Well, I would just by the first game if it weren't that I doupt it will run on my computer... its a vista...
Also grafics wouldn't mind for me... I'm currently playing Bethesda's a zenimax media company The Elder Scrolls II Daggerfall...

It runs fine with Vista if you get some patches. It's a great game even after all these years.

Yeah, you'll be fine on Vista, you just get to get some patches. The games will run, but there might be some graphical problems that won't really destroy anything, just annoy you a little (a lot)

There's a patch for that.

Fallout 1 first, just cause its Fallout 1 and it will get you started on the "canon" and "lore" of the Fallout universe.

But if this is your first time playing Fallout, then I'd suggest getting Fallout 3. Why? It basically has nothing to do with the originals (aside from factions and what not). It is also a great introductory to the series. If you like Fallout 3, you can try out 1, 2 and Tactics(Awesome game).

This is just based off what I tell my friends (You may be an exception), since they are all CoD's B****, but they all loved it after they gave it a try.

And the deal with Fallout 3 being all out of whack, as people say because it is 200 years after the Great War and it should have trees and such, is that Bethesda probably wanted to make a Fallout game that gave the image that people are/have always been talking about.

See when the word "Post-Apocalyptic" comes into peoples minds, they imagine Fallout 3, destruction, radiation, death, war, ect. They probably made the game based off of how they saw they saw Fallout, with out messing up the lore and canon(to an extend) for people like Styles and rusina (No hating ).

For one I'm glad Bethesda bought the Fallout franchise because I would have never loved and wasted 1000s of hours of my life playing it. I would never be able to the play the amazing mods the people have made. Never played or loved NV or the originals. Hell playing Fallout 3 inspired me to play the originals, along with the fellow members of this community. Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics have become some of my favorite games, even though I svck at them and slightly don't understand ( :sadvaultboy: ).

Opinions here seem to be, and are, divided on which to get first.

Personally, if you are wanting the best game-play, then I would definitely say get Fallout3.

(I haven't played New Vegas as yet, good though it may be in many respects, it has been said to have less exploration available, something that Fallout3 had a vast amount of including random events and randomisation)

Fallout3 is played in real-time whereas the early Fallouts 1 and 2 had turn-based combat, and comparatively far less content than Fallout3 which is enormous, and giving 100-150 hours play probably more.

You do not need to get hung up on the canon-lore or folk-lore of the series or even know anything about it, in fact it is better not to, a few may gripe that a unit has moved from one side of America and is now located on the other side and such-like, makes no difference to the game, most can't remember anyway such details, the previous was so long ago.

The Fallout3 game is complete in itself with everything fitting in place, as fitting for the scenario now many years in the future, but still in keeping with all the mature content type of game-play that the previous of the series had.

Now updated to today's game-playing abilities, and with so much content and amount to explore, it is now such a big game that turn-based play would not really be suitable or desirable. The early Fallouts of the series had turn-based combat, and ... at the time that they came out ... they were enjoyable, but now there is so much more.

Treat Fallout3 for the fantastic game that it now is and have a great time. It plays any way you like it, very hard or easy, role-play or what-ever. It's very hard at the beginning (well I set it on VH) but you can eventually become almost invincible if you choose the most powerful weaponry and armours. Using a bit of restraint is best for keeping the challenge going. I found it very immersive, writing was ok and had humour, there was nothing in the game that I could gripe with.

Play ALL the games. In order. Soak up all the information you can with each playthrough(ie read all the holodiscs and listen to all the dialogue and quests) so you'll get the REAL feel of the wasteland.

You can easily hit 100-150 with Fallout 2. That's just one play-through. There is always new stuff with each new playthrough and with different characters. For the 5 years I've played Fallout 2, I can say the game still surprises me with the amount of hidden goodies it has.

And then you install the megamod or restoration pack and you get an entire year's worth of play.
It's insane.

You should get both Fallout 3 and New Vegas, play Fallout 3 first. Don't bother with the old Fallout games.

I think I'll buy Fallout 3... if I like it I'll get the older games, then (if I still like the series) I'll get New Vegas...

The originals have less content? How come?

more like if you like Fallout 3 you will like New Vegas.
The older games are very different in terms of gameplay and graphics. NV is more like 3 than the old games.

Care to explain why not?

Well... its nice to start on the next to newest game, just to get started with a (not that) old game, that way you'll get into a series better but without having to know the storyline of every other game, once I'm a bit more into the series I'll try game 1 and 2... then finally I'll know exactly what've happened before NV...

Because 90's graphics are so old and dated and it's just copying Fallout 3's plots! And the Brotherhood of Steel are so mean! And the Super Mutants aren't stupid, mindless post-nuclear orcs, and I can't just win by shooting stuff! GAWD! I hate when older games just copy new ones and actually don't let you win just by shooting stuff. [/sarcasm]

See, if people who dislike Fallout 3 hate Bethesda then people who like Fallout 3 hate Black Isle and Interplay (and Fallout 1/2)

Just went on amazon to check the prizes... wow... whoever would buy that survival edition must be insane!.. $999.99... if I'm gonna buy a copy (still not 100% sure) it'll be the collectors edition... why? Well because I like crappy merchandise that only last a week before its covered in dust, and because 999.99 us dollars is insane...

Just like to chime in here, and I know you're being sarcastic.

But damn man, you CAN go through Fallout 1 and 2 by killing everyone.

In Fallout 1, shoot a Brotherhood of Steel Patrol...

You encountered an Enclave Patrol

Game Over

Here lies Boradam, the dumbest sonava[censored] to ever walk into reno.

No [censored]. Ever piss everyone off at Navarro? Even at lvl 30 with the best perks and gear that place is hard as hell to clear.

Well kind of they just did, have less content than Fallout3, would anybody disagree with that ... they may have just seemed bigger than they were because of having to take turns in combat, board-game style, that dragged out the game-play time.

But if wanting board-game combat play, go for the early Fallouts, if wanting role-playing with movement as a real person would move in combat, then leave out the early Fallouts.

Early Fallouts were enjoyable at the time that they came out, being new and a ground-breaking kind of play, but Fallout3 has taken everything so much further, it's massive, taking turns would kill the game, and most are into playing a role now as realistically as possible.

There's plenty of dialogue in Fallout3 to explain what the game is all about, and each group also tells you what they are all about, making the early Fallouts not a necessity for understanding what the game is all about.

Fallout3 will be closer to the previous Fallouts nuclear-apocalypse-wasteland scenarios than Fallout New Vegas is, which I understand has now quite a lot of civilised development in the scenario. Fallout3 does have developments, of a kind, as groups struggle to survive as best they can.

So wasteland-wise canon-wise Fallout3 I would say 3 covers the early Fallouts better.

Yes. Total number of marked quests in Fallout 3: 31 (including tutorial quests).

Total number of marked quests in Fallout 2: 100+.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_quests
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_quests



What does turn based combat have to do with the quality of role-playing? Aside from enhancing it I mean by allowing only the character to have an impact instead of making every character's combat ability tied to the player skill's a la Fallout 3 and New Vegas.



They're still enjoyable now. And better games than both Fallout 3 and New Vegas put together. Fallout 3 hardly took everything further. Mostly they took a massive sidestep while slimming down the core RPG mechanics considerably.



No. New Vegas is much closer to the original Fallouts than Fallout 3.

Fallout 1 & 2 have given me 12 years of replayability, I highly doubt Fallout 3 will offer me that. :laugh:
Fallout's turn based combat [to me is a big draw over Fallout 3's stale ~or should I say, 'overly used these days', method of combat] ~That's putting aside that the series is and was always meant to be turnbased.

This I cannot agree with, because Fallout 3 is hardly mature ~its just gory. :shrug:

Exploration for its own sake is not the game, its just something to do in the game, there were (all told), far more locations in Fallout than Fallout 3 ~most were desolate waste, but still quite explorable.
(and it was really not the point)
See... For the most part, the purpose of Fallout was affecting change in the world ~everywhere you go... The purpose of Fallout 3 (for the most part) was effecting a changeless world. Big difference.