Why do people prefer Fallout 2 over Fallout 1?

[laclongquan]

The few guys above me have listed quite a lot about what to like in fallout 2.

i will list what is better in fallout 2 than fallout 1 and why people disagree.

1. fallout 2 has perfected a lot of gameplay details in fallout 1. From the tiny thing like the amount of money you put on table, to the inventory navigation... Anyone remember the feeling want to tear your hair out when you are in the barter window and have to click click on the money piles? i sure have. IF you play 2 first, you will never accept the bloody awfulness of 1. The Take All button is a great step forward.

2. fallout 1 is a single quest with some sidequest. A short story. A novella. You get in, you done the job, you get out and pat yourself on the head for a job well done. Fuuuuuuuuuuck other towns, other people. Fallout 2 happen in a much bigger world, with much more people and their tangled destinies. Your job is not only to solve your own tribe's destiny, but to help others too. Your footprint in history can be potentially much larger. if you like to take a step back, deep breath and look at the whole picture, Fallout 2 is the game for you.

3. The staged, step-one-two-three of Fallout 1 main quest's structure help those who dont like the sandbox, freestyle way of exploring in fallout 2.

 

[BigBoss]

Basically, your argument is Fallout 2 is better because its bigger.

What the fuck man. Maybe that means something to you, but it doesn't mean shit to me, and alot of other people on here.

Fallout 1 was simply a better game, and there are alot of posts here to back up my own views.

 

[well-known stranger]

Basically, your argument is Fallout 2 is better because its bigger.

What the fuck man. Maybe that means something to you, but it doesn't mean shit to me, and alot of other people on here.

Fallout 1 was simply a better game, and there are alot of posts here to back up my own views.

sometimes bigger is better and i think it's definitely a strength of fo2 but not a win-all. the more side quests there are the more you develop a sense of self within the game. plus there was just more capability for you to make your mark on the world. that doesn't mean shit if the side quests are poorly written or just not interesting, but they're all pretty good in fo2.

FO3 since it's only quality is an open world rpg doesn't really matter at all since there's only so many fucking clones of broken down subway stations you can go throuh before you just wish you had a suicide button. if i was in fo3 as a person, i would kill myself, hands down. i'd try to find the white house or something and get bored after being lost for months and just let a ghoul eat me. fuck it.

fo1 i think is better written as a whole and it has a darker atmosphere which some may argue takes the cake, but that comes down to personal opinion. the gameplay mechanics are obviously superior in fo2 and it has more open-worldyness which is really just personal preference.

so i don't know. as a kid, i preferred fallout 2. as an adult, i think i prefer fallout 1. but i wish it had things fallout 2 had, vice versa.

 

[BigBoss]

Well yeah, obviously there are some things from Fallout 2 that I would have liked to have in Fallout 1 (move an NPC, not have to keep clicking that damned button for bottle caps when trading, etc.), but these little things to me, do not make it a better game.

I prefer Fallout 1.

Kinda like I prefer Metal Gear Solid 1 to MGS 4. People ask me why? Its just a better game hands down.

Fallout 3 has a kinda "dark post-apocalyptic" feel, where you kinda get the feeling that life just sucks in the wasteland.

 

[Matthews]

Basically, your argument is Fallout 2 is better because its bigger.

What the fuck man. Maybe that means something to you, but it doesn't mean shit to me, and alot of other people on here.

Fallout 1 was simply a better game, and there are alot of posts here to back up my own views.

Size DOES matter, if you didn't know that. Both ingame and otherwise, size impress (or intimidate) people. Besides, no need to swear, we talk about games and not important things.

 

[laclongquan]

Basically, your counter-argument is that Fallout 1 is smaller so it's easier for you to concentrate on the main quest. Is that it? Cause that in no way refute my points.

I dont judge your taste, mind you. It's personal, after all, so if you like it smaller and more condensed, bully for you. But saying it's better because it is so... well that stuck in my craws.

I intentionally didnt mention Fallout 3 because it's a bad idea, bad example, and self-defeated if use. So let's just drop that line of discussion.

Still, that's only perspective issue. Taste aside, there's a lot to cricitize about F1. A lot of jagged things that get smoothed over in F2. Clunky inventory interface, hmmm? Clunky barter window, hmm? Tell me about clues that give you lots of info before you should know it, hmmm? Less interactive/responsive companions compared to F2, hmm? When you compare 1 to 2, there's a hell of a lot to say.

 

[BigBoss]

Actually, in no way did I say, or even come close to implying that.

You just basically took what I said, and figured that I felt the exact opposite.

What I was trying to say was, bigger isn't everything. Fallout 1 had a better "all-around" feel and story for me than Fallout 2. Plain and simple.

I also felt the gameplay was slightly better. (This were obviously highly tweaked in the transition from the FO1 gameplay/combat to the FO2 gameplay/combat).

For example, I can think of games with huge worlds that completely suck. Like WoW.

Also, this is purely an argument of opinion. There are hardly any "facts" which prove one game is better than the other.

 

[woo1108]

Actually, there's little better things left for Fo1: time limit to increase motivation. for plot, Fo1's plot is just copy of Wasteland.
For quest and puzzles, Arcanum and Fo2 has far better point of that. for combat, Fo2 solved lots of things of Fo1 to be better.
For companion, I rather choose fo3's sucking idiots than useless Fo1's companion. Fo2's companion? Very good.

Sounds like critising Fo1 but I mean is compare with Fo2, Fo1 has little good point then 2. but actually Fo1's story and quests will give quite rare experience that other just looking good idiotic shooters or RPGs that just following arrows idiotically to solving problem can't gives you.

But for me I rather recommand Wasteland to start, play Fo1 one time and enjoying Fo2 lots of time. and... If you enjoyed Fo1, try Arcanum. Its far better games that was made by creator of Fo1. just playing it.

 

[Sduibek]

I could never get into Arcanum, even though I really really wanted to.

Something about the graphics, not of the GUI but of the characters, to me they just looked weird, and "felt" boring and wrong, as did the hit detection and timing in combat. That probably sounds crazy but it's the best I can describe it.

It's particularly odd for me because if you mention most other classic games I have no issues with graphics even as far back as early DOS. (like Wasteland, as was mentioned above)

 

[Lexx]

Well, fo1s companions are so shallow, because they were a last minute addition. And I think it is better to have them the way they are than not having any at all.

 

[woo1108]

I could never get into Arcanum, even though I really really wanted to.

Something about the graphics, not of the GUI but of the characters, to me they just looked weird, and "felt" boring and wrong, as did the hit detection and timing in combat. That probably sounds crazy but it's the best I can describe it.

It's particularly odd for me because if you mention most other classic games I have no issues with graphics even as far back as early DOS. (like Wasteland, as was mentioned above)

Sounds like you don't like feeling of steamwork or later 1800(maybe?). For me as Fallout interested me, Arcanum interested me.

The portrait is awsome, well-made world, well made quests etc. lots of folk says combat is sucks, but actually it's combat sucks because Fo1's combat is actually sucks. as for system, Arcanum has far better system than Fo1 but I don't think it's combat is better than Fo2 though. Music is also Great!

But fo puzzle, unlike Fallouts that skills usages are not clear so use skill to solve the problem, Arcanum's skill usage to solve problem looks weakened. but other method make it better than Fo1 though.

So for me Fo2>Arcanum, Wasteland>NV>Fo1>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>fo3.

 

[well-known stranger]

I could never get into Arcanum, even though I really really wanted to.

Something about the graphics, not of the GUI but of the characters, to me they just looked weird, and "felt" boring and wrong, as did the hit detection and timing in combat. That probably sounds crazy but it's the best I can describe it.

It's particularly odd for me because if you mention most other classic games I have no issues with graphics even as far back as early DOS. (like Wasteland, as was mentioned above)

I didn't see Arcanum in action til years after it's release, and the first thing I did was yell "THAT'S FALLOUT!" and it mostly had to do with the way the characters moved and looked. But I was hooked immediately on it because it reminded me of fallout so heavily.

But, there is definitely an awkwardness of the characters. They're similar to the look of the ones in Fallout in whatever way, but they move.. strange. And maybe if I didn't have Fallout in my mind to compare them to, they might not seem so strange. I'm not sure how to describe it.

Hitting stuff and being hit never actually felt like anything was being done and the timing was definitely off. The turn based stuff just confused the hell out of me and I just wished it was more like Fallout. It was like with jet and you could boost your AP higher than was shown on screen so your APs wouldn't go down til it got down to 10, it's like that in Arcanum all the time and I never know how many APs I have.

 

[laclongquan]

Actually, in no way did I say, or even come close to implying that.

You just basically took what I said, and figured that I felt the exact opposite.

What I was trying to say was, bigger isn't everything. Fallout 1 had a better "all-around" feel and story for me than Fallout 2. Plain and simple.

I also felt the gameplay was slightly better. (This were obviously highly tweaked in the transition from the FO1 gameplay/combat to the FO2 gameplay/combat).

For example, I can think of games with huge worlds that completely suck. Like WoW.

Also, this is purely an argument of opinion. There are hardly any "facts" which prove one game is better than the other.

Why F1-lovers keep saying that in defense of the F1 superiority over F2? They keep saying size is not everything and ignore the points about F2 is better in other aspects as well. That, by the way, is the well known and regular feature of each and every discussion we have about F1 versus F2, I've witnessed over the years.

I made the points about size as well as small details of F2 is better than F1. woo1108 made his point in other aspects than mine. Read them. That's the analytical comparison about why. Saying "no fact" in the face of those details wont help you.

 

[woo1108]

And for design, Fo2 has greatly design so if you really don't want to fight? it is possible to avoid all the fight in FO2! unlikely Fo1 and Arcanum can't avoid some point of fight. For Fo1, you should fight against mutants and it's impossible to avoid. for Arcanum dungeon is poorly designed for non-combat charactor.
In fact, in Fo2, only two quest that have to fight is giant rat problem in klamath and raider problem of Vault city. but in fact, with RP mode, you can even avoid fight of these two.

Not only for quest but also for dungeon, Fo2's design is just awsome. for example, in Sierra Army depot, you can avoid all the fight with your skill and fullfill all the things what you can do in army depot.

For combat, both Fo1 and Arcanum's combat is just sucks.
Fo1's combat is just looking awsome because of well made effect of killing. even jagged aliance 2 can't match with Fo1,2's effect. but actually Fo1's combat is sucks. Control only one person for tactics isn't good idea. and with power armor, there's too little enemy that can match for you. companion is just useless. For arcanum, actually lots of things better than Fo1. but problem is Arcanum's graphic isn't that good and effect isn't that good compare with Fo1,2. and at Fo1, actually there aren't much chance to fight so it is harder to recognize Fo1's combat is bad. but in Arcanum, there's too many chances for fight. even you can control companion, they are hardly obey and you can't control them to use item or magics and AI isn't that good either. but for Fo2, they solve that problem.
1. design quest and dungeon to player to evade combat
2. make companion useful
3. make tough enemy
4. put various weapons that are useful.

That's the reason why Fo2 is superial to Fo1 and Arcanum.
But for motivation, Fo1 has better point than Fo2 and for quest and story Arcanum has better point. but for design, Fo2 is better.


Although I said Fo1's combat is sucks, funny thing is that there's planty of games that has worse combat than Fo1. maybe that's the reason why Fo1 combat feels good.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

Erm, what?
In Arcanum you can avoid every fight, in FO1 too...
Actually, in FO2 you must fight with Horrigan, without ability to sneak or talk past...
Nice propaganda man.

Not only for quest but also for dungeon, Fo2's design is just awsome. for example, in Sierra Army depot, you can avoid all the fight with your skill and fullfill all the things what you can do in army depot.

Pretty convenient example.
So what you gonna say about raiders mercenaries, where you can't skip fight? Ooooops! All vision of great FO2 dungeons lay in ruins.

but problem is Arcanum's graphic isn't that good and effect isn't that good compare with Fo1,2. and at Fo1, actually there aren't much chance to fight so it is harder to recognize Fo1's combat is bad. but in Arcanum,

Some fake informations there as well.
So a lot, A LOT of spells has worse effects than some similiar weapons in FO?
You're so subjective.

 

[woo1108]

Erm, what?
In Arcanum you can avoid every fight, in FO1 too...
Actually, in FO2 you must fight with Horrigan, without ability to sneak or talk past...
Nice propaganda man.

but for Arcanum also you should avoid lots of quest and dungeons too.

ah.. yes I forgot about Horrigan. but in fact you can avoid fight directly with him by using turrets and soldiers. so actually you can avoid combat yourself.

for Fo1, you have to fight with mutant doesn't it? maybe I just don't know how to avoid combat to destory Vats and Military Base. as I know, I can avoid combat with Master by persuade him but for Military Base, are there any way to avoid combat to solve?

Actually I'm not blame Fo1 to not design to be possible to avoid combat. just comparing with Fo2. Actually Fo1 is far better designed than lots of games. I love Fo1 but I just prefer Fo2.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

but for Arcanum also you should avoid lots of quest and dungeons too.

Wow, it isn't point.
If you want, you can play character without killing, at same time not having problem with taking enough levels to complete all main quests.
Again, pretty convenient approach. From "you cant complete game without killing" to "you can complete it, but you will lost something" derp.
Using sam logic, you're loosing a lot of dungeons in FO2 too. (in Klamath, Modoc, Redding and so on)

ah.. yes I forgot about Horrigan. but in fact you can avoid fight directly with him by using turrets and soldiers. so actually you can avoid combat yourself.

I know, but you said you can't avoid fights in FO1, while in fact you can AND at least, you can complete FO1 without havig any kill in kill counter, not like in FO2. (so FO1 is more pacifist than FO2) I don't see logic behind lying to proves something.

but for Military Base, are there any way to avoid combat to solve?

Computer -> Autodestrucion, that's all.
Also, in similiar way you can destroy Cathedral without talking to Master or even meeting him.

And I understand your point, but taking Arcanum into FO1-FO2 discussion wasn't smart.
Arcanum is bigger that F1 or F2, have more potential fights, locations but only lacks in dialogues.

 

[woo1108]

.
Pretty convenient example.
So what you gonna say about raiders mercenaries, where you can't skip fight? Ooooops! All vision of great FO2 dungeons lay in ruins.

you can avoid that in RP mod by persuading someone.

Some fake informations there as well.
So a lot, A LOT of spells has worse effects than some similiar weapons in FO?
You're so subjective.

Fo1's weapons are not that great like wasteland: just use superial weapon to beat new enemy.
For weapon Fo2 has great work. as aspect of various weapon was made by Fo2 not Fo1. Fo1's weapon is simple as wasteland.

For Arcanum, there's are more method to use and far more feature applied. it just lookig bad because it has far more complicated system compare with Fallout which has far more simple and easy to under stand. if I compare with Fo2, I just say Arcanum's combat is worse, but with Fo1, I don't think so.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

you can avoid that in RP mod by persuading someone.

Wow, so supposedly if I create mod for FO3 allowing to end every situation/quest/potential fight in peaceful way, it means that FO3 is better than any other game in pacifist aspect?
Taking mod into account during comparing some games... where's sense of it?

Fo1's weapons are not that great like wasteland: just use superial weapon to beat new enemy.
For weapon Fo2 has great work. as aspect of various weapon was made by Fo2 not Fo1. Fo1's weapon is simple as wasteland.

For Arcanum, there's are more method to use and far more feature applied. it just lookig bad because it has far more complicated system compare with Fallout which has far more simple and easy to under stand. if I compare with Fo2, I just say Arcanum's combat is worse, but with Fo1, I don't think so.

If you looks closely, I said nothing about FO1 weapons.

For Arcanum, there's are more method to use and far more feature applied. it just lookig bad because it has far more complicated system compare with Fallout which has far more simple and easy to under stand.

Please confess that you didn't not played Arcanum.
Arcanum is complicated? That's why all fans of Arcanum laughs from, for example, one funny fact, that you can complete game and kill anyone using first damage spell - harm?
Really, play it, then judge.
Combat system of Arcanum is easier that in any Fallout, because it's pretty like Oblivion - hit, hit, hit, hit (if using magic, mana pot, if not hit again)
While easier and bigger, more unbalanced thought.

There are 16 colleges, each having 5 DIFFERENT spells.
Add to this all meele weapons, ranged weapons, + all steampunk weapons...
Conclusion is rather obvious.

 

[woo1108]

Wow, it isn't point.
If you want, you can play character without killing, at same time not having problem with taking enough levels to complete all main quests.
Again, pretty convenient approach. From "you cant complete game without killing" to "you can complete it, but you will lost something" derp.
Using sam logic, you're loosing a lot of dungeons in FO2 too. (in Klamath, Modoc, Redding and so on)

Heck, without killing isn't that good idea for exciting play. for Arcanum it is impossible to pass black mountain cave without fight unlike Fo1 and Fo2's mainquest dungeons. But actually that doesn't matter I just say Fo2 is well design to use skill to solve problem.

I know, but you said you can't avoid fights in FO1, while in fact you can AND at least, you can complete FO1 without havig any kill in kill counter, not like in FO2. (so FO1 is more pacifistic thatn FO2) I don't see logic behind lying to proves something.

With stealth it could be possible. I actually didn't counted it since stealth of Fo1,2 is just terrible...

And I understand your point, but taking Arcanum into FO1-FO2 discussion wasn't smart.
Arcanum is bigger that F1 or F2, have more potential fights, locations but only lacks in dialogues.

you are right. I say about Arcanum because I recently playing it and thinking about why I think it's better than Fo1 but not Fo2 but it seems like I didn't think well about that.