Fallout 1 VS Fallout 2

They are very different games despite what the press thought at the time. Fallout 1 is a tight, well written, and near-perfect role-playing game. Fallout 2 is messy, far from perfect, but is an unbelievably satisfying and superior game to the first in key areas. Fallout 1 has a better main story, but Fallout 2 absolutely demolishes Fallout 1 in the side quests and incidental towns department.

Every town in Fallout 2 truly felt like an alien and unique place. From the gritty urban decay of The Den, to the preppy pre-war sensibilities of Vault-City, to the all-american farming town of Modoc. Every place felt unique and was littered with interesting quests and characters to the point that I actually prefer Fallout 2 over 1 despite it's numerous problems. I fully admit the main story isn't great, the tone wavers all over the place. But town/hub exploration is my favorite part of RPG's and Fallout 2 is maybe the best ever at that design philosophy.

Also Fallout 2 has a gauss pistol. Fallout 2>Fallout 1
 
i liked 1 more but i've played 2 much more

more shit to do in 2, harder game ect

i rly liked 1 but it was a pretty easy/short game, i recently bought 1/2/tactics on steam during the summer sale and i did every quest i was able in fallout 1 in 9 hours according to steam, i havent played 2 yet but i'd imagine it would probably clock minimum 40-50
 
So I was playing fallout 1 again and really enjoying it and making great progress. I finished doing things for the brotherhood and decided to look for the alien blaster. Aka the best gun in the game. This gun is usually what I base my characters off. I realized because my luck stat was 7 it was impossible for me to find it. (unless I spent hours in real life hoping the RNG would have me find it)

So basically I wasted 8 hours today playing only to realize I cant fucking beat the game the way I want to...


what do u mean can't beat the game the way u want to cos u cant find a gun from a special encounter lol... thats literally the dumbest thing i've ever read in my life
 
If you were basing your character around the Alien Blaster then you should've put more points into Luck.
 
Fallout 1 is one of my favorite games ever. On the other hand, I hate Fallout 2 with a passion, so that should answer the question of which is better for me.
However, I do appreciate some of the improvements in Fallout 2, mainly the ones that make the game much more convenient to play. I wish there was a mod like BGTutu for Fallout 1. (Is there one actually?)
 
There is an ongoing project to port Fallout 1 on the Fallout 2 engine.
From what i read, it look quite advanced but with mods, you never really know when it is finished...
 
just realized the OP is using a cheating program to beat fallout 1.... i beat fallout 1 when i was 7 years old :p
 
Having just recently played through both Fallout 1 and 2 again, it really struck me in how different they were to each other. Much of people's memories of the games seems to lump them together as beign almost identical sequels, when playing both games feels so unbelivably different.

As KolbeHoward said, Fallout 1 is a much smaller scale game that is perfectly designed and felt as though the entire game had a cohesive theme that pulled everything in the game together, even if there were certain individual gameplay mechanics that were unrefined (trading, the companion system, certain skills e.t.c.). It really is a masterpiece of classic CRPG gaming.

Fallout 2 on the other hand has no cohesive vision whatsoever. When you learn about what happened behind the scenes during the making of Fallout 2, it's not really surprising the final product is the way it is. The departure of Tim Cain early on in development meant that the game lacked the direction and thematic consistency that the first game had completely. Then, the decision to split the development process up between lots of different small, isolated teams only exacerbated this problem, with the short development time putting an even bigger burden on the team. Essentially, what kept Fallout 2 from being as successful in the worldbuilding and atmosphere of the original game was Interplay's fixation upon being successful in the market, rather than wanting to create a great game which would gather long term sales and fans. When you look at it from that perspective, you can judge the game far more accurately. I think considering the constraints they were under, they did a really fantastic job. While the towns and cities felt completely isolated from one another, they are all (excluding San Francisco) well crafted and are on par with many of the areas from Fallout 1. The overall plot is far more dull and rushed than the original, but there are several main plot details (mainly the ones that were present in Tim Cain's original story draft) that are fantastic and are perfectly fitting in the Fallout timeline (the true purpose behind the Vaults being a prime example of this) and the side-stories are all very compelling. I think it's really undeniable too that the gameplay in Fallout 2 is vastly improved over the original to the point of near-perfection. The problems with the game really reside in that lack of vision and overall theme that the original had, and it would have had it if Interplay hadn't messed with the development of the game so heavily and Tim Cain as a result would have stayed at Interplay.

So really, it is completely down to personal preference, since I think both games are so incredibly successful in most areas, that they can be seen as effectively equals. Both games still remain as my favourite CRPGs of all time, and are both easily among my absolute favourite gaming experiences I've ever had, and it's practically impossible to choose which one is superior. I suppose if I really had to choose then I would go with the one I've put the most hours into and have gotten the most enjoyment out of, which would be Fallout 2, but I really do wish there was a way for us to have seen Tim Cain's version of Fallout 2
 
The original, hands down number 1 for atmosphere, VAs, story, etc. Nothing like losing your PA game virginity to essentially the best one out.

I had a deathly fear of zombies when I was younger so you can imagine my first time in Necropolis.

Then seeing the badass BOS for the first time when everything previous was wasteland.

Best final boss hands down and kudos for multiple ways to dispatch it.

2 was longer but too much time had passed. Still fun but most of the lonely wasteland feeling was lost.

And as others have mentioned, lost acropolis, aka west tek/mariposa.
 
I had an interesting introduction to the games, so it is sometimes hard to differentiate the two. I found myself wondering if Sulik was in Fallout 1 or 2 the other day. I was sure that he was in 2, but I was unsure enough for it to be funny. My uncle had both Fallout 1 and 2 but I hadn't heard of them at the time. Fallout 2 had just came out so my uncle had save files for both games which were on my Grandma's computer. He was pretty excited about it - he introduced me to a lot of good games, so I knew I was in for something special. Hell, he introduced me to Lunar, Final Fantasy 6, and Fallout 1 and 2, among many others.

So he asked me if I wanted him to spoil the ending to Fallout. Merely to show how interesting the game could be. I said alright. He loaded up the end of Fallout 1. The conversation with the Master. He exhausted all the dialog options making the Master kill himself in the process. I was amazed. I had never seen such a game before. Up to that point I had only played a few jRPG's since I was young and didn't have a PC at the time.

Fallout 1 was the first thing I played. I remember getting to Junktown with my uncle guiding me along off and on, as he chatted with the rest of my family. I chose to take out Gizmo in my playthrough. That moment is definitely a high point in the series. Necropolis is an insane location. I loved zombies at the time too, so it was the coolest thing I could imagine - zombies in a role playing game! Of course my uncle quickly reminded me that some of them are good. These weren't zombies. They were alive. The gore really helped to pull me in. There is nothing like a burst shot exploding Ghouls to bits. The only thing that killed it for me was the bugs. It botched several of my initial gaming sessions. I didn't truly progress until he gave me a disc that I took back home to our new PC.

Fallout 1 does have a tighter story, but that does leave it on the short side, leaving you to want more. Fallout 2 scratches that itch pretty easily, but some don't like the wacky stuff it introduced into the series. I never had problems with that. I love New Reno. The ghost never bugged me either. Nothing can top either one of the first two Fallout games anyway as far as I'm concerned, but if I had to choose between the two, I would choose Fallout 2. It has more to offer. The game plays better. Companions aren't a bitch to deal with. Then you have those three magic words that make shit go to the next level; Killap's Restoration Patch!

On the other hand, I hate some things about Fallout 2, which is purely due to them rushing it out. San Francisco is completely empty. There are a handful of items in the entire city. It is fairly secluded, so trade could conceivably be an issue, but it's obvious they had a separate team on it when compared to New Reno or The Den. There are a few places like that.

It really comes down to - do you like Mutants or the Enclave better? :lol:
 
The second was better. I played the first... first, after looking for a game to play on the holidays. I could have chosen, Call of Duty, Farcry 3, Skyrim... so many others but I chose Fallout 1. The blurb sucked me in, with the entire drawing straws. I found that strangely attractive. Though I love the first game it suffered a problem of mediocre quests and empty towns/places. The game was... as many like to say, tighter but it left me just looking for something to do. Fallout 2 handled that perfectly, with plenty to explore and see and do. The choice was there but magnified. The story for both games were quite... pulpy but I liked both and the Master, paired with Loo-tenant (Harry's name for Lieutenant) were some of my favorite characters. A grotesque mutant with a sophisticated accent? I loved that, which was sadly lacking from Fallout 3. Hell even Harry is way better then anything in Fallout 3. He's funny and dumb... and strangely likeable. Fallout 2 replaced good ol' Loo with Marcus, not a disappointment for me.

Fallout 2 had more to do, with more factions and way more endings. I compiled a list of five reasons why I liked. I could ramble on but I'll address some major problems.

Wacky and overdone humor? For all my characters (3 in total) I rarely had this problem. Only a couple of (rare) random encounters were goofy but overall the humor was still dark and edgy, with moments of plain humor. I don't see this as a major problem. However many people dislike the more built up atmosphere of the second, where people are making a living. I certainly liked the lonely wasteland feel in Fallout 1 but the reason people dislike Fallout 2 is the opposite why many dislike Fallout 3. Rebuilding! Fallout 2 has organized factions favoring a post-post-apocalyptic feel, with cities and towns trying to dominate each other. The BOS are no longer the powerful and technologically advanced and the Mutants no longer one of the major threats. In Fallout 2 we have equal competitors on the playing field. In Fallout 3, two hundred years have passed and yet there is no sign of rebuilding which many people see as breaking immersion and being stupid. I think that while the lonely wanderer is a good idea but overall I'm more interested in how Humanity is going to rebuild and what's in store. Just my five cents (where I come from we don't use two cents).
 
Last edited:
The difference is amount of time that has transpired between the first and second games. This is the devs decision.

The Shi in F2 had T-51B for sale and high tech Avenger miniguns for mass consumption. Add in purchaseable caseless ammo, Gauss, EMP, and pulse weapons. Some aspects of F2 had more in common with Mothership Zeta than Mad Max.

You can have a sequel that takes place not so far into the future as to justify plentiful technology throughout the wasteland. I mean by FNV, the NCR has air travel, monorails, trucks, etc.
 
Last edited:
At least the original Fallout didn't have amazingly wild and varied technical problems that would force me to start over four times like with Fallout 2...
 
Strange I never had any problems but then again I got the unofficial patch.

Yeah the Shi were a mistake, so I can't argue with you there. However I can say that it makes more sense for the wasteland to develop and grow. It's not like the NCR was out of advanced equipment after looting Navarro and defeating the Brotherhood of Steel. Add in Vault City with their tech and you get something quite advanced for the wasteland. Also the Monorail was from New Vegas, hence being protected by the brunt of the bombs.

Fallout 2 has few Mothership Zeta (ugh) aspects, such as the Hubologists. Examples then?
 
IMO, the execution isn't perfect, but the idea behind the shi & hubologist isn't bad. The problems are that, they mostly focused on the surface and didn't spent enough time to depict the life of the average member of both groups, those not involved in the wackyness, and that the city was undervellopped compared with previous cities. It was way less quests and rich npcs than New Reno or Vault City.
 
The pulse weapons were implemented on purpose while the alien blaster, was atleast, a random joke weapon. The pulse weapon design was clearly overplaying the retro 50s aspect (something F3, Zeta especially, was about). Fallout is about post apoc and loneliness, not a gratuitous explosion of tech and zaniness which was pretty much F2 and Zeta had.

Whats worse, all this tech is for sale to the average consumer, like it was a trivial matter to acquire. Finding quality energy weapons was not easy in the first one.

Its just too much of a sci fi vibe.

And yes, its justified in the story in some ways but I doubt the BoS or if they are working with NCR, will let advanced tech be so easily proliferated. It was a dev decision but it was a BAD one. Thats why I mentioned they could have done a sequel where LESS time had elapsed since the original.
 
Last edited:
Are we still talking about the Shi? Oh I see... the fact you can buy weapons in NV that are advanced, too advanced. Is that right? If so I agree with you there. Remeber I'm not a NV expert having played it once. I enjoyed and hope to get it.

Keep in mind that only few places in Fallout 2 had high tech, namely the Shi which we already established were handled badly. However the other settlements have small amounts, with the New Reno arms having no weapons that are too 'sci-fi' and keep in mind thats the best gun shop in the area I always begin in (the New Reno strip, because it's a long diagonal line that goes from Klamath, the Den and Redding to New Reno).
 
Last edited:
Your right.

I think thats why the game was still fun even though we had talking deathclaws, cyber dogs, New Reno, (never liked the insert a mafia reference) breaking of the 4th wall, toilet exploration, ghosts, etc.

2, for bad or good, had a lot more to do. But given the choice, Istill choose the 1st as the best one.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top