As someone who's never played fallout before, which one

Fallout 3 -> Fallout: NV -> Fallout 4

Four really isn't that bad, don't listen to haters.

New Vegas, then mod tale of two wastelands for a second run through

>>386244147
if you dont want to start with a disappointment: New Vegas

>>386244752
4 is fuckin garbage, shut the fuck up Todd

NV, 1 and 2 are good roleplaying experiences but kinda bad games, 3 is like NV but with less roleplaying, and 4 is a waste of time.

1, 2, Tactics (optional), 3 (optional), New Vegas, 4 (optional).

>>386244147
1->2->NV->3->4

>>386245272
Not the person you replied to, but I really did not hate Fallout 4 as much as I expected. It's certainly not that great, but I expected to be so disgusted with it that I'd put it down within an hour. I'm about 20 hours in now and still getting some entertainment out of it. I think it's a little far to say it's garbage.

>>386244147
Start with NV, then play 1 and 2.

Tactics after you play 1 or 2.

3 and 4 after you play all the others, for closure.

>>386245439
you crack smoking negroid I hope you kill yourself

>>386245439
>Start with NV, then play 1 and 2.
That's a really dumb order. NV references those games quite a lot.

File: Fallout.png (2MB, 860x1219px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 860x1219px

Wasteland
Fallout
Fallout 2
Fallout Tactics
Fallout New Vegas

The rest are not worth your time.

>>386244147
Your image answers your question.

>>386245272
4 is bad because of the blandness and repetitiveness not some major game breaking issue. It might be fine for someone new to the series

File: 1501810577440.jpg (57KB, 500x386px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 500x386px

>>386245590
Yeah and Arena is the best Elder Scrolls game

>>386245415
Well it's actually the total opposite for me. I didn't have big hopes with the game to begin with but I told myself "meh at worst it'll be Skyrim with guns".
And then I launched the game, and now I think I know what it feels to be gang raped by 15 niggas. Everything is just terrible.
The gameplay, the gunplay, the hitboxes, the VA, the dialogues, the story, the roleplay... They're all shit

>>386245739
>blandness and repetativeness

Nigger I've played the game and it's a low point of the franchise but You're just tossing out buzzwords, I bet you haven't played it

Start with 4 so your expectations are lowered for the rest

File: 1494884273318.jpg (22KB, 510x364px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 510x364px

>>386244752

>Fallout 3 better than New Vegas

fuck off you massive faggot

>>386245863
Playing them in order from worst to best makes it so references between games you wouldn't get would be minimal too

4-3-1-2-NV

>>386245967
>Fallout 1 worse than New Vegas
u's an eedjit

File: 1469565047869.gif (384KB, 600x453px) Image search: [Google]

384KB, 600x453px

>>386245493
ok

>>386245576
Who cares? It's played through the eyes of the courier. He doesn't know shit about Marcus.

OP obviously is some reddit tier 6 year old. If he starts with 1 or 2, he's gonna get fucking bored and quit the franchise. At least with NV, it has a certain level of modernity that'll keep him playing and give him a bigger appreciation for the originals.

>muh marcus

again who gives a shit

>>386244752
>Fallout 3 better than NV
>saying Fallout 4 isn't bad

That's two reasons not to listen to this fool.

>>386244147
Depends on whether you want to start with the original format or the modern format. Also depends if you think you're able to get past outdated game mechanics, frustratingly slow pace, and "random" dice rolls determining everything you do.

I tried playing Fallouts 1 and 2, and really could not get into them. I respect them for their originality and openness, but I think they're the kind of games that are hard to really have fun with and appreciate if you did not play them when they first came out. Similar to games like Ocarina of Time and the first Resident Evil.

Fallout 3 had a pretty uninteresting story with tons of glaring plotholes, and the ugly green filter really grates on you after awhile, but there are lots of options for things to do. Being a slaver was one of my favorite things in any Fallout I've played.

New Vegas was a massive improvement over 3, but suffers from a fairly limited map. I also had issues with how established society was in this area, because it sort of killed the fun of exploration. It also made little sense that an area with so many people has so many places loaded to the brim with stuff to scavenge and loot. Prospecting is a pretty common job, so you'd think most areas that weren't incredibly dangerous would be picked over by this point.

Fallout 4 is made for casuals. It gives a very streamlined approach to the first-person fallout games, and adds in shit like crafting and settlement building to appeal to the minecraft kiddies. The plot is the most uninteresting by far, and you will find yourself having a hard time caring at all about your family and what happened to them. This would be okay, as Fallout always gives the option to just skip the main story, but it's a bit obnoxious that almost every NPC in major towns and cities have a "WHERE'S MY SON HAVE YOU SEEN MY SON?" dialogue option. Voiced protagonist is laughably bad, too.

I didn't "hate" 4 but it's the only Fallout game (I've played all of them) where I did NOT start a new character and replay it after finishing. I just can't find the motivation to do it and I don't give a fuck what the other factions quest lines are.

I started with 3.
Played NV after, then 4.
Went back to 1 then 2 after.

If you're not used to old CRPG games I'd recommend 3 then NV first.
Once you have a decent grasp on how the series works going back to play 1 and 2 is amazing.

You can either play or skip 4 really.
It offers nothing to the lore worth a damn and is only ok gameplay-wise. Not even an RPG

>>386244147

my first was the best one, new vegas. Why wasting time with trash if you can play the best one ad infinitum

>>386245850
>gameplay

Yeah it's not great, but it's alright for killing a few hours before bed. Doing a quick scavenging run in order to get shit to improve my fort is pretty relaxing. It's definitely made for casuals though, so maybe I'm just becoming one.

>gunplay
I actually find this to be the best so far. Enemies actually take cover and try to dodge attacks, and will try to flank you and shit. I'm playing on "survival" difficulty, so every shootout is extremely intense.

>hitboxes
The worst. I don't know how developers could fuck up that bad.

>VA
Agreed, it's clunky and forced. Sounds like they didn't really tell their voice actors any context, and just said "here read these lines into a microphone." Embarrassingly bad.

>dialogues
Yeah of course. 4 reply options where two of them are "No" is bad idea.

>story, roleplay
practically absent, I agree.

It's not great, but as I said it wasn't as bad as I thought. It pretty much is Skyrim with guns, which is stupid but is worth probably a maximum of 40-50 hours of gameplay. Considering I got it as a gift, I'm fine with that. I'm pretty disillusioned by the video game industry these days, so I'll take what I can get.

>>386246585
Enemy having less potato AI was definitely a good improvement.

Hopefully the next game keeps the good shooting and is actually an RPG this time around.

>>386245967
>NV better than 1 and 2
Get this underage out of my face.

>>386246237
Did what this guy did and feel the exact same. But I would disagree that 2 is amazing, because to me it didn't have the same grasp as 1 did.

>>386244147 (OP)
I would rank them 1 > NV > 2 = 4 > 3, but recommend to just play them in order. They're all fun/good in their own rights and deserve their own time to be played.

Start with 2 or New Vegas, depending on your genre

>>386246096
I never even mentioned Marcus.

>>386245576

I played NV first and got the references in the reverse order

"oh so this is what was being referenced in NV" etc
It's still nice.