I have tried fallout 2 in the past.. didn't really have the time to play then or whatever. And fallout 3 was fine game. Well, it's not gonna be in my list of greatest games ever but it was good. Haven't played new vegas. But it seems to be more of the same. So I'll have no hurry playing that, as in I can wait.
Yesterday I bought fallout 1 and when I got it to run without problems and a bit higher resolution. It seems to be a fun game. Just in the start. Had to look from the manual how to light a flare properly. Before that I throwed unlit flare in rats face.. well, it took a little damage. =)
Anyway I should finally play the freaking witcher 1 through. Love that game. But a bit tired so we will see if I play anything anymore today.

Fallout 3 should be forgotten. If you want a sequel to Fallout 2 then play New Vegas. For instance NV has a storyline that is actually quite good and won't make you facepalm and die of boredom if you loved previous Fallouts. I hope Bethesda learned their lesson and in the future all Fallout games will be made by people who know how to do it properly.

Ps. UFO DLC, WTF?

Just finished putting 200+ hrs into New Vegas. :)
Had to see the House path also, after doing NCR-Yes, and Caesar.

A top notch plot, I'm still not sure what outcome was the best, overall, for general population and mankind.

Damn that was loads of fun! Sniping away with the varmint rifle. Killing Powder Gangers with their own dynamite. Wasting ghouls up close with a pump shotgun. Butchering a lair of Vipers with a fire axe!

Not enough music, the ambient conversations got repetitive and I'm now pretty damn well through with folks getting decapitated when I shoot them in the forehead with a BB-gun. But minor stuff all, a great successor.

Since Fallout 1 & 2 rank as my two favorite games, I thought I would just add my insight to the fray.

I have tried to play Fallout 3 half a dozen times already, and have given up on it every time. It is hard to pinpoint exactly what the problem was for me, but I think it boils down to a perceived lack in freedom of choice set in a world with absolute freedom of exploration. I didn't know what to do with myself. Since I didn't feel like I was provided with the options I wanted with the quests, I started roaming the world to gain experience from killing creatures and neglected the quests. Then when I became aware or the presence of level-scaling I just became disillusioned and quit. After all, what good was that experience doing for me? Since I wasn't drawn in by the quests I had no incentive to continue.

I love open world games, but I hate when I can do whatever I want in the world as a level 1 character. I should have to work for the right to explore certain buildings or caves. I think static leveling is much more realistic.

New Vegas, on the other hand, drew me right in. I could certainly explore, but I had to be extra sneaky if I intended to get past the cazadors and death claws to the north of the starting city (level scaling appeared to be completely removed). The faction system was very well done and made sense (no random enclave mercs attacking you for positive karma even though they had no reason to dislike you) and the story was well-written and compelling. The ending was completely satisfying, and save some minor complaints, which the modding community has fixed, the game was a complete success for me.

I hope Obsidian is handed the reigns for future installments of the franchise, at least for spin-offs. They may have some bugs in their games, but so did the original Fallouts when released. The truth is that complex games with branching quests and story lines will always be more prone to this.

As a fan of Fallout 1 & 2 I also have my 2 cents about the third one.

When FO3 was released I was so disappointed that I didn't buy it until I got a Game of the Year edition deal for 30$ or so. I must say that I enjoyed the game but not like I enjoyed FO1 or 2. I found them to be ultimately different games and played it with that in mind, adding a bunch of mods together makes the game much better and adds alot of possibilities but it also is a pain in the ass to set up. I didn't bought New Vegas but I hear that it is a better RPG.

NightK, I highly recommend New Vegas if you are a fan of 1 & 2. It is much more similar to those games in atmosphere. I would make the argument that it is much more similar to 1 &2 than it is to 3, and if they didn't share the same engine/perspective, I don't think it would even be close.

That makes no sense, why should fallout3 be forgotten? Without fallout3's success there would be no propensity to create New Vegas, your logic is horribly flawed.

On a separate note fall out 3 is a superb game, you seem to, and MANY MANY MANY other fallout 1+2 fans seem to forget is that thousands of people have been introduced to fallout1 and fallout 2 because they've played fallout 3 and was curious to see how this series came about so they purchased the previous fallouts.

Same here. I was never interested in Fallout (except for it's buggy reputation) until I heard of Fallout 3 back in 2008. And like every new game name I hear, I do some research. In fact, the first Fallout was the first game I bought on GOG two years ago.

I now have Fallout 3 and I really enjoy it. It has it's faults but I love it anyway. It has a certain charm that the first two have even though I still like them better. And it showed me that Bethesda were learning from their mistakes in Oblivion.

I'm glad someone shares a similar point of view. I started with fallout3 and have since migrated to fallout tactics which has got me hooked, aside from the choppy scroll that makes my game lag horribly to no end. Because of tactics I now have bought fallout 2 and so far fallout 2 seems very engaging. I've got many of my gaming buddies to try out tactics and fallout 2 as well. So far the response seems to be very good, individuals who loved the companion combat in fallout 3 seem to be very in tuned and positively responded to fallout tactics.

All of this would not have been possible had not been fallout 3, I youtubed a video of fallout 2 and played it over a buddy's place before fallout3 came out yet immediately I found the graphics appalling and the sound relic. However now that I've immersed myself in the fallout lore. I am more intimate with characters and coupled with the fact that I've gotten used to the top down RTS view of tactics I am thoroughly beginning to enjoy fallout 2.

I think the fact that most people who play Fallout 3 have, y'know, fun with it kind of negates the arguments of the haters, since despite what they'd have you think there is no objective measure of a game's quality, there is only whether you had fun playing it or not.

I think it's possible to enjoy the game and yet still be disappointed in it. There's a great deal of 'what could have been' here.
I once killed a supermutant by creeping slowly in circles around a bush, laying mines on the road to which he kept stupidly returning every time he'd get tired of chasing my rarely-seen phantom self around the bush and de-aggroed. Not even powerful mines, just little recovered ones that dealt sufficient damage to mortalize him over the period of a half hour or more.
That was fun. Also grossly and hilariously inefficient.

I also once followed plot threads and got to Rivet City without fixing Galaxy Radio's problems, because nothing I'd seen pointed to Galaxy Radio more firmly than it had to that location. The result? The game wouldn't let me progress, and wouldn't tell me why not. Eventually I had to stumble upon more hints to go to Galaxy Radio's tower, one of the few places in D.C. I hadn't plundered.
I also once explored the comic book publishing office, plundered the computer files and discovered the letter to the editor talking about the past and motivations of the Ant-Agonist. When I actually met her, I wasn't given an option to bring up the comic book, nor was I able to use that knowledge to help her move on with an inside knowledge of her motivations. This was, basically, a spoiled easter egg. Stinky. It not only was unhelpful, but the problems involved pulled me out of the game and made that whole sequence really, really terrible to play through.

There's reason for the hate. There's also reason for love here. But oh man I wish it had been better...

My real problem with new vegas is that it uses steamworks and I hate steam. The PS3 version is buggy and lacks mods.
So true.

Personally, I'm inclined to favor Steam over any other existing model that incorporates DRM. It's a damn sight better than buying EA any other way, for example.
Of course, anything's better than SATAN. But I do mean that Steam doesn't seem to treat me like a criminal.

I adored Fallout 3 on my PS3 even though it was buggy, but I have to admit I haven't ever played Fallout 1 or 2. I just bought them today during the big Staycation sale GOG has going on and am quite excited to boot them up.

I loved Fallout 3 and I logged over 100+ hours in the game, After I completed Fallout 3 I went bought the original games and I love them too, but so far I've only completed Fallout 1 and I was half way done with 2.