I've never really played a Fallout game before. I played Fallout 3 for all of about 45 mins when a friend brought it over, certainly not long enough to get into the story.

But I'm a huge fan of the Elder Scrolls series and I really like the idea of Fallout. So I want to give Fallout 4 a try.

My question is: will I be lost if I don't play the previous games first?

Now, I know someone is going to pop in here and tell me how the previous games are great and I should go play them anyway. Fine. Maybe I will sometime. But that's not really what I'm asking.

Elder Scrolls games have always been stand alone stories. There is continuity between them and having played prior games will certainly enrich your play experience. But you didn't need to have played Oblivion to get Skyrim.

Is Fallout the same?

Yes. At least F3 and oooh my, New Vegas.

And do your homeworks, read the wiki, a lot!

Search for ''fallout wiki'' in google.

I'd say at least FO3 and New Vegas. FO1-2 are older but you might like them.

No, you can jump right in and have NPCs tell you what you have to understand in that game, but to understand the larger picture you might have to play other games, or read up on lore in various wikis.

You won't be lost if you don't play the prior games; they've all had their own protagonists and storylines. And of course, you should play the prior games.

Link to wiki:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki

I don;t think you'll be in the dark as far as understanding what's going on in F4, but you would probably get more out of it, through references and possibly easter eggs.

Regardless of F4, you should play all of them, if it's within your means.

you don't need to, but you should. they are fun.

It's within my means financially and, given a long enough time line, within my means temporally.

But I don't want to have to wait to play Fallout 4 because I'm still catching up on the other games. I did that with Dragon Age. I hadn't played any of the prior games when Inquisition came out and I heard they were pretty important to understand the game. But the result was that I missed out on playing Inquisition when it was most popular, which actually mattered because it had multiplayer.

Maybe to put it another way: are the stories more connected or less connected than Elder Scrolls stories?

Which, given how many people frowned upon FO3 for playing loose with the lore, could be counterproductive. That is why I actually ignored the 3 and played the game like a reboot. Way more enjoyable that way.

There's East Coast, and West Coast. East Coast is Bethesda's thing, and West Coast is currently Obsidian's thing. They've decided to generally keep their lore separated so they can grow independently. East Coast only has Fallout 3 under the belt, and West Coast has Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas. Maybe a few other games that somewhere else, like Tactics. You'll be more likely to here references to the NCR in the Southwest region where they are, and references to... Three Dog I guess? on the East Coast.

It won't be necessary to play the others to enjoy Fallout 4, but I voted "Yes" anyway because if you love the Elder Scrolls and Bethesda style games then you are missing something by ignoring them. Especially right now ... the Steam Summer sale is going to start in a week or so and at some point during the sale Fallout 3 and New Vegas will be five dollars or less.

They're less connected than TES, to be sure. The events of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas probably won't have any bearing on Fallout 4. Fallout 3 might, or it will at least have some recurring characters.

And you'll definitely have time to go through Fallout 3 if you really think it'll help.

As of now, we know nothing of the plot to Fallout 4. But there will doubtless be references to factions and events from previous games. That said, unless it's a sequel to 3 the way 2 was to Fallout and NV was to 2, it'll most likely require very little prior knowledge. And even if it is, you will probably pick up on everything very quickly, considering this is a new region entirely. Lots of people started with 3 but still understood NV just fine without touching the first two games (though they definitely make you appreciate it more).

Yes, play all of the games. And Fallout Wiki http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki is your friend.

Whatever happened to "The Vault" wiki? I liked that better.

It is not necessary but I recommend you do play them both as they are both excellent games. Consider it training for FO4.

You really don't need to but if you want to know more about the lore, then you should at least give them a try. Be warned Fallout's 1 and 2 are old school isometric games developed by another company. Fallout 3 is more Skyrimish as well as Fallout New Vegas. If you want story pick NV. If you want to just explore and forget about the story then FO3 is your best bet. Although you can explore NV also and ignore the quest, but for the first portion you have to follow a straight path. Also if you don't like FO 1 and 2 you can search the wiki: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_Wiki

F1 and 2 have some tie ins, because they are pretty much the same location after a time of regrowth. The rest of the games play off of the lore of the series (some would say not always to a merit), but they are decidedly more stand alone.

Like i said, if you do play them, you'll probably find some nods to events in previous games in the new game that you wouldn't get otherwise. But I think that should be about it. Though there is the caveat that this is only BGS second crack at a FO title, so we don't really have a baseline for how they may handle tie ins with previous titles.

Ausir, the guy that ran it, is hosting it here now
http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Fallout_Wiki

Yes, I would say so. I played them completely out of order and I didn't have problems with understanding either. In addition, Fallout 3 was the first game in the series for many people and as you can see, it turned them into enthusiastic fans. So I think you can jump right into FO4.

That said, they are all great games well worth playing (I don't like FO3, but it was generally better received than New Vegas, so y'know, opinions). As someone already mentioned, it's like two series within a series: East and West Coast, so you might want to start with Fallout 3 to get a feel of the area and Bethesda's approach to the game.

Nobody will shot you in the head if you didn't play the previous games.
Judging by most previous games of the series so far, you will be given enough informations to avoid getting lost in the main plots and most side quest.
Beside that, most of those main plots are quite self-contained. There is no Fallout game that end with a cliffanger.

On the other hand, all those games are set in the same gameworld, with people, factions, locations etc, appearing in multiple episodes.
If you miss previous episodes, you might encounter some factions/creatures/etcs that seem a bit aliens for you. If you had played the previous games, you would know how they were created, what was their initial purpose, what problems they had to face, and how they became like that when you see them.
Also, if you intend to actually play the previous games, but out of order, you might end up in a big nest of spoilers, like some factions/creatures/people intended to be a mystery in the first game they appeared. The mystery factor would be wasted if you know them from a subsequent episode.
So if you want to play all of those games, i suggest to play them in the order of release.

I'd say no. Mainly because each game stands on it's own. They reference each other but the stories generally aren't connected. You'll find mentions to things that have happened previously but overall you don't need to know what happened between them.

Thanks, this is really what i was hoping for.

I may check out FO3 and possibly NV anyway, but it's good to hear I don't have to if I don't have time.

I can always try them later if I run out of time.

No you don't have to play Fallouts 1, 2, 3, New Vegas, etc. Although Fallout 3 and New Vegas are excellent.