Big and Messy or Short and Clean

[Sorrow]

I voted for 1. becacuse IMO, depth, consistency and setting are essential parts of Fallout.
I think that making another big, monty haul Fallout 2 would lead to further loss of the Fallout's essence.

 

[Shaihulud]

I'd go with FO1, the style was just perfect, and FO2 just didn't replicate it readily enough.

 

[welsh]

Honestly, I go with Fallout 1 too, but Fallout 2 is a pretty damn awesome game. I am replaying it now. Sure there are lots of things that don't go well. The whole "immature" or "lesser" deathclaw? Way too many guns, and where the hell did all these people come from?

Overall, Fallout 2 is pretty remarkable even if Fallout 1 beats it in consistency, theme and depth.

 

[Starwars]

I choose the 'Fallout 1 style' as well. It just seems focused, tightly constructed, and I never felt like I was abandoning the main story even though there are quite a few sidequests.

I appreciate the Fallout 2 type of gameplay also, especially since there is a lot of replay value in there. But the trouble for me, is that everytime I replay Fallout 2, it almost never holds my interest all the way to the end. Since there are so many things to do (I'm the type of player who have to talk to everyone in an area), the main story in Fallout 2 loses me completely after a while.
The setting also goes off in some weird directions.

I rank both games very high on my 'all time favourites' list, but Fallout 1 takes the cake for me.

 

[I_eat_supermutants]

I went with Fallout one.
Felt more like it should.
While I like Fallout 2 it's just Fallout 1 held more of an atmosphere with just about everything. Humour was spread out and made it more of a rare treat for me. (soilent green particularly) The setting stood, people struggling to survive in a harsh inviroment, 2 was too inconsistant. I love both but 1 made it more special.

 

[Milo]

FO1 for sure. 2 was rushed to the market too fast, it was a lot of fun but the whole thing wasn't very well thought out. Way more glitchy than 1 too.