Fallout 1 versus Fallout New Vegas

[Tiamin]

There does not seem to be a direct comparison between Fallout 1 and Fallout New Vegas anywhere. Ignore the DLC for the latter. I'd like to see a comparison at least between the following:

• Cinematic intro + narration by Ron Perlman
  
• Tutorial
  
• Soundtrack: Mark Morgan versus Inon Zur
• Atmosphere and art direction
  
• Story
• Dialogue
  
• Quests and side-quests
• Factions
  
• Gear and equipment
• User interface

For example, someone has noted that the introduction to Fallout New Vegas is more like an exposition dump than just enough to get you started. Some players have even described it as long-winded and boring, especially where it keeps dragging on about the various factions. Those players would prefer to discover them through playing the game instead.

Does either game's tutorial feel boring to anyone? Which one is more so than the other and how would you change it?

I've noticed that FNV draws some parallels with Fallout 1, at least at the start of the game. For example, the main quest in Fallout 1 is to find the water chip. The main quest in FNV is to find the platinum chip. Goodspings is FNV's Shady Sands with Trudy being its version of Aradesh. Deputy Beagle being held hostage in Primm looks like a parallel to Tandi being kidnapped by the Great Khans in Fallout 1, except that you cannot negotiate Beagle's release.

In Fallout 1, once you find the water chip and the time limit urgency is gone, the main game, so to speak, starts. In FNV, once you find the platinum chip, the main game, so to speak, with the factions starts as well.

How would you compare these two games?

 

[Risewild]

For example, someone has noted that the introduction to Fallout New Vegas is more like an exposition dump than just enough to get you started. Some players have even described it as long-winded and boring, especially where it keeps dragging on about the various factions. Those players would prefer to discover them through playing the game instead.

I'm not good at comparing things, but I remember that in FNV no one starts telling the PC stuff about the factions unless the PC directly asks about them. Also the tutorial in FNV can be skipped entirely.
As soon as the PC is finished in the Doc Mitchell's house he is free to go anywhere and talk to anyone, if it is the first time playing the PC will probably end up dead from Deathclaws or Cazadores though.

 

[naossano]

I think both are overall superior to the sum of their part.

- Best thing about Fo1 (compared with the rest of the series) is its plot AND the ways you can uncover it. There is no worthy comparison in the rest of the series.

- Best things about FoNV are the open-endness of the main quest and the factions.

On the other hand, i didn't FoNV locations were that good and the whole game was crippled by gamebryo gameplay. Also, i didn't find Fo1 non-main-plot locations that interesting. Places like Shady Sands or Junktown were incredibly generic. IMO, the best games that manage to give most locations their own vibe and interest was Fo2, despite having a lesser cohesive whole.

 

[R.Graves]

Fallout new Vegas is the more interesting from an in-universe perspective.

Fallout 1 is well... Its the original has the most interesting villain (altruistic hitler) and theres a lot of ways to uncover the plot.

 

[Kohno]

How would I compare... ?

Fallout is the root of the series and the best possible Fallout game (and I think that even despite finding Fallout 2 to be a cunthair's length more entertaining).

Fallout New Vegas is the unfortunate child prodigy that inherited its genes from a healthy father and a diseased and incest-ridden mother. It makes an honest effort with what it has and that's worthy of hat-tip, but due to standing circumstances (part of which include the good parts being tainted by the bad, and thus not feeling the best they could) it is still inferior in almost all ways to the original.

 

[R.Graves]

New vegas is the best in the series. More varied and unique characters than any of the other games. Loads of factions. Loads of dialogue. Loads of choice. Loads of endings. A running theme. Loads of weapons. Loads of enemies. Loads of quests. Loads of in universe nods. Wild wasteland (removes the "its not just am easter egg" arguement).
That's said much like fallout 1 and 2 its painfully unfinished. Fallout new Vegas certainly has the most interesting stuff going on in it.

 

[Cobra Commander]

New vegas is the best in the series. More varied and unique characters than any of the other games. Loads of factions. Loads of dialogue. Loads of choice. Loads of endings. A running theme. Loads of weapons. Loads of enemies. Loads of quests. Loads of in universe nods. Wild wasteland (removes the "its not just am easter egg" arguement).
That's said much like fallout 1 and 2 its painfully unfinished. Fallout new Vegas certainly has the most interesting stuff going on in it.

Agree, best Fallout ever.

But I can't play NV without the sensation that I'm playing a unfinish, unpolish game, a game badly planed.

A example? The quest "bye bye love" and its 20 or more load screens necessary to complet it.

Oh well, they did the best they could in 18 mounths.

 

[CourierFour]

Fallout 1 for me does the best job on delivering that wasteland feel i see as signature to the series' identity. I haven't experienced anything similar outside of this franchise, and all installments have it in one facet or another, but it's sad to say that the later games have never been able to fully capture that original vibe, even New Vegas... but it does manage to capture the seriousness of the wasteland, whereas an installment like Fallout 3 captures the desolation. When both come together i can't help but think of Ozymandias.

Structure and dialogue goes to New Vegas. 1's dialogue was just a bit simplistic in comparison, in my opinion, and the way New Vegas ties in it's side quests makes them more essential to the experience other than just more ways to get xp and stuff.

Music? As far as comparing them goes i'd say the Obsidian pieces feel like they have the quality of Fallout 1's score, but they are stretched out to cover such a substantial difference in world size and sadly it degrades them. Inon Zur's contribution are great, i feel. He seems to be more suited for the New Vegas kind of Fallout than what Bethesda have him do. Due to the use of original Fallout pieces in New Vegas though, Fallout 1 must take this win. Mark motherfucking Morgan, son.

Art direction. As i've said the world you see in New Vegas doesn't capture the desolation that goes with the seriousness. In terms of individual additions to the gamebryo engine i would say they are more in line with Boyarsky than Adamowicz. Overall though i do like the way New Vegas looks artistically with it's blend of two styles. I feel like the world of Fallout is more visually believable with "Adamoyarsky" so i'll give this one to New Vegas.

User interface is no competition. Obsidian tried to jazz it up for New Vegas but Bethesda cannot do UI these days to save their life. The UI for 1 (and 2) is just so good and immersive.

Gear and equipment... Fallout 1 definitely has an original palette of items, but compared to the amount of equipment available for you in New Vegas it makes me wish they'd added more for 1.

I can't really see any similarities in Fallout 1 and New Vegas' quests. I think any potential correlation is more of a coincidence than intentional. Sidequests in 1 just feel like hero tasks whereas in New Vegas they take you on a journey and show you some cool stuff on top of some hero tasks.


That's all i really have to say. Factions are kind of obvious but i guess i could say that the Legion feels like the anti-Children of the Cathedral. A good faction in my opinion even if they are le bad guys, and as far as the system goes i'm not even sure 1 has it. I'm glad it was a thing in 2.

 

[gwfpro]

i think i favor fallout's intro to new vegas's. overall it has that OG sort of iconic charm that wasn't really captured with benny's entire monologue, although i do love new vegas.

as far as tutorial goes -- what with FO having barely any and NV having an alright one -- i would say i still prefer FO's approach because it just throws you out into the world. that said, there is something very charming and homely about NV's.

soundtrack probably goes to the original FO. i love NV's radio, but the minimalist atmospheric soundtrack of the original really hits the spot.

as far as atmosphere goes, i'd say FO takes the cake. i love that shit. NV, however, has the better art direction IMO since j e sawyer mentioned something about combining 1800's old west architecture with retrofuturistic vegas nostalgia. i'm a sucker for westerns, which is why NV wins here.

i don't know if the stories are comparable. it's like trying to compare a child's features with his father's. you know the father already so you see his features in the child, and what is great about the child is great because it reflects the character of the father. that said, i prefer goodsprings to shady sands, although shady sands has a special place in my heart. i guess that has more to do with setting, though. i think new vegas probably has the better story, what with the factions and worldbuilding and house and all. still, there's something to be said about the original's minimalism. it's like comparing yeezus with my beautiful dark twisted fantasy. they're both fucking great, one is just more stripped down and essential i.e. it captures the exact essence of what we love.

new vegas has the better dialogue, hands down, although again there is something to be said for the original.

i think i prefered new vegas's quests to the originals. something really groovy about them.

new vegas has better factions and gear and equipment IMO.

as far as user interface goes, i'm have to go with the original.

overall, i think i prefer new vegas to the original, but i still love the original. FO2 beats both tho imo.

 

[R.Graves]

Fallout 2 is as bad as fallout 4, at times, imo. New vegas is the best of the three because it has quality and quantity.

 

[FreedomStalker]

Fallout 2 is as bad as fallout 4, at times, imo. New vegas is the best of the three because it has quality and quantity.

Please tell me you are joking.

 

[Walpknut]

Fallout 2 has a lot of silly moments, but at it's worst it is still better than FO4 at it's best.

 

[R.Graves]

Please tell me you are joking.

At times mind you. In isolation, coffin willie is every bit as harmful as billy the fridge ghoul. In isolation, melchior is as bad as cabots magic juice. In isolation hakunans magic is as bad as mama murphy. Having the yakuza being generic baddies is as bad as having the mercenaries in fo4 be generic baddies. Im not saying fallout 2 doesn't have postitve aspects because then id be outright wrong. But there are elements to the game that are as bad as fallout 4 and even 3. Its not hard to see the similarites between a random scientist creating an intelligent radscorps with no resources and a guy creating firebreathing ants. Fallout 2 is mostly good. But there are a lot of portions to it that leave a bethesdian taste in my mouth.

 

[Graham2077]

At times mind you. In isolation, coffin willie is every bit as harmful as billy the fridge ghoul. In isolation, melchior is as bad as cabots magic juice. In isolation hakunans magic is as bad as mama murphy. Having the yakuza being generic baddies is as bad as having the mercenaries in fo4 be generic baddies. Im not saying fallout 2 doesn't have postitve aspects because then id be outright wrong. But there are elements to the game that are as bad as fallout 4 and even 3. Its not hard to see the similarites between a random scientist creating an intelligent radscorps with no resources and a guy creating firebreathing ants. Fallout 2 is mostly good. But there are a lot of portions to it that leave a bethesdian taste in my mouth.

Well, the difference is that Fallout 2 was also only really developed in about 8 months and I believe Feargus Urquhart explained in the past that he didn't oversee everyone's development on each section well enough. People threw slapstick in each area thinking they were being original but in reality everyone was doing it, they just didn't realize it. Fallout 2 had a rough development and it was still a great game regardless, FO3 and 4 aren't.

 

[R.Graves]

Fallout 2 had a rough development and it was still a great game regardless

Fallout 2 is a great game but a great fallout game? Ehhh... It's got a decidedly weak villain and is ridiculous with the lore breaks and silliness. The only thing it has that was great from fallout is top notch worldbuilding. Though fallout 2 was the first fallout to have an abundance of interesting sidequests. The first fallout with interesting companions. And the first fallout to really deal with towns interacting on an intricate scale... It adds a whole lot of unfallouty shit. New vegas is very much fallout 2 done better in my eyes. It has everything great about fo2 and none of the bad.

 

[FreedomStalker]

At times mind you. In isolation, coffin willie is every bit as harmful as billy the fridge ghoul. In isolation, melchior is as bad as cabots magic juice. In isolation hakunans magic is as bad as mama murphy. Having the yakuza being generic baddies is as bad as having the mercenaries in fo4 be generic baddies. Im not saying fallout 2 doesn't have postitve aspects because then id be outright wrong. But there are elements to the game that are as bad as fallout 4 and even 3. Its not hard to see the similarites between a random scientist creating an intelligent radscorps with no resources and a guy creating firebreathing ants. Fallout 2 is mostly good. But there are a lot of portions to it that leave a bethesdian taste in my mouth.

You make a good point. Fallout 2 has a lot of moments that are like WTF.

 

[YeeCop]

Cinematic intro + narration by Ron Perlman

The intro to Fallout is downright chilling. Vats of Goo is already a haunting track, coupled with Perlman's harsh narration makes the best Fallout intro in the series (that and Fo3)
New Vegas' intro is relatively warm in comparison. Then again New Vegas is a warm, rich game in general.

Tutorial

New Vegas' tutorial was kinda cool. You learn how to kill critters and live off the land with the Survival skill. Generally there's enough in Goodsprings to give you a great headstart.
Fallout didn't even have a tutorial. You're just killing cave rats with a knife.
Fallout 2 had the best tutorial IMO [/QUOTE]

Soundtrack: Mark Morgan versus Inon Zur

Inon Zur is a great composer, don't get me wrong. I liked his soundtrack for NV okay (his soundtrack for Fo3 was good but it doesn't fit the game at all)
However, there's something about Mark Morgan that makes Fallout and Fallout 2 more worth playing. His industrial horror ambience tracks set the high bar for Fallout music, and none has matched up to his achievement (so far)

Atmosphere and art direction

Fallout was like a horror dystopian game. And it bloody well should of, anyways. Fallout 2 was full of memes and jokes so you can't really take it as a tragedy like Fo1, it's more like a comedy. And like I said, New Vegas is more of a Western.
If anything Fallout game came closer to that original horror ambience that Fo1 gave, it's Fo3 (unless you're blaring "Butcher Pete", then no.)

Story

Fallout had the best story, hands down. Fallout 2 was a rehash of the Fallout story. It's amazing, but a rehash nonetheless.
Fallout 3's story was like a watered down version of Fallout. If you ever got a Coke with ice at a restaurant, and the ice melted, that's Fallout 3's story for you.

Dialogue

Need I say more?

Quests and side-quests

This ain't even a comparison. Fallout New Vegas had a lot more quests, a lot of them were rather superb. That's not to say Fallout had some incredible quests (my favorite was the quests you did for the Thieves Guild)

Factions

After playing New Vegas religiously, it was great to see the mighty NCR now as a humble town known as Shady Sands. Same with the Khans.
The Master and his army were no doubt the cream of the crop. I can't think of any other Fallout villain that rivals him (except Frank Horrigan)
I liked the whole feud with Gizmo and Killian Darkwater. Of course, I always sided with Darkwater.
The BoS sadly was only good in Fo1. They played a minor but insignificant role in Fo2, were xenophobes in FoNV, white knights in Fo3, and fascists in Fo4.
Although the Outcasts in Fo3 were badass.

Gear and equipment

Combat armor was seldom found in Fo1, power armor even rarer. Whether being more bountiful in FoNV is a great thing or not, is up to you.
FoNV offered a bigger variety in terms of weapons, ammunition, armor, and medicine, so obviously FoNV.

User interface

The PipBoy 2000 interface could let you rest without a bed, play previous scenes, and organized quests by town/faction. It was a lot more organized than the PipBoy 3000 in some ways, and it showed your exact AP points and DT. So I'd have to say Fo1.

 

[R.Graves]

Fallout villain that rivals him (except Frank Horrigan)

Caesar. I mean ashur could if he were in a bigger more fleshed out game too. When you get down to it for all the master's awesomeness his character essentially boils down to "altruistic hitler". Ceasar's motivations and reasoning are more interesting.

 

[YeeCop]

Caesar. I mean ashur could if he were in a bigger more fleshed out game too. When you get down to it for all the master's awesomeness his character essentially boils down to "altruistic hitler". Ceasar's motivations and reasoning are more interesting.

Ehh, you could boil down Caesar as just a "tyrant Caesar reincarnated".
"If you set aside his leadership capabilities, extensive knowledge, and ruthless cunning... he's just another jerk who steps on people to get his way." -Arcade Gannon

 

[Jogre]

Cinematic Intro: Fallout 1 wins all the way. It just perfectly introduces the Universe. Perfectly introduces the setting, with the dystopian War Bonds commercial, and super clunky Mr Handies.
New Vegas's intro had a gripping start, with being shot in the head, but it still could never hold a candle to the original intro.

Tutorial: Fallout 1 didn't have one, so New Vegas wins by default. Though I guess the game was assuming you got a copy of the game guide.

Soundtrack: Fallout 1 wins this purely because each soundtrack perfectly conveys exactly what it tries to, from the advanced techno-noises that play in the Brotherhood, to the radio signal type things in Vault 13, to the merchant music in The Hub, it all felt like it establishes the mood for each individual location.

New Vegas kinda reused a lot of old stuff from previous games, and no towns or dungeons had a unique soundtrack except for main faction locations.

Also, I loved the intro music to New Vegas, and the radio has some sweet tunes, but purely overall Fallout 1 wins.

Atmosphere and Art Direction: Fallout 1. It feels like a big world of adventure with lots of desert-type towns. New Vegas has a mild Western Atmosphere, but it generally doesn't have an overarching one. As for Art Direction, Fallout 1 feels a lot more clunky, with the 8 armed Mr Handies, and little lights and safety paint on the PipBoy, whereas Fallout New Vegas feels far more smooth with all the redesigns from Fallout 3 transferred over.

Story: New Vegas. Fallout 1 comes close because the whole thing with the Unity was handled so brilliantly, but New Vegas feels like it has a bigger overarching conflict, with far more reason to get invested beyond "There are mutants, we ought to kill them".

Dialogue: New Vegas feels a lot more professional, but you never have any insane characters, or blatant blackmail, or anyone you can't trust. New Vegas is better purely in terms of quality of writing, but Fallout 1 is far better in terms of the feeling you get from it.

Quests and Side Quests: About the same. Fallout 1 has a big diversity from working with crime lords, to negotiating ransom, to doing detective work. New Vegas feels far less diverse, but at the same time each quest has lots of different routes. Fallout 1's good for how different each quest feels from the next, but Fallout New Vegas is good for how every quest clearly had a lot of effort and branching to make every quest feel ever so slightly different for each character you play.

Factions: Fallout 1 had mostly towns, where the conflicts were fairly straightforward X wants full control over town but Y is getting in the way. The faction and town design seems to be more focused on making the game flavourful, than actually giving each faction a unique experience. New Vegas wins on the grounds of having unique tribes and gangs all interacting with one another. New Vegas Could use more conflict other than "X hates NCR, Y doesn't" tho.

Gear and Equipment: Fallout 1 made high-level equipment feel worthwhile, given that Power Armour was bad-ass as fuck, and high-level weapons could end up one-shotting lots of creatures on a crit.

New Vegas, in terms of pure diversity of weapons and armour is far better, but at the same time Power Armour feels like just another suit, and weapons feel meh.

User Interface: Both are terrible and longwinded. I think New Vegas is slightly more convenient, so wins, but I also preferred how Fallout 1 made the UI feel like a retro device, with silly buttons and countdown timers for HP.