Where to get into fallout series?

[Quizatzhaderac]

The existence of the TV series has me think about the games, which always seemed neat.

Where would people recommend I start the series? Is there a benefit in playing from earlier games? Should I just start with the latest?

[Rynjin]

While many (including myself) would argue that New Vegas is the BEST game in the series, the best one to START with might still be Fallout 4. It really depends on your tolerance for 2010 jank.

New Vegas is a follow-on from Fallouts 1 and 2 (which were CRPGs, not shooters) but it is not necessary to have played them to enjoy it. It has a good plot, great characters and focus on player choice, and serviceable gameplay.

Fallout 4 is the newest game, and has an awful plot, okay characters, abysmal player choice, and quite good gameplay. Pick your poison.

[Trafalgar]

***gurps***

[veti]

I started with Fallout 3, which is like New Vegas except worse in every possible way. NV was definitely the high spot of the series for me. But for me, FO3 was still better than 4.

Fallout 4 has (by modern standards) decent graphics, sound and gameplay, but most everything else about it sucks. Plot, characters, levelling system, openness - there is no start to its strengths.

FO1/2 are a completely different kind of game - very old-school, top-down view, largely text-driven. If that appeals to you then fine, but the style does look very dated now.

[warty goblin]

I think the correct answer is "play Wasteland 2/3 instead." Fallout 1/2 have, at least to me, fallen past the Interface Event Horizon, the point at which old games are substantially unpleasant to interact with sans pre-existing nostalgia and familiarity. Fallout 3 is... well I haven't played it in years, but the shooter bits weren't good at the time, and are going to have aged like tuna salad in the sun on a hot July day. Never bothered with New Vegas, because I really do not want to deal with Fallout 3 era gameplay again, like, at all. And Bethesda, in their infinite Bethesda-ness, just kinda broke Fallout 4 so as to quickly onboard people crossing over from the show into what Bethesda games are actually like. Broken, Bethesda games are broken.

Wasteland 2 and 3 by contrast retain the turn based combat of the OG Fallouts, but with a modern and tolerable interface. Also the entire games are squad based, and turn based gun combat works much better IMO with a fireteam sized unit instead of one or two dudes. Since Fallout was originally a spiritual successor to the original Wasteland (now waaay below the Interface Event Horizon) it's basically just tapping directly into the original Fallout wellspring. There's less overt fifties-ness, but that's always struck me as one of the less engaging bits of Fallout; the fifties sucked actually, I know. This isn't exciting social commentary anymore.

[Errorname]

Normally I'd say start with the first games, but they're very old and not the most intuitive and I can't say I started with them either. Still, worth trying if you feel up to it

The 3d ones are all pretty self-contained, you could go in basically any order. New Vegas is generally considered the best one, which I agree with, but I'll go to bat for Fallout 4 as a pretty competent open-world action game if you can ignore the dodgy writing (Far Harbour in particular is excellent, some of the only worthwhile DLC in the franchise). That said Fallout 3 has aged terribly and was never great to begin with, it isn't worth playing unless you're a completionist.

I'd say New Vegas, personally, but it's your call.

[Cespenar]

Eh, I'd argue against Wastelands 2-3, unless you go into it knowing that you'll get 95% combats and 5% story/everything else, and you prefer it that way.

[warty goblin]

Eh, I'd argue against Wastelands 2-3, unless you go into it knowing that you'll get 95% combats and 5% story/everything else, and you prefer it that way.

This is true, but also not terribly different from Fallout 3 and what I understand of Fallout 4. Most RPGs are mostly combat. I think the operative difference is W2/3 are much less annoying to play because they're entirely decent turn based tactics things instead of the awkward kludge that is the RPG/shooter hybrid, where the player skill based interaction mode collides with the number comparison RPG combat core.

Or at least that's my take. I've never been wild about RPG shooter hybrids, and if anything my opinion of the form has decreased with time. Shooting is just more fun when I'm shooting and the spreadsheet component isn't.

[Mechalich]

Fallout 3 is where the 'modern' iteration of the franchise under Bethesda starts. It established the structure of the games as FPS-RPG hybrids in 3D open-world environments. Fallout: New Vegas operates basically as FO3 with a few minor gameplay and graphical modifications (most notably the color palate due to the shift in environment) and a significantly more vibrant and lived in world with better side quests and NPC interactions. Fallout 4 is similar to FO3 but includes significant upgrades to the FPS elements, a rebuild of the RPG elements, a much larger open world, and a 'settlement management' system that allows for limited base-building. However, the story is generally considered to be inferior to both prior games and certain design choices regarding things like leveling and items make the game feel very sloggy at times and the settlement system is broadly irrelevant to gameplay unless significantly modded. The most recent game in the series Fallout 76, is a massive open-world quasi-survival game that, though it had some gaping holes at launch has been drastically improved over time (and yes, can be played single player), but has a distinct bias to the shooter elements and requires careful research by the player to insure they produce a character with a viable build. However, while it has arguably the worst gameplay and an extremely passive story, has perhaps the best vision of the apocalypse of any of the games.

It should be noted that FO3, FO:NV, and FO4 are all highly moddable games, and playing FO3 and FO:NV especially without at least some mods enabled - just basic quality of life ones to upgrade the UI and such at least - is going to be a painful experience. However, successfully setting up mods for these games is not exactly a simple or swift enterprise.

In terms of where to start, it depends on your interest, patience, and how much you're willing to invest. FO76, for all its problems (though it's much, much better than it was at launch) is the easiest game to just boot up and go and to give you a taste of interest in the general vibe of Fallout in terms of both gameplay and setting. There are also, due to the TV series, various promotions to get your hands on it for free right now. Jump in, bounce around a bit, shoot some things, do some basic quests, and that will provide a feel of whether the games are worth playing, since any deep entry into any of the others will involve dozens of hours of roughly the same gameplay. Otherwise, I'd recommend starting with FO4, which has a pretty good opening act and can be played acceptably well without delving into the mod space.

[Errorname]

However, [Fallout 4's] story is generally considered to be inferior to both prior games

New Vegas having a better story is inarguable, but I genuinely struggle to imagine a lens where Fallout 4 has a worse narrative than Fallout 3, because Fallout 3 has some of the worst storytelling I've ever seen in a video game.

[Batcathat]

Personally, I think New Vegas is the best game in the series, followed fairly closely by Fallout 2 and 1 in that order (I haven't played 4 or 76, but from what I've heard they'd be unlikely to break into my top three). Fallout 3 is... alright, I guess, though the fact that I've only played through it once compared to the many, many times I've played 1, 2 and New Vegas might speak for itself.

I do think Fallout Tactics, while flawed, is somewhat underrated, though it would probably be a weird way to get into the series, considering how different it is from the others.

[Rynjin]

New Vegas having a better story is inarguable, but I genuinely struggle to imagine a lens where Fallout 4 has a worse narrative than Fallout 3, because Fallout 3 has some of the worst storytelling I've ever seen in a video game.

Fallout 3 at least has the KISS principle behind it. The writing's not great, but it's simple and easy to ignore the plot.

4's plot is trash too, and makes the worse sin of forcing you to engage with it CONSTANTLY so how bad it is is shoved in your face.

[GloatingSwine]

Fallout 3 at least has the KISS principle behind it. The writing's not great, but it's simple and easy to ignore the plot.

4's plot is trash too, and makes the worse sin of forcing you to engage with it CONSTANTLY so how bad it is is shoved in your face.

It's easy to ignore the plot of Fallout 4, all you have to do is aggressively ignore the word Shaun.

Hell if you use an alternate start mod (which also puts traits back in) you can just never start it, act as if you're just humouring Codsworth, and just play Post Nuclear Loot Goblin the way the game was clearly designed for.

[Rynjin]

It's easy to ignore the plot of Fallout 4, all you have to do is aggressively ignore the word Shaun.

Sure, right up until you hit the (several) points where you try to do stuff that seems like sidequests but don't become available until after a certain main quest. Like everything involving Nick Valentine (and by extension the entire Far Harbor DLC) for example.

Hell if you use an alternate start mod (which also puts traits back in) you can just never start it, act as if you're just humouring Codsworth, and just play Post Nuclear Loot Goblin the way the game was clearly designed for.

This is not an argument for the game's story structure being good, as presumably the OP will not be using an alternate start mod on his first playthrough. The ONLY mods I recommend for first playthroughs of these games are the unofficial patches.

[Gnoman]

Fallout 1/2 have, at least to me, fallen past the Interface Event Horizon, the point at which old games are substantially unpleasant to interact with sans pre-existing nostalgia and familiarity.

I'm going to disagree with this take. The OG Fallout interface is somewhat clunky, but there's also a lot of extra flexibility that the newer games have discarded for the streamlined Bethedsa-style interface. Some of the features added in New Vegas (most notably the ability to have guns use different kinds of ammunition) were present in the original games but removed for simplicity.

Like many older games, their limitations are also a stealth asset. Very little of the game is voice-acted, but that also means there's a lot more incidental dialogue and such. The graphics can't show as much, but they make up for that by putting in a ton of flavor text you can get by examining things.

It is also worth noting that the game cited repeatedly in this thread as a standout (New Vegas) is much closer to 1 and 2 in terms of writing, primarily because the studio that made it (Obsidian Entertainment) was made up of former members of Black Isle Studios (who produced the original 2 games).

[Batcathat]

It is also worth noting that the game cited repeatedly in this thread as a standout (New Vegas) is much closer to 1 and 2 in terms of writing, primarily because the studio that made it (Obsidian Entertainment) was made up of former members of Black Isle Studios (who produced the original 2 games).

Yeah, I've always felt that New Vegas pretty much took what was good about the early games and combined it with what was good about Fallout 3, creating a sort of best of both worlds situation.

[Mechalich]

It's easy to ignore the plot of Fallout 4, all you have to do is aggressively ignore the word Shaun.

Hell if you use an alternate start mod (which also puts traits back in) you can just never start it, act as if you're just humouring Codsworth, and just play Post Nuclear Loot Goblin the way the game was clearly designed for.

Unfortunately, FO4's post nuclear loot goblin experience leaves much to be desired. Because of the way both the loot generation and leveling system works, the game encourages the player to grind the same level-appropriate locations over and over again (in the late game it's like two spots, both of which feature the Gunners as opponents). FO3, by contrast, turning the PC into a post-nuclear librarian and sends you scouring every location on the map in search of oh-so-precious skill books. It also, generally, has superior sidequests and location-based adventures, though FO:NV is superior to both.

This is not an argument for the game's story structure being good, as presumably the OP will not be using an alternate start mod on his first playthrough. The ONLY mods I recommend for first playthroughs of these games are the unofficial patches.

There are some useful quality-of-life upgrades I'd strongly recommend. For example, there's a simple mod that backports the FO4 looting interface into FO3 and FO:NV and that's just a huge time saver in general. There's also some general graphics enhancing mods that are probably a good idea. FO3 in particular benefits here, since the game can be made significantly more pleasant by being less overwhelmingly green/gray.

[GloatingSwine]

Unfortunately, FO4's post nuclear loot goblin experience leaves much to be desired. Because of the way both the loot generation and leveling system works, the game encourages the player to grind the same level-appropriate locations over and over again (in the late game it's like two spots, both of which feature the Gunners as opponents)

You mostly only need one copy of each piece of equipment though, Post Nuclear Loot Goblin 4 is mostly about feeding your insatiable need for adhesive and screws.

[Errorname]

Fallout 3 at least has the KISS principle behind it. The writing's not great, but it's simple and easy to ignore the plot.

It is no harder to ignore the plot of Fallout 4, and more importantly the plot stuff in Fallout 4 is better. Not good, but better than Fallout 3.

Plus Far Harbour is easily the best Fallout content Bethesda have ever made. Base game doesn't get credit for that and frankly it makes me mad that Bethesda weren't able to consistently deliver that level of quality, but it counts for something.

[GloatingSwine]

It is no harder to ignore the plot of Fallout 4, and more importantly the plot stuff in Fallout 4 is better. Not good, but better than Fallout 3.

TBH I think they're both exactly as dumb as each other in different ways.

Spoiler: Fallout 4

Show

I stand by the assertion that until relatively late in development the player would be revealed to be a "Nexus 6" style synth with false pre-war memories in Fallout 4 and they changed it when the internet guessed it 0.2 seconds after they mentioned synths would be in the game, which is why the supposed timeline of the player's memories make no damn sense.

[Errorname]

TBH I think they're both exactly as dumb as each other in different ways.

I understand what everyone in Fallout 4 is fighting about and what the stakes are, which is more than I can say for Fallout 3.

[Beelzebub1111]

Fallout 3 and 4 completely misunderstand what fallout 1 and 2 were about and make no sense in the greater context. Like, the story of 1 and 2 was about coming out of the ashes of the apocolypse and used the retrofuturism as a backdrop for the rebuilding society.

Then fallout three comes along and it's obsessed with living in that retrofuture past. It still has people living in the trash sleeping literally next to skeletons inside crumbling buildings, when in fallout 2 people were actually cleaning up the mess and building new homes.

Also why are they just happening to use caps on a completely separate part of the country when in Fallout 2 the government started minting their own backed currency? A side quest in fallout 2 involved finding something like a milion caps that are now completely worthless, showing that society has moved on and advanced from its barter system.

Bethesda just wants Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave and Super Mutants because that is what fallout is to them, without thinking of them as consequences of the actions of people who were specifically formed on the west coast. The Bethesda fallouts treat all those things as aestetics of what fallout "is" rather than aspects of a story.

[GloatingSwine]

I understand what everyone in Fallout 4 is fighting about and what the stakes are, which is more than I can say for Fallout 3.

Spoiler

Show

In Fallout 3 everyone is fighting over a limited necessary resource (clean water), it just doesn't do a lot with the worldbuilding to establish the scarcity of that resource. There's like one guy per city that seems to have a problem you can fix by giving them water.

In Fallout 4 everyone is just doing their own thing they just happen to be in the same place doing it. And they don't do a lot with the worldbuilding to establish why the Institute want to bother taking over the like ten guys who aren't mad or mutants or both in all of Boston. (They could have just turned up with an army of robits and said "We have shot all of the raiders and supermutants, you're welcome. Tax collectors will be along shortly." That, after all, is largely what the player does on behalf of the Minutemen except they have to do it all themself.)

[LibraryOgre]

I understand what everyone in Fallout 4 is fighting about and what the stakes are, which is more than I can say for Fallout 3.

I get Fallout 3; readily accessible clean water is established as a thing people need, even if the game doesn't bear it out too well (I mean, you wind up with a Robot that makes clean water for you, for free). Project Purity was a semi-independent attempt to create a large amount of pure water. The Enclave wants to control the water purifying Maguffin, and kill all mutants. The local BoS is having a civil cold war, because the leadership decided to be heroes instead of fanatics. You, the player, didn't know any of this, and just want your dad back. He spends a good portion of the game lost, and you have to go find him.

Fallout 4... the factions are all shooting themselves in the foot. The Institute wants to be free to continue their work, but they do this by making everyone paranoid about them and their motives. The Railroad wants to free synths, but they do this by killing the synth's personality and installing a new one. The Brotherhood of Steel wants to capture technology, which they're doing ok at; I just get annoyed because they treat my character like a fresh recruit, instead of having any awareness of me as the general of the Minutemen... there's no way to approach them on that basis. The Minutemen are saying "Hey, what if we tried trading and helping each other?"

[Mechalich]

You mostly only need one copy of each piece of equipment though, Post Nuclear Loot Goblin 4 is mostly about feeding your insatiable need for adhesive and screws.

The Fallout games are notable for their location-based storytelling. All the terminals, object placements, holotapes, and other artifacts that tell the stories of how things unfolding immediately before, during, and immediately after the apocalypse in all of the many, many locations on the game map. Unfortunately, the core gameplay mechanisms of the various games isn't all that good at giving the player a reason to visit all these places. FO:NV is the best because it manages to tie story to as many as possible through its numerous integrated factions. FO3 does it by scattering skill books - which you need if you want to succeed in the unlisted quest to become the ultimate bad*** that most RPG players naturally subscribe too - all over the map, encouraging the player to search everywhere. FO76 does this in the worst way by sending the player on a seemingly endless series of radiant quests to retrieve this or that thing that various dead people tell you must be acquired to unlock the next step in the extremely Rube Golderbergian anti-scorched crusade you undertake. FO4, unfortunately, just kind of...doesn't bother. The gameplay encourages the play to raid whatever location has the strongest enemies they can take on over and over again, which is extremely repetitive. Murdering your way through Gunner's HQ becomes extremely bland after the sixth time.

[LibraryOgre]

FO4, unfortunately, just kind of...doesn't bother. The gameplay encourages the play to raid whatever location has the strongest enemies they can take on over and over again, which is extremely repetitive. Murdering your way through Gunner's HQ becomes extremely bland after the sixth time.

I never really encountered that. Maybe it's a different style of play, but while I've been sent to the same location from radiant quests (how many times have I done the Dunwich Borers radiant?), I've never really had an urge to repeatedly raid the same place on my own.

[Mechalich]

I never really encountered that. Maybe it's a different style of play, but while I've been sent to the same location from radiant quests (how many times have I done the Dunwich Borers radiant?), I've never really had an urge to repeatedly raid the same place on my own.

It's mostly a late game thing, admittedly. Once you hit a level ~75 or so, quest XP just kind of stops making any difference. At that point only the XP from high-level enemies moves the needle anymore, and since level-equivalent enemies are only found in a small number of high-level areas, it encourages repeatedly hitting those areas. FO76 has a similar problem, where the most efficient way to spend your time is murdering your way through the ghouls at the Whitespring over and over and over.

[Cikomyr2]

Jon from MATN made a very informative video that highlights the pros and cons

https://youtu.be/OQNQELRjQaY?si=DzL-Ls8D0fXACy34

[LibraryOgre]

It's mostly a late game thing, admittedly. Once you hit a level ~75 or so, quest XP just kind of stops making any difference. At that point only the XP from high-level enemies moves the needle anymore, and since level-equivalent enemies are only found in a small number of high-level areas, it encourages repeatedly hitting those areas. FO76 has a similar problem, where the most efficient way to spend your time is murdering your way through the ghouls at the Whitespring over and over and over.

That would explain it; I just never get that high a level. By that time, I've built everywhere to where I want it to be, and the pursuit of more loot and levels isn't appealing.

[Triaxx]

I should probably turn in my nerd card for this blasphemy... but I don't enjoy Fallout 1. And it's not even that there's anything wrong with the game, it's just that I was very bad at it. Fallout 2's my preferred entry into the series, if you like the older top down style ones. I did really enjoy Tactics, but it's fairly not canon friendly and if you don't play it, you don't lose much.

Of the newest games, NV's probably my favorite of them and while it has callbacks, it stands on it's own perfectly fine. It's well written, actions feel like they have consequences. It's the best balance of character skills and player skills.

Fallout 3's almost a modern retelling of Fallout 1 and it thus makes a fairly good introduction to the series, but unfortunately the setting causes the narrative to fall flat on it's face.

Fallout 4... has the weakest story. Technically the gunplay's a little better, but that comes at the cost of character customization. Still it's fun to romp around in a power fantasy.