As you can see, i'm an XBOXER (360) and heavy into the Elderscrolls series.

I like games that run for a long time, and have a lot of story to them - something that takes weeks and months to crawl through.

If you were beginning all over again, and had never done Fallout before - where do you wish you had started at in the series?

Is Fallout Three a game that has a lot of options, different routes you can go in it each time you play it through?

In your opinion, is this a game series that you come back to over and over because you can't get enough of it?

How many of you have collected the whole series just because you wanted to see what came before the episode you first began to play?

~ I'm thinking real seriously about FO-3 GOTY, and also saw the FO Trilogy available on Amazon.

Alright, all of the Fallout games that shall be mentioned are fantastic games. Each will give you hours of fun and all have plenty of replayability.

I really want to avoid coming off sounding like I hate TES or F3. I found that both Fallout 3 and Skyrim lacked choices and that Skyrim was the shallowest RPG I've personally played. The game just didn't have any depth and nothing mattered. Fallout 3 had a bit more depth to it than Skyrim so if you were able to play that, you should have no qualms.

I started the series with Fallout 3, and honestly I recommend doing so as well. If you start with Fallout New Vegas then you'll have a VERY hard time making it through Fallout 3. Furthermore, if you start the series with the originals, then once you get to Fallout 3 you might find yourself rather agitated with the game.

I suggest playing the games in this order:
1. Fallout 3
2. Fallout 1
3. Fallout 2
4. Fallout Tactics
5. Fallout New Vegas

As far as games in the series go, I felt like Fallout 3 was the least "Fallout" of them (still one of my favorite games and I played the hell out of it too) and that New Vegas was a better 3rd number installment.

*I also loved Morrowind and Oblivion, just wanted to throw that in there so that my comment about Skyrim didn't dissuade you.

I would start with New Vegas if you are looking for a game that has different paths/outcomes if you aren't used to older games.

You could always start with Fallout and work your way though the series... But if you aren't used to older games then Fallout 3 and New Vegas would be the way to start.

Personally, I would start with Fallout 3, then move on to New Vegas. It seems to be a fair middle ground between 3 and the originals, mostly due to some of the (New Vegas) developers were the same ones who worked on the originals.

Assuming you make it through those two, I'd recommend trying out the originals. Even if you don't/can't finish them (like me, but not because the age of it...isometric/turn based) it will still give you a pretty good idea of what Fallout was originally supposed to be about, but has been lost over the years (mainly since Beth took it over.)

I agree with what was posted earlier in that if you start with the originals, you'll likely not enjoy 3 and/or New Vegas, and come away from it with a bad taste in your mouth...not that it would be entirely unjustified.

I've never played it, but it seems the general consensus around here is to avoid the "Burned game" like the plague.

Old games? You're talking to a guy who messes with Final Fantasy 1 on a GBA to pass the time when I have Skyrim setup to auto-level using rubber bands on the controller...

In fact, I was re-arranging one of my closets today and found a disc with Might and Magic One and Two on them. Too bad I don't have a PC archaic enough to play them anymore.

I also have the Elderscrolls Anthology.

So - the older the better, so long as I don't have to make my own game world maps on sheets of graph paper!

What is the "Burned" game?

You'll love the original Fallout games then. Isometric turn-based, with good story and the best RPG mechanics of the series.

Literally, if you don't put time into a build and actually read through the dialogue or pay attention you will not be able to beat the games. Unlike games nowadays they actually have some consequence to actions and poor planning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout:_Brotherhood_of_Steel

You very well may like the originals. Even I liked them for what they brought to the table. I just didn't like isometric/turn based games. Didn't like them back when Fallout was new, and still don't. That said, I still would recommend starting with the newer games first, then move on to the originals. It'll be helpful to familiarize yourself with the world of Fallout.

Might and Magic 1&2 can be played on modern systems with the use of Dosbox, with Dfend Reloaded to configure it, as well as any game from that era. Arena and Daggerfall from the TES anthology use it.

About BoS: I get it. The game is like Final Fantasy 1 - 4. Very one dimensional, and limited char choices. A fixed story line, and bluntly tedious.

Dustin: The M&M games I actually miss are MM6, 7, and 8. THOSE were pretty cool. ( IX was pure crap, even Jon Van Canegham thought so )

I really doubt I could stay interested in MM2 like I was long ago, the new games HAVE spoiled me to some degree.

If you like old rpg games then by all means start with the trilogy.

So, FO1, 2, and Tactics.

Note that FO Tactics is less an rpg and more like a turn based strategy game, but it looks and gameplay wise ks exactly like FO1 and 2. And, it is a hella lotta fun.

Really, the only reason to start at 3 is if you hate old school games.

you should i only started playing since last februari , while i have only FO 3 and FO NV i only played FO3 till now the new vegas while already installed i didn't even touched it

because i jest haven(y finished the game and its dlc s yet

but i am sure you will enoy it as much as i do and become a fan of the franchise

Fallout 3's a great introduction to the Fallout world for players used to the first person perspective of more modern games, but from the sound of it you may prefer the choices, consequences and storyline of New Vegas.

There is a locked thread that answer most of your question:

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1494031-thoughts-on-fallout/

My answer on it:

In short, if you prefer games that are heavy on C&C, i suggest Fo1-Fo2-FoNV. The other games lack of those. Also, these are quite cohesive, while the other are from various devellopers that have a partial faithfullness of the franchise.

About the order, i would not advice you to play in any order, as some sequel can heavily spoil you on the previous episodes.

So Fo1 must be played first, as its plot is spoiled in every other episodes.

FoT must only be played after Fo1, as it happens after Fo1. But other than that, you can play in after/before any other episode as it is not mentioned by sequels. Same could be said for FoBOS. As long as you play those games after Fo1, you can play them in any order.

Fo2 must be played after Fo1, but also before Fo3/FoNV as the last two games reference Fo1-Fo2 a lot.

As long as you play Fo3/FoNV after Fo1-Fo2, you can play Fo3 before or after FoNV as Fo3 and FoNV don't reference each other that much.

Altough, if you intend to play Fo3, i recommand you to play it before FoNV, as FoNV use Fo3 engine and add a billions of things to do. So if you play Fo3 later, you will be heavily disapointed.

Personnally, i started with Fo2 and i regret it heavily, as it spoiled me a lot on the Fo1 plot, which was intended to be mysterious.

Everyone has a favourite, and there's a reason to play each one.

Honestly as a console user you'll get the most bang for money out of either FO3 or Fallout New Vegas.

New Vegas has a lot more to offer on mechanics. The DLC is far superior on the story and adding various new challenges unlike FO3's. At a level that will be unavailable to those without access to modified content.

FO3 however is just more fun to explore imo. As a first timer looking for fun and random goofy wasteland hijinks, FO3 will be great.

The original Fallout for PC is very buggy, but like FO3 it is great to get your feet wet. Plus there are plenty of easy unofficial patches and mods to fix the broken content.

Fallout 2 is just wow, basically if you want an advlt game with over the top insane humour.. this is it. Again though needs patching and fixing up.

So personally I'd go.

Fallout 3.. easiest to get into and most laid back. Despite my dislike of the limited choice ending, it's stable and solid in quests and background details scattered around.

Fallout New Vegas, again felt gyped on the main ending limitations but it added a lot to mechanics. The DLC made up for base games faults.

Fallout.

Fallout 2, just wow.

Well you should defiantly try the originals then, i'd personally recommend playing in the order of:

Fallout 3

Fallout 1

Fallout 2

Fallout: New Vegas

Fallout: Tactics

Fallout 3 will introduce you to the universe and it's the easiest game to acclimatise to if people generally only play newer games, it's also probably got the weakest rpg elements of the canon games so you won't be taking a step back at any point.

Fallout 1 has better story and rpg mechanics with proper choice and consequence and it'll give a lot of backstory on what happens in Fallout 3.

Fallout 2 because it's next in the time line.

Fallout: New Vegas again it's next in the timeline and IMO is the best of the Fallout games.

But generally speaking if you can't play turn-based games for whatever reason (I don't know why but everyone is entitled to there preferences) then I'd suggest 3 then New vegas and maybe 1 and 2 to expand on the universe if you can tolerate it's gameplay.

Edit:

There's a lot of very opinionated people that will sell Fallout 3 short and would recommend not trying it out but that's asinine IMO.

Fallout 3 is the worst "Fallout" game of the lot but that's exactly why you should play it and first, if you like the theme and narrative and choices in fallout 3 it's only going to get better (well I have a major gripe with fo2 in this regard but none the less).

To be honest, i very much don't advice to play Fo3 before Fo2.

Fo3 spoils you far too much about some key plots of Fo1-Fo2.

Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout New Vegas I'd definitely recommend playing as I would consider them the better Fallout games (even better you're into older games).

However, you mind as well start on Fallout 3 to get it out of the way to get into the interesting part of the universe.

Jokes aside, Fallout 3 may not be the best Fallout game or the most compelling RPG, but it can still be an enjoyable experience. It's good to see all that the series has to offer (minus that other game) and it is recommend you at least play Fallout 3 before New Vegas, as it can be rather difficult to play Fallout 3 with the lack of improvements made from it to New Vegas.

Also, don't forget about Fallout Tactics. It's different and more so focused on being turn based strategy, but I'd say it improves quite a bit on the turn based combat. So if you end up enjoying the combat of FO and FO2 you may like Tactics.

New Vegas is the best game imo.

the only game i played twice, and am planning to play again. Both times i never went through all of it.

if FO3 were more stable on my PC, i would do play it again

Fallout 3 is my favourite game of all time, I must have put thousands of hours into it. I think everyone should play it atleast once, and it'll be easier for you to play it on 360 since on Win7 it requires some weird fixes to get it running semi-properly, like moving the install out of program files.

New Vegas feels like Fallout 3+ a lot of the time, with some upgraded game mechanics. A lot of people here prefer it over 3, but I dislike the civilized and mapped out wasteland in that game. The older games aren't Bethesda games at all, and overall they are pretty unrelated to modern Fallout as a whole, mostly sharing lore. The modern games do a pretty good job of explaining themselves, so playing the originals is not needed.

What I would do is do a serious roleplay in Fallout 3, and then try to roleplay that same character in New Vegas, having travelled across the wastes. The PCs origins in New Vegas are vague enough that it can be the Fallout 3 PC. The only problem is that in NV the PC has a extensive knowledge of the NCR and the western wasteland, and add that onto the travel time of walking across the country you're just going to have to handwave away the time it would take. Fallout 3 is 2277, and New Vegas is 2281. 4 years isnt really enough, but legacy characters are neat to roleplay, so if you want to do that, the roleplay is just going to have to take a small hit.

You've probably heard this a thousand times before for Skyrim, but Fallout has a extensive modding community on PC. If you ever purchase a gaming PC after your 360 playthrough, I would highly recommend getting a whole bunch of mods and playing through it again.

Exactly, I know I love Fallout 3 and everyone should definitely give it a chance.

The way I see it, it's like Assassins Creed now. Everyone keeps complaining about new games being made, but not being about Desmond. As far as AC:IV went it didn't exactly detract from the fun for me because it didn't have those breaks away to make me play as Desmond.

Just because it wasn't a great "Fallout" game, there was still enough fun to be had for me to put hundreds of hours into it.

That being said though, I simply can't go back to playing it after having played New Vegas and the Originals. I end up constantly comparing it to the others and it just can't satisfy me anymore.