Why do people prefer Fallout 2 over Fallout 1?

[woo1108]

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 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.

Actually I don't think both Arcaum and Fo1's combat is good. both are sucks. for Fo1, with tubo plasma rifle you can kill all the enemy easily. with power armor, there too little enemy that can harm you. too small choice of weapon, little variety of enemy etc.
so what I want to say isn't about Arcanum's combat is good. actually balance is bad but either Fo1. but for Arcanum there's alternative of magic. but for Fo1, there's too little alternative of power armor and energy weapon. and For Fo2, variety of weapon, useful companion, variety of enemy etc so far better than those two.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

for Arcanum it is impossible to pass black mountain cave without fight unlike Fo1 and Fo2's mainquest dungeons.

You're not fan of sneak yeah?
If you're good at sneaking and spotting traps Black Mountain is best location for you. (it's the place with biggest number of traps within all game, maybe only Castle S'nel N'fa have more, but it's for spot traps master quest so.)
And well, pacifist character should be good at sneaking. Great reminder by the way, because sneak in FO2/FO1 is a joke.

(Oh, as you said in next sentence.)

And if you're playing pacifist character without ability to sneak, well, buy 2 scrolls of invisibility and it's done.

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

Only with talking...
Where do you need stealth in Fallout1 to complete it without killing?
Fallout 1 in pacifist playthrough is same like in Fallout 2, however, FO2 have forced fight with Horrigan, so yeah, FO1 is more pacifist... a little, but it is.

 

[woo1108]

Actually I really don't know about magic of Arcanum since I play as mechboy.
Arcanum's sneak look good but I haven't tried yet.

Actaully compare with Jagged alience, Xcom etc, Fallout's combat is sucks. but actually thanks for well made rule they got enjoyable combat either Fo1,2 and Arcanum(sounds like magic is over powered though.).

 

[Gaspard]

Ah! good old times! the Master Quests for skills were pretty cool in Arcanum. And yeah - sneak through Black Mountain!

Arcanum had a lot of weak points balance and mechanics wise, but there were a lot of more approaches available than in the first Fallout, imo. It was like a ginormous Fallout 2 with magic and elves. You could have more varied builds of characters for very different playthoughs.

 

[Languorous_Maiar]

Actaully compare with Jagged alience, Xcom etc, Fallout's combat is sucks. but actually thanks for well made rule they got enjoyable combat either Fo1,2 and Arcanum(sounds like magic is over powered though.).

It's true, but I like how you hate on Fallout 1 combat, praising Fallout 2, what use exactly same mechanics.
Or hate on Fallout 1, because you must kill someone, praising Fallout 2, what have exactly same situtation, when it comes to having different ways of solving quets.
It's clear that FO2 is better and bigger, but huh, difference between those 2 is small.

 

[woo1108]

Actaully compare with Jagged alience, Xcom etc, Fallout's combat is sucks. but actually thanks for well made rule they got enjoyable combat either Fo1,2 and Arcanum(sounds like magic is over powered though.).

It's true, but I like how you hate on Fallout 1 combat, praising Fallout 2, what use exactly same mechanics.
Or hate on Fallout 1, because you must kill someone, praising Fallout 2, what have exactly same situtation, when it comes to having different ways of solving quets.
It's clear that FO2 is better and bigger, but huh, difference between those 2 is small.

nope I don't hate Fo1's combat. just critise because of comparation. I love Fo1's combat.

Actually, while combat of Fo1 is badly designed that bad point made lots of good point. because you can only use 1 charactor you should think wisely about build of charactor and if you done wrong, then try again with other build for replay. and with the build, you can solve a single situation with various charactor build. So weaken combat is not a bad point but actually good point of Fo1 I guess either Arcanum. for build Fo2's limitless level up would be a big problem since you can be jack-of-all-trade so value of replay reduced. but thanks for SPECAIL it's solved since you can't raise SPECAIL easily. so actually important thing is not about combat but how to solve a single problem with various way. for that Fo2 is improved version of Fo1 either Arcanum.

I praise Fo2's combat because they improve both combat and quest.

 

[Sduibek]

woo1108 & Languorous_Maiar (great username btw), be careful not to turn this into a flame war. kthx

---

More OT stuff, sorry:

Going back a bit, re: Arcanum -- I like Steampunk as a genre and concept, I liked the portraits in Arcanum, I liked the GUI (for the most part), I liked most things about the game except the main graphics itself.

It looks like a cartoon. I can't possibly take a game seriously if everything that moves is smoothed, rounded and to me looks almost airbrushed. It's a lame and strange graphic style.

It looks even worse because of most of the background art being crisp and "realistic", so the characters look even more ridiculous.

 

[BigBoss]

I can't read this baseless conjecture anymore.

Fallout 1 and 2 were made (and read this carefully now) "from the same system and engine". There aren't to many "facts" which base Fallout 2 as a better game.

The definition of a "better game" entirely is based on what the independent gamer feels makes a better game. This is called opinion, not fact.

 

[woo1108]

I can't read this baseless conjecture anymore.

Fallout 1 and 2 were made (and read this carefully now) "from the same system and engine". There aren't to many "facts" which base Fallout 2 as a better game.

The definition of a "better game" entirely is based on what the independent gamer feels makes a better game. This is called opinion, not fact.

fo3 VS NV NV is far better game than fo3.
same engine but system is little bit changed. but big matter is design. not only a visual design but for dungeon design, skill usage, quest design etc. lots of things can be changed even engine isn't changed. actually don't need to change engine for good game. the matter is not a engine but contents.

 

[Sduibek]

I can't read this baseless conjecture anymore.

Fallout 1 and 2 were made (and read this carefully now) "from the same system and engine". There aren't to many "facts" which base Fallout 2 as a better game.

The definition of a "better game" entirely is based on what the independent gamer feels makes a better game. This is called opinion, not fact.

fo3 VS NV NV is far better game than fo3.
same engine but system is little bit changed. but big matter is design. not only a visual design but for dungeon design, skill usage, quest design etc. lots of things can be changed even engine isn't changed. actually don't need to change engine for good game. the matter is not a engine but contents.

BigBoss makes a very good point though. Take me as example -- I have heard all the info about NV being better than Fallout 3 for a long list of reasons, but I can't even make myself play it. Why? Because of the "cowboy" feel to it. It's just stupid and not Fallout to me. "Howdy ya'll, let's shoot us some rad-scarpians!" And what's with dying twice and then not being dead? The whole beginning of the game is just total shit.

So technical superiority or not, even in writing and gameplay and all that, opinion can still trump. I think that's what BigBoss means is that with a lot of this, the answer to my thread title is probably "personal opinion and preference" and not "because it's a better game".

 

[.Pixote.]

I like Steampunk as a genre and concept, I liked the portraits in Arcanum, I liked the GUI (for the most part), I liked most things about the game except the main graphics itself.

I think the GUI was terrible in Arcanum, Fallout's GUI is one of the best ever made, especially for that mid 90s period. Arcanum got it so wrong (layout, positions, scale, crappy "wood" effect, etc) ...

 

[woo1108]

For me, Fo1's plot is too similar to Wasteland so that I can't think Fo1 is independent game but a sequel or copy of wasteland. so for me, Fo2 is better because it's independent from Wasteland. at Fo2, at least they didn't copy Wasteland's plots.

For the feeling, for me, Fallout isn't about 50's future bullshit. it's about wondering wasteland to find and visit villiage where people settle and rebuild community to find informations about primary goals. to gain information, asking around and get some useful informations. while doning this, eventually face certain situations. it is possible to just ignore them or solving them with given skills or items or informations. and many situations looks nothing to do with primary goals or looks useless but no they are one of signs of other big situations that replace primary goals.

For sticking 50's bullshit, I just say wasteland is large, it isn't strange to lots of odd culture, cloth, or other things that are not similiar to 50s. sticking with 50's just closing lots of possiblities of wasteland. if it sounds reasonable, there's no reason to reject changes.

For fo3.....
I'm sure beth didn't understand well about Fallout or Wastealand.
just copying looking good things and didn't think about why the rule is important or structure of quest of Fallouts.

 

[woo1108]

I think the GUI was terrible in Arcanum, Fallout's GUI is one of the best ever made, especially for that mid 90s period. Arcanum got it so wrong (layout, positions, scale, crappy "wood" effect, etc) ...

Heck, you can say that again.

 

[laclongquan]

I can't read this baseless conjecture anymore.

Fallout 1 and 2 were made (and read this carefully now) "from the same system and engine". There aren't to many "facts" which base Fallout 2 as a better game.

The definition of a "better game" entirely is based on what the independent gamer feels makes a better game. This is called opinion, not fact.

And if you like Fallout 1 than Fallout 2, I wouldnt say a thing. When you said fallout1 is better than 2, well, that's when the gong start. You have the right to your liking but I expect you to defend your opinion.

As for the "same engine" point, do you know that there's still no way to play Fallout 1 on Fallout 2 engine? They have the unofficial restoration mods for f2 and f1 seperatedly, but we still cant play F1's asset on f2 engine. Believe me, if it's possible I would love to play F1 on F2 engine. The two games look similar but they are not the same, chap.

In a counterpoint, there's mods allow you to play BG1 game on BG2 engine.

As for the thing about F3 and FNV, let's not start. Because if start, we expect you to defend your opinion. Beside, it's off topic.

 

[Lexx]

We actually can play fo1 on fo2. It is lacking various features, as they have not yet been fully ported, but it is playable.

 

[laclongquan]

We are? I was not aware of any mod like that? Link if you please. I am itching for the thing.

 

[Sduibek]

We are? I was not aware of any mod like that? Link if you please. I am itching for the thing.

Yep. It was started by Jordan a few years back and I intend to finish it.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=975556#975556

 

[Ekans22]

Actaully compare with Jagged alience, Xcom etc, Fallout's combat is sucks.

^^

I like FO2's combat better than FO1, despite using the same engine, because you have better companions. (though I hate that you can only control your main character - no, its not a 'tactical' RPG if the computer is making the majority of my risk/benefit decisions for me).

I'm not a big fan of FO2's combat either for the above mentioned reason, but at least your companions are both useful in combat 'and' have interesting personalities/back stories.

This is what killed FO1 for me (in addition to many other things) - the companions were pointless. To each their own - what one person finds valuable in a game, another person might not find so critical. For me, in a standard RPG, interesting and useful companions are like meat and potatoes.

I grew up with Baldur's Gate, where you almost 'had' to rely on your companions - you 'could' solo those games, but it wasn't easy. And they were fun.

Edit: I didn't personally like FO3/NV combat either, due to super unrealistic physics and being able to get shot in the face with a magnum and not dying.

 

[Oppen]

sfall has an option to control your companions in combat

 

[laclongquan]

use the http://www.mediafire.com/download/sc70szwua5sslik/F1toF2conversion_by+Jordan.zip right?

Wiki http://falloutmods.wikia.com/wiki/FO2_converted_to_FO1
and post 1 of the thread http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=39955&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0 detail steps.

Well, okay, I will check this shit out.

As a return to topic, I will leave this here

Things that will bug you severely if you've played Fallout 2

There's no "take all" button (argh).
You can't move more than $999 at a time.
You can't use Page Up and Page Down in your inventory (aaargh).
New items go to the bottom of your inventory instead of the top (don't they have playtesters to catch this sort of thing?).
You can't barter freely with party members.
You can't tell party members to move out of the way (or anyone else). [Push command ~~Sduibek]
There's nothing in the way of combat settings for party members. [This still applies because TeamX's mod is a clever hack, not a replacement for a real AI combat system ~~Sduibek]
Your destination on the world map is reset every time you have an encounter.
"Rest until morning" only goes to 6.00 even though a lot of people in the game consider 7.00 or 8.00 to be the start of business hours, which is usually what you're waiting for.
You "take damage" when earning a level (because your current HP level doesn't go up).
You need a perk to get green outlines around your NPCs in combat (oh yeah, that's worth a perk. How about you need a second level of the perk to get yellow outlines for critters outside your line of sight?).
Money isn't displayed in dialogue.
Carry Weight isn't displayed in inventory.
If you try to use something during combat, like opening a door or searching a corpse, your character will walk slowly up to it even if you have "always run" on.
There are very few reputations, no special perks, very few ways of improving your character except for perks.
You can't choose whether to avoid random encounters or not.
As previously expounded, random skill checks and static skill starting values tend to reduce the difference between character types.
Excessive looting is pointless since there's little to invest in (excessive looting should always be rewarded).
You'll finish the game well before reaching the highest character levels unless you devote time exclusively to xp hunting.