I've just bought the Fallout Collection for PC (FO1, FO2, and FO Tactics) and Fallout 3 (GotY) for Xbox360. To those who've played them all: would you recommend I begin with the originals and play through them in order, or begin with FO3 and then go back? I'm an old-time gamer - I was well into CRPGs by the time the original FO games came out, but I never got round to buying them - so I'm familiar enough with old-school games, and old graphics don't bother me at all. Would playing FO3 first spoil any surprises in the originals (I hate spoilers)? Would the originals be a let-down after FO3, or vice versa? (Not trying to start an old versus new flamewar, BTW).

I would only strongly recommend that you play FO1 before FO2. Other than that, FO3 is very different, so I'd say play either #1 or #3 first depending on what suits your current mood: FO1&2 are pretty hardcoe 90's pure RPGs, FO3 is a contemporary action-RPG done in the distinctive Bethesda way - with no immediate relation to its predecessor as far as story is concerned (excluding setting of course). Still there might be some minor spoilers, though I can't think of anything significant other than the fact that you won't be as impressed with FO1's world as much as you were 'supposed to' if you start with FO3, which can take some of its charm away. Also keep in mind that FO1 is very short with RPG standards, so it probably won't take you more than a week or two to complete, while the other two are as looooooong as you'd probably expect.

To me, there are practically two universes. FO1 and FO2 are way deeper and way more interesting regarding NPCs and story and quests. FO3 still svcks the player in, and it's really a fun game to play, which is why I've netted around 100 hours on that. If you've got a lot of time, pick FO1 and go with it for a weekend. The start is slow in FO1, while FO2 throws you right into action. FO3 is also a little slow, but it builds up to a great storyline.

I don't think it would really matter too much, one way or another. Fallout 3 is disconnected enough from the previous two titles that it's not going to give away any real spoilers or anything, though there's likely some nods and references to the previous games that you won't "get" unless you've played them.

I'd recommend starting with Fallout 1 and then working your way up from there, however. Just because that's the order you go in. Definately play 1 before you play 2, though - there's some key refinements in the second game that can really make it more frustrating to play if you've already been spoiled (even if you're comfortable playing older games, #2 adds things like being able to run by double-clicking, or being able to push NPCs out of your way so that they trap you in doorways, etc.)

I'd say play them in order. Though technically you can play Fallout 3 first, because the story doesn't tell you much about what happened on the west coast, but it might make you a bit more unappreciative of the design of Fallout 1 and 2. Besides that, Fallout 1 and 2 will give you a bit more of a challenge than Fallout 3 (in my opinion at least) and you might just get a little overwhelmed if you've become accustomed to Fallout 3 first.

I would say that any order is ok as long as you take each game separately. That is, folks seem to more enjoy either FO1/2 or FO3. I would play FO1 before FO2 though.

Thanks all for the advice!

I don't see any reason not to start with Fallout 1. At the very least, it'll leave you with an advantage in terms of knowledge and experience over those who have only played F3.

I played FO2 before FO1 and when I went to play FO1 I was pretty disappointed, especially since in FO1 it is even easier to screw your game over. Save often and in LOTS of slots.

I think some of the NPCs in FO2 are cooler (in particular, Skynet is the bee's knees).

Play Fallout, then Fallout 2, then Fallout 3. Isn't that logical? That way, you're not only being introduced to the series the natural way, but you also see the progression and differences between the games.

Have fun out in the wasteland! (Ha! Now that's a pretty silly statement.)

My two english pennies worth is to suggest you play Fallout 1 first, you'll end up enjoying moments in Fallout 3 more..or less.

Definitely start with Fallout 1 and work your way up. Fallout 1 was pretty good, considering it's the first game of the series. It's also very short, so you'll grasp the storyline in a short period of time. Fallout 2 was basically Fallout 1 with a better interface, a bunch of small improvements and a very large amount of stuff to do.

After doing this, you'll appreciate Fallout 3 a lot more.

Under no circumstances should you skip Fallout 1, 2 or Tactics. Ever. Playing them enriches the gaming experience of 3. Its like a drug!

As stated in the second post of this thread, if you ever play Fallout. Make sure you play 1 before 2, or you'll regret it.

The play in Fallout 3 is smoother and more refined than the early Fallouts, but there is no loss of understanding of what's going on whichever you choose to do first. They (1, 2 and 3) can all be equally hard in their own ways. 3 has more content, and movement/action during combat is no longer turn based.

Fallout Tactics is harder and is a tactical scenario somewhat different from the others, very much a so-called hard-core game of stats and of calculated strategic play game, more so than the others, a fantastic game not to be missed out. Which to do first? Having done 3, I would choose Tactics then 1 or 2. Otherwise starting with any one would be ok, I would lean towards 3.