Fallout 1 or 2: Which does NMA prefer?

Which classic Fallout game is better in your opinion?

  • Total voters
    30
The Water Ship

The Water Ship

The Water Chip's lesser-known counterpart.
So since I know about this site's preference of the classics over the newer games (which is why I joined in the first place) I've decided to start a survey to see which game the majority prefers. I personally prefer Fallout 1 for the following reasons:

  1. The writing is in my opinion superior to Fallout 2's since there are less pop culture references and more well thought out characters such as The Master and The Lieutenant. I'm not saying that I hate Fallout 2, however. (in fact it's my 3rd favorite Fallout game)
2. Fallout has a better final boss by a small margin. Sure the Master is a joke if you have Tesla armor but the dialogue is what takes the cake for me. On the other end of the spectrum we have Frank Horrigan: he is pretty difficult even with turrets, a Bozar, and 5 companions (if you want to keep them alive) which sets him apart from the master who can be killed in 2 turns with a Turbo Plasma Rifle so he's pretty good in terms of difficulty but Fallout 1 has a slight edge over it in my opinion.​


Well those are my opinions; feel free to discuss yours below.
 
fallout 2 is like when the new developer does not know what world of fallout is supposed to be satirical or serious, but adding lots of improvement anyway. Sure; new revamped ui, roleplaying option, trait and unique graphic of each area but the change of tone since the introduction of wacky stuff is enough to trigger some member around here long time ago.
 
Hm. Fifty fifty for the moment. Not surprising. Each title is a masterpiece, each one in its own way, and I hesitated for quite a while before submitting my vote.
 
Fallout 2 got more stuff and so it allows me to roleplay far more.
Fallout 1 is more tightly designed though and the main story doesn't feel token.

Sooo... Fallout 1 I guess.
 
Fallout 1 no question.
As much as I enjoyed Fallout 2, for its story, characters and even surreal wacky moments, I fine the tonne and themes of the first game to rank it superior.

For me, F1 is very focused, it's a dark depressing game set in a post apocalyptic World which borders the line between fear and misery.
The towns feel almost hopeless, but there is a strong sense of community.

You got a place like Necropolis which feels like it was straight out of an 80's horror film which is something that is carried throughout the game.

The Catherdal itself is borderline gothic, the music, atmosphere and characters all have something off about them from the beginning.
Even if you didn't know about the place and wondered into it on your first game while exploring, you're going to know that something dark and mysterious is going on around there.

For me, The Master is one of those all time classic bosses, someone who isn't exactly evil, but has very human goals. Simply put, he has Hitler but with the proof of a master race, instead of some guy who went on some kind of messed up logic.

Fallout 2 is still an amazing game and better at the role-playing aspects and even humour at times.
I get the feeling that Black Isle knew how Fallout worked, but added in a few extra touches. Maybe the humour didn't fit in as much.

And I may get a lot of hate with this, but i feel like Bethesda did indeed get the tonne right with Fallout 3. It's still just as depressing to wonder, yet they fucked up on every other aspect.

I actually see New Vegas almost as an apology for Fallout 2, for me, New Vegas just beats Fallout 1 slightly.

It seems weird to think that in the holy trinity of Fallout games, I consider the second as the worst (even through I hate referring to it as the worst, it's more like... It isn't 1 or New Vegas).

So yeah, the first wins it for me.
But both are required playing.
 
I love both, but what really got me into the classic fallouts was playing fallout 2 and is the fallout I have sunk the most hours into.
 
I'm in a funny position. As much as I love Fallout 2, I would vote for Fallout 1 simply because 1 had better writing and structure to its story and setting. It helps that 1 took place after a rather small period of time after the bombs fell so the atmosphere was the strongest in 1.

2 is the more re-playable for me though due to the amount of things you can do that has actual significant impact to the West Coast region and it did not have an explicit time limit to restrict exploration. 2 is still my favorite Fallout game (tied with New Vegas) but I acknowledge that 1 is the game with better writing (New Vegas is capable of matching 1 in that respect).
 
Unpopular opinion here, I'm going with Fallout 2. While 1 had more atmosphere and a better story, the world of Fallout 2 had much more to offer. The whole Jet thing, the struggle for Redding, the New Reno families and of course Modoc were some really awesome areas and questlines to explore. The main story didn't impress me as much as the story of 1, but I feel like the game was more about the world than the story anyway.

Anyway, I do have to agree that 1 had much more atmosphere. While I've had a lot more fun with Fallout 2 in general, that feeling of despair and impending doom that Fallout 1 gave me was not present at any moment in Fallout 2.
 
This is tough.
As mentioned above, 1 has the better atmosphere and characters but 2 has more stuff. I feel more at home with 1 but given the choice I'll choose to play 2 not only because of the quantity of stuff, but also because it improves on the mechanics, like the 'take all' button, companion commands, and Charisma determining the max number of followers.

Then again, Enclave Power Armour and its ludicrous Strength bonus kind of ruins half the role-playing for me near the end. Just sayin'.

50/50 here.
 
I may have voted for Fallout 2, but I think I might actually be more on the 50/50 side of things as well. Both games are genius in their own ways. I wish they could be combined into one super game. The atmosphere and story of 1, the expansive world and choice and consequence of 2 along with the improved game mechanics. Too bad the franchise will never be in the hands of actual RPG developers again (I'm guessing, of course there is no way to know what happens in a decade or two).
 
I made a thread like this somewhere in 2014, and my opinion is unchanged.

Fallout 2 is a better game not just because it has "more stuff " to do, but because it gives the player a far wider chance of roleplay. Companions are actually memorable, and have depth to them. The player could now, finally shove people, rather than just wait for them to get out of the way. The world feels more connected, and the wasteland is actually a really dangerous place because the random encounters in the game are much more challenging than in Fallout 1.

Fallout 1 might have the better story, atmosphere, and beginning (because screw the Temple of Trials; I swear Fallout 2 is optimized for Melee and Unarmed characters), but what Fallout 2 does better than Fallout 1, outweighs what Fallout 1 does better than Fallout 2, my vote is going for Fallout 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top