Sup niggers

sup niggers

i wanna play Fallout but don't really know which games are slightly less shittier than the rest so i sort of need your advice on where to start. Also some mods would be nice i guess

Just play the vanilla games first, start with 3 then go from there. Don't listen to anyone telling you to skip 3 or anything, it can be fun for a first timer into the series.

New Vegas is generally regarded as the best modern fallout on this board, I liked 3 better myself. Don't waste your time with 4.

1 and 2, but we all know that the isometric turn based gameplay is gonna be turn off for beta like you.

>Fallout 1 and 2
They're good but if you're not familiar with that kind of RPG you're going to be in for a bitch of a hard time. 2 has more content but lacks the Mad Max vibe of the original.

>Fallout 3
It's alright, it's halfway between RPG and FPS but lacks some fundamental features of both.

>New Vegas
The best modern Fallout, better mechanics than 3 on both ends but is also a bug-ridden mess with a truckload of cut content.

>Fallout 4
Basically not an RPG. You'll enjoy it a lot more if you take it for the more Borderlands-y FPS it really is.

mind specifying why New Vegas is regarded as the best? i see this a lot but they all look mostly the same to an outsider like myself

Skip 3 & 4, just play the original games and New Vegas. Or just New Vegas if you hate the turn based combat.
If you plan on playing 3, get New Vegas and install Tales of two wasteland.
It allows you to play 3's content within New Vegas and saves you a lot of frustration from the gameplay of 3.

>2
>lacking the Mad Max vibe
Are you serious?
The only thing 2 lacks is the atmosphere of 1, and even then that's not a problem because 2 has a great atmosphere on its own. While 1 is concerned with bare survival and is dark as hell, 2 concerns itself the most with politics (as a lot more settlements are established and political fights are happening all over the place), while being a mix of a serious game, and a non-serious game, with specific humor (the game is self-aware and not only does good original jokes, but also parodies other popular media, but not in a shitty way Borderlands did, sadly some people either didn't play the game and are shitting on it being like Memelands, or they can't fathom that a game can reference other media not like Memelands, but much, much better).

Pic related

>and saves you a lot of frustration from the gameplay of 3
Except the gameplay of New Vegas is the same, save for added weapons, sights and some other minor changes.
He shouldn't play 3 at all, because Fallout 3 is "Fallout" in a way that it has terminology from Fallout. Everything else from plot to the design of the world is shit and not Fallout.

Tale of two wastelands*

3 except it fixes a lot of frustrating gameplay.
It's developed by Obsidian who actually can write and the game has much more content despite Bethesda actively sabotaging the QA and setting far too early deadlines.

It answers the question of "What do they eat?".

Depends on what you like. If you want a well-developed world, story and an RPG, pick 1, 2 or Vegas. If you just want to shoot shit and craft stuff, pick 4. 3 is somewhere in between.

,>MrBtongue

>MrBtongue
Sorry....

Choices actually matter, more endings than just good or bad.

you guys have my thanks

that picture is stupid, there were only a handful of black isle developers on the obsidian team. the level designer and the lead writer had never worked on a fallout game before.

Vanilla 3 is shit though, same for 4. New Vegas vanilla is alright. But you definately need mods to get the most of those games.

>porn mods
Isn't just navigating your web browser to your favorite porn site easier and quicker?

At its most basic level, New Vegas is significantly better written because the people who made it can actually write. The characters are better, the factions are better written and basically the writing is actually good. So a lot of people rightly think NV is the best of the two.

But the one thing (literally, the only thing) Bethesda really is good at is making a world that is interesting to explore, so while FO3's story isn't particularly interesting, a lot of people (like me) prefer it for the world even if NV has the better actual world-building.

New Vegas can be a little: 'and over the horizon is yet more fucking desert and the occasional invisible wall' and really funnels you in certain directions by using enemies too difficult for low level characters to kill. Its not bad... just not as free as FO3.

FO3 by contrast takes place in a shattered city and its surroundings, and is IMO a lot more interesting to explore. Theres a lot of really cool standalone locations that New Vegas really can't match, though that by no means means it isnt still interesting.

You can never really be sure what youll run into if you play FO3. That next building might be anything.

Frankly i play Bethesda games to explore nooks and crannies like a post-apocalyptic scavenger. Hence why i prefer FO3 even if i agree that NV is the sensible choice.

My recommendation is to play Tale of Two Wastelands. Its basically a mod that glues the two games together.

As for FO4, its basically FO3 again with some improved FPS mechanics and the entire RPG system entirely gutted, with an absolutely atrocious story. Still worth playing, and youll probably enjoy your time with it, but it will piss you off regardless.

Have fun.

alright so what i've gathered from this is that i'll get Tale of Two Wastelands, some form of graphics enhancer and maybe some extra shit that i'll want for my own enjoyment

thanks for the help guys

>I'm oblivious to the fact that in the real world girls can't fuck monsters or become literal cow girls

>beastfaggotry
>cowfaggotry