Why do people prefer Fallout 2 over Fallout 1?

What is wrong in considering F:NV canon with the exception of horrible eninge?
Story was the same as in Fallout 2 (seqel) while choices, companions and all world were much more developed.

I guess our 90's/80's gaming generation is slowly dying,
What? Maybe in 2040. :)
 
Played 1 first, but I got slightly po'ed when I discovered that I could only level to 16 or so. I had farmed those Deathclaws for ages trying to get higher than that without knowing about that limitation. I enjoy 2 better that way, you can keep altering and adding more stuff to the character than you could in the first game (imho).
 
Fallout 2 was first game from this series I played. I tried to play F1, but it just felt awful in comparison, like some sort of unpolished beta or demo.
Things of top of my head: time limit, level limit, ask about, Friend or Foe perk (are you fuckin serious?), companions with unlimited carrying capacity + enemies dropping so much items that first serious fight makes you rich, Stealth Boy (more like Cheese Mode, amirite?), unimpressive villains (supermutants? bitch please, I killed dozens of them in F2), no car.
 
I like Fallout 2 more because it had a closer atmosphere and attitude to Wasteland. Wasteland is my personal favorite RPG and second favorite game of all time, so it's only natural that I would like the Fallout game that feels closer to it. Though, I guess the closest would be Tactics, but that doesn't count.
 
Real_Kilkun said:
I like Fallout 2 more because it had a closer atmosphere and attitude to Wasteland. Wasteland is my personal favorite RPG and second favorite game of all time, so it's only natural that I would like the Fallout game that feels closer to it. Though, I guess the closest would be Tactics, but that doesn't count.
Would you mind giving specifics as to Wasteland similarity? I find that interesting, I'd like to hear more.
 
I've always liked Fallout 1 better as a whole. The story, atmosphere, and locations seemed more consistent than they were in 2 to me.

On many other fronts Fallout 2 was arguably better, but the best memories are from 1 for me.
 
I fall into that *Played FO2 first and think it's better* category

I grew up as an adventure game player. I like fun dialogue and stealing things and the more locations and items to "look" at the better. Fallout 2 was (and is) amazing in this respect. It feels so open-ended and there's sooo much to miss even on your third playthrough. I was really irked by the time limit of 1 after playing 2, where you'd be finishing up a porn shoot and hear "Choosen ..." and feel Whoa I have a tribe to save at some point ... please pass me the Choosen One loincloth :D

I wonder how many Fallout 2 is better fans are also Baldur's Gate II is better fans (like me). The differences and split of BGI/II is pretty comparable to FO1/FO2
 
Didn't FO2 also have a time limit? I thought they all died if you didn't do anything for too long.
 
Sduibek said:
Didn't FO2 also have a time limit? I thought they all died if you didn't do anything for too long.

It has a time limit of some 15 years or so. Only once did I run into it, one of my first playthroughs. I was so terrified upon landing on the platform, I loaded again to boost up as much XP as I possibly could (expecting to be forced to battling every enclave soldier on the platform)

Suddenly, my game said "Game Over"

Google images is giving me 100% arbitrary random clusterfuck as usual, so... the image is a kindov odd blurry sunset, with "Game Over" if I remember correctly.
 
I think he means the water chip time limit. You don't have a time limit for obtaining the GECK in Fallout 2, only the hard 13 years limit both games have. But 13 years is a lot of time, contrary to 150 days that should be more than enough time to get the water chip in a game the size of Fallout 1, but if it were as big as Fallout 2 you could easily lose if you spend time in minor things.
 
Okay, thanks. Looks like my memory was wrong. I had forgotten that the hard 13-year limit was the only one.
 
I played Fallout 2 before Fallout 1 so that affects but after all I think they both have pros and cons.
 
Haven't been really active on this forum lately (and usually prefer to read instead of post anyway). Just got a bit nostalgic reading this and decided to post my thoughts :)

I played Fallout 1 first (fell in love with the Junkjard entrance screenshot and had to get the game). I still think Fallout 1 is the best though I probably have better memories of playing 2.

I think the strength of Fallout 1 is that the core game is very strong. There is a good story, you're really focused on it throughout the entire game, there are no distractions or 'useless' side quests (not many anyway) and some great locations. I still get scared going through the Glow at night with all the lights turned off :). I'd summarise F1 as short and focused.

Fallout 2 feels like quite the opposite. You are more often doing side quests that are completely irrelevant to your (Tribe's) survival. It's a lot more of an adventure than a quest for survival as someone already pointed out. There are more and larger great locations, many more side quests... Which is great of course, and although that's where most memories of the game come from, it also allowed you to get distracted from your actual goal.

I can understand why people that played F2 before F1 would enjoy it less. But to me, F1 is the Fallout game. The first steps in the apocalyptic world and discovering it all while desperately seeking the water chip... I might play through the games once again soon if time permits (being almost 30 now sure makes you realise what a lot of time you had as a 15+ teenager to play games :)).

I really enjoy seeing the community still active 15 (!) years after Fallout came out.
 
Tygernoot said:
Haven't been really active on this forum lately (and usually prefer to read instead of post anyway). Just got a bit nostalgic reading this and decided to post my thoughts :)

I played Fallout 1 first (fell in love with the Junkjard entrance screenshot and had to get the game). I still think Fallout 1 is the best though I probably have better memories of playing 2.

I think the strength of Fallout 1 is that the core game is very strong. There is a good story, you're really focused on it throughout the entire game, there are no distractions or 'useless' side quests (not many anyway) and some great locations. I still get scared going through the Glow at night with all the lights turned off :). I'd summarise F1 as short and focused.

Fallout 2 feels like quite the opposite. You are more often doing side quests that are completely irrelevant to your (Tribe's) survival. It's a lot more of an adventure than a quest for survival as someone already pointed out. There are more and larger great locations, many more side quests... Which is great of course, and although that's where most memories of the game come from, it also allowed you to get distracted from your actual goal.

I can understand why people that played F2 before F1 would enjoy it less. But to me, F1 is the Fallout game. The first steps in the apocalyptic world and discovering it all while desperately seeking the water chip... I might play through the games once again soon if time permits (being almost 30 now sure makes you realise what a lot of time you had as a 15+ teenager to play games :)).

I really enjoy seeing the community still active 15 (!) years after Fallout came out.
Thanks for posting; I think this is a great analysis on the differences between the two.

I prefer the technical aspects of Fallout 2 -- in other words, more Talking Heads, better engine, more hirelings, etc etc., but I've always preferred the feel and atmosphere of the original.
 
Fo1 has 21 talking heads, while Fo2 only has 11 talking heads. If I remember correct, it was a lot work to create one of them and Fo2 had a shorter development timeframe, than Fo1. Also more ressources had been spend on all other parts of the game.
 
I just played the first two games this year, and I think Fallout 2 was definitely better, even with all the wacky shit and less "grey" bad guys(the Enclave actually felt to me like they were added really late in development, like they'd built most of the rest of the game world and one day someone yelled out "oh shit! We need a villain!").

The sheer amount of content would have been daunting if I'd known how much there was going to be before playing. Sure, it isn't as cohesive as F1, but I found that that gave the game a very different feeling. Where F1 was about a world just starting to get back on its feet, in F2 the world is UP and it's rebuilding itself in all sorts of images, from primitive tribes to slave societies to casino-owning drug dealers, and it's chaos. And they're all infecting each other: NCR is trying to annex Vault City is going after Redding is being torn apart by Jet imported from New Reno is doing business with the Enclave has frightened the Brotherhood of Steel into hiding... the theme of chaos as the world rebuilds itself felt totally intentional, and was pretty much built on in New Vegas, where you help one ideology dominate the whole wasteland.

It sure does have wacky shit in it, but let's not pretend F1 didn't have the Tardis and a crashed alien spaceship with a unique weapon(Mothership Zeta literally would not exist without that encounter, so who is truly to blame?). Plus, for every Hitch-Hiker's Guide reference or ghost quest in F2, there are many more events and moments that could be taken totally seriously. New Reno was pretty crazy, but my enduring memory of it won't be Gangsters & Casinos, it'll be my decision to murder a sick old man for the greater good, or my post-coital talk with Mrs Bishop about how she was seduced and manipulated by her husband, and my genuine horror at the thought of Bishop having a controlling stake in the NCR. Another great memory was the Restoration Patch's addition of the Abbey, where I found out that the magical GECK which was Fallout 3's major McGuffin was actually just a few packets of seeds and a Farming For dummies book. When I realised there was no way I could deal peacefully with the Khans in Vault 15 I felt genuinely sad. And although the Enclave weren't as good a villain faction as the Super Mutants, talking with the president was fantastic. Oh God, and Marcus! A friendly character who also completely believed in the Master's vision was a brilliant idea. new Vegas did a similar thing with the Enclave, which I also loved. I got very attached to Fallout 1's story as well, of course, but I'm mostly concerned here with defending F2 against its reputation for wackiness.
Plus mechanical improvements: the inventory system was better in F2, party members were more controllable. I don't know how different the combat was because I went with a completely different build, but my non-combat build in F2 felt completely viable, and added real weight to the few battles I couldn't avoid (Wanamingoes! :x ). I don't think I had more than 100 kills in the entire 40+ hours I spent playing. That's a trip to the supermarket in Fallout 3.

Additionally, I played both games fully patched, including unofficial fan patches, and because of this all of Fallout 2's ending slides felt like organic results of the things I'd done in the game(except for the talking deathclaws, but who cares) whereas even with patches F1 has bugged endings for the Followers and the Hub. I know the ending slides aren't the most important thing in the game, but my feeling of agency was hampered by the fact that it was impossible to succeed in certain areas through no fault of my own. Though both games would be on about equal footing without patches, I admit.

And that's one thing Fallout 2 doesn't have: the perfect final ending sequence of the first game. The Vault dweller trudging off into the desert might be my favourite ever ending in a game. The series as a whole has forgotten that magic, of showing you the wider consequences of your actions and then winding the perspective back down to your own personal ending. Fallout 3 tried for that, but Bethesda can't write worth shit. Lonesome Road tried for it, but it's a sideshow that doesn't integrate with the ending of the main game.
 
I did play FO2 before FO1 but for me the primary reasons why FO2 is better is because of the game's depth. There was so much other than the main quest to do in the majority of towns. It didn't feel that way in FO1.

I didn't like, for example, the fact that Junktown revolved around that one rivalry between Killian and Gizmo. As a dominant quest itself it is OK, but it felt like the only thing to do in town. I never needed to come back after that.

There was also way more to world map encounters in Fallout 2 than Fallout 1. The ruggedness of the wasteland wasn't 'lore' - it was reality through the bands of raiders, highwaymen, creatures etc. that you would run into.
 
Back
Top