I am thinking about taking a break from Skyrim and seeing what Fallout is all about. I have never played any of the FO's and was wondering if I should get the GOTY version of FO3 or FONV. Which would you recommend?
I am thinking about taking a break from Skyrim and seeing what Fallout is all about. I have never played any of the FO's and was wondering if I should get the GOTY version of FO3 or FONV. Which would you recommend?
I got Fallout 3 first so I could get the jist of what it was. Then I got New Vegas which I fell in love with at the time
That is what I was thinking. I always like to go with the newest titles. Compared to Skyrim, what is FONV like as far as bugs and other problems go? I am on Xbox.
Get Fallout NV.
Bugs are mainly fixed.
There's a few bad, but avoidable ones.
Don't ask me about the PS3.
Ok then. Looks like I will be getting NV. Thanks folks
Fallout and Fallout 2
Then New Vegas, Tactics and Fallout 3.
New Vegas, I can't recommend 1. It ha snot aged at all well in any way shape or form. It's story, choices, and reactivity are good but there is so much that needs to be put up with to get to that. Up to you on that one.
If you like a vast open amusemant park, play FO3. FO3 is just like TES, you can do anything and go anywhere. If you like a smaller world, with a more story orientated game, play New Vegas. In New Vegas you can do anything and go anywhere also, just watch out for some strong opposition.
Also if you run into an unknown creature, and when you move the cursor over them it says "DeathClaw". Run, run like hell and don't look back.
NV
The choices with actual consequences may throw you off if you're used to Skyrim.
Not true the combat is fairly simple and easy to pick up even being turn based which is the only possible qualm people should have.If it's to do with graphics (which i think suffice) then that is incredibly shallow and you'd probably be better off faping to crisis 3
First of all, why not just make this a poll?
Second of all, get New Vegas. Not only will it make you more accompanied with Fallout 1 and 2, but I think that it is generally a better overall experience.
I recommend this as well if you have some extra cash.
Well there are two ways to look at if, if you want to be mildly introduced into the Fallout franchise and ease your way into it then going from Skyrim to Fallout 3 is easier than Skyrim to FNV and there are also tons of features in FNV that are not present in Fallout 3, so going backwards from FNV could mean that FO3 might not be as enjoyable.
So going by that: FO3>FONV and then if you are interested in the expanded universe >FO1>FO2>FOT and if you're craving for more you can read the Van Buren design documents over at the Fallout wikia or read the Fallout Bible.
But if you want to have a full understanding of where it comes from I think you should play the original games before the newer ones, in that case you should go FO1>FO2>FOT>FO3>FONV.
3's more similar to TES in the sense of you have a large open world without any boundaries.
On the other hand, New Vegas has more quests which can have multiple endings, and a better storyline.
I personally like 3 better, mainly because I despised having invisible boundaries in New Vegas, and it felt buggier on the 360.
If you really want to see what Fallout is all about then you should to do as Gabriel and others have suggested, start from the beginning with Fallout 1. But if you only want to mess with the newer games then NV would be the way to go, it's a better representation of the Fallout series than F3.
Between the two [FO3 and NV], I would suggest FO3 first, then FO:NV.
But as the others have mentioned, I would recommend playing http://www.gog.com/gamecard/fallout (and optionally ~though recommended, http://www.gog.com/gamecard/fallout_2) to get an understanding of why they they would spend so much money to get the license to make Fallout 3 & 4.
As you might know, the Fallout franchise was quite different originally; the intended experience in the original series was not of first person sandboxes in the popular sense that you can do ~whatever. In the Fallouts' you can do what you want ~but you'll have to live with it.
Also by inherent design it's more a game about directing your character than about being your character. In Fallout 1 & 2, you are limited to what your PC can actually accomplish. For instance... If they can't see a landmine ~you don't see the landmine; and if they can't pick a lock, you either don't get it open, or maybe your NPC will do it; (it's not an option to ask them though).
[Some players will choose to cheat the game in times when their PC fails to succeed, and/or gets caught.]
I would highly suggest getting fo3 and fonv and play fo3 first. Its optional but if you see them on sale id also suggest getting fo1 2 and brotherhood as a conbo.
I would agree with this.
Consider this though, F3 GOTY is $15 new(360) and New Vegas isint too much more.
Now, simply saying New Vegas is my choice because imo it was the better game is ok but, you may end up like me playing NV first and finding you want more Fallout. So you try out F3 and find its "lacking" some elements which you really liked in NV making the experience not as great as if you were to play it first.
Just something to consider. If you have a job than buying both games is still less expensive than any newly released game these days. If you have a PC then you can get the first two Fallout games for something like 20$ on GOG.com i believe.
Anywho, I wish this is how I went about it. Sadly I didnt and playing F3 wasnt as well received by myself.
I would recommend getting Fallout 3 first. If you start on New Vegas first then play Fallout 3, you aren't going to enjoy it as much since the improvements New Vegas featured aren't there. That way you can enjoy both FO3 and New Vegas when you get that afterwards. However, New Vegas is the better of the two IMO.
I'd recommend getting the originals as well if you want a full understanding of the Fallout universe, and to overall enjoy the best the Fallout series has to offer.