Should I play the previous Fallouts before playing Fallout 4?

The Game Room
1

I played the original Fallout around 1999-2000, I think. I enjoyed it, but never played another one. I wasn’t much of a video/computer gamer in the ensuing years, so I never had a console system or a PC capable of playing the latest and greatest games. (Once in a while I’d play through a game that had been a big hit, like Half-Life 2, but only years after it had come out, as it would only be then that I’d have a PC capable of playing it.)

Then in 2015 I bought a PS4, and since then, have enjoyed periodically playing through one of the latest and greatest “AAA” games (Uncharted 4, Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, Watch Dogs and Watch Dogs 2, Rise of the Tomb Raider.) I decided I’d like to play Fallout 4, but I got it in my head that I’d play through all the previous Fallouts first, starting over with Fallout 1.

Now, I know I don’t need to do this to enjoy Fallout 4. I googled the question in my thread title and found numerous online discussions where people were saying “no, the stories of the games aren’t directly connected, at worst you might miss a few Easter eggs if you haven’t played the earlier ones.” But I still decided I wanted to do it anyway, just to have the complete experience.

So I purchased Fallout 1 from GOG.com, but it’s a slog so far; plus, as I understand it, both Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas are massive open-world games in their own right, meaning each one would probably keep me occupied for about 2 months. And I’m not a college kid anymore, with a month-long Christmas break to sit around playing video games. I have a busy professional job. So I’m considering giving up and just playing Fallout 4. (Plus–and PLEASE do not use this as a springboard for yet another console vs. PC debate; as I said, I have a busy job and am not going to spend time messing with my setup at home–I much prefer gaming while sitting on my couch with my feet up, and playing all the older Fallout games on my PC is going to entail sitting at my desk.)

Is there any really strong reason not to just go ahead and play Fallout 4? I don’t usually like the feeling that I may have missed something, but I’m thinking that in this case it’s just not worth it.

2

They are all great in their own way, so on that I would say play them all. However, you don’t really need to play them in any order.

I should mention I haven’t played 4 yet. But I have played the first 3.

3

FO4 stands on its own just fine. There’s a few “Easter egg” type things where you might meet someone connected to a previous Fallout but aside from a “Ah ha… heh” moment, it’s not important. If you played the first game, you’re largely familiar with the milieu – retro-futuristic stuff, the Vaults, Supermutants, etc – which is enough to get you going.

Fallout 4 is more streamlined than the previous games both in character mechanics (SPECIAL & perks) and in plot/choices.

4

Honestly I feel FO:New Vegas ( with DLCs in particular ) is the better game overall. If I was going to play just one, I might stick with that one, even though FO4 has its attractions. But yes, it is both big and long and is not needed for FO4. And FO4 is a perfectly entertaining game in a general sense.

5

You should probably play Fallout 4 first because to do them in any other order would actually be a disappointment. If you aren’t used to the actual roleplaying and user choice available in the previous fallout games, you won’t miss it in 4. Fallout 4 is basically retro-futuristic Borderlands. Play it first and then play New Vegas if you want a real RPG.

6

1 and 2 have greater role playing elements that the subsequent games, but they aren’t really first class rpgs. 1 and 2 are nearly 20 years old and show it. At this point, their main importance is for lore. Of the remaining games, play them in any order you wish. The connections between the games amount to little more than shout-outs, anyway.

7

I have 930 hours, spread across five characters, in FO4. Two of those characters have finished the game; I’ve yet to complete any of the other games more than once even though I have multiple characters in both 3 & NV. Less than 200 hours in NV and no idea about 3, didn’t start playing that on Steam.

8

The Fallout predecessor with the most relevance to FO4 is FO3, the first written by Bethesda and the first set on the East Coast (in the Capital Wastelands, formerly known as Washington, DC). There are no direct story ties, but much of the backstory of FO4 was initially set forth in FO3. E.g.: The Brotherhood of Steel in FO4 is the Capital chapter, relocated North to deal with the Institute. Which itself was introduced in a FO3 quest chain.

FO4 is, in many ways, a spiritual sequel to FO3. If you want more FO4 backstory flavor, this is the one I’d play.

Of course, it was written by Bethesda, which limits it in many ways. The well-written Fallout games were all written by Black Isle or its successor Obsidian, and have largely been set in the West (California, Nevada, Utah, etc.).

9

Actually, my time in NV is probably more than that. All my playing time in Steam prior to migrating hard drives got reset.

10

Yes, New Vegas is better than 4.

4 is a direct sequel to 3 in the East coast, NV is a sequel to 1 and 2 on the west coast. Playing the older ones gives you some important but not crucial background. For example, the NCR of New Vegas is nascent in 2, while it’s predecessor is around in 1. You don’t need the information as the games give lots of backstory, it’s just not told to you directly so some references may be intentionally implicit.

I recommend 2 at some point but 1 is kind of a slog, yes.

11

I’ve played every version. No previous versions are needed to play 4 but I loved them all and recommend them.

Also Wasteland if you can find it; it’s the spiritual predecessor to Fallout though not really in the same universe.

I definitely think New Vegas had the best atmosphere of all the games but each version has technical advantages over the previous ones (better graphics, UI, etc.) so the 4th one may be objectively superior, but NV might be my subjective favorite.

ETA: Apparently they re-released Wasteland for modern OSes, and they made a Wasteland 2 a couple years ago and are working on a third. I need to track these down, I played the original off a floppy on DOS in the 90s.

12

The previous games are way superior to FO4 in many ways, and inferior in many others.

Mostly the older titles feature an incredible range of narrative agency, and tons of great side quests with memorable characters and story.

The more modern games tend to rely more and more on open world systems and how they interact with each other to help the player form their own narrative. This type of game mechanic, for lack of a better term, can be fun and result in memorable moments, but can also be boring, and random.

The best types of these games tend to combine the two, a strong narrative with player consequence and choice + interesting open world systems that combine to create an immersive and fun world to explore.

FO4 does not do this well.

So yeah, the older games are great (mind you they are old, so they do suffer from some UI issues).

If it’s the TV + couch that’s holding you up, why not spend a few bucks on a Steam link + Steam controller? They’ll let you play these titles (and almost any other PC title) form the comfort of your couch. It’s not 2005 anymore.

Regardless I don’t see any pressing need to play the other titles before playing FO4. IF time is the issue, just jump in to the game you want to play now.

IMHO the order I would play them would be:

2, New Vegas, 3, maybe 1 if I really wanted to see how it all started. I wouldn’t play 4 ;p

13

And 1 had an infuriating time limit when it came out. A patch basically removed it, though it still didn’t remove the effect on some towns, so if you played at a normal pace for this type of game, several of the towns would be wiped out by the Master’s army and there was nothing you could do about it.

2 had a time limit, but well beyond the time that you would take even if you did every side quest.

4 has awful dialog options, and seemed like a step back from NV in many ways, though it brought in other innovations, mostly the weapon and armor mods, and settlements.

14

I have not played 4 due to not having a computer that can run it, but I have played 1,2,3, and Vegas.

Vegas was the best game in the series. I’d play that one for sure. 3 was also excellent, but I’ve always felt New Vegas felt like the “true 3” in many ways. I think the original team made New Vegas, while someone else made the actual Fallout 3.

15

My understanding is that Fallouts 1 and 2 were more traditional RPGs, then when Interplay sold the franchise, Bethesda turned it into more of an action-RPG. Is that right?

I wonder whether what you’re calling “narrative agency” is one of the things I actually find frustrating about Fallout 1. As I alluded to above, I tend to be a completionist, and don’t like the feeling that I missed something. This holds true even for minor plot points, but is especially true of things that affect gameplay. I’m using a walkthrough to play 1, because I just want to experience the story. And one of the things that struck me when I looked through all of these walkthroughs is how much it’s possible to miss. It seems like there are a LOT of scenarios where if you don’t talk to Person A before you ever talk to Person B, Person A will never offer to join you, or if you do Quest X before Quest Y then Quest Y will no longer be available, or if you don’t visit a certain location before a certain time has elapsed you’ll never be able to get this really powerful unique weapon. Are the later games like that?

I actually had this thought today before reading your post. It started with me thinking “hey, if I want to play 3 or New Vegas from the couch, I could actually just buy a used PS3 or Xbox 360.” Then I thought “didn’t I hear something recently about a device, possibly having something to do with Steam, that lets you stream PC games to your TV?” but couldn’t remember what it was called. So, I googled “device for playing PC games on TV” and found it. I might just take your suggestion. There’s something about having my feet up on the coffee table, and a beer in my hand for cutscenes.

16

Well, yes, at least in terms of combat. The first 2 were more CRPG’s in that they were tactical, turned based (real time was something other similar RPGS were doing), party based combat that was mostly about stats, using abilities at the right time, positioning, etc, etc.

The new games were… well 3 was not a very good first (or third) person shooter, NV improved the mechanics a bit more, and Fallout4 probably feels the closest to a shooter the series has ever felt.

Possibly. The whole point of narrative agency is that you are role-playing your character/party. The game provides with choices as to how to solve problems. Some are overt, say dialogue choices, others aren’t and might instead require some out of the box thinking or playing with the game mechanics. Either way your choices usually impact the quest, your characters, the main quest, other quests, other characters and places, etc, etc. Like a ripple in a pond. Not every choice is super meaningful, of course, but they all add flavor to your game play and replayability to the game as well. Some of the most fun I had was talking about these types of games with my friends, who were also playing them, and often being in shocked as to how differently things turned out for them because of the different choices they made.

So yes, choices CAN change how the story progresses, and sometimes (not often), locking you out of content. This happens organically though, it’s part of YOUR particular tale. But if you’ve got a guide you’re looking at, then you’ll know, and the illusion will be broken :wink:

I like this style of story telling, because, if done right, it can be SO much more powerful and personal than traditional storytelling. Games are different from books and movies in that the player has agency. But most games only provide agency in terms of gameplay, and NOT in terms of the storytelling, which is a missed opportunity, IMHO.

17

Keep in mind that FO4 is made with controllers in mind whereas the PC editions of FO3 & NV will assume M+KB (Steam says "partial controller support) in case that makes a difference in your couch 'n beer setup.

FO4 has the weakest agency but the best shooting and, in my opinion, the most interesting world from a general exploration perspective. It also, you know, has a color palette beyond grey, grey and brown. It is, by design, the most cinematic (which is a big part of why there’s less player choice). It was unique features (mods aside) such as creating settlements, weapon modifications and a more robust companion system than previous games. It’s a perfectly good game and, while there’s things I like more about New Vegas, there’s also plenty of stuff I’d take from FO4 into NV if I had the choice.

18

The combo of Steamlink and Steam controller works really well. You can use your PS4 controller natively with Steam now a days and that will let you play games that work with a gamepad just as on a console, but the Steam controller will open up new types of games that only support M&K to you in a couch setting.

I also happen to think that it’s better than a gamepad for most other games too. But I won’t lie to you. It takes some getting used to. There are community profiles available for sharing though,and that should cut down on the frustration level a bit.

But once you get used to the layout, it’s honestly a MUCH better input device for 99% of games out there over a traditional gamepad.

19

Gamepads work just fine on both actually - especially the Steam controller or the PS4 controller which work natively with the Steam overlay and can emulate a mouse for things like opening a launcher - which is why these games are listed as “Partial” gamepad supported games. It’s the launcher. The game itself is 100% just like on a console if played with a gamepad – well, if the console could do 60 FPS :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

20

Note…I cannot play FO3 on my current PC. I could play on my last. All suggested fixes have failed.