Hey guys! New comer over here

I hope I'm not doing anything wrong, but just wanted to ask you if it is ok to start my fallout experience with Fallout 4. Is it? I already preordered the game, so I'll play it anyway. But I have New Vegas, and I never finished it because my save file get corrupted everytime, so I gave up (PS3 version), and because of that, never bought fallout 3.

So for me, it will be everything completly new.

Thank you.

Gotta start somewhere. Bethesdas PS3 games are notorious for being a mess. I went PC about a year after Skyrim. Have fun with 4!

start at fallout 1 and 2

In anticipation of fallout 4 there's been plenty of articles with the intention of telling you about the fallout lore. Look them up! If you don't want to play the previous titles later on that is, since it reveals major spoilers. It's nice to get to know the lore of fallout. But honestly, I'd think it would have been fun starting over without knowing anything about fallout. There's usually plenty of content in-game to find out about the fallout lore and how it was pre-war, and without knowing much about it make it much more fun to discover it. Your character doesn't know anything about the new world after the war, so you're gonna be in the same mindset as your character. In my opinion that will really enhance the roleplay aspect.

Too summarize it, you don't have to know anything about the previous titles and it might even make the game better.

I think your best bet is to either start with 3, get your hands on an old computer, or download an emulator and play all the way through the series.

You can really start anywhere. There's no narrative that follows you through from one game to the next game. You just start out as a random dude, who is thrust into the wasteland to fend for himself.

The one thing great thing about Bethesda games is that while they are sequels, you don't really need to play at all the previous titles to dive into the current or new one. With a huge fanbase for Fallout (and TES) the game sites made by them are full of information you could swim in it for days and find out all about what happened in previous titles. But you don't even need to do that, as the games set themselves up to allow for new players to get easily accustomed to playing them.

As for the instability on PS3, sorry to hear that. Shockingly, I never had a problem with New Vegas (though that was developed by Obsidian, not Bethesda). Though file corruption might not be a fault of either the console or the game, usually a mixture of factors which can include the user. Anyways, if you ever get a chance to play the FO3 and FONV again, I highly suggest. They are fun games through the end. Fallout 3 is great for exploration and Fallout New Vegas has a better world and story. I know New Vegas had a lot of problems early on, which is why I waited to buy it and when I did get it, the vanilla version was cheaper than the Fallout 3 vanilla version (both new).

I started with 3 and had no problem diving into the lore. I've since played 1, 2, and tactics (downloaded them when they were free on GOG.

Fallout 4 is a fine place to start. I had a lot of fun with FO3, but it crashes a lot unless you play it vanilla without any mods. Problem with vanilla is it's missing core modern day features which for me is a must. i.e. iron sights.

I wouldn't start with 1 or 2 as they were a completely different game type. This is an action game with the original elements of rpg incorporated. The original 1 and 2 felt more of an RPG with some action elements added.

I give props to anyone ingrained in the current gen that can go back to a simple text driven, turned based game. I couldn't do it, trust me I tried.

Should be fine starting with 4. All of the fallout games are pretty well self-contained. For example, if you played the first fallout, you get to learn about the brotherhood of steel. However, in every game since, they still re-introduce them. Even fallout 3, explained how Lyons brotherhood differed from the core values of the brotherhood.

hmmm, not good advice imo. Fallout 4 seems like a good starting point. It has an independent story of the past games in another part of the country. Also you play as a temporal fish out of water so you'll have a reason to learn about the factions in-game.

If you enjoy the game then you should probably go back and play the earlier games. F01 and 2 are turnbased isometric games made in the 90s by a different company, unless you enjoy those games i'd give them a pass.

Well, start with Fallout 4 if you wish, you can get all the previous games in a fancy colletions package shaped like a nuke if the series strikes your fancy. Pick at them at your leisure. You are not losing anything starting at 4.

you can start wherever you want, they're all stand alone. however, they aren't really that much alike. 1 and 2 are turn based, 3rd person view. one of them you have a time limit to complete. 3 and NV will be more like 4, with 3 being the most as NV was made by obsidian. a lot similar, yet a lot different at the same time.

You'll be fine starting with Fallout 4. There's more than likely going to be some references to things that happened in previous games but it's not anything that you're really going to get lost on so go play Fallout 4 and enjoy it. When you get around to it, pick up the other games and play them too. It's not necessary to start from the beginning.

Start with Fallout 4 and if you need another hook after two years go back to 3.

Sure, start with this one and if you love it you will be busy for months and months. And when you tire of this one and have spare time you can choose to go back and play them all if you like.

But you don't need to play the old ones to enjoy the new one.

You don't need an old PC, or an emulator. Fallout 1 and 2 work fine, more or less, on Windows 7.

Yep, 4 is the best place to start, you have it preordered after all, OP.

The other games won't be going away if you fancy more after (eventually) finishing this one.

Start with whatever game you want and play them in any order you want. They all stand on their own.

The only real downside to playing them out of order is the possibility of learning the canon ending to a previous game before you play it.

Right now, we know the canon endings to the original Fallout and Fallout 2. We don't know the canon endings to Fallout Tactics, Fallout 3 and Fallout NV.

Fallout 4 has the potential to give us the canon endings to Fallout Tactics or Fallout 3 and we will most certainly learn something about one or more previous games. How much we learn will for a large part be determined by how much Fallout 4's story line depends on the outcome of events that take place in Chicago or DC.

I don't see why you couldn't start with 4. All of the Fallout games are stand alone, you can easily jump into any of them with no prior knowledge about the world or past stories, so I imagine the same will be true of Fallout 4. At most you'll miss a few continuity nods, and maybe two returning characters.

If you can't play any older games, read up the lore. It passes the time and you won't be totally lost. I started with NV and I've been obsessively reading lore.

You can always read through the timeline: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Timelineto get into the mood and get some background info. There are also Lore videos on Youtube you can watch (but be aware there might be FO4 spoilers in the comments)

I play old and new games all the time. I don't find new games more immersive or enjoyable. Once graphics no longer keep your attention, you'll find that many old games are greater than new ones. Also, there are new text and turn-based games coming out all the time. Pillars of Eternity is one example, and Stasis is another - and lots of people play and love them. And the "current gen" is only iterations on presentations that have been around for over 10 years - and some of the earlier presentations surpass modern ones in various aspects.

I think it's far more unusual that someone can't play old games and get in to them. Most people do just fine. Come to think of it, old and new just feels like one large pool of games to draw from, to me.

Fallout 1 is a pretty great game. I haven't played Fallout 2 yet. For me, it's Fallout 3 and NV that I can't get into. Neither have good visual and environment impression, or UI. And their writing isn't as good as Fallout 1, and probably also Fallout 2. I also like the top-down isometric combat in Fallout more than Fallout 3's combat.

Ok, thank you for your replies!

I guess I'll be playing FO4 with no problems of getting "lost".

I guess it's like TES series then. The only one I played was Skyrim, and I never felt the need to play the previous ones.

As you said, if I really like this one (I'm sure I will ), I'll play 3 and NV after. I still have NV for PS3, and I can buy 3 for a good price. I just didn't play them before, because of the save thing. Guess I will be doing various backups of the save to prevent something else.

That you again for your replies

EDIT: And for emulation on PC... MY PC can't play anything

So for you it's not about not being able to go backwards but rather not being able to go forward. I'm 40 and have followed the entire evolution of video games over the past 30+ years. Some of my favorite games of all time fall into your description of a great game. However, Morrowind ruined me for all other games that aren't real time first person. Unfortunately there is no going back and i have tried many times.