I play http://www.pressxordie.com/wp-content/uploads/Matrix-Fortress.jpg. It's not the mechanics or graphics, hahaha trust me. I find it to be slow, tedious, and boring as all hell. I want to just experience the story, and I can't do that. A single fight feels like it takes a BAJILLLLLIOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNN YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Like that. The graphics also have this dull ugly look to them. With Dwarf Fortress I'm either so engaged in my own game plan I don't notice them or have much time or I can imagine something better (I play Dungeon's and Dragons). Fallout's are just detailed enough that I have a harder time imagining my own things, but so ugly on their own that I just want something simpler or some way to get to the plot. I'll even take text. The story isn't so important for me to experience, because it has no more or less reactivity to it than any sort of table top game which I play weekly and GM weekly (so I am the game). My point is, it's just this unsatisfying spot for me.

I love Planescape Torment though, it has such a unique style that it looks like art. I have no idea if Fallout 2 would be the same, I have it just yet to try it out.

Fallout 3 because it's boss.

Skyrim Snipers quote and name should be enough to sway you towards New Vegas.

Get both, then the TTW mod (if your on PC)

The Combat Speed setting helps with that.

If Skyrim gameplay was your cup of tea, Fallout 3 is the more (the most) TES friendly game in the series. New Vegas has a more storydriven approach even if the game itself plays out much the same.

I'll also echo the people urging you to play the original games (and then continue the games in order - well FO3 and New Vegas are swappable what with New Vegas being more connected to the originals). It's the best way to understand the series (if that's what you want).

Since you're coming from TES, I'd actually suggest you avoid FO3 for a while.

You came looking for a fallout game, not a TES re-skin.

Give FO3 a try after you've finished with NV and the others.

I didn't realize those existed, I'll have to take a look and see if it helps with the speed.

I would say any Fallout. I first played a TES game then Fallout 3 and I love the lore of Fallout more and also the game worlds and humor. I don't think you can go wrong with any of them to be honest.

To get a proper feel of the game. Play Fallout 1&2, Fallout Tactics, Fallout: New Vegas, then play FO3.

The reason I suggest FO3 last is because it takes place in the east coast. Where as the other 4 take place in the west coast. So you will see more familiar places and continuity if you leave FO3 last. You will also see how certain organizations have risen and fallen during the Fallout west coast timeline. FO3 is considered a reboot of the series, so despite the name, two factions, weapons and armor it has little common with the others.

Seriously, just get em all.

The whole series would probably run you about 60-70 dollars. Just about the price your gonna pay for any new video game these days.

you all gave me a lot to consider and I thank you. I was planning on picking it up tomorrow night and I think I will go with Fallout 3 for now. I Don't really want to go as far back as 1 and 2 yet, Fallout 3 is only 19.99 for the GOTY edition. I never played any of the Fallouts and I would rather pay $20 in case i don't like it for some reason rather than pay $40-50 for NV. If i really enjoy it then NV and even maybe FO1 and FO2 will come later. Thanks.

I personally say fnv. In fo3 the whole running down single streets with no way out other then the super mutants blowing you up got to be fairly annoying. This is the same with the sewers.

Fnv seemed to be more... spread out balanced between close quarter one ways and open spaces.

I think this a good option, even though there are a ton of people that say that Fallout 3 is not true Fallout. If Fallout 3 engrosses you in the setting, and you end up really enjoying it's lore then the other games will become much more palatable. That's what happened to me. I really enjoyed 3, and then wanted to entrench myself in the entire setting, so I played both 1 and 2 because I enjoyed 3 so much. I enjoyed the first two very much as well, even though they have drastically different gameplay styles, and then ended up pre-ordering New Vegas when it was new because I loved the setting so much.

If you've never played any of them at all... Then you should play FO1, or in the very least watch a 'let's play' of the first game.

Know of any good LPs? I want to know more about the first Fallouts but don't have the hardware to play them in.

Most of the active posters on the forum will recommend Fallout: New Vegas and/or the original games. The thing to understand is that this is an opinion common mostly to extreme enthusiasts of the Fallout universe. There are good reasons to favor Fallout: New Vegas, but I don't think it's the best introduction to the series.

The majority of polls outside of Fallout fansites, and the critical reviews, all give the edge to Fallout 3. I'd say that Fallout 3 has a more compelling world design and a darker, more post-apocalyptic vibe. It makes heavy use of 1950s-style sci-fi tropes and 1950s conformist culture as a backdrop for intelligent political and philosophical commentary and for dark comedy.

Where New Vegas shines is in the writing-- it has stronger dialogue in many places, especially among the companion/follower characters who can accompany you around the world. The main quest also has diverse, branching paths at the end, where Fallout 3's is very linear.

Fallout 3 serves as a good introduction to the important factions and themes of the Fallout universe, in a way that New Vegas doesn't. New Vegas is fun, but it has more of a wacky, spaghetti-western-meets-science-fiction vibe. Many of its references to the first two Fallout games lack for explanation, so they're basically in-jokes: series fans (like the people on this Board) love them, but they're largely lost on a newcomer.


I'd say you're more likely to enjoy and get interested in the series if you start with Fallout 3. Then go back to Fallout 1 & 2-- you're more likely to stick it out through the older games if you've developed a healthy love of the series lore beforehand. They're a lot of fun and very worthwhile, but can be difficult to get running on newer computers and the systems can be daunting for a new player.

I'd play Fallout: New Vegas last-- not because it's worse-- not by a long shot-- but because you'll get the most out of it if you've played Fallout 1, 2, and 3 beforehand.

I find all Let's Play! videos annoying, but if you must:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LaTCXkTT1t0 (Fallout 3)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSDk9kwXBbA&list=PLEA9164500795E649 (Fallout: New Vegas)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf4B02Tlb9A (Fallout 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRMtyk4nhIE (Fallout 2)

My personal favorite LP of Fallout 2: http://lparchive.org/Fallout-2/Update%202/ (Complete with commentary, as a low-intelligence character)

No PC? (FO will run on just about any PC made in the last 17 years.)

My favorite Lets play is great for the FO fan IMO, but the guy had never played the games (which was the point; it was a 'blind' game). He misses things and has difficulty with simple usage (initially) due to his unfamiliarity with it... But it's a great 'Let's Play' by a great roleplayer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RWLgLxNnno&list=SPCB3AFCD6DC8A190D


*I'd also recommend his Wasteland 'Let's Play'. If you didn't know... Fallout was originally hoped to be a Wasteland title, but they couldn't get the license; it still references it a bit, and is intended to remind players that knew the game; (which it even mentioned on the box).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvYcu5qaO-s&list=SP74BAB66E726A508F

That is not true aboit reviews. FO1, 2, and 3 all basically earned same reviews in the 8-9 or 90% review range.

Fallout won RPG of the year back before there was anything like the VGAs.

Reason why FO3 earns slightly more reviews, or slightly higher, is imo, based upon multi-platform availability and more accessible to casual gamers. 1 and 2 were only on PC.

Likewise, FONV also got good reviews, IGN gave the PC version of NV a 9/10. Then basically hated on the dlcs, which is odd, imo, as Dead Money, OWB, and LR are the best DLCs I have ever played in any game.

I'm not saying Fallout 3 whipped it, just that it gets a slight edge.

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-3

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/fallout-new-vegas

This board, and most fan sites, aren't really representative of how the uninitiated player will react to the games.

I would like [the impossible] to see a realworld breakdown in percentages that list fan and reviewer opinions as they pertain to the industry & market as a whole ~ compared side by side; then and now. Percentages would strip away all of this confusion with 'number of sales' and popular opinion based on scores. The industry was different then, as was the consumer base. The games had the same prices back then, but the money was worth more at the time, and consumers were a minority ~ PC gamers at the dawn of the commercialized internet.

What percentage of PC owners were also gamers; people that would buy a 3d-only 3dfx add-in card for instance.

Again, FO1 and 2 both scored in the 90% range. The question a gamer needs to honestly ask him/herself are: are you casual or not? Casual games hold your hand. Give arrows where to go. FO1 and 2 will not do this. It will highlight locations to your pip boy, but as far as say, where to go to find a water chip, you need to discover yourself and pay attention to clues.

NV is fairly casual, with some twists. Between just NV and 3 it is a coin flip. If you are more serious with gaming, rpging, a story, then start at 1.

http://fuuka.warosu.org/data/jp/img/0094/40/1343190943857.jpg

Too many people on this board are drinking the haterade. You can have a preference without being disrespectful to whole swathes of the population.

Note that the O.P has expressed that s/he is taking a break from Skyrim, which is a game this crowd also LOVES to hate on.

You know, that's really not true. While those who tend to like Fallout and Fallout:2 and lean toward FO:NV of the more recent ones seem to believe they are the more hardcoe or more serious with gaming, rpging and such...it's a perception which really doesn't hold water. Many serious gamers and RPG players have never really played Fallout at all and many more enjoy other RPGs which don't meet the criteria many Fallout gamers prefer in an RPG.

It really is a bit insulting to those who enjoy a different sort of RPG or game to be described as less serious and less of an RPG player. And that seems to be a frequent underlying tone in this section. It would be nice to choose our words a bit more carefully and not make assumptions that because someone doesn't have our same taste in RPGs or games they are somehow less.

My comments are about Fallout, not all RPGs. And FO1 and 2 are not for casual gamers. This is evident in that a lot of people have difficulty with those games. However, I did not say that they are the only "serious rpgs". Just that FO3, NV, and for that matter Skyrim are far more casual. People really need to like crpgs to like FO1 and 2. Same can be said for BG or Planescape. Those are games, along with FO1 and 2 that are aimed specifically for rpgers.

FO3, NV, and Skyrim are RPG Action Adventure, and a person who has never in their life played a rpg can jump right in, and more than likely have a blast.