Firstly and unfortunately, I started with Fallout 3. Don't flame me right off the bat for this gross indiscretion, it was not my fault. This was just the first game I got my hands on. And god did I fall in love. Personally I didn't care about the graphics, other than the immersion factor. What really grabbed me was the universe.
But there were some issues with the game of course, things I noticed while before playing the first two games. The plot was a bit drab, finding a GECK to save some water, I mean please. And your dad, sure for a side quest, but the story was just not epic enough for the setting.
Like any game though, it had its fantastic parts. I fell in love with Dogmeat. I relished every non-VATS shot (VATS was stupid), and hung on to every side quest. When I finally finished my fourth play through, I bought the first two fallout games.
The first thing that struck me, as I played Fallout 1, was how difficult it was. Not "I want to quit right now" hard, but a "this is gripping" hard. It had a pretty steep learning curve to, and as a consequence my first two play throughs were unarmed and melee.
Again the setting gripped me. I missed the radio (it really lent to the Fifties feel), but the story had the epic factor the third didn't. I fell in love with Dogmeat all over again, and almost cried when I absolutely could not keep him alive through the end of the game. The Master capped the game of with a flourish. Seeing Harold's roots was a bit of a shock, and embroiling yourself in the Hub's politics was a hoot.
Like 3, which was a little better than 1 in my opinion at this time, I had some issues. Most importantly, walking everywhere pissed me off. Who doesn't add a run feature? Also not being able save Dogmeat made me sad. After my third play through, I moved on to the 2nd game.
I must say I was blown away. This game was everything I wanted between one and three. A bigger party, more intercity politics, funky aliens, talking deathclaws, the same awesome environment, and thank god a running system. You could get a car even. The story was almost perfect, and the Enclave was a fantastic enemy. They were portrayed as a strictly tyrannical pseudo-government in 3 but in 2 they had character and they believed what they were doing was truly right.
That brought me to some interesting incongruentcies with the story. Why do the use bottle caps in D.C. when the quickly spreading NCR was using cash two-hundred years ago? Were did the Wanimingos go? Why are all the towns in D.C. tiny? Why are there so many damn Super Mutants when the Master stopped dipping people so long ago? Since when did the Enclave have to spread the FEV in drinking water when one of the biggest points of FO2 was they could just release it into the global atmosphere? In FO2 the Brotherhood Of Steel in an almost apathetic organisation, completely devoted to pre-war tech. In 3 they suddenly become this ambivalent force dedicated to helping people. What?
Then I read the Van Buren stuff. Is that all canon?
Well, now that I've shared some of my Fallout experience, maybe you can answer some of these questions.
But there were some issues with the game of course, things I noticed while before playing the first two games. The plot was a bit drab, finding a GECK to save some water, I mean please. And your dad, sure for a side quest, but the story was just not epic enough for the setting.
Like any game though, it had its fantastic parts. I fell in love with Dogmeat. I relished every non-VATS shot (VATS was stupid), and hung on to every side quest. When I finally finished my fourth play through, I bought the first two fallout games.
The first thing that struck me, as I played Fallout 1, was how difficult it was. Not "I want to quit right now" hard, but a "this is gripping" hard. It had a pretty steep learning curve to, and as a consequence my first two play throughs were unarmed and melee.
Again the setting gripped me. I missed the radio (it really lent to the Fifties feel), but the story had the epic factor the third didn't. I fell in love with Dogmeat all over again, and almost cried when I absolutely could not keep him alive through the end of the game. The Master capped the game of with a flourish. Seeing Harold's roots was a bit of a shock, and embroiling yourself in the Hub's politics was a hoot.
Like 3, which was a little better than 1 in my opinion at this time, I had some issues. Most importantly, walking everywhere pissed me off. Who doesn't add a run feature? Also not being able save Dogmeat made me sad. After my third play through, I moved on to the 2nd game.
I must say I was blown away. This game was everything I wanted between one and three. A bigger party, more intercity politics, funky aliens, talking deathclaws, the same awesome environment, and thank god a running system. You could get a car even. The story was almost perfect, and the Enclave was a fantastic enemy. They were portrayed as a strictly tyrannical pseudo-government in 3 but in 2 they had character and they believed what they were doing was truly right.
That brought me to some interesting incongruentcies with the story. Why do the use bottle caps in D.C. when the quickly spreading NCR was using cash two-hundred years ago? Were did the Wanimingos go? Why are all the towns in D.C. tiny? Why are there so many damn Super Mutants when the Master stopped dipping people so long ago? Since when did the Enclave have to spread the FEV in drinking water when one of the biggest points of FO2 was they could just release it into the global atmosphere? In FO2 the Brotherhood Of Steel in an almost apathetic organisation, completely devoted to pre-war tech. In 3 they suddenly become this ambivalent force dedicated to helping people. What?
Then I read the Van Buren stuff. Is that all canon?
Well, now that I've shared some of my Fallout experience, maybe you can answer some of these questions.
[/spoiler:e060027ecf]