Fallout 1 VS Fallout 2

In my opinion Fallout 3 is the only really post-apocalyptic one. I mean, just look at how good wooden houses look and how everything is preserved perfectly.

That said, Fallout, the series as a whole (that means 1 and 2) is not really meant to be like the Metro universe, like, immediately after the holocaust. It's all about a completely different world, born of the ashes of the old civilization. Bethesda's interpretation of what that means is just the byproduct of their obsessive need to cater to the masses.

Seriously, look at Mad Max, and that's the Fallout world. THAT's Fallout right there. And you'll see how completely wrong Bethesda got it in regards to recreating the feel.
 
Tough one.

I love Fallout 1 because it was the first, it was different to what I had played at the time, and because frankly, I played it end over end. I'd happily finish it with a Hulk type character, then start right over with a different style of character.

Fallout 2 I also love, because it builds on what happened in FO1, I liked that it was longer, I liked the humor, the locations and the weapons (That Gauss Rifle!)

Asking which I love more is like asking which I love more: My Ex, or the Ex before that. They both have points I love, a few points I dislike, but they're different enough that I can't choose between them.


Having said that. Fallout 1.
 
Gosh this is such a "Sophie's choice" for me. After flipping a coin its F2; with the caveat of the current version of the Restoration patch. But man Fallout is such a tight/complete adventure, I understand why some people prefer it over the second.
 
I already made a thread similar to this, yet this topic is still being discussed. I cannot see what made the first game better than its sequel other than the atmosphere and plot. Those are literally the only two reasons I would consider Fallout 1 better. Everything else that was in that game was greatly improved in Fallout 2.
 
5545Trey said:
I already made a thread similar to this, yet this topic is still being discussed. I cannot see what made the first game better than its sequel other than the atmosphere and plot. Those are literally the only two reasons I would consider Fallout 1 better. Everything else that was in that game was greatly improved in Fallout 2.
Click to expand...
Well, Fallout 1 had better role-playing opportunities, and it also had much better combat distribution and a much better start to the game.
"Everything else", in this case, is span, length and gameplay mechanics.
 
Fallout 2 is only bigger in size and with some interface improvements. I like both games, but Fallout 1 simply feels much better to me.
 
I can make some good arguments for FO1, but i'll have to go with first rule of relationships (you can't win an argument with pure logic). In the end I played FO1, but I have grew up on FO2.. since I played FO2 (vanilla and modded) SOOOO much more , this is not even a competition, FO2 will always lead my list in the series.
 
Last edited:
I agree that FO3 is probably the only real post-apocalyptic entry in the series. The rest are definitely post-post-apocalyptic.

I prefer FO2 to FO1 for several reasons, but the two that are most obvious to me right now are (1) New Reno and (2) John Cassidy. New Reno was fantastic and arguably had the best writing in the entire franchise. John Cassidy is also my favorite companion (and by extension, Cass from NV). I guess it's more of a matter of personal taste than of one game being objectively better than the other (which is probably entirely obvious to anyone who has given any thought to the matter).
 
Morbus said:
5545Trey said:
I already made a thread similar to this, yet this topic is still being discussed. I cannot see what made the first game better than its sequel other than the atmosphere and plot. Those are literally the only two reasons I would consider Fallout 1 better. Everything else that was in that game was greatly improved in Fallout 2.
Click to expand...
Well, Fallout 1 had better role-playing opportunities, and it also had much better combat distribution and a much better start to the game.
"Everything else", in this case, is span, length and gameplay mechanics.
Click to expand...
Better role-playing opportunities? Are you sure we have played the same games? I cannot see how Fallout 1 has better role-play opportunities when role-playing in Fallout 2 was more varied and consequential. They both share the same combat system, so I also do not get how the first one had better combat distribution. Especially since combat in Fallout 2 actually makes the wasteland a much more dangerous place to roam in.
 
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...​
 
You build off your character around a prototype item that you might or might not find ?
 
The alien Blaster is easily obtainable with a high luck stat. However it might be slightly boring going after it.

Originally when I played fallout 1 I reached necropolis before I realized I had no idea what I was doing so I referenced an "experts guide to mastering fallout" which put a lot of emphasis on the weapon.

To be fair it made dealing with the military base and the cathedral a lot easier and less time I had to focus on slow combat now that I had an OP character. So I could focus more on story and quests.

I have played through the game a few times however it's usually part of my strategy and I was playing today as a personal challenge to see if I can beat it in a single day.

I might try it again tomorrow however.
 
It sounds like you didn't play the game properly, and did the closest thing to cheating other than firing up an inventory editor. How lame.
 
AlphaPromethean said:
It sounds like you didn't play the game properly, and did the closest thing to cheating other than firing up an inventory editor. How lame.
Click to expand...

Oh please, get off your high horse. I didn't even cheat so your argument is pointless. I played it without a guide before but did the second time too see what I missed.
 
5545Trey said:
Better role-playing opportunities? Are you sure we have played the same games? I cannot see how Fallout 1 has better role-play opportunities when role-playing in Fallout 2 was more varied and consequential.
Click to expand...
I don't claim to be an expert and I may be talking out of my ass, but I always got the feeling that there were many missions in Fallout 2 that were on rails, where in Fallout 1, there were fewer missions, but you got about the in different ways. But, as I said, I may be mistaken.

5545Trey said:
They both share the same combat system, so I also do not get how the first one had better combat distribution.
Click to expand...
Fallout 2 has LOADS more combat. It's also boring as hell to kite geckos around in the first few areas.

5545Trey said:
Especially since combat in Fallout 2 actually makes the wasteland a much more dangerous place to roam in.
Click to expand...
Oh, for sure! Just today I was recording a 25 minute session, from The Den to Modoc, and it took me the whole session to complete the voyage. In Fallout 2, having outdoorsman actually matters.
 
Morbus said:
5545Trey said:
Especially since combat in Fallout 2 actually makes the wasteland a much more dangerous place to roam in.
Click to expand...
Oh, for sure! Just today I was recording a 25 minute session, from The Den to Modoc, and it took me the whole session to complete the voyage. In Fallout 2, having outdoorsman actually matters.
Click to expand...
Isn't that an engine bug [flaw]; where the encounter rate is influenced by the system clock, and you get a ridiculous number of encounters on any overland trip... when using a fast machine. IRRC that was fixed by somebody, with one of the user patches.
 
Gizmojunk said:
Morbus said:
5545Trey said:
Especially since combat in Fallout 2 actually makes the wasteland a much more dangerous place to roam in.
Click to expand...
Oh, for sure! Just today I was recording a 25 minute session, from The Den to Modoc, and it took me the whole session to complete the voyage. In Fallout 2, having outdoorsman actually matters.
Click to expand...
Isn't that an engine bug [flaw]; where the encounter rate is influenced by the system clock, and you get a ridiculous number of encounters on any overland trip... when using a fast machine. IRRC that was fixed by somebody, with one of the user patches.
Click to expand...
Nah, I'm using the latest Restoration Project patch, and besides, I played Fallout 1 in this very same machine. If it was a system bug, wouldn't it apply to Fallout 1 and 2 both?
But I didn't experience anything out of the ordinary. It was just tough encounters with bandits, slavers and geckos. It took a while because I wasn't save scumming (can't do that on camera, lol) so it was a pain.
That never happened in Fallout 1. In Fallout 1, there are much fewer encounters.
 
Not necessarily. The encounter system in Fo1 works a bit different.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top