Thinking of getting into Fallout...

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Finding the first two Fallout games can be a problem (well, in my case at least) but the more modern adaptions are good too. I'd recommend getting Fallout 3 first to gauge whether you like the gameplay/story/etc. then getting New Vegas.
They're on steam.
I would actually recommend the Good Old Games versions more than the Steam versions for three reasons.

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.
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
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.
 

Lost In The Void

When in doubt, curl up and cry
Aug 27, 2008
10,128
0
0
Delsana said:
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Finding the first two Fallout games can be a problem (well, in my case at least) but the more modern adaptions are good too. I'd recommend getting Fallout 3 first to gauge whether you like the gameplay/story/etc. then getting New Vegas.
They're on steam.
I would actually recommend the Good Old Games versions more than the Steam versions for three reasons.

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.
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
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.

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.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Finding the first two Fallout games can be a problem (well, in my case at least) but the more modern adaptions are good too. I'd recommend getting Fallout 3 first to gauge whether you like the gameplay/story/etc. then getting New Vegas.
They're on steam.
I would actually recommend the Good Old Games versions more than the Steam versions for three reasons.

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.
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
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.

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.

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.
 

Suncatcher

New member
May 11, 2011
93
0
0
Delsana said:
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
If you want a simplistic linear plot, that's fine, but some of us like like a complex, realistic open world. The main quest of New Vegas is less about a single story and more about the world, the plots, schemes, and diplomacy between four factions on the brink of open war, and the Courier taking advantage of the situation to make the wasteland what he will. I find this much more engaging than "go to point x, shoot person y, retrieve item z, repeat." Meanwhile we have good characterization, good mechanics, great writing, etc.
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
Suncatcher said:
Delsana said:
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
If you want a simplistic linear plot, that's fine, but some of us like like a complex, realistic open world. The main quest of New Vegas is less about a single story and more about the world, the plots, schemes, and diplomacy between four factions on the brink of open war, and the Courier taking advantage of the situation to make the wasteland what he will. I find this much more engaging than "go to point x, shoot person y, retrieve item z, repeat." Meanwhile we have good characterization, good mechanics, great writing, etc.
"Open world" does not mean "more complex plot that isn't linear".

Both Fallout's had very linear plots with one fork and a few ways to get back to that fork.

The "factions at war" thing really wasn't done all that well and the quests weren't all that interesting for the most part. I love story, but Vegas had little going for it as well as some really bad bugs.
 

Appleshampoo

New member
Sep 27, 2010
377
0
0
If you want Fallout for what it is, for what millions of fans love it for then get 1 and 2. You'll get the complete Fallout package with that. All the humour, the fun and sense of awesome that made so many fall in love with it.

If you get a hard-on for slightly better graphics (I say slightly because lets face it Gamebyro is outdated and wank)and a stiffy for Iron sights then jump straight into the bug filled mess of New vegas.

And when I say buggy, I mean buggy. People will spawn in floors, your game will crash, limbs on corpses will stretch out and then fly around the room in a really creepy way, people's heads will spin on their shoulders, hell some people even spawn without skin and just walk around as a pile of bones with their insides attached to them.

If graphics glitches don't bother you like they bother me, then go nuts on it, it's a great game. But if you're anything like me and graphics glitches on the scale of what I've described scare you then just Wiki the hell out of the game and dream of all the fun you've missed but the sanity you've kept.

Fallout 1 and 2 are old, but they are great.

I'm just hoping the new Skyrim engine doesn't bug out as bad as the others.
 

The Harkinator

Did something happen?
Jun 2, 2010
742
0
0
You're just getting into Fallout (pardon the pun), so the Lore breaking thing of 1,2,NV getting broken by 3. I wouldn't say its too much of a problem (flame shield activated!). The action takes place on opposite sides of the USA.

Anyway, New Vegas has more tuned up gameplay but a smaller world to use, less interesting locales than 3 and a more 'pure' Fallout experience.

Fallout 3 is the better game in my opinion, but get the Game Of The Year edition to get all the 5 DLC with the game. New Vegas has less in it which is a major problem for me.

All in all, buy Fallout 3 Game of the Year. A good starting point not tied up in the lore but accept that what you're shown is not the same as the original presentation of them in 1, 2 and New Vegas.

Captcha was: etitct James, (must be a sign)
 

Hristo Tzonkov

New member
Apr 5, 2010
422
0
0
Turing said:
If you can stomach an ugly, bug-filled, 2D isometric, difficult, turnbased RPG from the late 90's I recommend playing Fallout 1, then Fallout 2 and then skipping straight to Fallout New Vegas.
The other Fallouts aren't really worth the time spent on them, in my opinion. Fallout: Tactics is decent, but the system doesn't lend itself too well to squadbased tactical games and Fallout 3 is bland, uninteresting and just recycles all the concepts from Fallout 2 without any regard for "realism" or lore-continuity.
Thank you for saying everything I wanted to on the subject in a tight argumented post.People who say Fallout 3 is incredible and NV is shite have never actually played the originals to know what the canon and feel of the games is.

Infact Fallout Tactics had more flair and athmosphere despite being strictly out of the canon than the stretched too think,dark and gray Fallout 3.
 

The Shade

New member
Mar 20, 2008
2,392
0
0
If you've never played a Fallout game before, but you're interested in getting into them, I'd say follow the path I took.

Fallout 3
Then Fallout: New Vegas
Then the old ones if you still want more.

They're all good, and they're each a different experience. For you, though, I highly recommend Fallout 3. Don't let the old-timey buzzards turn you off when they say "It was the worst game ever!" It's great.

Obviously I have a wee bit of bias because Fallout 3 is my favouritest game ever. I even got Malcolm McDowell to sign my copy.
 

Hristo Tzonkov

New member
Apr 5, 2010
422
0
0
Delsana said:
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Finding the first two Fallout games can be a problem (well, in my case at least) but the more modern adaptions are good too. I'd recommend getting Fallout 3 first to gauge whether you like the gameplay/story/etc. then getting New Vegas.
They're on steam.
I would actually recommend the Good Old Games versions more than the Steam versions for three reasons.

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.
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
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.

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.

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.
You liked Broken Steel which was a linear shoot em up with OP loot but you disliked Point Lookout and The Pitt.Each to their own I guess but still funny to hear xD.

As for NV:Sierra Madre was a real innovation in what a dlc can represent with an amazing story and many references,while Honest Hearts was kind of bland,discovering the story behind the whole place made it seem all magical and I can't forget to mention Old World Blues which had amazingly witty dialogue and an oddball humor much akin to a sci-fi B movie.
 

dickywebster

New member
Jul 11, 2011
497
0
0
Fallout 3, i love the entire series (though still unsure about NV) but the ones before r old turn based rpgs that while i love, i know a lot of people who dont and think its jsut a waste of time.
So go for fallous 3, its the most popular one so most likely to get you into it.
 

hoboman29

New member
Jul 5, 2011
388
0
0
There are two ways I would start: the first way is to start with New Vegas for two very important reasons 1 and this is a biggie Fallout canon is taken into account rather than being used as a "see this is a Fallout game" like 3 did and 2 it has official inclusion of the best Fallout 3 mods and it makes the gameplay much better.
Or the alternative you could play Fallout 1 so you can get the story going in to 2 and to appreciate the tweaks they add to Fallout 2 (you can finally manage companion inventories now YAY) and if you feel the need get rid of the time limit through mods
 

Valok

New member
Nov 17, 2010
141
0
0
Well, as have already been said here, the mechanics (By mechanics I mean, weapons, perks, etc. Graphics are the same in both) in New Vegas are better, however I felt waaaaaayy more immersive in Fallout 3, although the story is retarded, the atmosphere there is awesome.

So since this is your first game and you wanna know what Fallout is about, go with the 3 (IMO).
 

Delsana

New member
Aug 16, 2011
866
0
0
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Delsana said:
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
Lost In The Void said:
Delsana said:
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Finding the first two Fallout games can be a problem (well, in my case at least) but the more modern adaptions are good too. I'd recommend getting Fallout 3 first to gauge whether you like the gameplay/story/etc. then getting New Vegas.
They're on steam.
I would actually recommend the Good Old Games versions more than the Steam versions for three reasons.

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.
I fail to see how people can like New Vegas, it was dull, had duller DLC, and had very little overarching story so much as a very long and drawn out scenario that had a few forks in the road.
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.

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.

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.
You liked Broken Steel which was a linear shoot em up with OP loot but you disliked Point Lookout and The Pitt.Each to their own I guess but still funny to hear xD.

As for NV:Sierra Madre was a real innovation in what a dlc can represent with an amazing story and many references,while Honest Hearts was kind of bland,discovering the story behind the whole place made it seem all magical and I can't forget to mention Old World Blues which had amazingly witty dialogue and an oddball humor much akin to a sci-fi B movie.
Point Lookout had bugs all over that I couldn't finish it, had crashes, had ridiculously imbalanced gameplay and again was just too repetitive that it drained me.

The Pitt was boring and while not that imbalanced it just wasn't all that fun, especially the steel ingots thing.

The Sierra Madre was ridiculously imbalanced (difficulty is one thing but imbalance in an RPG is a horrible sin) and the Old World Blues was just too generic and basic for me to get into, plus the imbalances that seem to be full in DLC except in the main game (very little imbalance there). Honest Hearts was bland even with the story. I doubt the newest DLC will be that different.
 

Veldel

Mitth'raw'nuruodo
Legacy
Aug 14, 2020
2,263
0
1
Lost in my mind
Country
US
Gender
Guy
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Delsana said:
They're on steam.
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.
there also on gog and gog is better to buy games on also they dont apear on steam for me xD


OT: Fallout 2 its the best in the series by a longshot then Fallout 1 or New Vegas
 

psicat

New member
Feb 13, 2011
448
0
0
People will have diverse opinions on them, but I think all the Fallout games are great. I suggest you start with Fallout 3 Game of the Year, it's a good introduction to the universe. Then, get Fallout 1 and 2, or if you don't like older turn based games watch a Lets' Plays of them at least. Finally get Fallout: New Vegas and at least Old World Blues and Lonesome Road DLC.
 

Veldel

Mitth'raw'nuruodo
Legacy
Aug 14, 2020
2,263
0
1
Lost in my mind
Country
US
Gender
Guy
Delsana said:
VaudevillianVeteran said:
Delsana said:
They're on steam.
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.
If it's a problem because you can't afford 20 dollars then you should just say you're poor.

I'm sure someone will suggest torrenting it in your case then, though I wouldn't agree.
20bucks lol buy off GOG its cheaper and better then steam for games
 

kidwithxboxlive

New member
Aug 24, 2010
568
0
0
GameMaNiAC said:
Entropyutd said:
genericusername64 said:
Fallout 2, then New Vegas, or just New Vegas if you don't like crpgs
Fallout 2 was a horrible horrible game, I hope that was a typo and you meant Fallout 3.


Are you kidding me? I hope that was a typo. Fallout 2 is the best Fallout game. EVER.

You fucking get to be a porn star, stab people in the balls, gouge their eyes out and even throw a spear into someone's face. The combat system was so much better than Fallout 3/New Vegas'.
Somehow, the prospect of being a pornstar in fallout 2 leans me towards buying fallout 2 RIGHT now at this moment in time...