fallout 3 is a shooter? hardly, but telling people to play the first fallout game first is like saying buy a model t ford for your first car, i recommend new vegas, even though FO3 is a lot better for exploration and combat, since new vegas is newer i suggest that game for the op.

people like exploration, there are not many games that offer good exploration except for bethesda games, they put an emphasis on exploration and combat in their rpgs and you keep talking like thats a bad thing, both oblivion and fallout 3 are rated at 9.6 and 9.0 respectively and they are both voted in the top 10 all time list of xbox360 games, bethesda makes games people like to play, they make great games and you keep baggin on em.

First... What is a shooter? Specifically, and second why isn't Fallout 3 one?, and third... Have you played the 'No one lives forever" series?

I'm inclined to agree that FO3 is better for exploring. Its like the magic kingdom, where everywhere you go, you'll encounter all sorts of interesting things that shouldn't be there. FO:NV takes the plausible route and gets flak for it, but its far closer to the original games ~just not close enough IMO.

What I loved about Fallout 3 was the exploration of areas far removed from towns and any NPCs that wanted to talk.
Aside from being 150 years to late... the landscape looked fantastic, and gave the same 'vibe' as the original, in a way that I truly hope wasn't an accident.

from wikipedia.

Fallout 1

GameRankings 91.92%[8]
Metacritic 89/100[9]
Review scores
Publication Score
Allgame [10]
GamePro [8]
Game Revolution A- (Mac)[11]
GameSpot 8.7/10[12]
PC Gamer US 90/100[13]
PC Zone 91/100 (UK)[8]

Entity Award
CGW "Hall of Fame" (????)
GameSpot "RPG of the Year" (1997)
GameSpot "Greatest Games of All Time" (2003)
GameSpy "Hall of Fame" (2000)
IGN "Hall of Fame" (2008)


Fallout 2

Metacritic 86/100
GamePro 5/5
GameSpot 8.8/10
IGN 8.9/10

Fallout 1 and 2 got high schores. You're point?

Apparently only new ratings for new games are valid. :rolleyes:

oblivion was about exploration also, tons of dungeon diving, and they made fallout basically using oblivions framework, that does make up a huge part of their games, i don't expect them to change how they make either of their franchises in the exploration and combat area, its what they do, i think considering FO3 was their first FO game, to ask for more than what they did is kinda like asking for perfection, FO3 was fun and satisfying in so many areas even the music was perfect for the game.

Moot point. Fallout got IGN Hall of Fame in 08.

This is the problem.

I don't understand why that if they must make the same ~style game repeatedly for their fanbase... Why pick a franchise that nearly all of them had never heard of, and of those that did, most wouldn't associate with "their" kind of gameplay?

I did expect a game like Fallout from them. I had never heard of them prior to them leasing the rights, and immediately bought their current game (Oblivion) to see what they could do with an in-house IP. I was very impressed, and liked it a lot... The shine faded slightly when I realized that there is no change or progression, just equalized difficulty as you level up. I understood the reason for it too. I looked at the engine and saw several opportune parallels with the Fallout series gameplay, and marveled at their attention to artistic detail. (I own Oblivion CE, and GOTY)

I hadn't a clue that anyone there would actually seek to dress up Oblivion as Fallout 3; It just never occurred ~same as you don't expect a passing policeman to smack the back of your head with his nightstick. :shrug:

I honestly expected (then) something rather akin to (now) the Witcher; but using Fallout's gameworld and factions, and weaponry.

Is this thread gonna derail into another 1st generation Fallout vs 2nd generation Fallout?


Original Poster.
Please look up some gameplay videos on ALL Fallout games, read up some on them, like what FO3 is, what NV is, what FO1/2 is and what Tactics is, then decide yourself which one of them you think would suit you best as a first Fallout experience.
Just don't judge the first games on their graphics and turn-based combat, they are more fun than they may look in gameplay videos.

I thought it already has.

More into

1st generation svcks

2st generation FTW


BLEH

The other consideration is the relative scale of the market then vs now ~double edge sword really as the smaller numbers the ratings (would seem to) represent don't reflect the same approval as the current ratings (supposedly) do. And there is also that PC owners played games on their PCs, but how many of them (in 1997) bought their hardware to play games?

Its really no good to compare ratings, other than to note that Fallout still shows up when most games from the era don't. Even that's not pure measure of quality as Diablo is still on the shelves today because Blizzard wants it to be. :shrug: Diablo 2 directly competes against Fallout 3 and NV.

Diablo and Fallout 1 were both rated M btw

Amazing how a question about which game to get derailed into which game is better, with some pointless side trips to Oblivion.

Posts went away. If you aren't going to respond on topic, please don't.

i ain't saying the old fallout games aren't good, i'm saying bethesda games are excellent and i like how they make their games, i prefer their style of games so any changes they made as far as exploring and plenty of combat, i like , they made oblivion like that and they made FO3 like that, and thats part of what i expect from a bethesda game.

Which is what we are saying the problem was.

Valve
Team Fortress 2
Half-life 1/2/Ep1/Ep2
Left 4 Dead 2 (1 was made by Turle Rock IIRC)
Portal 2

Valve did just fine in creating different games, I don't see Portal 2 having boss characters hunting you and 3 teammates down while swarms of enemies come at you. :mellow:
Just because the studio has both franchises does not mean that they should make them the same.
Frankly, it just means that they are a bad studio IMO.
It means that they can't do a winning concept except rehashing an old one over and over and forcing it onto other franchises.
Like they only know how to do one thing.
It'd be as bad as if the writers of Lost got to do another show and it had that whole flashback and flashword and alternate universe stuff on a new island again, yet this time it's just a post apocalyptic island.
Don't get me wrong, the winning concept might be splendid in it's original franchise, but it's when they force it upon other franchises that it just becomes obnoxious.
So if I see a portal, HL or TF game that has 4 team mates fighting off hordes of enemies while special enemies slowly hunt them down with the option of Versus mode which allows us to play as the special enemies then I'd say that they fail pretty hard.
Left 4 Dead is also a winning concept, splendid action with high emphasis on cooperation.
But would it feel like Team Fortress with it?
Would it feel like Half-Life with it?
Would it feel like Portal with it?
No, it wouldn't.

Again, it's a winning concept.
Elder Scrolls sandbox stuff is also a winning concept.
So why is it right for Fallout to be changed to this extreme level? I'm sure people would feel that Valve had lost their minds if they changed Half-Life 2 into a L4D clone.
It's not right for Half-Life to be changed and it's not right for Fallout to be changed, no matter what studio is behind it and no matter what genre they are.

(I'm more of a L4D fan than I am of Portal, HL and TF so I would love another game that emphasized on cooperation as much as it did but changing HL to L4D gameplay wouldn't feel right no matter how fun it is to play.)

So frankly I don't care if people look for an Oblivion clone when it comes to Bethesda, they need to learn how to handle two different franchises or just let some other, more competent, development studio take over while they collect royalties.

Hmm, got another one, Battlefield franchise was made by EA correct?
Well, what if they made a Battlefield game that played out like a FIFA game?
Am I being extreme?
Yes I am.
But so was the change from FO2 to FO3.
There are tons of combinations out there that are possible, but that don't make them right.

Note.
I'm not saying Bethesda is an incompetent studio, I'm just saying it remains to be seen by Fallout 4, if it's more of a Fallout game than New Vegas then it's progress, even if it isn't a complete conversion back to the original games, if it's more of a Skyrim With Guns clone then it's fail and Bethesda is in my eyes an incompetent studio which only knows how to do one thing. :whistling:

Well... we all know Valve is an awesome company ^_^ It's a good point you brought up, that they've made four (actually five, L4D1 is theirs since they bought up Turtle Rock Studios when the game was beta, so what they had was the concept of four survivors in a zombie apocalypse, the characters (which Valve changed) and the No Mercy campaign) really good and different games. You can see similarities between Half Life 2 and L4D in that it has a bunch of the same props, but other than that... they are different. L4D's using a modified version of the Source Engine. Zombie Panic! is the closest you get to L4D and it's still different.

But westoftherockies want Bethesda to make all the games in the same style every time, even though the genres and universes are completly different. I mean, Bethesda has only done The Elder Scrolls, right? They're up on their fifth TES game now, and it's their franchise so of course they know how to do that right. Then they buy the Fallout franchise, which they didn't make up and are new to, and though "hey, let's make this game like we've done all our previous games". While Valve makes different game series that are all unique. Sure, they get A LOT from their modding community, they owe a lot to them (like Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, Team Fortress) but they also care alot about the community in terms of how easy it is to make mods on the Source engine, and the free DLC's for L4D2 for example, and that they use modder's ideas for their games. Well, I was thinking since you were talking about a game company that does good games since it cares about its fans - Valve does that too on a great level and can make completly different games.

Oh, and by the way, west. Stop. Using. The. Same. Argument. Each. And. Every. Time! You constantly bring up "oh, but Obivion and Fallout 3 both got over 9 out of 10, that speaks for itself how awesome Bethesda are". It's no good way to argue by mixing in review numbers in terms of saying how much you like a game, even less good when you do it all the time.

They have done several Terminator fps games. Also one TES game was an Action-Adventure game (Redguard) and another that had online multiplayer coop game which was like a first person Diablo (Batlespire). Then there are some sports games they have made back in the day. One racing and another football.

So they used to keep their franchise's gameplay different.

On topic: I usually always play the first game in a series. I like seeing where a series started and how much its changed over the years.

I played and beat Wasteland before playing New Vegas just to see if there was going to be any easter eggs referencing it since they happen in and around Las Vegas. (Turns almost everything in the fallout franchise is a Wasteland Easter egg) :fallout:

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. Games have seemed to grow in scale over the years giving many more hours of play now.

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. Whatever your preference is.

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 tells you what they are all about, making the early Fallouts not a necessity for understanding what the game is all about.

Series of the game Fallout are not really a direct continuation of a previous of a series, as in what happened before, there are huge jumps in time, 100 years plus or minus, changes happen, so there is no real need to start with the first of the series.

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. For the above reasons that is the first choice. It is that simple.

Fallout3 is a better choice to start with.

(It needs to be understood, by all, the relevance of the word better and how it would be also relevant to what the preference of kind of play of the OP is.)

Not really. No NCR, BoS is off, exploration prioritizes itself over quests, stylistically its off etc. etc.. NV takes place near 1 and 2 and mentions them much more frequently then 3 does (Marcus talks about fighting alongside the Chosen One, Tandi is mentioned several times, and even The Master is mentioned whereas in 3 he wasn't even mentioned)

As mentioned before Fallout 2 has more than 3 times as many quests, which hits 4 times with the Restoration mod. I easily hit 300 hours on a good playthrough of Fallout 2.

Hm, apart from three drag racing games their latest titles have all been Elder Scrolls and Fallout. :confused:


1. Since hardly any turn-based games are released in the main stream market apart from crap JRPG's we don't know how successful a western mainstream TB RPG would be. :confused:

2. To understand Fallout 3 you don't really need to play the older games, but it can give you a false sense of what Fallout is about and how certain things are.

3. Fallout 3 sorta guts the older Fallouts and have six with their intestines, it's nowhere close to the previous Fallout's, even Junktown made sense while Tenpenny Tower and Megaton are yet to be explained how they work.
And the wasteland is hardly flawless either.

4. Canon-wise?

Fallout 1/2 had way more content than Fallout 3, trying to argue that is like saying, "Russia is smaller than Rhode Island."

Well, it depend on how you look at it.
From the mechanic and complexity perspective then Fallout 3 is a small shard compared to the older games.
But when looking at the world and it's in depth detail even if it doesn't make sense for being 200 years it's still bigger.
So it depends on how you look at it, I look at it from an RPG perspective and the older games put far more emphasis on action and consequence and allow me to greater build my character the way I want it while still keeping it balanced yet brutal.
And when I look at FO3 I see 5 combat skills and 3 karma paths, nothing else.
So for me FO3 has less content when it comes to actual roleplaying.

Sounds like alot of the people harping on how "good" FO 3 is have never played the originals, so have no concept of what "qualities" would make a good fallout game. XD

Actually, some of them have played them and even played them before FO3 and still think it's better than the old one's.
Makes me curious as to why though. :ermm: