Which game is better to start off with? I've only played Fallout 2

Which game is better to start off with? I've only played Fallout 2.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uQBx4PFfzxk
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Then go back and play fallout one you slut.

1 > 2 > NV >>> 4 > 3

3 obviously

if you begin with nv it's impossible to go back to 3

assuming you want to play both, 3 can easily be skipped

Ignore Fallout 3 completely.

why?

Play in release order.

New Vegas is a good Fallout game despite having to conform to the Bethesda formula

Fallout 3 is a joke if you care about Fallout lore or good gameplay at all

3 is a safe skip, if you insist playing both, play 3 first. You will appreciate New Vegas that much more.

Because "fallout 3 sucks" meme.
Play em all in release order, 3 is the weakest entry in the series (I haven't played 4 yet) but Sup Forums seems to think that the weakest game in the series automatically makes it shit and not worth playing. fallout 3 is still fun imo.

READ

WHAT
DO
THEY
FUCKING
EAT?

nice meme but that's the least of the problems the game has

>haven't played 4

Playing 4 made me miss 3.

Well yeah, obviously. But it's still a big flaw none the less.

Seeing as New Vegas is basically a direct sequel to Fallout 2 I'd say play that and forget about 3 entirely.

4's story is arguably better than 3's but the gameplay is miles ahead. You're just a contrarian faggot.

Totally agree

Fallout 4 is the only one worth playing

This. I played NV first and cannot bring myself to finish Fallout 3.

Depends.

Did you care about the story? Did you like the roleplaying? Are you curious to continue the story of the NCR? Do you care about the rules and fine details the world established?
If you answered "yes" to all these, then you can safely skip 3 and go to NV, but it's recommended you check out Fallout 1 first.

Was the best part of Fallout 2 the wacky references? Do you think the concept of Nuka Cola existing is both hilarious and worth delving into? Are you more about shooting/killing than roleplaying? Do you like the quirky, unique iconography of Fallout more than the story?
If "yes," to all of these, start with Fallout 3.

Yes to everything? Who gives a shit. Start playing.

Stop using a trip faggot

save your money

agreed

except the story in both are complete garbage, only 3 has less "radiant" filler quests taking up a large portion of the exact same content. Even if said content is mediocre, like Skyrim and it's Draugr tomb ridden landscapes

Perfect answer. I cannot play more than an hour or two of 3 after I played NV. 3 without knowing what NV is like is an alright experience though.

can get boring landscape but choices actually matter

3 is fine and has a few cool moments, but the fact that nearly all the enemies are damage sponge supermutants and you have to crawl through boring subway tunnels for half the game makes it pretty drab. Also your choices barely affect the story, unlike every other game in the series including 4 which although not close to NV, does have significantly different endings for the 4 factions.

Do you want a true spiritual sequel to those games, a comfy wandering simulator, or both?
If the answer is 2 or 3, listen to this user:
If you just want more pure fallout, don't bother with 3, go straight for NV.

...

>skipping best Fallout
kill yourself senpai

New Vegas is some good shit, but if you play it first, 3 is unplayable.

the dlc isnt too bad, but bring your own music for Mothership Zeta dlc
i personally blasted this shit as i blew away the ayy lmaos


youtube.com/watch?v=uQBx4PFfzxk

Should I buy NV on PC lads?

I enjoyed it on Xbox

thats fucking cool as fuck, man

i'd ask you for mod but i cant stand the clipping when moving

just torrent it

Obviously, 3 and especially New Vegas are terrible on consoles. I don't know how you endured that shit. Anyways, you're talking about like it's some big investment. The ultimate edition goes regularly on sale for like 4 dollars.

oh fuck yes man
i came from xbox to it on pc as well, and it's just so much better

everything from aiming to the dlc and console commands are just so damn fun

Fucking kill yourself

Nah, after you put some mods on it you'll realize its boring as fuck and buggy Torrent it.

What?

are you a fucking commie red or something, user?

I'm paranoid about torrenting.

I never illegally acquire post 2006 games because I get para that the police will bust down my door in the middle of the night

that's american freedom for ya

me too user, and im an ausfalian

You're seriously suggesting torrenting a game that will offer potentially hundreds of hours of entertainment which you can get for around 5 bucks nowadays, how much of a nigger can you be?

that's bullshit.
why should i pay for something i can have for free?

Don't worry. We are too fat to sail or fly to Australia.

I know right. That's why I usually just stuff things to my backpack when at the store and casually walk out. They will never find out anyway so why pay?

For me, it had rendering issues. I capped the framerate to 40 fps on highest settings so it looks like what NV would look like if it was "Fallout New Vegas: Remastered Edition"

But yes. Get it.

>willingly giving money to bethesda, who fucked over obsidian at every turn
ayy

im more worried about ebin trojans an shiet.

thats what i get for being a console nigger for so many years

...

New Vegas is the only good Fallout game, but holy fuck is it good.

So, if you want to play both, play 3 first.

...

The Fallout 4 one is missing a dialogue option
>Where's Shaun?

Obsidian gets most of it.

>Obsidian dindu nuffin!
If it was one game I might be inclined to agree, but when almost ALL of their games are broken, buggy and unfinished messes on release, I start to wonder if it's not just the publishers who are screwing Obsidian over. Hell, it even extends to Troika, more former black isle employees who released one of the most broken and clearly unfinished games ever made in VtM: Bloodlines. At some point you have to admit for all their strengths in writing and gameplay, they're garbage at following a professional timeline or actually making their games playable.

I'm really getting tired of these threads.

Comparing FO3 to NV is a case of apples and oranges- Both games strive for two completely different things and are enjoyable in their own way.

You are aware that NV was rushed out the door and wasn't given enough development time right

You are aware that Bethesda didn't give the team any bonuses because NVs metacritic score was one point too low right

>just waste 100 odd hours because "lol ignore memes bro" when even I agree you could just play the better games and not miss anything

You install both then install Tales of Two Wastelands.

>that pic
It's funny. The exact opposite is the case if you look at the side quests of each game.

>le sitting on the fence meme

Play 3 first because it's not as good as NV.

Other animals.

This is explained and shown in game.

You're absolutely correct. Obsidian and Bethesda were aware of these weaknesses, which is why Bethesda was in charge of quality control for New Vegas. In this case, Bethesda either dropped the ball, or NV was so fucked that we're lucky to have gotten the initial release mess that we did.

Either scenario is believable.

Dude they got like 18 months to make the game, they had to choose if they want to fight the shitty gamebryo engine for most of the dev time or if they want to create actual content.

FO3 and NV are literally the same game, mechanically they are identical. The only difference is the competence of the developer when it comes to story telling and believable environments.

You're a fag son.

>not playing computer games on a computer
ISHYGDDT

These "play 3 first because it's worse" posts are fucking dumb. If it's unplayable after experiencing New Vegas, then maybe OP should skip the game that apparently turns to shit because its successor did everything better.

or maybe they are assuming op wants to play both

What?

NV has more freedom in the side quests, not to mention fallout 3 has like a dozen of side quests while NV has 50+

>not playing every game series in release order

top pleb

>a case of apples and oranges

You're joking, right? They're games directly related to each, in the same franchise and developed by two different teams. One continues the legacy of a classic game series and the other is reappropriating it for a new generation, for better or worse. There is more reason to compare NV and F3 than pretty much any other two games, which is why these threads are created twice a day and regularly reach 300+ replies.

no they dont,they dont get anything. bethesda even shafted them over a bonus they get get if the game has an 85 on metacritic, the game got an 84

Maybe people shouldn't assume OP is a retard who wants to waste his time. If he cared about playing them all, he'd have played 1 already.

I think you're getting the wrong message. FO3's flaws aren't as noticeable until NV highlights them. It's better to play an OK game followed by a great game, than a great game followed by a bad game, even if it's only bad in comparison.

I see your point. However, I imagine most of the people offering advice here played them around release and so didn't really have a choice in experiencing FO3 first. Now that it's agreed NV is objectively better in every way and both are readily available to play at any time, I don't think OP should bother wasting his time. After all, it's not as though it's a short game and from what I can recall, there's little to no story or faction elements from FO3 that are referenced in NV.

It depends, the settings are different enough to warrant playing both. DC is a lot bigger than Vegas (the Strip was very disappointing imo) and I'd say the Pitt and Point Lookout are definitely worth playing. If you don't like the desert setting of NV then OP might enjoy FO3.

>"wasting your time"
>3 is still fun even though there's a better Fallout out, but won't be as enjoyable if you've already played the better one
>"just skip it"
Sorry but I think you have autism. Why would anyone ever play any other games in a series if there's 1 game that's the best in the series, since all the others will be worse, "just skip them" because it's a "waste of time". Makes absolutely 0 sense.

This isn't true.

Mechanically, they're similar, but the difference lies in design philosophy.

Fallout 3's priority was to be a sandbox game first and an RPG second. This is why exploring the wasteland and dungeon crawling feels 10x better than exploring the settlements. Bethesda's priority was designing a world that would keep the player on their toes at all times, which they achieved through the lack of static enemy territories and the abundance of random encounters. Bethesda wanted to craft a playground for the player to have fun with, everything else was secondary. This is why dialogue options and skill checks in 3 often did nothing more than give the player access to gear or a schematic, it's another tool for them to play around with.

NV meanwhile was about crafting a world first and designing a game second. This is why towns feel fleshed out, but dungeons and wasteland exploration are lack-luster. It's very difficult to play NV like a sandbox game because numerous paths are blocked off from the start and consequences for your actions have permanency on far more occasions than they did in 3.

This is why the whole argument comes don't to a matter of preference. People who prefer to have fun dicking around and don't like rail-roading are going to prefer 3, whereas people who like their games to have strong storytelling and enjoy traditional RPGs are going to prefer NV.

Tl;dr
Fallout 3 is a sandbox game, NV is an RPG.

...

...

start with 3. then nv, then 4. for 3 and nv, make sure to get all the expansions.

For normal people, you don't need to play 100 odd hours to realize that you don't like the game.

>waste 100 hours
>waste
>you're playing it for 100 hours and the fun you had driving you forward to keep playing is simply a meme
Pure autism.

Agree for the most part but personally I play 3 all the time and NV is easily the better.

Shit opinion. Aside from lore, everything about 1 and 2 is inferior to the rest.

Fuuuuucking hell he even included sources nice.

>I'm looking for my father. Middle-aged guy. Maybe you've seen him?

Oh the horrors.

neither

play 4, its superior in every aspect

oh (you) :3

Even the RPG elements?

>Implying I think 3 is fun at all

I don't. Ultimately, I think OP should skip it because it's shit, not just because NV is better. You're also assuming I'm applying the same logic to all games when I recommend skipping it because it's worse, but we're only talking about Fallout 3 and New Vegas here. Stay on point.

New Vegas has little to no story, character or location ties to Fallout 3, so OP won't miss any interesting insights into things experienced in the latter. They also share enough of the same systems mechanically that NV generally being designed better as an RPG makes it more worthwhile to play.

>B-b-but subjectivity, maybe OP will prefer the atmosphere of Fallout 3

Fine, OP can play Fallout 3 to their hearts content, I'm not stopping them. I'm just it's a shit game and they have more to gain from playing New Vegas, especially considering they've played Fallout 2.

Not him, but if we're talking about 3 and NV rather than 4, then yes.

One problem with the older games was that they had too many skills. This abundance of skills lead to poor balancing since many of these skills were either situation or completely worthless. By fusing some of these useless skills together (First Aid+Doctor= Medicine for example) 3 and NV both managed to ensure that every skill was useful.

People don't have fun on Sup Forums and yet come back for years on end.

I hope FO2 gets a remake someday.

1=NV>2=3>4

i just hope Bethesda relinquishes the Fallout franchise after they are done with 4. They know they ruined it and literally any other developer could have done a better job.

Imagine if CDProjekt Red or Eidos Montreal had their hands on it.

>presenting the Capital Wasteland as a lawless, disorganized warzone, two centuries after the war, when on the other coast the NCR is flourishing

I agree with this image in general, but to an outsider who hasn't played the games, that isn't going to sound like a convincing argument.