Now that I've played a bit of NV I must say I liked that you could actually go exploring in F3. In NV it feels more like "here, have a few things to check out that are just off the road you need to follow anyway". It probably doesn't help much that the latter feels so recycled with plenty of reused assets. Like one empty shell of a farmhouse I was exploring (and came upon again at another place) and I'm thinking to myself: 'well, hello there Republic of Dave' without actual people there.

So far to me the characters of F3 were more interesting. I'm still trying to figure out where the good writing stuff is supposed to be as I've yet to stumble upon anything worthwhile in NV. Besides the somewhat so-so ending of F3, I really enjoyed that game, but NV proves to be a bit of a bore for me right now. It's more like I'm going through the motions than anything else. At this rate it's not looking so hot for the latter.

Also, I can't be arsed with crafting shit. Sure, it's nice that there is such an alternative option in NV, but it feels quite superfluous. It's much easier to buy and 'prospect' necessary items than to actually make them myself.

Fallout: New Vegas is a better game than 3 in every way. Story, world, mechanics and DLC. 3 is a very good game (with several glaring issues). Play 3 first so you aren't as disappointed as I was.

The big issues with 3, I think, are the world and the mechanics. World-wise it's pretty good, except for DC itself. DC has some nice setpieces, but actually trying to traverse the city is not fun at all, especially not when to get to most places (just past this pile of rubble!) you need to go into the samey subway tunnels. It's a relief to finally get out of the city. I think once I did, I only went back a couple of times when I needed to finish a quest or something.

As far as mechanics, it seems obvious they didn't quite know what to keep and what to change and what to drop in going from the classic games to the new style. Enemy scaling is all kinds of fucked up, and higher level enemies are absolute nightmares as bulletsponges, even with powerful weapons, both issues fixed in New Vegas.

But the upside, the story is fun, has Liam Neeson in it. There are some neat quests, outside of the city itself it's a fun world to explore. The DLC is fun enough, if not amazing, Operation Anchorage is basically them trying out making an FPS in the game, so your enjoyment of that will be based on how much you enjoy them, The Pitt is an interesting little story that tries to give a big choice, but has some solid bits in it. Mothership Zeta is a fun little romp on a UFO, I enjoyed it but I've heard many people call it the weakest, and Point Lookout is... ok? Someday I'd like to play a Fallout game set in Louisiana, but I hope they learn from the mistakes made here, as it's a bit too empty, but ultimately it's also fun enough. Broken Steel adds in some super powerful enemies, and if you do all the other DLC, they'll start showing up in the main game before you get to the Broken Steel stuff. My talk about screwed up level scaling? Full force with this DLC. Ultimately solid enough.

Play 3 and enjoy it, then go on to New Vegas and appreciate all the improvements.

Steam craps, you can come back to GOG.

I couldn't agree more. While I don't think we've had the perfect Fallout game yet (or even a mostly flawless one), it is good how both 3 and NV's strengths differ enough to ensure they both remain relevant and worthwhile.
I don't think that solving the problem would have been easy. I think that the engine and time constraints were largely responsible. So they went with pretty simple quick fixes to ensure that events unfolded how they wanted.

I have got Both Fallout 3 & Fallout New Vegas. Which one should I play first? Cause one of my friends said that whichever you play first will lead to disliking the other. Also is it necessary to play Fallout 1 & 2 before these games, you know to understand story or background?

Playing F1 & F2 is not mandatory but it radically changes your perception (and experience) of F3 & NV. For bad or for worse ....

Also, I think if you had to play 2 games out of the four, the 2 first would be a better choice. That's my opinion, but I dare think many people here would agree.

I hated F3 btw :)

Thanks for reply. I have got copy of Fallout 1. Will start with that. For Fallout 2 will have to wait as exhausted budget for this month :-p..

Don't forget to install the latest Fallout FIXT mod, which enables you to install either pure bug fixes or also add a bit or restored/improved content. Either way, it is definitely the way to play Fallout (the same goes for FO2 and its Restoration mod). You can check the game-specific forums here on GOG for more input and trouble-solving if you have any.

You summarized my thoughts perfectly. I completely agree dear zombie-cat.

Go fuck yourself.

Gee... I thought I was the only one who noticed that!

I've only played 3. Wasn't thrilled with it. To me, the presentation just seemed so dull. Every conversation felt like I was listening to a lecture.

They did both actually I played it on hardest difficulty setting! Holy F... it was hard! NV pissed me off at the end having to play choosies! though.

I'll always for for F:NV than FO3.

FO3 left me bit hollow back in the day. NV patched that hole eventually.

As short reasoning as this is.