I tried to play Fallout 3. It was a slog. After 12 hours or so, I gave it up - bad quest design, the starting area is an hour long, graphics-wise it's fairly bland and uninteresting, so on and so forth.
Fallout NV has no real mechanical difference between it and Fallout 3, but the moment I tried playing it, I was hooked, and hooked bad. Character creation is quick and to the point, you have an immediate problem you have to solve, and the starting area can be summarily ignored with multiple paths taken to get to your next objective.
To paraphrase someone else, 'A good game has you solving a murder. A really good game has you solving your own murder...'
I tried to play Fallout 3. It was a slog. After 12 hours or so, I gave it up - bad quest design, the starting area is an hour long, graphics-wise it's fairly bland and uninteresting, so on and so forth.
Fallout NV has no real mechanical difference between it and Fallout 3, but the moment I tried playing it, I was hooked, and hooked bad. Character creation is quick and to the point, you have an immediate problem you have to solve, and the starting area can be summarily ignored with multiple paths taken to get to your next objective.
To paraphrase someone else, 'A good game has you solving a murder. A really good game has you solving your own murder...'
Should I start with 1 and 2?
You can, but you don't need to. They're old top-down isometric games a la Diablo, whereas New Vegas... yeah. It's interesting, but not critical.