Fallout

It depends what you want out of the games.

Original Fallout (1&2 are both fantastic) are some of the greatest CRPGs ever made. Back when Western RPG meant trying to make computer games simulate Tabletop Roleplaying games (D&D). There are a TON of quest routes and decisions. You could make a slick evil character that manipulates their way through the entire game. That kind of thing. Hell. You don’t even have to finish the main quest in FO1 to beat the game. The turn based combat still holds up really well if you like that kind of thing. Action point systems are fun.

New Fallout (Bethesda and Obsidian). New Vegas. It has some of the OG Fallout creators on it (working for Obsidian). Play this if you’re more interested in sandboxy exploration while also having a bit deeper quest pathing than the Bethesdas games. But it does feel clunky from a shooter perspective. It’s the same game as 3 with much better writing and quests.

3 and 4 are more the Bethesda open world. Walk 10 feet, explore something interesting, walk 10 feet and explore something interesting. The actual ROLE playing aspect of playing a role is very shallow. 4 is probably a better choice if you’re not interested in role playing. The gun play and everything feels significantly better than New Vegas and 3. 3 was clunky even when it came out in most aspects. If you just want a solid sandbox game and don’t care about writing or story I’d say just play 4.

I would start with 3 and then New Vegas. If you like Borderlands those will be the closest. 1 and 2 are a different genre of game.

New Vegas imo. 3 is boring to me but it has its moments.

I started with 3 a long time ago, and that's what got me into the series , played 3, NV and now I'm playing 4 with a bunch of mods

Chronologically the games are played in order, i.e. 1, 2, Tactics, 3, New Vegas, etc. You don't need to play them in any specific order to understand what's going on, but if you want to understand all of the references then playing them in order is the way to go.

As for the first two games (and Tactics) being dated, that's also in terms of gameplay. The difficulty curve is brutal, a lot of aspects of the game are obscured and almost deliberately obtuse, much of the difficulty is on the basis of "hope that RNG doesn't screw you and expect to reload saves frequently", and there are hundreds of ways to unknowingly put yourself into a situation where it is impossible to complete the game, not the least being picking the wrong mix of stats and/or perks. All that said though, both games are amazingly detailed and deep, so if you can get yourself over the difficulty hump both are great games.

I love the originals and like the new ones because it was really cool seeing everyone go into a FPS.

Deep down, I love RPGs, so the new ones, while fun, never sucked me in like the originals. Few things to think about though. The original fallout was unlike anything else I'd ever played. The story was amazing, the characters felt realistic... But I'm not sure how well they would hold up. That really depends on your age. Fallout 2 is one of my favorites of all time. Amazing story, multiple story options, great RPG. But they both suffer from the same thing - they were so revolutionary, they've been imitated repeatedly, so they won't be "fresh" at all to someone used to playing games today - they'll be clunky since they literally popularized the genre.

Fallout 3 super cool to see everything from a different view (C&C renegades anyone?), but dropped a huge portion of the RPG elements. Kept a good chunk of the story telling. You could go into it without 1 & 2 and be fine, but you'll not get a ton of references (not only call backs, but motivations, history, twists, etc). Fallout 4 almost entirely dropped the RPG elements and a good chunk of choice - you no longer have multiple options, outside of a few big things, you just get to choose how to do it (stealth, assault, etc). It's fun, great with mods, but has no heart. It feels like a really good shooter RPG with lots of bugs and a fallout skin on top. Without playing them this phrase won't have much meaning, but it doesn't have Fallout's soul. I'd even dare to say after the first hour or so, there's not much that even makes it a fallout game story & feel wise. With all that said I probably have the most hours in this one because it's a great game, a blast with mods... Just not particularly fallout.

NV is by far the most "fallout" of the FPS games. Great story, pretty good RPG (great for the FPS fallouts). Hard to really classify into either of the groups because it straddled the line so well.

So the real question is what do you want out of them? If you want a great story, lots of lore, a genre-defining at the time RPG, grey options and choices (not black and white) - start from the beginning, read every thing you can. If you're younger or want more action, the FPS will explain enough to get by and the OG two will probably be clunky and boring.

TLDR either start with Fallout 1; or Fallout 3 or NV. If you start with 3 or NV you can play the opposite game second, or Tale Of Two Wastelands to combine them. Don’t start with Fallout 4 since it relies most on knowledge of the series and because it is hard to play 3 or NV after experiencing 4’s engine upgrades.

Your biggest hurdle with Fallout 1 & 2 would be less that they are dated, and more that they are in an entirely different genre. If you are coming from Borderlands, then a top down, turn based combat, dialog heavy game might not be what you want. These are excellent games and I highly recommend them, starting with Fallout 1, but some people just can’t adapt to the gameplay.

Fallout Tactics is a spin-off that can very much be skipped unless you’re a completionist or love real time tactics games. It’s non-canon, despite a few oblique references in later games.

Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas. The great debate. The Todd vision vs the Obsidian vision. Opinions are of course subjective, except for mine, which is objective and New Vegas is objectively better.

I joke. I do like New Vegas better but I appreciate the writing style. It has a tone closer to the classic games, a coherent set of factions, and a blank slate player character. Fallout 3 has more locations that are novel and have bizarre stories attached to them, but as a whole the world feels disjointed- like different people were responsible for writing different areas and only occasionally talked with each other. It’s a very kitchen sink approach to adding every possible idea in.

Fallout 4 is more of 3, with an even more pre-conceived character and fewer options to make a unique personality. Stripped down dialog choices and a voiced main character. However it is the prettiest game, has the best first person shooting of the series, and an absolute buttload of mods.

1 and 2 aren't necessarily dated, they're just a completely different kind of game. They're isometric 2d RPGs instead of open world 3D exploration games. If that's the kind of game you enjoy, Fallout 1 and 2 are some of the best in the genre

This is a tough one. My first game in the franchise was Fallout 4. I loved it when it came out. I then moved on to Fallout New Vegas and the other games in the franchise.

Since you are into Borderlands, Fallout 4 would be the most like it gunplay-wise. The story is "fine" but it is not a true RPG in my eyes. Don't let that push you away from it, though. It is still very enjoyable!

Quick tip OP I'd highly recommend checking out Tale of Two Wastelands. It combines Fallout 3 and New Vegas in New Vegas' engine. You can travel back and forth between the worlds and keep your stats.

It seems to help the general stability of Fallout 3. The only issue is you'll lose out on some mods.

It's a bit of a hassle, but modding up Fallout 3 would be my recommendation. It has some of the greatest storylines of gaming, all time. The DLCs are incredibly good. Make sure to use VATS often as that is where the fun is at.