belengario
First time out of the vault
Why?
Fallout 1 or Fallout 2?
- Thread starter belengario
- Start date
First time out of the vault
Lazarus Plus
The smoovest
Why what?
Why is one better than the other? Why should you play one (1) first? Why are you such an idiot you can't post more than one word, which is I'm fairly positive a violation of the rules? Hmm?
Why?
Why is one better than the other? Why should you play one (1) first? Why are you such an idiot you can't post more than one word, which is I'm fairly positive a violation of the rules? Hmm?
Why?
belengario
First time out of the vault
Sorry, lazarus. Me english is very poor. I want to know their opinions.
Why do you like more in Fallout 1 in comparision at fallout 2? Why do you like more 1 than 2? Why this hate about fallout 2?
Why do you like more in Fallout 1 in comparision at fallout 2? Why do you like more 1 than 2? Why this hate about fallout 2?
Because it is inconsistent in a lot of places (especially New Reno), much of it doesn't fit with the setting, the storyline was poorly done and there were so many silly easter eggs that it wasn't funny anymore. Plus, it was buggy as hell.
That's not to say Fallout 2 was a poor game, though. It was just not anywhere near
That's not to say Fallout 2 was a poor game, though. It was just not anywhere near
The following things stand between Fallout 2 and the prestigious title of "Teh Best RPG EVAR!!11":
1. Tribals
2. Talking deathclaws
3. New Reno
4. Redding gold mine
5. Monty Python
6. Star Trek
7. Star Wars
8. Hitchhikers' Guide Through the Galaxy
9. Dick Richardson
10. H&K rifles
11. Stuff like this:
12. The Cave Of A Thousand Ants
13. G.E.C.K.
1. Tribals
2. Talking deathclaws
3. New Reno
4. Redding gold mine
5. Monty Python
6. Star Trek
7. Star Wars
8. Hitchhikers' Guide Through the Galaxy
9. Dick Richardson
10. H&K rifles
11. Stuff like this:
12. The Cave Of A Thousand Ants
13. G.E.C.K.
I'm not really bothered by those things... (yeah ok, except all the "ancient modern" weapons).
I have to admit that Fallout 2 isn't Fallout, but still, it's bigger than Fallout, and basically more of the same, only different... if you get what I mean.
Also, to illustrate my point a little (I'm bored, sorry)... if I play Fallout, I play it seriously... but if I play Fallout 2, I just FALCHE my character and try to do all the silly stuff you can do in the game... like get married, get addicted to everything you can get addicted to, slaughter the VC Citizens... slaughter the Den... slaughter Broken Hills...
I have to admit that Fallout 2 isn't Fallout, but still, it's bigger than Fallout, and basically more of the same, only different... if you get what I mean.
Also, to illustrate my point a little (I'm bored, sorry)... if I play Fallout, I play it seriously... but if I play Fallout 2, I just FALCHE my character and try to do all the silly stuff you can do in the game... like get married, get addicted to everything you can get addicted to, slaughter the VC Citizens... slaughter the Den... slaughter Broken Hills...
belengario
First time out of the vault
The exaggerated easter eggs is awful. The initial plot is awful (geck). But there are so many positive things:
- very much more complex quests
- More moral freedom
- The history some cities cover: hipocrisy, racism, etc
- Fallout 2 is more balanced than 1
- Fallout 2 is more enjoyable
Of course, this is a personal question. Fallout 2 is more popular for being funnier.
- very much more complex quests
- More moral freedom
- The history some cities cover: hipocrisy, racism, etc
- Fallout 2 is more balanced than 1
- Fallout 2 is more enjoyable
Of course, this is a personal question. Fallout 2 is more popular for being funnier.
14. Feargus MacFuckwit as the SLAM DUNK! project lead.
Fallout 1 also had a story and a good end boss aside from the generic crap of Frank Horrigan at the end of a number of barely-connected locations. Fallout 1 seemed to sew the locations together far better, when Fallout 2 just felt like Cherry 2000 with Uwe Boll's direction style.
"And um...so now there's zombies! Attack!"
Fallout 1 also had a story and a good end boss aside from the generic crap of Frank Horrigan at the end of a number of barely-connected locations. Fallout 1 seemed to sew the locations together far better, when Fallout 2 just felt like Cherry 2000 with Uwe Boll's direction style.
"And um...so now there's zombies! Attack!"
Fallout is simply more coherent, thus more atmospherical and immersive than its sequel. When I played Fallout the first time, I could not stop it. When I played Fallout 2 the first time I enjoyed it, but I made so many recesses due to incoherent circumstances between the locations. The "red thread" was not given in such a way like it was in Fallout.
Whoa, and the Den quests sucked...really.
Besides I can only emphasize the points already given in this thread.
Whoa, and the Den quests sucked...really.
Besides I can only emphasize the points already given in this thread.
Carib FMJ
Nuka-Cola Chaser
I loved Fallout 2, but I was always more partial to Fallout 1 for some reason. It just had that dark atmosphere. I mean I remember really taking the missing Caravan Quest serious as well as finding the Waterchip.
The whole thing had a great atmosphere and when you factored in the super mutants, all the better.
The whole thing had a great atmosphere and when you factored in the super mutants, all the better.
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
I don't know. Here I prefer Fallout 2's setting (bigger world, able to continue playing after finishing main quest, memorable NPC - [Myron, Myron, baby it's Myron!] 8) ).
Yet there I like the gameplay of Fallout (the time setting which creates intense gameplay, darker atmosphere, memorable places like The Glow).
Overall I hope Fallout 3 can combines both's pros *crossing finger*
Yet there I like the gameplay of Fallout (the time setting which creates intense gameplay, darker atmosphere, memorable places like The Glow).
Overall I hope Fallout 3 can combines both's pros *crossing finger*
Fallout 1 had the atmosphere. There really was a sense of unity in the world (pun intended), with all the locations well pieced together, forming a solid storyline. That, and the art was done under a single art director, giving us normal raiders and bouncers instead of the bouncers from Fallout 2.
And Brotherhood of Steel. Yes, Brotherhood. I still wish they'd finished all those quests there...
And Brotherhood of Steel. Yes, Brotherhood. I still wish they'd finished all those quests there...
I love and adore them both, but they don't honestly seem like separate games to me. it's almost like they're mutual expansion packs with different storylines. Taken separately, Fallout is the better game from a technical standpoint - it's cohesive, intelligent, and driven. but Fallout 2 is my favorite simply because it's more of what I like in an RPG - it's sprawling, hilarious, and varied.
I recently revved up Fallout for the first time in a couple years. I wanted to play Fallout 2, but my brother took it upon himself to delete the game off his computer, and when I went to reinstall it, the disc would no longer work (GRRRRRR.) the excellence of Fallout shouldn't be underrated, but after about a week I had beaten it and there was literally nothing else to do. it's such a SMALL world compared to Fallout 2, and while it lends it more focus, it also feels constricting to me. There's less of everything, and while some people prefer a smaller environment, I'm more of a crowd person.
There are some things Fallout does better, though. The Glow and the Brotherhood, for one. I still get shivers when I think of the Glow. the first time I went there, many many years ago, I got FRIED.
I recently revved up Fallout for the first time in a couple years. I wanted to play Fallout 2, but my brother took it upon himself to delete the game off his computer, and when I went to reinstall it, the disc would no longer work (GRRRRRR.) the excellence of Fallout shouldn't be underrated, but after about a week I had beaten it and there was literally nothing else to do. it's such a SMALL world compared to Fallout 2, and while it lends it more focus, it also feels constricting to me. There's less of everything, and while some people prefer a smaller environment, I'm more of a crowd person.
There are some things Fallout does better, though. The Glow and the Brotherhood, for one. I still get shivers when I think of the Glow. the first time I went there, many many years ago, I got FRIED.
I hate the time limit in fallout 1 , but I was more into the story like lots of people in fallout1. (maby a little bit because of the time limit to save the people before its to late arrr!!!! 
)
But I love the fact that fallout 2 is bigger and has more to explore and to do.
)But I love the fact that fallout 2 is bigger and has more to explore and to do.
Personally I liked teh second more than the first because the first was too damn short for my tastes, and I played it all the way through. But I think the reason that FO was better than FO2 is because all the locations were more realistic and were connected better, although not politically. For example, most of the locations are given to you by people you meet in FO (Shady Sands is told to you, who then directs you to Junktown, which introduces you to the Hub, etc., but in FO2 a lot of them are mentioned but you have to go search for them (Such as the Military Base and San Fran. First time I palyed I stumbled onto both.))
FO2 also had a lot of politics and science to it and a lot of out-of-place areas, such as NCR, New Reno, and Navarro. None of them had the feel to it. They were more of the 'hope', whereas Fallout was hopeless. A lot of people you met in FO had no idea what they were talking about (i.e. the Master) whereas in FO2...Let's say Myron would have lost your casual gamer.
FO2 also felt more like a Western than a post-apoc, with Redding, Klamath, San Fran, and Modoc. 'Course I'm a goody-two-shoes, so...
FO2 also had a lot of politics and science to it and a lot of out-of-place areas, such as NCR, New Reno, and Navarro. None of them had the feel to it. They were more of the 'hope', whereas Fallout was hopeless. A lot of people you met in FO had no idea what they were talking about (i.e. the Master) whereas in FO2...Let's say Myron would have lost your casual gamer.
FO2 also felt more like a Western than a post-apoc, with Redding, Klamath, San Fran, and Modoc. 'Course I'm a goody-two-shoes, so...
Ratty said:
What's wrong with Dick? I find it enjoyable that the game has a demonic War-on-Mutants US President. Nice Emperor Quetzel line in the gialogue tree, too.
Can get by with tribals and the GECK, too.
Compare Dick and Frank Horrigan with the Master and his Lieutenant and you will quickly see what's wrong.
Atomic Cowboy
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Fallout 1 definetly had the better storyline - it was genre defining. It was poorly balanced however (I love miniguns and they're bloody useless in the game!). Fallout 2's storyline wasn't as deep, but it was much wider. The unfortunate thing is at the end of the game (I presume they were pushing for release) the plot bottlenecks - San Francisco was dissapointing. Far moreso than New Reno.
With any games this old when you play them you look past the limitations of the interface. In this sense Fallout 1 was the much better game, it was just more powerful. But Fallout 2 was better implemented - plus you got to wear the roadwarrior armor for longer!
With any games this old when you play them you look past the limitations of the interface. In this sense Fallout 1 was the much better game, it was just more powerful. But Fallout 2 was better implemented - plus you got to wear the roadwarrior armor for longer!