Should I play through Fallout 3 before starting NV?

[Tom_green_day]

Well as much as I love Fallout 3, I can see that New Vegas is probably a better game in some aspects. The story is more linear and therefore the devs know what level you are at certain locations, so they can design the areas around that. There is a much greater array of items, weapons and armour to personalise yourself with. There are less locations dotted around, it's more focused on the Vegas area which is probably more detailed.
Personally, I'll admit that New Vegas was probably a better game technologically-wise. I just prefer Fallout 3 for its atmosphere and charm, story and details.
And fucking Liam Neeson.
This is coming from someone who didn't like Fallout 1, so much so that 2 and Tactics are rotting in my steam library.

 

[SushiJaguar]

FONV is an indirect sequel. Also, a side-project.

Whether you'll like this will depend on what you disliked about FO3...Or any other Bethesda game.

It's hard to pinpoint exactly what turns me off of Bethesda's games, but my best guess would be that it feels quite aimless. Nothing I do matters, and at a certain point I feel like I'm just repeating the same few actions (get quest, find dungeon, clear dungeon, repeat) over and over with only minor deviations.

Please note: This is only how I feel, I'm not saying this is 100% true. I can't help how I respond to these games, so please don't take this as an attack.

If that's how you feel about it, then FOVNV will give you that same feeling. Steer clear. But you could try it anyway, I'm not your boss.

 

[DatedSandwich]

If you have both NV and FO3 on the PC you can use the mod "Tale of Two Wastelands" which makes the entirety of Fallout 3 playable in New Vegas as a mod. This means you can use one character for both games, and they've tried to make a believable transition between FO3 and NV (After you're done in FO3 you get on a train and become a courier, 9 years later you get shot by Benny.) Somehow, it also makes New Vegas a much more stable game, fixed all the stuttering and crashing that I had.

 

[endtherapture]

Nah, I only managed 9 hours of Fallout 3 before giving up, but New Vegas is far better and requires no knowledge of FO3 to play.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Is there any major reason to play 3 before NV, or are they only tangentially related?

(Bonus question: When I do play New Vegas, should I start on hardcore mode? It seems rather interesting.)

1) Considering that story from one does not connect with the other, it doesn't matter which order you play them in. I personally find that NV is a better game overall, so I would start with that.

2) Hardcore mode doesn't really make the game that much harder (e.g. finding food or water is very rarely a problem), but it changes some gameplay mechanics in a way that vanilla NV doesn't take kindly (e.g. stimpacks heal over time instead of instantly). It can make game hard in unexpected places, and you have to take a different approach to some encounters. However, the difference blurs around level 3.

3) Whatever game you start with you should definitely check out the mods [http://newvegas.nexusmods.com/mods/topalltime/?adult=0], starting with Project Nevada and New Vegas bounties.

 

[nyarlathotepsama]

Yeah Fallout New Vegas continues the main plot of the Fallout universe as well as possible. Fallout 3 is, well, a side-story at best and easily totally ignored since it adds nothing to the series from a story standpoint. Fallout 3 is canon but doesn't really matter in the universe as a whole, it happens on the other side of the country and pretty much just combines the plots of Fallout 1 and 2, taking the main goals of both then shoving them together. Fallout 3 isn't a bad game but I was very displeased with the plot, the characters, and its usage of the Brotherhood of Steel was slanderous. In the end Fallout 3 feels like a fan-made game where Fallout New Vegas feels like a real sequel. But that's just my option and I'm no official voice on the subject, just a long time PC gamer with a love for Post-Apocalyptic roleplaying games.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

They're pretty much the same thing, so if you didn't like FO3, I doubt you'd like New Vegas.

I greatly disliked Fallout 3 but loved New Vegas.

OT: New Vegas doesn't feel like a Bethesda game. It's basically the old Fallouts with the mechanics of FO3 (albeit polished up a bit).

Once you get to Vegas, there's no long much of a true "main quest" because everything you do will take you closer to the ending; it's is much less freely explorable than Fallout 3, but the story is a lot more malleable. Every single NPC (except two robots, one of which is a shop and one of which can body-hop) can be killed at any time they appear in the story and nearly every quest is related to the main plot in some way. I found it much more liberating than Fallout 3 whilst still being a lot more linear and directed.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

I wouldn't touch Fallout 3 on the PC with a ten foot pole because I don't want to interact with GFWL in any way. So no, you probably shouldn't play it.

I actually found a mod that just removes GFWL from the game completely. Since it has no online component, there are no negative side effects. It's pretty much the greatest mod ever, and I really wish it could be applied to more things.

I don't care if I can mod it, if GFWL is a requirement I just won't play the game. There's no way I'm going to buy anything that uses that "service" since my using it would be seen by Microsoft as an endorsement of that abomination.

GFWL is end-of-life so I doubt they care if you use it or not at this point.

 

[OpticalJunction]

You can safely play new vegas as an independent game, however the game mechanics and open world feel are very similar to fallout 3, so if you found that game hard to get into, you probably won't enjoy NV either. Give it a shot, but maybe these open world bethesda games just aren't for you.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

NV is more of a sequel to 2 than it is to 3, so there's no need to play or even like (due to the massive change in tone) 3 before starting NV.

And yes, play it on 'hardcore' mode. The need to track your hunger, thirst and sleep levels adds so much to the survivalist nature of the gameplay, and giving ammo weight means you won't be lugging around rocket-launchers with 500 missiles like you ended up doing in F3, which again adds to the survivalist nature of the game.

One last tip: Do not go near any red-stained hills until you're at least level 15, maybe even level 20.

 

[Alhazred]

Well, Besthesda is probably going to make Fallout 4 instead of Obsidian, so you should play Fallout 3 to get a sense of what to expect from it (worse writing and gameplay than New Vegas, but better atmosphere).

Its also worth playing to appreciate that Fallout 3 is arguably the reason New Vegas was so good. By using Besthesda's engine and character models, Obsidian pretty much had the pieces of a complete game; allowing them to spend time adding cool new weapons, enemies and fleshing out dialogue and quests. As much as we all like to hate on Fallout 3, New Vegas would not exist without it.

And on a personal note, I think Fallout 3 is worth playing for Tranquility Lane alone.

 

[Doom972]

I played both extensively and I can assure you that it doesn't matter in which order you play them.

As for hardcore mode - I enabled it in my first playthrough of NV and never disabled it since. I love the fact that it actually gives a reason to stock and use food and drink items and get full rest.

 

[Guy from the 80's]

Fallout 3 without a doubt, play that before you play NV. Fallout 3 provides a beautiful world for you to explore. New Vegas is mostly empty space....and it looks horrible.

I wouldn't touch Fallout 3 on the PC with a ten foot pole because I don't want to interact with GFWL in any way. So no, you probably shouldn't play it.

Games for windows live? How could you say that, how does it affect the game...it doesnt. All you notice is that it says GFWL when you fire it up.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It doesn't really matter.

If you beat Fallout 3 first, the only change is you'll go "Aha! A reference!" once or twice during your NV playthrough.

If you really want to recognize everything in NV, play Fallout 2. As another person mentioned, NV is much more of a sequel to that then to 3. I played 2 a fair while AFTER playing NV and was shocked by just how related the two games are.

Hardcore mode doesn't really change much unless you add mods to make it harder. Do it if you want, but only if your character won't need to carry a lot of ammo.

I hope you enjoy. I know many people who disliked 3 that enjoyed NV quite a bit.

Fallout 3 is my favorite game of all time (no, really), but I get why people feel it's aimless. NV, while not as interesting but still quite good in my opinion, has much more of a traditional story and is generally more focused.

For 5 bucks, play it.

Also, add some mods, but don't go crazy or you'll break the feel and challenge of the game. Leave the mod orgy until after you've played it for a while.

 

[Abomination]

I much preferred New Vegas to FO3, I sank about 3x more hours of playtime into New Vegas (300 hours) and I found it a far more legitimate Fallout experience. In fact, New Vegas should have been named "Fallout 3" and Fallout 3 should have been named "Fallout: DC".

 

[Drago-Morph]

No, there are no connections between FO3 and FO:NV. NV takes place on the other side of a continent and I'm pretty sure in a different time period, so there's not really any way for them to be connected anyway.

As far as the debate between the two, FO3 is the superior game by miles. It has a great sense of life and adventure, since every little piece of the world has some kind of story behind it. It's one of the most immersive games I've ever had the pleasure of playing. NV, on the other hand, was almost entirely empty space with no life or character, and the one "strength" people talk about (the story) still sucks because the characters and world feel so dead that you just can't care what happens in any way.

 

[WaysideMaze]

I know people who loved 3 and hated NV. I also know people who have the opposite opinion.

Aside from the fact that the games are on the same engine, they really couldn't feel more different.

For the record, I had a hell of a time with 3, I loved it. I also thought NV was fantastic, just different.