But, if you didn't like it, then why did you play the other Fallout games?

Because I liked it at first, then I beat Fallout 1 and went back to 3 only to find it to be a shadow of the game I once liked, Fallout 1 pretty much shaped my taste in games.

I see.

I played FO2 and Tactics when they came out, said "meh" to FO3 and never played it, got FO:NV and fell in love with the series. Replayed FO2 and Tactics, then played FO1 (special thanks to gabriel77dan) and now am working on playing FO3.

Exactly, new games have come out since then, I don't declare anything new, like for instance, I got my new home gym installed yesterday, but in a week or so, i'll be like oh yeah the home gym, but atm i'm like you should come check out the new gym, when talking to mates and stuff.....

That's your perspective, everyone has their own when it comes to deciding what's new and what isn't. Something being new to an individual and being new to everyone are two very different things. If you've played a game then its not new to you anymore, but that doesn't make it old. I would consider Fallout 1 and 2 old games(though I would use the term classics) and I personally couldn't tell you exactly why I do. It might have something to do with the software they used, their age, the size of the audience who are still playing them regularly, but it's most likely is a combination of all of these and more. What I'm getting at is though New Vegas isn't new any longer, it is certainly not an old game yet.

Yes, FO:NV is worth it!
Along with amazing story and features, upon finishing the game Obsidian sends you a crate full of clean sixy hokers, a pile of cash, and a mound of cocaine.

Yes Rent-A-Box, Fallout New Vegas Ultimate Edition has great storylines and is going to be worth your time.
Unlike other RPG's that can be very linear nowadays New Vegas has multiple choices to just about everything, quests that are linear are a minority in New Vegas.

I don't want to spoil too much of it but you get to choose between 5 main paths to follow. NCR, House, Yes Man, Caesar and Lanius.
The DLC's each have unique designs and choices to be made in them.
And the sidequests have interesting outcomes that will shape the ending of the game (Not the final quest necessarily but the ending sliders).

Here is the kicker, Fallout New Vegas, by Obsidian, who had just a bit more than a year to develop an entire game has better writing than Fallout and Skyrim and Oblivion combined.
If you want good storylines then buy New Vegas.
It might not be as cinematic as mass Effect.
It might not be as smooth as RAGE, Dead Island or Skyrim.
It might not be as graphically improved as [insert open world game here].
But what it lacks in "looking good" it makes up for in it's storytelling, character development, moral choice system, game mechanics and RPG aspects.

Hell, you can play as a pacifist in New Vegas.
When was the last time you played an RPG with a lot of combat were you could choose not to kill a single living or robotic being?

thanks a lot all i wanted to know.. i am definately getting it..

Welcome to the club.
(oh, and the fact that you can get the game for under $20 makes it a win win situation)

As to the rest of you guys, really? Not a single one of you could answer his question properly?
I mean for [censored]s sake guys, that you get so caught up about the graphics that it takes 30 posts for a decent one to actually answer the OP's question is ridiculous.
You're no better than the people who complain about bad graphics. (With that I mean that those people get blinded by the bad graphics that they cannot see the other aspects of the game that make up for the bad graphics where as you guys became blinded by the mention of bad graphics that you couldn't see the other intention of the OP's request and completely ignored it to discuss the graphics instead.)
The OP didn't say "The game has bad graphics, it's [censored], I'm not buying it".
No he asked if the content of the game made up for the lack of prettyness and look and behold, most of the thread is filled with graphics discussion.
And not only that but you completely ignore his post and goes on with your own private discussion.

Hell, KyleM and Lobotomite, neither of you (Who's posts I really enjoy reading otherwise) answered the OP but ignored him as well.

Just food for thought gentlemen, next time someone asks a question then how about properly answering it? (If it has already been answered (Properly (=detailed (=fleshed out with arguments))) then it's fine to discuss the other points.)


[edit]

DaveC. and slowbutterlol actually responded to his question but I think they made too simplistic arguments.
If someone asks me "Should I buy X?" Then I try to explain a little more in depth on what the game is about, what strong points it has and what can be expected from it so that the person asking me gets a clear idea on what the game is and can make up their mind easier.
Your posts weren't crap, I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that in the future, if someone asks "should I buy X" then try to explain more on why they should buy it, what strengths the game has but also what weaknesses the game has.
It's good you two answered him but you could have given him something more to chew on.
That's a proper answer.


[edit2]

And now Rent-A-Box, here are some more notes on what to expect:

You can be a cannibal.
You can be a cowboy.
You can be a smexy ass spy.
You can be a raider.
You can kill anything in the game apart from 2 NPC's and children, so anyone you want to kill you can kill.
You can have six with a six-robot. (More like let it violate you)
You can be gay or bisixual.
You can be a mutant hater.
You can be gambling addict.
And lots more.

Some of the weak points of New Vegas are these:

The gameworld is not sandbox in the same terms that Fallout 3 is.
New Vegas will guide you (on your first playthrough) in a certain curve around the gameworld, but after you figure out how the game works you can cheat this design and linger your way through the gameworld as you please.
The game is a lot more story oriented than exploration oriented, which means that while you can explore (and there are quite a bit of land and locations to explore) it's more rewarding with it's quests and dialogue.
The gameworld is not dynamic or randomized like Fallout 3. Sure, legionnaires and NCR troopers and rangers will level scale or story scale with you, but everything else will stay the same.
That can be a good thing and a bad thing, on one hand you get a coherent gameworld which makes sense (so that there aren't deathclaws running around all over at lvl 30/50.) But on the other hand it means that it becomes very easy if you get the best stuff. (But in the DLC's the enemies are level scaled so they should be a lot more dangerous in that.
You also go to level 50 with all the DLC's in the UItimate Edition unless you pick the trait called Logans Loophole. Now this is a bad thing and a good thing. On one hand, if you go to level 50 you will need a lot of experience and hitting the level cap will take a looooooong time and if you like being overpowered then it works great, but if you don't want to become too powerful then you need to take Logans Loophole which will set the level cap to 30, which means that the game will be a lot more balanced but you will hit the level cap a lot sooner.


[edit3]

So, ultimately, New Vegas is a fantastic role-playing game, but it's not a fantastic exploration game nor fantastic with it's balance once you learn the ins and outs of the game (At which point you will have to make adjustments to create your own balance. (Unless you are on the PC, which means you can get lots of mods to balance the game out.)).
But it's still very very entertaining, and especially if you like roleplaying for real'z.
First time through you're probably going to get your ass kicked though.


[edit4]

I know this came off as aggressive but seriously guys, 31 posts? 31 posts of complete bullcrap discussion while the OP who's new to this forum is just left out in the cold completely ignored? Not cool.

[edit5]

But since the OP is now getting it you guys can continue with your discussion about graphics.

Topics like these make my head hurt.

The storyline isn't good enough to forget about the graphics. The gameplay and everything else that the game has to offer will allow you to easily forget the graphics. The UE is definitely worth it and it'll also has a ton of replay value to keep you playing. The DLC are an extra bonus.

Your opinion, not fact. Just like my opinion is that the storyline is brilliant and the graphics are fine.

Ayup, backing this up. Guess that makes two opinions againts one which makes ours a fact.

[/joke]

Yes, I know that. I do apologize if that post made it seem that I tried making it as a fact.

The writing in New Vegas far and away makes up for the shortcomings with the visuals and gameplay. The social use of skills and multifaceted quest system make New Vegas feel more "alive" than Skyrim in a lot of ways. You can really inhabit your choices and feel the consequences of your actions -- in ways that are better even in games that are designed with "choice" in mind. Stringing along 3 or 4 different factions and not letting your true loyalty show until the eleventh hour never gets old.

Yeah fonv is retro now .
And since when has fonv had harsh graphics i've thought they where decent .
And I suggest getting fo1 and fo2 or atleast play fo3 first it was realesed in 2008 when we lived in caves and killed our dinner with a rock .

And you know what, I am locking this thread. So many of you on the first page were completely rude to a member who was asking a normal question. News-flash, guys... many people find 10-12 year old games hard to look at. The passage of time is not kind to video games. That's not an insult to the games of the past, but playing a 1998 game is just not for everyone.

It was a legit question, but quite a few of you responded with an aggressive defensiveness that is completely off-putting. Learn to be a little more welcoming and you will have some interesting discussions.