Do I lose my gamer license if I skip the first 2 fallout games?

Sit tight sir. The gamer police are heading to your house

Just give them a go. Play with a guide if you need to. You should at least be able to say you finished them. I didn't care for them at least but eventually something clicked and now I love them.

the entire Fallout franchise is overrated tbqh. They're worth playing though if you want a better appreciation of games made after 2000

>>389116087
You only lose it if you think FO3/4 was the best

One thing I love about older Fallout is how far apart everything is from each other. In the modern games everything is crunched together into just a few square miles. I wish long distance traveling was still a thing.

>>389116087
Nope. 3 is the best anyway.

>>389116087
First one's the only worthwhile one, anyways.

If you just want to play an FPS then don't play the first two, that simple.

>>389116351
>>389116453
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT

NV > 2 = 4 > 3 = 1
I am the only person with this opinion

>>389116550
>2 = 4
Yeah, you probably are, regardless of where all the other titles are.

>>389116550
Are you sure you're not just saying this to be different?

File: fo4.png (59KB, 269x123px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 269x123px

>>389116658
pretty sure

>>389116625
I just think they can be good in different ways. As an RPG, FO4 is shit but I had fun with it as an open-ended FPS.

File: for.jpg (124KB, 380x1434px) Image search: [Google]

124KB, 380x1434px

>>389116453
Yep.

>>389116087
No. They're so far removed from the gameplay and story of the later games that they're best taken as two chapters in a history book. Yes, even New Vegas. The story therein only tangentially references events of Fallout 2, and you can get all of the important information from the synopsis on the Fallout wikia. You don't really need to know how the NCR was formed or its earlier history to play NV, it doesn't add anything to know it firsthand.

>>389116918
What about from a solely gameplay perspective and not giving a shit about the continuity?

>>389117169
They play entirely differently they might as well be 2 different series.

The old games are isometric light rpgs and the new ones are first/third person action rpgs.

File: 567563454356373.png (198KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 500x500px

Why do you want to skip the actual good ones to play the garbage ones?

>>389116434
Imagine a 3D interpenetration of that. Every "area" would be comparable in size to Point Lookout's map. Every "town" would be about that big in map space. Even if the actual town itself is only the size of Big Town. And you can only leave the area at a kind of central "hub" point, like the very actual entrance of the physical town, or if you're leaving the actual area. No gates; You walk to the edge of the map and it offers you the choice to travel somewhere else, or turn back. Then random encounters could be like they were in the old games. Little map areas with events inside them. One-and-done. Leave and you leave. Would this be tedious to a modern gamer?

>>389117326
They're old and hard

>>389116434
The amount of walking through nothing is already bad enough in NV and you want even more of it?

>>389117169
They're not particularly good games, even if you like that sort of game. They're passable as cRPGs, but not top-tier stuff. But, yeah, if you like that sort of game then there's no reason not to.

All I'm saying is they are incredibly different from the later games; They are incredibly different from modern games.

Really, this question is metaphysical. Say I really like one of those Nintendo tennis games from the Wii? What if I hate pong? Are they comparable? On what level are they? But if they're both good games on their own, wouldn't it would be a pointless endeavor to compare them? Clearly one takes from the other, one some level.

>>389116087
What the hell are you skipping too? Those ARE the Fallout games.
If you just want to play New Vegas, the reason it's beloved certainly isn't for gameplay. It's because of the not-horrible RPG elements. So with that in mind, you might as well play 1 and 2.

>Fallout
Good game but gameplaywise a bit weird. There is no natural evolution in item upgrades. You get to play with the same low level weapon and armor until you get to Boneyard/Brotherhood area which is the beginning of the late stage. You get to upgrade from your .223 pistol to your choice of combat shotgun or turbo plasma gun, and metal armor to power armor. No mid-level upgrading at all.

Fallout 2 does this better and is also longer with much more content.

Fallout 3 is terrible and I remember being very low on ammo for a good duration of the game.

NV gives you gives you good guns at the beginning of the game and you're all set for the adventure. You can basically play most of the game with the weathered 10mm pistol and do just fine.

Haven't played 4 but I reckon it's shit.

Please subscribe and pay money through patreon.

1 is great
2 is absolute trash

File: 1500425739020.jpg (264KB, 1086x1006px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 1086x1006px

/v/ hasn't played a Fallout game that isn't NV or 3, you're better off asking the bros at /vr/.

>>389118239
Who unironically makes these images

>>389118386
I LITERALLY cannot even!

>>389117330
My idea is that you switch to travel mode at any point using the Pip-Boy, it's like fast travel but takes a lot more time and doesn't happen all at once. You'll probably stare at a map more often than you do now.

You can stop and drop down to a procedural "real space" on the way to make camp or gather supplies, or sometimes a random event happens.

I think it'll be nice to be able to sit around a campfire in the middle of nowhere and talk with companions as the radio plays in the background.

>>389117471
It'll be less actual walking if you use the map interface like the original games.

>>389116550
You also suffer from deep retardation

>>389118620
>I think it'll be nice to be able to sit around a campfire in the middle of nowhere and talk with companions as the radio plays in the background.
That would get real fucking old after about two trips. And you're suggesting the player would be forced to do these interactions whenever going to another city. I really hope you niggers would think a bit further when you're thinking of this shit.

Also it would be fucking tedious to use some retarded semi fast travel. It'd be a fucking tedious chore to travel.

>>389118832
I know dad, you don't have to keep telling me

>>389118946
That's why I never take you to office picnics

>>389119004
You don't take me to office picnics because you're too busy drinking. Mom's gone, dad. She's not coming back.

>>389118857
I'm not suggesting forcing anything, they're optional if you want a bit of downtime outside of an inn. Random encounters being tedious is fair, so let's say you add "fast travel" anyways if you really just want to go somewhere.

What doesn't work for me is how everything is both so close it feels like a theme park, but still far enough that not using fast travel at all is tedious. It's like the worst of both worlds.

>>389116550
Thank goodness, let's hope it stays that way before it spreads.

>>389116841
>ever trusting professional game reviewers
>Polygon Doom 4 video
>VentureBeat Cuphead video
>Imagine Party Babyz 9/10
>reviewers say that bugs in Bethesda games are part of the charm and that they add to the experience, but take points away for bugs in New Vegas
>etc.
Lol.

>>389118239
Is this image the epitome of Fallout 3 apologist autism?
>I AM SILLY!