Hey everyone,

So the other day I got a great deal on 3 Fallout games: $45 for 3, New Vegas and 4, with 3 and New Vegas being complete editions with all the DLC. I've heard great things about the series, but I've never actually played any of the games in the franchise, although I've heard great comments about them. I'm more than OK with playing the games in any order (word is that 4 is a little worse than 3 and NV), so any comments or suggestions in how I should approach the series are more than welcome.

Which one should I play first? What's different about each game? Is Fallout 4 really a bad game or just not what fans expected? Should I get DLC for Fo4?

Thanks in advance!

id play them in order of release so you dont miss features that have been added in later games from mixing and matching.

@burban_snake: I thought to do that too, but reading people's opinions on forums have made me think that I will have more fun with Fo3, so I'd rather get Fo4 out of the way first. But I just want to validate this thought.

I don't think the games are so drastically different that it matters. Maybe choose the setting you like the most? 3 had a sort of boring world, new vegas was alot more fun and dense, and 4 is really dense but not always that interesting. 3 was mostly interesting to see after so long since 2 but at this point I think it was the weakest, despite some pretty cool stuff in there.

So there is my recommendation, capital wasteland, new vegas, or the commonwealth, they all have their strong points and totally disappointing moments.

@jrodrz: I don't think you should approach Fallout 4 as one 'to get out of the way' because there is a ton of content there and playing it just to complete it will result in you missing lots of it. I would also strongly recommend the Automatron and Far Harbor DLCs for Fallout 4. You can pretty much skip over the other DLC for the game unless you get really into the settlement building. But for me, Automatron and Far Harbor are essential. You can wait until you start playing to figure out if you want the DLC.

They are all very similar, but I would still suggest you play 3 then NV then 4. Also be aware that when you finish the main quest in New Vegas, the game will end. It will warn you before the point of no return though, and you can always load a save from before that point. Oh and Fallout 3 has difficulty running on Windows 10 I think, so you may need to Google that if you encounter difficulties.

Most of the disappointment with Fallout 4 has more to do with it simply being more of the same without being much of a leap over previous games, not that it's inherently worse than Fallout 3. On a fundamental level, Fallout 4 is a better game than Fallout 3 in most ways, it's just not the leap people were hoping/expecting it to be.

If you play Fallout 4 first, 3 is going to seem like a flat out worse game by comparison. Fallout 3 was certainly more impressive at the time of it's release, especially being the first Bethesda style Fallout game. Removed from the context of the time of their release and the expectations of the series at the time, I'd imagine most people would agree Fallout 4 is a better game.

New Vegas is another story altogether. The writing, world building, and character development is far better than the two Bethesda Fallout games.

Full agreement, there. If you play Fallout 4 before either of the others, you will spend the entirety of two massive games wishing for better controls, better shooting, and a better user interface. Don't do that. You'll also probably get way too burned out on the universe.

Play Fallout NV first. If you're SURE you'll play both of the other two, play Fallout 3 next, and Fallout 4 last. If you think you'll get tired of the series before you get to Fallout 4, then just play New Vegas and Fallout 4. When you do play Fallout 4, I'd also suggest skipping the main quest. It's the weakest part of the game, IMO.

New Vegas is the best of those games. By far.

I wouldn't recommend playing Fallout 4 before either of the previous games because it's so much more action/shooter oriented that it'll be hard to play Fallout 3/NV.

New Vegas is pretty amazing. I'd call it a must play for fans of WRPGs, honestly.

Fallout 3 and 4 might as well be the same game in my mind. 4 is more casualized, but both suffer from pretty bad Bethesda writing. Which is what I want from RPGs.

So, coming from someone who doesn't like Bethesda style open-world games--I can't recommend New Vegas enough. It's just that good.

New Vegas first, w/DLC. Then be impressed by FO4's better gameplay and graphics, but ignore the story for the most part...pretty weak but it doesn't matter cuz progression and world/world building. FO3 if you wanna see last imo. Also, play survival, and w/mods for FO4 through most of the dlc as well. Added fun and immersion.

Skip fo3 and just play New Vegas then fo4. Also don't touch the Dead Money dlc for New Vegas. It's real bad in a lot of ways.

Do not take this person's advice. Dead Money is a necessary part of the overarching story of New Vegas' DLCs.

Also just play New Vegas. You can go sell the other discs as scrap for all their worth.

New Vegas with all its mods and expansion packs could probably give you all you want in terms of definitive Gamebryo Fallout experience. Then try Fallout 1 and 2 if you feel adventurous and want to delve a bit into the lore or setting. Anyways New Vegas is the most complete and consistent of the bunch you mentioned. Fallout 4 is a disjointed experience in my opinion, I would play Fallout 3 for a bit first before getting into it.

I don't know if I agree with that. The reason Fallout 4 was such a disappointment to me was because it was just lacking things that Fallout 3 totally had. Something simple like a proper day/night cycle. In Fallout 3 you had to turn on your Pipboy flahslight sometimes because it would get really dark. In Fallout 4 it took me over 12 hours to even notice that nighttime was a thing. It is almost exactly as bright as daytime.

I do think if you go back now and play Fallout 3 after 4 that it's going to seem worse just because it is that much older, and feels older. You're missing the context of playing it when it was released.

As for an answer to the OP, unless you are absolutely sure you're going to play all of them, I'd just play New Vegas (with Hardcore mode turned on). It is by far the best game in that series without using mods.

New Vegas first. It has the best story, best role playing, best world building. Unfortunately, its graphics are dated and the shooting mechanics aren't quite there. You can fix this on the PC with mods, but the game's buggy already, that'll just make things worse. I'd suggest rolling both a white hat and a black hat character, to see how the game handles your choices.

Fallout 4's a better shooter than Fallout 3. But 3 somehow managed to give you more role playing options than Fallout 4 did. You could change what happened to Lamplight, the slaver's town, ant man vs robot man, Ten Penny Tower, Megaton. 3 had some good parts, but the DC proper is a slog and the subway system is a pain.

The nice thing about Fallout 4 is that it's pretty resilient to falling over from mods. I've been able to just stack em on, take em out, and update without horrible things happening. With New Vegas/Fallout 3, if I double clicked the launcher too fast, it'd crash. (Not really.) Once you're done with New Vegas, give Fallout 4 a crack. You'll get:

To see how two different developers handle the same IP

To see how the same IP is handled by two different developers

Find out how Bethesda and Bioware handle how RPGs are made

Kill them all. Then find out how developers handle the same IP.

Playing 4 first, even if to just get it out of the way is a terrible idea. There are a lot of things I don't like about Fallout 4 and wish were better but since it has the most refined shooting/controls in the series. Playing 3 or NV afterwards will make the combat feel clunkier then it already is so I definitely advise not doing that.

Between New Vegas and 3, New Vegas is the clear better game in a lot of ways but since you have never played any of them, I think 3 would be a totally valid first choice then New Vegas. 3 is a game I have liked less as time passes but it is still by no means a bad game and is a fine introductory into this part of the franchise (I'd say actually play Fallout 1 and 2 first but I understand why one would not want to) and by playing it I believe you will have an appreciation for NV even more because the improvements to just about everything will be super apparent, not to mention the writing and world building. All games have something about them that makes them worth playing (with 4 being the hardest to go at bat for in my view) in one way or another.

So I would personally say go in order from 3 to NV and then 4. Space them out though, unless you just absolutely fiend for RPG's I would say don't play them one after another. Space a few different games between them and play the next until you have beaten them all.

I'll just say this since everyone else is talking about story and such: Godspeed if you're playing the older games on PC. Fallout 3 does not like any version of Windows past Vista and apparently don't like quad-core CPUs as well. Granted that you can get it to work on modern systems with some troubleshooting, but there is the factor of just wanting the damn thing to work after spending an hour or so trying various "fixes", and I say this as someone who has done this with 3 very recently, like, yesterday, and the day before, and I've read over the years that it extends to New Vegas as well. So, despite some of the shit that people gave and continue to give Fallout 4 for various reasons, in terms of tech it just works and runs relatively well give or take the ever-present Bethesda Jank™. I'm not saying you should either put off or ignore the older games because of technical issues. I'm just giving a heads up.

...But if we're talkin' console versions, then just ignore me.

The writing, quests, wordl building and all the story stuff in New Vegas is amazing. For me it`s on a whole other level than 3 and 4. It`s pretty janky though and the shooting and movement isn`t great. The basic gameplay in 4 is a lot better (even though they fucked up some stuff like the dialogue system), but I also think it`s the weakest from a story and quest perspective. Might want to save 4 til last just because playing that first will make 3 and NV seem even clunkier.

@spaceinsomniac said:

Thank you all for your suggestions. Based on most opinions, I think it might me best to play all 3 in order of release, so that I don't get frustrated with more dated gameplay in Fo3 and NV. I really want to experience the universe, so I'll try my best to get the most out of each game. I thank you all tremendously for your help and suggestions!

I'd say play the one that interests you the most 'cause as much as want to now and as much as you say you will, you're not going to play these games back to back to back. I mean you don't even know you like the series at this point.

Bethesda and Obsidian, I think you mean.

@jrodrz: Have fun. Fallout 3 is a really great game if you experience it for the first time. Remember that it was released in a time where shooter and RPG weren't mixed genre's at all: thus it is an RPG, not a shooter. Don't expect to be able to shoot things consistently, it's based on dice rolls. Use V.A.T.S. when you can.

@frytup: Yeah, Bethesda and Obsidian. Thanks :) I kept thinking Black Isle, then my mind drifted to Baldur's Gate, which then drifted to Bioware!

LOL WUT?