Fallout 1 VS Fallout 2

[Gizmojunk]

....

They didn't understand the setting; hence the talking plants, and chess playing scorpion, and the Renewal cult———In town, rather than in the deep wastes.

 

[Señor Wally]

Fallout 2 is probably the stronger game in terms of all around content. But something about 1 just clicks with me more. The game is like 8 or 9 hours long and yet, I've got 70+ hours on it. Besides, it just allows for the player to be more creative in how they approach the main quest compared to 2.

 

[Yuri_Yslin]

Fallout 2 is drastically weaker in terms of atmosphere and moment-to-moment writing. There might be higher highs but there's sure as shooting drastically lower lows with that game. Individual dialogue moments are, in many places, first-draft dreck if they're not making pretty pisspoor jokes.

I don't like FO2's out-of-place jokes either, but the amount of them is often overestimated. It's not like you get an out-of-place comment in every dialogue. There are goofy characters put here and there that feel unnecessary, but I can't find anything remotely out of place in dialogues with Metzger, Salvatore, Mordino, Lynette or Tandi.

What's more, the dialogues themselves are substantially better-written. Hell, the entire conversation with Marcus or Goris has more text and gives more context than the vast majority of Fallout 1's dialogues which are usually short and up-to-point. The characters just go for it, there's not much storytelling.

The dialogue-heavy quests like poisoning of Richard Wright or the entire three-quest long Broken Hills "missing people/mine" have more context and better writing than all of the FO1 quest dialogues combined. Fallout 1's sidequests are notoriously poorly written. "go there". "kill that dude". Remember the Irvine quest, the guy that gives you the .223 pistol in FO1? "oh, there are raiders in mah house, please kill them!". Hell, even "rescue Smiley the trapper" had a better buildup than this.

I think people forget sometimes how weak FO1's sidequests were when it comes to worldbuilding and writing. Most of them could've been simple korean MMORPG fetch quests, they were that bad. Not saying FO2 was perfect, but it had substantially longer quests written with better dialogue, which also had a bigger effect on the world and would sometimes involve characters from distant towns. Like the entire Bishop questline which begins at Vault City, goes through New Reno, then back to Vault City again, with bits and pieces of politics and worldbuilding. FO1's quests are pretty exclusively local and they don't seem to have much impact on the world.

Long story short, FO1 does have a more consistent world and (largely because of that) better atmosphere, but I have to disagree with you on writing. Fallout 2 was written WAY better, the dialogue is richer and gives way more context. It's also written in a way that makes different NPCs feel different. FO1 was mostly written in a way that makes you feel like it's been written mostly by one person, because of how similar the writing style is. FO2 brings a more distinguishable narrative for guys like Salvatore, Mordino, Lynette, Marcus or Sulik.

And Richardson is pretty much as well-written as Master is, so I'd say it's a tie.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

They didn't understand the setting; hence the talking plants, and chess playing scorpion, and the Renewal cult———In town, rather than in the deep wastes.

Hot take but there's nothing wrong with the Renewal Cult.

Chess scorpion is less acceptable but not as bad as people make it out to be I think, but of course the talking plant is terrible.

And Richardson is pretty much as well-written as Master is, so I'd say it's a tie.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but HARD disagree here

 

[Yuri_Yslin]

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but HARD disagree here

Not a fan of Richardson? I found him refreshingly well written. He wasn't grotesquely evil like some Voldemort kind of dude (to a point of being cringy). He actually felt like a human being. Just a very shitty human being.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Not a fan of Richardson? I found him refreshingly well written. He wasn't grotesquely evil like some Voldemort kind of dude (to a point of being cringy). He actually felt like a human being. Just a very shitty human being.

He's human, but not terribly interesting to me.

 

[Atomic Postman]

I agree with most of the rest of your post, but HARD disagree here

Nah I agree with him. It might be in part his voice acting but he absolutely sells the lunatic heart of the Enclave brilliantly. Unlike the Master he's unreasonable which might in your book make him worse written but I'd think it would be a disservice to the madness of the Enclave and their project if he weren't a crazed fanatic wearing the skin of a cool and collected neo-con.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Nah I agree with him. It might be in part his voice acting but he absolutely sells the lunatic heart of the Enclave brilliantly. Unlike the Master he's unreasonable which might in your book make him worse written but I'd think it would be a disservice to the madness of the Enclave and their project if he weren't a crazed fanatic wearing the skin of a cool and collected neo-con.

No I get that. Just to be clear I don't think he's BADLY written, he serves his purpose well. But the Master is one of the top video game antagonists of all time, in worldbuilding and presentation.

 

[Yuri_Yslin]

What I like about Richardson is that he's 100% believable. He's not some evil overlord with a booming voice (we have Frank Horrigan for cartoonish evil, anyway). He feels like an ordinary guy doing his job - it's how I'd picture a real life dictator.

The Master's schizophrenic dialogue is fantastic, of course.

Of course, both of them are basically built on tropes:

Richardson - https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RestartTheWorld and https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist

Master - https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MasterRace

but that's OK, it's hard to make a compelling video game villain without some sort of trope. Not without a book worth of character building anyway.

 

[Señor Wally]

I KIND of agree with the Richardson point. The Master is probably the stronger character. But Richardson really works for what he is. The coldness and deadpan way he casually explains how he's willing to kill millions of civilians is chilling after all of the buildup around the enclave coming across as violent and brutish. To see that the guy behind all of the chaos was some disenchanted, glorified paper pusher suit and tie guy that happened to have the power to sign the order of genocide is so perfect. You deal with tribes, slavers, mutants, nutcases and plasma gun wielding super soliders and the guy behind half of your problems is some bald dweeb who's probably never lived outside of luxury. And his attitude shows.

 

[XNarrol]

Fallout 1 all the way. Dont get me wrong, Fallout 2 is a good game, I can see that, but for some reason I cannot have fun playing 2. Is soo fucking boring it made me sleep all the times I tried to play it, the most far I got was New Reno, and after that I just drop it since I simply could not care anymore.
Fallout 2 has my most favorite elements of the franchise. The Enclave, the characthers, the companions, the weapons, the Highwayman, even the story is not bad, it has EVERYTHING to make a perfect sequel to the first Fallout (which I love), but it simply does not for me. It does not have the same magic that 1 has for me.

While Fallout 1, even though way smaller, is way more fun and balanced for me. Like, they though of most of things and how to make them work. The dialog, the characthers, the story, the factions... Hell, even the combat for me is fun, simply because it knew when it was time to make the player engage in it. My only problem is the companion (no personality) and the fact that being bad is not balanced at all (becoming a Khan, killing Arradesh and Tandi for whatever reason, helping Gizmo, killing Rombus and etc, the game becomes way harder because it wasnt really build for bad karma players).

 

[naossano]

FO1 was mostly written in a way that makes you feel like it's been written mostly by one person, because of how similar the writing style is. .

The broad lines, the main plot and the talking heads dialogs asides, most of the average dialogs were written by one guy in a limited time if my memory serves me well. I can't find the source or the name of the guy. It wasn't Tim Cain nor Leonard Boyarsky, although the later helped a bit.

 

[Jogre]

He's human, but not terribly interesting to me.

My stance on Richardson is the same as my stance on The Enclave: Fun one off villains.

Like, they're not as complex villains as The Master, but that's fine, not every game needs as strong a villain as FO1.

They have absolutely no potential as returning villains though, like Fallout 3 imagines they do, because unlike the Master, they're just the bad guys, and there's only so much you can do with them.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

My stance on Richardson is the same as my stance on The Enclave: Fun one off villains.

Like, they're not as complex villains as The Master, but that's fine, not every game needs as strong a villain as FO1.

They have absolutely no potential as returning villains though, like Fallout 3 imagines they do, because unlike the Master, they're just the bad guys, and there's only so much you can do with them.

I differ with a lot of people insofar as I don't think bringing back the Enclave to some extent in the main plot was a fundamentally bad idea in 3. It was essentially a soft reboot, and its in DC. Having the Enclave as part of the main plot in some capacity draws a through line, same for Super Mutants. The problem was there then needed to be some kind of 3rd element, something more substantive than "Daddy & His Magical Doohickey" to set the game apart and be the real driving force. But instead it basically just ended up being about the Enclave... except with zero depth of writing. Really it would have been better (though obviously not good) if Bethesda had rehashed the Enclave as it was in 2, but instead they ended being extremely milque toast bad guys with a crazy computer.

 

[Yuri_Yslin]

The broad lines, the main plot and the talking heads dialogs asides, most of the average dialogs were written by one guy in a limited time if my memory serves me well. I can't find the source or the name of the guy. It wasn't Tim Cain nor Leonard Boyarsky, although the later helped a bit.

That makes sense, because all characters he wrote speak the same way, construct sentences the same way - it was clearly written by the same person.

Adding those "accents" like Salvatore's wheezing or Mordino's weird... speech... pattern... or Torr's stupidity was a nice addition in FO2.

 

[Atomic Postman]

As I sorta said years ago I think on a technical level Fallout is a better game. It's a master class in worldbuilding and pacing. The Vault 13-Shady Sands-Vault 15-Junktown-Hub process is the best possible way to introduce the world. The Master and The Unity are still the best plot in the games.

That being said, I find myself enjoying Fallout 2 more. It's just hindered by a lack of quality control and unified theme/tone (which was something Iirc they emphasized in Van Buren development). New Vegas is my favourite because it does what I wish Fallout 2 could have done: Quirkyness balanced with severity and darkness, strong individual identities for each town that still feel consistent with eachother and don't feel like a theme park (San Francisco as much as I adore the premise sticks out like a sore thumb in this aspect compared to the Vault City-New Reno-Redding-NCR arc). So on a design level it's worse, but if you put a gun to my head and said I could only replay one of them, I'd pick 2 every time.

 

[Yuri_Yslin]

While I'd agree on the coherent narrative (V13->Shady Sands->V15->Junktown->Hub seems a logical progression for the player, Arroyo->Klamath->Den->Redding->Vault City isn't - mostly because of the insane RNG of map encounters that can end many iron man playthroughs while you're on your way to Vault City - you can't do much against 10 raiders with automatic weapons at level 6 with Vic and Sulik stage 1, honestly), the cities themselves can be quite disappointing in FO1.

Shady Sands is just three rather linear quests and some copypasted huts.
Junktown - it's pretty much all about Gizmo's plotline, it kinda feels like this was made early (it was the demo level IIRC) because it's three screens with not much action. There's the bar brawl quest and busting Gizmo (or Killian if you want). You can get Tycho and Dogmeat, bust Doc Morbid's awkward cannibal business, but that's about it IIRC. I'm pretty sure Klamath actually offers a lot more - there's the Torr/Dunton questline, rescuing Smiley, killing the Albino Rat, all of those are quests that are both longer, better conceived and more combat-based (which I like!)) than what Junktown offers.

Long story short - FO1 narrative is better, the actual content (cities, quests) is not.

 

[Atomic Postman]

While I'd agree on the coherent narrative (V13->Shady Sands->V15->Junktown->Hub seems a logical progression for the player, Arroyo->Klamath->Den->Redding->Vault City isn't - mostly because of the insane RNG of map encounters that can end many iron man playthroughs while you're on your way to Vault City - you can't do much against 10 raiders with automatic weapons at level 6 with Vic and Sulik stage 1, honestly), the cities themselves can be quite disappointing in FO1.

Shady Sands is just three rather linear quests and some copypasted huts.
Junktown - it's pretty much all about Gizmo's plotline, it kinda feels like this was made early (it was the demo level IIRC) because it's three screens with not much action. There's the bar brawl quest and busting Gizmo (or Killian if you want). You can get Tycho and Dogmeat, bust Doc Morbid's awkward cannibal business, but that's about it IIRC. I'm pretty sure Klamath actually offers a lot more - there's the Torr/Dunton questline, rescuing Smiley, killing the Albino Rat, all of those are quests that are both longer, better conceived and more combat-based (which I like!)) than what Junktown offers.

Long story short - FO1 narrative is better, the actual content (cities, quests) is not.

I can agree with that. I more meant the thematic aspect "Cold War bunker - new world desertpunk village independent of the old world - scumpit full of shitty people living amongst ruins and eeking out existence - enterprising industry and society in the ruins of the old, society on the cusp"

 

[Yuri_Yslin]

Yeah, I agree. Even the name of the FO1 World Map theme - "Moribund World" - gives me the creeps. Fallout 1 is meant to represent what's left of humanity in a - duh - moribund world. And it certainly feels like that. By that logic, Shady Sands and Junktown not offering much make perfect sense and their emptiness is somewhat "in character" with what the game is about.

I am however not entirely happy with certain places.

I absolutely loved the glow as a kid. The radiation, the music, the darkness of the abandoned base. Revisiting it as an adult made me kinda... disappointed. Because the layout of the base, for example, is really boring. It's the same thing repeated 6 times, mostly with copypasted assets. I know I may sound like being too harsh on this game (a 1997 gamen nonetheless) but I'm pretty sure those levels could've been made more exciting.

While it's a terrible comparison (because it's fan made - and a good decade later), EPA from restoration project is probably the best abandoned base/facitlity by mile in FO2. Each level feels different, there are puzzles, interesting storyline and some good loot. If FO1 was remade, I'd expect the Glow to become more like EPA from RP - not just 6 times the same stuff, with a Plasma Rifle at the end.

Though I gotta admit, 10 year old me nearly pissed himself after finding the Plasma Rifle. But that's just nostalgia speaking. It leads to people rating the games of their childhood too high compared to what they really were/are. As a heavily passionate retro gamer, I try to get rid of all nostalgia when playing games. It helps to see the flaws that we once couldn't even notice. Could the Glow be better? Absolutely. It's somewhat ironic to write that knowing that most of us had a lot of that "fallout magic feeling" experienced at the Glow in particular.

I think Sierra Army Depot was done a bit better. I only wish there was a heavily radiated place in FO2 too.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

I think Sierra Army Depot was done a bit better. I only wish there was a heavily radiated place in FO2 too.

I think this is a really good point - radiation is basically a left-over mechanic in Fallout 2. I think the only place where it's actually relevant is the Gecko reactor core, unless you can think of something I'm missing. Otherwise its just random events while travelling in the world.