it takes an ungraded version of the Fo3 engine and returns to the quality of writing, depth, and storyline of the first two. Despite what you've probably heard it's not horribly bugged (anymore); it's definitely more stable than Fo3 at this point. The DLCs (at least the first three, and Lonesome Road isn't that bad) are wonderful, but a bit expensive to get all individually at the moment. Mechanically it's got a better level of realism and immersion than I've seen in a good long time and it's very well balanced, world-wise it's expansive and filled with realistic characters and interesting factions that interact realistically, and story-wise it's complex, well-written, and has a lot of flexibility.
One important thing to note though: unless you're completely skipping Fo3, you should play that before NV. Fo3 is a good game, but going back to it after New Vegas all I could see were the things the next game did better; I couldn't just enjoy it for what it was. Also, going through Fo3 will probably give you time for New Vegas GOTY to come out.
1 and 2 are brilliantly written, with an expansive world, harsh tactical combat, etc. but a lot of modern gamers hate them for the crappy graphics, turn-based system, and harsh tactical combat.
Fo3 probably has the lowest writing quality of the bunch, but it's still a very good game. The GOTY edition also means that you'll probably get the most fun out of it for the least money. The DLC was pretty hit-and-miss (I loved Broken Steel and Point Lookout, Operation Anchorage and Mothership Zeta were decent but not as good as the main game and seriously unbalanced things when you took the gear they gave you into the rest of the world, and the Pitt was just crap), the main quest was pretty railroad-y and too short, the voice acting was crap and the animation could have been better, and it's still pretty buggy, but overall it's a very solid game, and probably the best starting point for a modern gamer since it's kind of disconnected from the main continuity of the others and it's closer to most modern games.
New Vegas is my personal favorite; it takes an ungraded version of the Fo3 engine and returns to the quality of writing, depth, and storyline of the first two. Despite what you've probably heard it's not horribly bugged (anymore); it's definitely more stable than Fo3 at this point. The DLCs (at least the first three, and Lonesome Road isn't that bad) are wonderful, but a bit expensive to get all individually at the moment. Mechanically it's got a better level of realism and immersion than I've seen in a good long time and it's very well balanced, world-wise it's expansive and filled with realistic characters and interesting factions that interact realistically, and story-wise it's complex, well-written, and has a lot of flexibility.
One important thing to note though: unless you're completely skipping Fo3, you should play that before NV. Fo3 is a good game, but going back to it after New Vegas all I could see were the things the next game did better; I couldn't just enjoy it for what it was. Also, going through Fo3 will probably give you time for New Vegas GOTY to come out.
I dunno, I preferred my DLC with a story rather than 'here have some OP loot for buying the DLC" as for the overarching plot, I'd say that the main plot of New Vegas was complimented by the overarching connecting side quests that made up the game, giving it a full round experience. If you just shot through the main quest, of course it'll be boring, but if you infiltrated casinos, broke up fiend lairs, and worked between the 3 major powers and yourself, you got an intriguing story that changes depending on a few choices you make...you know almost like consequences.Delsana said:
As for Fallout 3, I can barely say the same of it. There was also the problem with the right type of "Fallout Feel" as well as lore breaking sections, level scaling that made leveling pointless and all in all as I said, unrelatable, terribly written characters.
You see, that's what I thought of New Vegas, not Fallout 3. Granted the alien DLC was awful and the Anchorage DLC was interesting the first few times but was just for the armor after (which really just sat in my unrealistically large desk drawer where I stored 100% items of every thing and only used doubles for myself. I LOVED Broken Steel, that DLC made the game feel complete to me. The Pitt was awful and that glitchy and horrible Island DLC was REALLY AWFUL.Lost In The Void said:
New Vegas had horrible DLC with minor story and really just repetitive running. I kind of felt like they were trying to backtrack to the old style of Fallout and so they were doing what Obsidian did with Storms of Zehir; taking a new game and putting old stuff into it while it was already in the style of a new game... that failed for them.
I think both had horribly written characters, but I enjoyed the gameplay and story and I love the Enclave in itself.