Fallout 1 or Fallout 2?

FO1/FO2

I played FO2 and thought: This is the best game ever!!!
I was wrong: FO1 is REALY better, anyway, is too small, REALY small... Not too itens, no upgraded weapons, no REALY good guns for the BGuns/SGuns player (BGuns in FO2: Avenger/Vindicator/LSW, not Bozar because it is terrible mistaken/ SGuns PKK12 and M72). FO2 is balanced, FO1 is not (yahoo! i finished the game on lv14 and got 200% SGuns in lv5!).
FO1 is more immersive, the unarmed feature is lot cooler (FO2: Hey, i got a weapon in my first slot, so i can only kick!). The FO1 worldmap is better (FO2: Hey, i'm in the coast, when i stop i'm in the desert!/In FO1 you can stop in coast, city or desert!). The "Tell me about" feature in FO1 is REALY cool, altrought flawed (realy flawed). The best would be a FO1+FO2 engine with FO1 history and FO2 itens (exept H&K automatic shotguns and SMGs, OK?).
FO1 have LOTS, REALY LOTS of talking heads (even useless ones like Rhombus). Result: In my opinion, FO1 wins!
 
The only real good thing going for F2 was its size and the mechanics was better.

Story, mood, and overall feel Fallout 1 was better.

Fallout 1 had a sympathetic antagonist while F2s final badguy/"organisation" was your standard evil.

Fallout 1 allowed you to convince the final boss about the errors of his way, no such thing in Fallout 2.

The Shi. That for me was just downright bad. Come on, the chinese used biological and nuclear weapons and now the americans are just gonna be cool with the survivors/descendents of a chinese nuclear sub, I think not.

Fallout 1 had less technology so it had more of a apocalyptic feel to it.

Fallout 2, technology was everywhere. Multiple cities had clean water, electricity, medical treatment.
 
1. Yes Engine was better
2. Agreed.
3. Yep, Franky must have Psychic Nullifier on him too :P
4. Well US didn't really care, because they were gonna do a second apocalypse anyway, so who is currently on the land is irrelevant. I think they were more preoccupied with the near humans more than the Chinese. Besides I wouldn't think they had the resources to wipe them out with what they had back when they were on the Rig.
5. Yes, but in F1 BoS did civilise a lot of neighbourhoods, so if F2 had the same feel as F1, then you might think BoS are hermits :P. BUt yes, Vault City and Shady sands seem a strong contrast between the two while both of their origins are very similar.
 
Well, I hate to say it, but I was never *impressed* by Fallout 1. Why? Because I got this game at age of 11 and didn't know what the hell does Dexterity or Agility (I'm from Poland) means or what this game is about. About 2-3 years later I learned from a friend how to play Fallout 2 and bought a copy myself. Unfortunatly, due to my lack of skills\intelligence\wits (call it as you wish) I had to finish it using a walkthrough.

Anyhow, by the time I decided to finish Fallout 1 I knew most of things about it and nothing really suprised me there.

The first part did not offer so much freedom as the second and that pains me. Traveling itself takes helluva long time and so does resting, which forces the player to skip parts which waste too much time. I don't say it's impossible to finish all the great quests in time, but the less experienced\skilled player are restrained by time limit (yes, I do know about Water Merchants, but it shortens the overall time to finish the game, which is a nice touch when it comes to realism). As for the atmosphere.....Fallout 2 has a wacky, crazy one where Fallout 1 is more "life sucks like hell". Both fit me fine. As for the main quest, plot and such, I regret Fallout 2 was made in such a rush, I bet that with more time there would be a better one, perhaps they'd see that it became too silly and untied.
Besides, locations in FO2 aren't such out of place. NCR was foretold in FO, Vault City was an example how the Vaults should work, New Reno (which I personally hate) was pretty obvious - people tend to seek shelter in drugs and alcohol and there are always others who use this fact. To me it's like Hub gone bad.
Redding? Not a town I love, but still, it had a nice atmosphere of a little western town.
I'd discuss San Fransisco, it seems too unrealistic, but hey, the postapocalyptic world should be unpredictable.
Talking Deathclaws? Although may seem silly, it makes you think - should they be allowed to live? I mean, if they'd got to spread out, they'd pose a far more serious threat than super mutants and who knows how'd they develop their feelings towards humans, would it be hatred or friendships?

As stated before, Fallout 1 had the atmosphere of overall hopelessnes, but not entirely. It's message was that only through a sacrifice of the few can the greater good achieved and humanity preserved, but those brave ones will suffer greatly (Fallout's 2 intro). Fallout 2 showed that there is hope in this world, that humanity *can* rebirth. But once again, this hope may be snuffed out by some assholes who see things their way. Furthermore, this was all predicted even before the War.
FO made us think about things, that not everything we believe in is what it seems. I bet the Vault Dweller thought the Vaults to be a project to save americans. That the Overseer had to make tough choices, but overall he sought to protect his people from the dangers of the outside world. FO2 was more straightforward, but still, there were some interesting turns, like optimizing the Gecko powerplant, choosing which crime family align to or the "good" Broken Hills ending.

ahhh, once again I got carried away. I prefer playing Fallout 2 and discussing Fallout 1 plot.
 
I played both 'back in the day' and Fallout 2 left more of an impression on me. As well I still have a copy of FO2 and long since lost my copy of FO1...
 
What I have against either games:

1. Fallout 1, once you knew how to play it, can be beaten with little difficulty, and its level 21 cap seems rather low. When I tried to play it first time, apart from controls, I find that quests were the harder part of Fallout 1, and they were not too difficult at all (Deathclaw, Lieutenant and Master fights were the only ones that were of any real combat difficulty, and even then only the Master fight was a challenge). That given, the critters were more 'realistic' compared to Fallout 2 (I mean, what person/kid on earth can take 2 bullet hits and STILL run?)

2. What I did not like at the start about Fallout 2 was that the Original play style I had in Fallout 1 (item hoarder, I always had Barter maxed out in F1 before even putting any combat skills) did not work with Fallout 2, and I found myself struggling with the difficulty of some random events. I got used to it, but I am not too fond of the frequency of Randoms (especially Wolves, I hate them more than every other random combined), nor the difficulty of some of them (Enclave patrols are very hard if you didn't know what to expect, and is still difficult without Power Armor or large amounts Stimpaks).

What I liked about them:

1. Fallout 1's World Map looks a lot better than Fallout 2 version, much more detail. The Critter placement mechanics in Fallout 1 was somewhat better than in Fallout 2. I mean why do Caravans you encounter always get in a Hex formation? Or raiders? Talking heads being another (I really wished that some of the more key characters get talking heads, like Vic, Metzger, maybe Doc Johnson, and Dr Troy).

2. Fallout 2's freedom of any deadline was what I liked more about it. I was plagued by the 150-250 day deadline of the first part of the game because I could not go to the Glow and come back or else everything else will be in tight schedule. Party member control was much better in Fallout 2, and that they were still very useful to keep around in the middle/end of the game. In fallout 1 once you get to the second half, the party members become nothing but attract fire (which usually doesn't matter because not a lot of weapons in Fallout 1 can actually damage you through HPArmor) or just get in your way, literally.

</rant> :P
 
That is a tuffy...

FO1 is greater story but FO2 has more to do and is easier to really make your character have his/her own style versus just going through the motions for the umteen hundredth time...
 
Fallout > Fallout 2.

Fallout has the better story, the better balance, the better feeling, the better ambient... Only the interface changes in Fallout 2 are what I miss in Fallout 1.
 
Well, Fallout is much more better designed than Fallout 2: A post nuclear comedy game*, but is somehow short for me... :roll:

*all this stupid and retarded talking plants/animals, mobsters, Arroyo, New Reno, etc. A lot of new art is shitty as hell (for example: critters have really poor animations and design)
 
Fallout 1 = Fallout 2.

Yeah. 'Cause nothing compares to the atmosphere and storyline of FO 1 but on the other hand, FO 2 has more neat locations, interface features, NPC combat settings, different weapons and various ways to develop you character, having unlocked levels above 21.

They just made a heck of a game, twice.
 
For Fallout 1 it wasn't needed to level above 21. The game was balanced that way - if you are level 21 you saw the most things and you also never need to wander around a day just for killing stuff on the worldmap to gain a higher level.
 
Fallout > Fallout 2.
Better balanced, more consistent design. I wish it was more moddable, though.


Also, Fallout: A GURPS Post-Nuclear Adventure > Fallout :P .
 
yup, FO1 > FO2. better (and consistent) design, less screw-ups.

gameplay/handling-wise FO2 is better though.

i've found that the vast majority of the people who played FO1 before they played FO2 liked FO1 better. however, if you played FO2 first and then FO1, most people get annoyed by the smaller size, the annoying inventory and money handling.

that said: FO1 all the way baby!
 
SuAside said:
i've found that the vast majority of the people who played FO1 before they played FO2 liked FO1 better. however, if you played FO2 first and then FO1, most people get annoyed by the smaller size, the annoying inventory and money handling.
Click to expand...

Yes, this was my experience exactly. And i played FO2 first.

I agree FO1 has the more consistent plot.
I also agree it has more atmosphere due to its consistency.


But i love the easter eggs and the out-of-character humour you find in FO2. I so admire the way the game playfully jumps between serious and downright comic, without breaking my feeling of immersion. For me, that is the mark of truly awesome writing and game design.

I also agree the new critters in FO2 generally look stiff, terrible and out-of-place... and i also agree San-Fran sucked big-time. In fact, i think FO2 is generally a flawed game. But i just love it!
 
I agree with most of the praise for the characterization, atmosphere, and plotting for Fallout. One thing that hasn't been mentioned yet are the textures for the ground. I always felt that the more deserty textures from Fallout looked better than the muddy brown textures from Fallout 2. This might seem like nit-picking, but keep in mind that you are looking at those textures for almost the entire game.

Another thing that hasn't been mentioned is that in Fallout you can solve most of the side quests without leaving town. I felt that Fallout 2 had way too many inter-town Fed-Ex quests. I could barely keep track of what I needed to do and it just seemed to take me out of the story, whereas in Fallout you can spend an hour of gametime in a town and talk to everyone and solve most of the quests (as long as your level isn't too low). For me it just lent itself to a stronger story when I could solve the quests before forgetting about them.
 
its tough.... at this point im leaning towards fallout 2 because it feels like a more refined better product. no it doesnt have that incredible plot line.

fallout 1.... well it felt stark in a lot of ways. felt hard to find lots of quests and things to do, and that was on top of a lot of bad interface items like having to click 1,115 times to put out enough caps for something. i LOVED that the start of the game was so hard in the original, but i usually jack so much gear off the dead(because armor can be jacked in the orignal) that i become a bad ass in short order....

so ya simplified i guess i will say i like 2 because it feels refined, it feels like there is more to do and more interesting characters, player power growth is more even, and its just downright funny. ok the first one could be funny but the second one was just delicious...
 
ceacar99 said:
fallout 1.... well it felt stark in a lot of ways. felt hard to find lots of quests and things to do, and that was on top of a lot of bad interface items like having to click 1,115 times to put out enough caps for something.
Click to expand...
Err...
You could simply write the amount of caps from keyboard (up to 999).
 
I used to play my first FO and FO2 games like that, too - usually put a heavy object on my mouse and done something else every time I needed to sell some stuff to the Gunrunners... in FO 2 it at least sped up as you held the button! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top