Chris Avellone Fallout 2 podcast

[.Pixote.]

*Everything in Fallout 1 looks the same. Boneyard? Shady Sands? Junktown? Necropolis? The hub? They all look the same. Whereas New reno, vault city, san francisco, ncr, are all distinct locations.

To some degree, but generally each location had it's distinctive feel.

Junktown = Tin shacks.

Shady Sands = Adobe mud-brick.

Necropolis = Reddish brick buildings and Grey metallic buildings

The Hub = Grey metallic buildings.

But people need to understand the game has a very limit amount of artwork to work with. So you're damned if you do, and you're damned if you don't. F2 did make new elements to help with the issue, such as the new doorways and windows in Vault City, but I suppose the writing was as important in distinguishing the locations, as the art. My preference is F2 over F1, but that's because F2 was the introduction to the Fallout world for me, but saying that F1 is the better game - story wise.

 

[SuAside]

It's my experience that for people that were of age & played FO1 before FO2, they will prefer FO1.
If it's the other way around, and their first exposure was to FO2 and they only picked up FO1 after playing FO2, then they will usually prefer FO2.

In FO1, almost everything "fits" and makes sense (in some way or another). FO2 on the other hand, is just a loose group of "hey, this is cool, we should add this" and internal dynamics are hugely skewed. FO2 contains "more" of everything and has much more in depth quest design, but it just doesn't feel right. It's a consistency issue for me. As a result, I still think FO1 is the best of the Fallouts.

FO2's faults are very human ones. Killap, aside from being the most awesome bear dude in existence, fell into the same trap when he added Cat Jules etc to his restoration project. It's "lolcoolreference" but it doesn't fit by any stretch of the imagination.
It's like adding a digital stereo/MP3player with flashy LEDs to your vintage old timer. That's fine if you're not aiming for consistency, but realize it will break the total feel of the car.
As MCA explains, without someone being the guardian of your project's consistency, you quickly drift off little by little and lose your focus.

For lots of people (including myself) it just breaks immersion. I'm willing to overlook many things (such as the fact that FO1's towns and communities are not meant to be viewed as a 1:1 representation of a real thing, but rather more a concentrated & simplified way to respresent what they could be), but when you rip me out of my fantasy by just going off the wall ("lolMontyPythoniscool") then you're just kicking me in the nuts. Even if I'm a Monty Python fan.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

It's my experience that for people that were of age & played FO1 before FO2, they will prefer FO1.
If it's the other way around, and their first exposure was to FO2 and they only picked up FO1 after playing FO2, then they will usually prefer FO2.

I agree with this, and think each games faults could respectively be viewed as its strengths, depending on orientation (except for inventory, length, and companion faults with 1, so really everyone should agree that 2 is the better game )

Positive spin: Fallout 2 was a more colorful and meta approach to the game.
Negative spin: Fallout 2 was silly, and immersion breaking.

Positive spin: Fallout 1 was a more realistic approach, depicting the harsh reality of the wasteland without breaking the fourth wall.
Negative spin: Fallout 1 was bland.

I for one, like the Monty python references, and am happy everytime I come across the bridge keeper.

 

[Lexx]

How about some specific examples.

*Everything in Fallout 1 looks the same. Boneyard? Shady Sands? Junktown? Necropolis? The hub? They all look the same. Whereas New reno, vault city, san francisco, ncr, are all distinct locations.

They don't look the same at all. Like Pixote mentioned already, every town in Fo1 has their own unique style, while this wasn't possible that easily in Fo2 due to the limited tilesets (they workarounded this with small detail changes, such as different house doors, unique bar signs, etc). If at all, then Fo2 is the one where most locations look the same, due to technical limitations (amount of work per tileset + free space on disc).

Besides, Fo1's smaller size / better focus gives it a perfect playtime value, imo. I wouldn't want it to be any longer, nor shorter.

In the end, I personally couldn't give a shit how much or how less Fo2 is "the better game", nothing will beat Fo1 for me, because it's the game that has set the Fallout mood.

 

[Geech]

In the end, I personally couldn't give a shit how much or how less Fo2 is "the better game", nothing will beat Fo1 for me, because it's the game that has set the Fallout mood.

It didn't just set the tone, it set the tone very effectively. If Fallout 2 had been a stand-alone title or the first game in a series, it would have set a tone of goofy, scifi parody. Instead, we had a retro-tech post-apocalyptic world that referenced its ancestors, like Wasteland and Mad Max, while still being a unique and creative setting.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

In the end, I personally couldn't give a shit how much or how less Fo2 is "the better game", nothing will beat Fo1 for me, because it's the game that has set the Fallout mood.

It only set the mood for you because you played FO 1 first. Had you played 2 first then 2 would have set the mood for you, and the fact that 2 is in every way "the better game" would have stood out to you even more.

 

[Lexx]

Had I been on the moon first, nobody would care about Armstrong.

 

[Yamu]

I believe someone said it here before (and whoever it was, feel free to stand up and take credit, please), but Fallout 2 only worked because Fallout 1 released first to anchor and define the wasteland in fan's minds. If 2 had come first, the "Fallout" brand would be a lot less "hard-bitten retro-future wasteland" and a lot more "goofy neo-frontier pop culture bonanza." FO2 will always be one of the all-time great RPGs and a personal favorite, but as Mr. Chris Avellone says, in a lot of ways it's a silly rough-hewn mess, and that much would be true regardless of whether we had FO1's tighter focus and more grounded, consistent atmosphere to compare it to.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

Instead, we had a retro-tech post-apocalyptic world that referenced its ancestors, like Wasteland and Mad Max

I think this is right, but in a bad way.

I don't think there was much unique about fallout 1; like you said, it stood on the shoulders of wasteland and Mad Max. I don't think the series really gained its flavor and became its own thing until fallout 2. Fallout 2 was its own game fleshing out its own character -- 1 was just a wasteland sequel.

Edit: also, people keep calling 2 "silly," which is fine with me; but I think humor is completely necessary considering the darkness of the setting. FO2 is a dark comedy. Without the humor the wasteland would be much less fun.

 

[Geech]

Instead, we had a retro-tech post-apocalyptic world that referenced its ancestors, like Wasteland and Mad Max

I think this is right, but in a bad way.

I don't think there was much unique about fallout 1; like you said, it stood on the shoulders of wasteland and Mad Max. I don't think the series really gained its flavor and became its own thing until fallout 2. Fallout 2 was its own game fleshing out its own character -- 1 was just a wasteland sequel.

Edit: also, people keep calling 2 "silly," which is fine with me; but I think humor is completely necessary considering the darkness of the setting. FO2 is a dark comedy. Without the humor the wasteland would be much less fun.

Fallout 1 was not a Wasteland sequel by any stretch of the imagination. Wasteland, in tone, was probably closer to Fallout 2 than the first. Like Fallout 2 in included a bunch of disparate game elements, for example the cyborg infested sewers or Harry the bunny master, with no explanation as to how they got there. Like Fallout 2, it felt like a theme park with unrelated exhibits.

As far as FO1 not substantially differentiating itself from Wasteland and Mad Max, I can only assume that you haven't seen either recently, but Fallout is clearly very different than both. The setting has more personality than Wasteland -- Vault Boy and the whole vaults program for that matter -- and a lot more fantasy elements -- retrotech, mutants, etc. -- than Mad Max. It references both liberally, but in tone and character is beholden to neither. Fallout 2, in comparison, didn't flesh out its own feel unless "unfocused mess" is considered a design theme.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

So Fallout 1 was like Wasteland and Mad Max except with vaults and a fifties throwback vibe (I have no idea what you meant by fantasy elements) -- not exactly what I would call "very different."

And while I love these elements, they are not enough to make a game good; or everyone on these boards would be singing the praises of Fallout 3.

The fact is Fallout 1 did have a great setting, but other than that superficial detail that's about it. Its execution was poor, its quests were uncreative; and really, saying Fallout 1 had more personality than Wasteland is fairly laughable. Compared to Wasteland Fallout has the personality of a used dish cloth.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I believe someone said it here before (and whoever it was, feel free to stand up and take credit, please), but Fallout 2 only worked because Fallout 1 released first to anchor and define the wasteland in fan's minds. If 2 had come first, the "Fallout" brand would be a lot less "hard-bitten retro-future wasteland" and a lot more "goofy neo-frontier pop culture bonanza." FO2 will always be one of the all-time great RPGs and a personal favorite, but as Mr. Chris Avellone says, in a lot of ways it's a silly rough-hewn mess, and that much would be true regardless of whether we had FO1's tighter focus and more grounded, consistent atmosphere to compare it to.

well ... didnt stop F3 of becoming that ... sadly