Fallout - prior games necessary to enjoy later games?

[zinfamous]

I think Fallout 4 will adequately satisfy all of your helping-another-settlement-in-trouble needs, OP.

 

[zinfamous]

I think FO:NV is the strongest of the modern Fallouts with 4 being the weakest.

Me too. I felt it was the most immersive. I liked every bit of it--even though like the other modern Fallouts, I also never finished it.

 

[zinfamous]

I just was not a fan of the "wild west" theme in NV...it did not resonate with me at all.

I'm the opposite, but I also think it is the most "honest" approach for that genre. Post-apocalyptic stories and settings are really just westerns in another skin, anyway. The themes are completely transferable. So NV just seemed, I don't know, the most "appropriate" FO for me.

Every PA movie ever made or book ever written are westerns at their core.

 

[Scooby Doo]

Fallout 3 + Tale of Two Wastelands + Fallout NV = The Best of Both Worlds

 

[SteveGrabowski]

I think FO:NV is the strongest of the modern Fallouts with 4 being the weakest.

I agree, though I really enjoyed FO4. If I was to rank the canon games I'd put them in the order

1. Fallout 2
2. Fallout New Vegas
3. Fallout
4. Fallout 3
5. Fallout 4

 

[werepossum]

This isn't really a big deal in most AAA titles at this point, the budgets for these titles are so massive that they need to appeal to the widest demographics possible... so they are absolutely designing for both the fans of their previous titles and for newcomers alike.

That's an excellent point that we are largely missing. While we are arguing over which game gives a better experience, developers are trying their best to make sure that both hardcore Fallout fans and gamers who have never heard of Fallout have great experiences. Although one could argue that the OP's question is not just whether he/she will enjoy Fallout 4, but also whether playing some other Fallout games first might yield an even better experience.

 

[werepossum]

I'm the opposite, but I also think it is the most "honest" approach for that genre. Post-apocalyptic stories and settings are really just westerns in another skin, anyway. The themes are completely transferable. So NV just seemed, I don't know, the most "appropriate" FO for me.

Every PA movie ever made or book ever written are westerns at their core.

I can understand though why people who particularly love the Fallout universe would be disappointed with New Vegas. While I found it to be the best written of the modern Fallout games, I also found it to be the least Falloutish.

 

[werepossum]

Fallout 3 + Tale of Two Wastelands + Fallout NV = The Best of Both Worlds

That also offers the better FO3 starting story - I never bought into being a courier and yet still mortally endangered by foot-tall geckos - coupled with the superior FONV mechanics. Add the best graphical and UI mods and you have a modern, all-around winner. My preference would be starting Fallout New Vegas with Project Brazil, but then entering the Fallout 3 world is non-immersive as everyone responds to you as the Vault Dweller. (Although with Project Brazil, that would be true, but the Father story arc still wouldn't make much sense.) And in maybe another six months, that high level FONV character can be migrated to The Frontier.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Fallout 2 IMO or Fallout is the best.
New Vegas is the best of the new Fallouts by far.

Fallout 4 got boring pretty quickly IMO.

 

[byteman99]

I have never played any of the Fallouts - I am considering picking up FO4, but I read that they have kept up the storyline through the series.

How important is that, really? Or can I just jump right into FO4 and enjoy myself?

You don't need to play any of the prior Fallout's to play F4. That said, F4 is probably the weakest in the main series.