New Vegas is the best, Fallout 4 is decent and more approachable/"modern".

Fallout 2 is also pretty good, though very old and pc exclusive.

It all depends on what kind of g*mer are you. If you are willing to deal with some jank and outdated design philosophies, then New Vegas is definitely a must play out of the entire franchise, existing as a bridge between the ideas and themes of the first two games and the 3D open world environments of the modern entries. If you think you can handle the isometric perspective, the turn-based combat and a stylised UI, then you can try out the original two games. They blow the modern iterations out of the water in terms of atmosphere, but they do require some time to learn the ebb and flow of the game. Fallout 4 are 76 are more fitting if you don't want to learn a new rpg system and just want to shoot things in a post-apocalyptic setting. They are also the closest to the show in terms of style and visual design.

Elder Scrolls has a similar situation, where depending on how much you are willing to invest into learning the mechanics of the respective game, determines which entry would suit you best. Morrowind is a high peak of the franchise, but is also employs a lot of extremely outdated practices, such as percentage-based hit chance determined from your skills and attributes, lack of fast travel and mostly unvoiced dialogue. If you are willing to look past these elements, Morrowind presents you with a world filled with adventure, intrigue and a lot of weirdness. If you would rather look at nice vistas and hack-and-slash your way through dungeons without wishing to keep lots of numbers in your head, then Skyrim might be a better entry point for you. It is the game most fans of the series started from, even if they trickled back to older entries. Be aware, that most of the lore and stories that the fan community is fascinated with and repeats ad nauseam are mostly from in-game books or the manuals that came with them. The games themselves aren't that esoteric and present rather straightforward stories.

Bioshocks are best played in order of release, although that is just my personal opinion. The first game might look dated today, but I find it the most cohesive and interesting out of the trilogy. The second game was made by a different studio and focused more on the combat aspects of the game, which some fans didn't appreciate. Infinite looks the best, but it is also a mess in terms of storytelling and gameplay after surviving multiple rewrites and concept changes.

Haven't played any of the Mass Effects, but through osmosis I can tell that it is best to just play the first two games and then pretend that the series ended right there. Those games are from an interesting era of rpgs beginning to be designed with consoles (and console players) in mind, so the mechanics are a bit simplified, the graphics look good and there are a ton of voiced characters with lots of dialogue and cutscenes.

SHOW MORE

@Robert_Edwin_House

>In 2024?

Skip TES. Try out Bio 1 to see if you like it. Aged pretty bad imo. Infinite is soytube essayshit for teens. ME is essentially kotor but less soy and more sophisticated but I'd rather replay the entire Borderlands franchise in spanish than plsy another me game. I dont know what the last series was but I'll prob hate it too.

Ive only played bioshock 1 and i really enjoyed it even though i dont typically like FPS much

Bioshock Infinite still holds pretty well. 1 and 2 are very dated but they're worth it just for the location, it's probably the most memorable on any game ever.