Why do people prefer Fallout 2 over Fallout 1?

Which was TOTALLY not the question, though... Yeah, I can see why someone would prefer 1 over 2, as well, even though I personally prefer 2. But the topic was asking why would people prefer 2 over 1... not the reverse... nor why should they be persuaded otherwise...

For me, it was that it was "more". Just asking for a bigger Fallout (or suggesting that's what we got) isn't enough. It was more of EVERYTHING. Did you enjoy the moments of dark revelations in the first game? MORE of those, and they're darker, and more revelationier! Did you love customizing remarkably unique characters thanks to all the Perks and such? MORE Perks, and more levels, and MORE Perks to fill all those added levels! The game's ONE downside (besides its obvious bug-ridden hasty release) was that it was sliiiiightly missing a certain feeling to the world. It wasn't that it felt out of place, or that it felt unlikely, it just had a different vibe from the original; just a tad less ominous. But it was still more of everything, so that more than compensated for it!

Of course, "more is better" isn't everything, and if a new game was to come out that was just the same old of something else, only more of it, it would probably not be appealing at all. But back in the late 90s, there WERE no "plays like that game" genres. Each title was new and different, so those gambles on creating new worlds either paid off or they didn't. Fallout was amazing, so more of that was more of a great thing. Nowadays, more Skyrim would just be more monotony and bore. More Soul Calibur would just be new, unbalanced characters, trivial maps, and pointless increases to fights, which could go on as endlessly as you liked, anyhow! More of a decent game (or worse, a bad one) nowadays just wouldn't be enough, but back then, it was novel enough that it made the game, for me and, I suspect, many others.
 
SnapSlav said:
Did you enjoy the moments of dark revelations in the first game? MORE of those, and they're darker, and more revelationier!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? I can't think of a darker revelation than seeing the master for the first time. Or the Cathedral and the Glow. Seeing the product of the Master's experiments was pretty dark too. Don''t get me wrong, I'm not trying to convince you or something. Just a little chit chat. :D
 
EXACTLY. Great post ^^. That is what I have been trying to tell you guys. Fallout 1 is just the better game. Fallout 2 is supposed to pack a great adventure, but doesn't do as good on the story. Well I believe Fallout 1 packed just as big of an adventure. Possibly better. Yeah, maybe there aren't as many things to do or place to go, but the adventure in Fallout 1 speaks for itself.
 
mobucks said:
Some interface improvements and better companion control.

And Myron baby! Myron!
Click to expand...

This!.. - Myron.. :evil: Fallout 2 is also bigger but it does lack the feel of the BOS and i do miss the glow :/
 
Re: playing after the game ends, none of you mentioned yet that many dialogs specifically changed after beating the game.

So once the player figures that out, it was fun to go through the game world and seeing what kind of things changed and what different conversations could be had now that you're a badass. Shit, even many of the generic floats changed.
 
More things to do and more features (like the glorious pushing NPCs out of the way). Simply put, there's more quests and pretty things in 2 than in 1.
 
I just played some Fallout 3 the last couple days and... damn.. that game is exhausting. Everything takes SO LONG to complete.
 
Modus Operandi said:
SnapSlav said:
Did you enjoy the moments of dark revelations in the first game? MORE of those, and they're darker, and more revelationier!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? I can't think of a darker revelation than seeing the master for the first time. Or the Cathedral and the Glow. Seeing the product of the Master's experiments was pretty dark too.
Click to expand...
By all means, NOTHING in FO1 was as dark and astounding as finding out the true and sinister purpose behind the Vaults. But that's exactly what I mean when I said FO2 had MORE of them, and that they were "revelationier". FO1 had some, but they weren't as big, as dark, or as shocking. The Master was one of them, finding out his identity was another, uncovering the secrets in the Glow as well, and just running across your very first ghouls and/or mutants were more. FO1 introduced us to this brand-new universe, so it didn't necessarily have the build-up to pull off some kind of twist or shocking reveal, but it had its share of unexpected surprises, and it was pretty disturbing, throughout. Meanwhile, as a sequel, FO2 had all of the previous material and fans' expectations to work with.
 
Sduibek said:
You keep posting without rolling your eyes, alec. It makes me sad. :'(
Click to expand...
He does this when he isn't joking. And when Alec means it, you better listen.
 
SnapSlav said:
Modus Operandi said:
SnapSlav said:
Did you enjoy the moments of dark revelations in the first game? MORE of those, and they're darker, and more revelationier!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by that? I can't think of a darker revelation than seeing the master for the first time. Or the Cathedral and the Glow. Seeing the product of the Master's experiments was pretty dark too.
Click to expand...
By all means, NOTHING in FO1 was as dark and astounding as finding out the true and sinister purpose behind the Vaults. But that's exactly what I mean when I said FO2 had MORE of them, and that they were "revelationier". FO1 had some, but they weren't as big, as dark, or as shocking. The Master was one of them, finding out his identity was another, uncovering the secrets in the Glow as well, and just running across your very first ghouls and/or mutants were more. FO1 introduced us to this brand-new universe, so it didn't necessarily have the build-up to pull off some kind of twist or shocking reveal, but it had its share of unexpected surprises, and it was pretty disturbing, throughout. Meanwhile, as a sequel, FO2 had all of the previous material and fans' expectations to work with.
Click to expand...


I didn't think so. Yeah, uncovering the truth behind the vaults was pretty shocking, and finding out that the Overseers were just puppets of Vault-Tec and the government was shocking also. However, I just feel that finding out that the government using the FEV to experiment with creating super-soldiers (even though that wasn't its purpose) and the Masters' plan. Moving through Mariposa and the Glow and finding the dark secrets of the government for the first time. Basically the way I see it is, what would freak the American public out more;

Finding out that the government was experimenting with FEV, and that they were forcing people to be dipped in the VATS,

OR

Finding out that Vault-Tec's vaults were actually experiments and that the government allowed them to go through with this.

I think the biological experiments would be worse.

And not to mention, seeing the things that FEV created, like the Master.
 
The main advantage for me with 2 over 1 is the fact that there was no time limit, so I can explore everything in one playthrough and not get distracted and fail the main storyline. Otherwise, they are relatively equal for me.
 
People seem to forget that Fo1 has no time limit as well, after bringing back the water chip.

But even with the time limit, there is enough time available to explore all locations up until you reach Necropolis. I mean, it's not like there is a mass of stuff to explore. Every town only has so many quests available and when you are done, you most likely won't come back anyway.
 
Plus there is that patch you can download which removes the time limit. I believe it is an official patch also.
 
Lexx said:
People seem to forget that Fo1 has no time limit as well, after bringing back the water chip.
Click to expand...
BigBoss said:
Plus there is that patch you can download which removes the time limit. I believe it is an official patch also.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Official patch v1.1 (so, like, everywhere) removed all time limits except the Necropolis invasion and the Water Chip (on the latter, because i's integral to the storyline, duh).

Official patch v1.2 was the same in regards to time limits. I think that patch was only used in Europe and Asia.

It's extremely uncommon to find a copy of v1.0 of Fallout, this was true even many years ago, so effectively, Fallout has only those two time limits no matter which version you use.
 
Although you should probably not say it, specially on NMA, i never been a fan of Fallout 2. I remember beeing tremendously disappointed when i first played it, which is strange considering how great the first game was. Neither the setting, humour, dialogue, atmosphere nor story of the sequal intrigued me. Heck i even prefer New Vegas over Fallout 2 despite it's lack of replayability.

Fallout is superiour in every way exept the NPCs.

Gamers who played the sequal before the OG seem to prefer it over Fallout.
 
SnapSlav said:
By all means, NOTHING in FO1 was as dark and astounding as finding out the true and sinister purpose behind the Vaults.
Click to expand...

Do you think so? I remember thinking at the time like it felt sort of... Shyamalan-esque (not that we had the word for it back then). I remember feeling kind of vindicated when I read a quote from one of the devs that went something like "Yeah, I have no idea. Tim must've been watching a lot of The X-Files at the time." The Vault conspiracy was just overly, counterproductively evil. I thought it was much darker when the failure of the Vaults could be attributed entirely to human error, shoddy construction, hubris, overreaching, and greed, for the same reason Poe and Lovecraft are always going to be more horrifying, in the deepest, truest sense of the word, than Freddy or Jason.

The Enclave was a shadowy, wordwide, genocidal, megalomaniacal technologically advanced dictatorship-- not very subtle and, with apologies to the devs whose work I admire and continue to enjoy to this day, not very imaginative. Fallout 2 made everything more grandiose, but that robbed a lot of it of its power, which in the first game lay largely in its subtlety, its slow boil and layers of theme. The Master was a villain, but he wasn't a bad guy. The Brotherhood weren't good guys, or omniscient. The fate of the entire world wasn't at stake (not immediately, anyway). The obstacles and the villains were spawned from the problems of the old world but they weren't "of" it, were actually trying to bring about what they saw as the best way for humanity to cope in the new. There was a sophistication and a complexity to it that I feel that a lot of Fallout 2 lacked (or at least, if it was there, it kind of got lost in the bloat, which was admittedly immense fun but not nearly as dark or focused).
 
lazlolazlo said:
Although you should probably not say it, specially on NMA, i never been a fan of Fallout 2. I remember beeing tremendously disappointed when i first played it, which is strange considering how great the first game was. Neither the setting, humour, dialogue, atmosphere nor story of the sequal intrigued me. Heck i even prefer New Vegas over Fallout 2 despite it's lack of replayability.

Fallout is superiour in every way exept the NPCs.

Gamers who played the sequal before the OG seem to prefer it over Fallout.
Click to expand...

Yeah I noticed that also. But you weren't the only one disappointed in this. Supposedly there were alot of people who played the original first who were disappointed in the second one.

Which suffice it to say I don't believe Fallout 2 can compete with Fallout 1, however I still like Fallout 2. It was still a great classic, and will always be considered by me and many other people as one of two of the "real" fallout games.

But now you have people today who want to add Fallout 3 and New Vegas to that list. I guess our 90's/80's gaming generation is slowly dying, and being replaced by a new breed, because unless Fallout 3 is put back into production by the original devs (the real[ one), there will never be another "canon" Fallout game.

And maybe thats the way it should be. If every Fallout game to come out from now on is going to be like, and look like Fallout 3 and New Vegas, then let Fallout 1 and 2 stand alone as originals, and the only two games to be worthy of being considered "canon".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top