Why I like Fallout 2 more than Fallout 1

[ElloinmorninJ]

Fallout 1 was an okay game I guess, but in my opinion, Fallout 2 took what was already good about the series and made it even better! Here’s why:

I know you guys think Fallout 1 is the bees knees or whatever, but for anybody that isn’t a Vault Fossil (ie me) Fallout 1 is like goddamn archaeology. The UI, combat, they’re all so slow and dull, with not much to bring you in. The Temple of Trials at least taught you how to play the game, and in my case it wasn’t that bad. Those rat caves though, Jesus Christ, what a bore.

And now, that we’re out of the Vault, it’s time to move on to point 2 of why I like FO2 better: content. In Fallout 2 there’s just generally more stuff to do. In Fallout 1, there’s literally...12 places to go, and 5 of them are just dungeons packed with creatures. So that’s 7 settlements in total, with nothing fun to do in them. Whereas in Fallout 2, there are so many places to go, see, and explore. The Den, Vault City, Redding, Broken Hills, NCR, New Reno. All places fun to explore and travel through. Plus, in this game they were smart enough to give you a vehicle so you don’t have to crawl around the desert at a snails pace anymore. The locations in 2 felt more interconnected, you could tell there were people living here, with new factions arising and rebuilding.

Fallout 2 also added in more content besides just locations: More characters to talk too, more weapons, more creatures, more quests, more companions, more armor. They improved the stats, balance and gameplay overall. It was awesome.

My only gripe with 2 was the settlement of San Francisco, but besides that, kickass game.

 

[Atomic Postman]

know you guys think Fallout 1 is the bees knees or whatever, but for anybody that isn’t a Vault Fossil (ie me) Fallout 1 is like goddamn archaeology. The UI, combat, they’re all so slow and dull, with not much to bring you in

Well for one I disagree but that's subjective. What's objective however is that the differences between Fallout 1 and Fallout 1 are fairly marginal in the gameplay department, all things considered. There are differences of course but for one to be a dinosaur fossil and one to be great, that seems weird to me particularly when there's only a year between the two.

The Temple of Trials at least taught you how to play the game, and in my case it wasn’t that bad. Those rat caves though, Jesus Christ, what a bore.

This is a product of you being quite young (He says as a 21 year old zoomer) in that you would have been expected to give the manual (Which, btw Fallout 1 has a very cool manual) a flick through in order to learn the controls and also basic background story fluff. The manual very simply and comprehensively explains it all so when you jump into the game, everything is fine. I did just that when I first played Fallout 1 back in 2013 when I was younger, and I did just fine. The Rat Cave is a perfectly fine introduction to the game, and I'd say sets the tone quite well for your "Call to adventure" moment of stumbling into natural sunlight and heading into a very hostile and alien Wasteland. It's grim, lonely but not overtly challenging. Allows you to get immersed for a moment.

Fallout 2 is extremely ham handed in this. The Temple of Trials is absurd in presentation and worldbuilding justification, the idea that Arroyo has this gigantic fuck-off ancient temple next to it when otherwise it's a primitive agricultural tribe is really dumb. The Temple of Trials doesn't look like Fallout and it is an absolute slog on repeat playthroughs or to anyone who knows what they're doing. It was a design decision forced on them by higher ups and it shows. If you've read the manual for Fallout 2 prior, the Temple of Trials is absolutely superfluous. It's not terrible as an introduction and it never really blights my enjoyment, but it is contextually unneccessary.

In Fallout 2 there’s just generally more stuff to do. In Fallout 1, there’s literally...12 places to go, and 5 of them are just dungeons packed with creatures. So that’s 7 settlements in total, with nothing fun to do in them. Whereas in Fallout 2, there are so many places to go, see, and explore. The Den, Vault City, Redding, Broken Hills, NCR, New Reno. All places fun to explore and travel through. Plus, in this game they were smart enough to give you a vehicle so you don’t have to crawl around the desert at a snails pace anymore. The locations in 2 felt more interconnected, you could tell there were people living here, with new factions arising and rebuilding.

I agree to an extent but I think there's a quality v quantity argument to be made here. By the admission of the developers themselves, whilst Fallout 2 was greatly expansive compared to Fallout, it lacked hugely in thematic cohesion. The worldbuilding, tone, themes et cetera in Fallout feel very focused as if they are forming a cohesive whole, a singular artistic vision. Fallout 2 teeters down the beginning of the road towards Bethesda Theme Park design in that at times the world of Fallout 2 can feel very much like scattershot gimmicks, however it's saved by largely good writing and quest content, as well as at least some connective muscle tissue of thematic cohesion.

Similarly the main storyline in Fallout 1 is very well designed in that it feels like everything you're doing large and small will connect back to it in clever ways. In Fallout 2, this really isn't the case outside of the Enclave-New Reno cameo.

Testament to this is that if you read the design documents for the cancelled Fallout 3 (Van Buren), maintaining thematic/tonal cohesion in their design and writing seems to be something they figuratively nailed above the door as a guiding principle, which I imagine comes off of the back of Fallout 2's criticisms. To my mind this is why I get a much clearer tonal picture when I think of Fallout 1, New Vegas or even Van Buren whereas Fallout 2 always feels more like a hodge-podge of stuff.

I enjoy Fallout 2 more than Fallout because of its expansiveness, but I admit that it is much more flawed than Fallout 1 which IMO is a very cohesive piece.

 

[Norzan]

If anything, Fallout 2 having more content is not a good thing given how controversial a lot of it is. The game would be better off without that specific content and it would actually make the game better.

It's why Fallout 1 is better, it's a much more cohesive game.

 

[ElloinmorninJ]

If anything, Fallout 2 having more content is not a good thing given how controversial a lot of it is. The game would be better off without that specific content and it would actually make the game better.

It's why Fallout 1 is better, it's a much more cohesive game.

What content should’ve been removed?

 

[Iprovidelittlepianos]

What content should’ve been removed?

I’m sure this has all been said before, but here’s a quick list of the most egregious parts of fallout 2:

Ghosts
Talking plants
Chess-playing scorpions
Pretty much all of San Francisco
Talking Deathclaws (debatable)
Temple of Trials
Melchior’s “pets”
Porn studio
The Monty python random encounters

And then there’s stuff that shouldn’t necessarily be removed, but retooled, like the Enclave’s characterization, maybe the super mutants at the military base, make New Reno a little more than just drugs and hookers, and... pretty much all of San Francisco.

 

[naossano]

The main plot of Fallout 1 is wonderful and the overall game is a tighter experience.
But most of the smaller locations, unrelated to the main plot, are kind of generic. On the other end, Fallout 2 has very few boring locations.

 

[mustadiokeepsdying]

I’m sure this has all been said before, but here’s a quick list of the most egregious parts of fallout 2:

Ghosts
Talking plants
Chess-playing scorpions
Pretty much all of San Francisco
Talking Deathclaws (debatable)
Temple of Trials
Melchior’s “pets”
Porn studio
The Monty python random encounters

And then there’s stuff that shouldn’t necessarily be removed, but retooled, like the Enclave’s characterization, maybe the super mutants at the military base, make New Reno a little more than just drugs and hookers, and... pretty much all of San Francisco.

oh god that fucking temple

 

[Millim]

I know you guys think Fallout 1 is the bees knees or whatever, but for anybody that isn’t a Vault Fossil (ie me) Fallout 1 is like goddamn archaeology. The UI, combat, they’re all so slow and dull, with not much to bring you in. The Temple of Trials at least taught you how to play the game, and in my case it wasn’t that bad. Those rat caves though, Jesus Christ, what a bore.

There really isn't much of a difference in UI, the fact that Fallout 2 adds a few more options is a nice touch however.

I agree, Fallout 2 has a better overall UI, but I wouldn't call it an overhaul, more of an evolution. Combat, both games are exactly the same. I actually find the rat cave a perfect indication of what the rest of the game will be like, and the fact you can get past it in your own pace adds to its enjoyment.
I usually run through, killing as little rats as possible because yeah, it's a boring opener, but it's not long at all.
The game has to open somewhere and while it isn't perfect, it's at least doable.

Fallout 2's temple of trials is probably the worst aspect of the game. If you don't have a certain build, you're doomed to die. It also feels out of place compared to the rest of the game. If it was an optional tutorial, I would prefer it, the fact that you start in a long dungeon which favours combat undermines the role playing experience.

And now, that we’re out of the Vault, it’s time to move on to point 2 of why I like FO2 better: content. In Fallout 2 there’s just generally more stuff to do. In Fallout 1, there’s literally...12 places to go, and 5 of them are just dungeons packed with creatures. So that’s 7 settlements in total, with nothing fun to do in them. Whereas in Fallout 2, there are so many places to go, see, and explore. The Den, Vault City, Redding, Broken Hills, NCR, New Reno. All places fun to explore and travel through. Plus, in this game they were smart enough to give you a vehicle so you don’t have to crawl around the desert at a snails pace anymore. The locations in 2 felt more interconnected, you could tell there were people living here, with new factions arising and rebuilding

I actually like both here for different reasons. Fallout 1 is a shorter game but feels a lot more focused. I find there is a kind of rebuilding of society within the smaller areas. The Hub is obviously the focal point in the map and it certainly feels like a Hub.

Fallout 2's World feels a lot more like things have progressed. Society is getting to a point where most can live normally without danger. There's a lot of silly things here and there, but I feel that comes in hand with a bigger development team.

Fallout 2 also added in more content besides just locations: More characters to talk too, more weapons, more creatures, more quests, more companions, more armor. They improved the stats, balance and gameplay overall. It was awesome.

I feel like with a bigger game, it just highlights the issue that comes with both games.
A lot of the issues I have with 2 were in 1, but due to 1's length, I didn't notice them.
I feel most issues I have with both games would be fixed if you can control party members in combat.
More doesn't always mean better either, Fallout 4 essentially has an infinite amount of quests, but most are the same, computer generated quests.
F2 has a number of great quests and some which are kinda meh, but I guess there was a lot of shit thrown at the wall just to see what sticks. It's the wild west of game development.

I actually like Fallout 2 a lot, and I'm impressed that they did a game of that scale in a year, but I feel if they had another 6 months or so, they could have cut out all the silly bits that don't work and focus the game down a lot more.

I grew kind of bored of Fallout 2 on my playthrough, and it's the only main Fallout games I've gone through once (even 4 managed to get two playthroughs out of me).
I think it's a great game and has some great role-playing options, in many ways, F2 is better than 1. But man, F1 just has that story which is so focused and everything feels big.

 

[Atomic Postman]

The main plot of Fallout 1 is wonderful and the overall game is a tighter experience.
But most of the smaller locations, unrelated to the main plot, are kind of generic. On the other end, Fallout 2 has very few boring locations.

This is true. ALso another reason why I enjoyed the design direction with Van Buren, as it seemed to marry the disparate and unique locations of Fallout 2 with the thematic cohesion of Fallout 1. Other than maybe Hoover Dam, most of the VB locations looked very neatly distinctive and memorable.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Pretty much all of San Francisco

I don't mind the Shi actually or the idea of a Chinese high tech city state, but I would have dropped the whole Kung Fu stuff or make that play a more minor role (there being schools of Kung Fu and rivalry between them), focusing more on the Shi as an upcoming nation.
Perhaps there being some tensions between them and the NCR (NCR is interested in the technology the Shi sells but they remember a bit of the Pre War world, the Shi on their turn fearing that the NCR will seek to annex or assimilate their city and replace their society/culture)

The Shi would also be the source of origin of the Triad, Tong, or Secret Society that is trying to wrestle in on New Reno's business.

I would love to keep in the space shuttle if just as a reminder of the past but I would heavily reduce or cut out the Huboglobists.
I don't mind the idea of a new cult being around but they were too much of a spoof of Scientology and them having the technology to fix up a space shuttle was stretching it for me. (the Shi themselves could have, the BOS and Enclave certainly, and the NCR might)

Unless Scientology really has a presence of temple or whatever they call it in San Francisco the Huboglobists would not be found there.

 

[Risewild]

I prefer Fallout 2 for reasons I mentions before in this forum. But Fallout 1 has one neat thing that's missing in Fallout 2...
...The "Tell me about" feature. It's a pity it got cut from Fallout 2.

 

[Atomic Postman]

I prefer Fallout 2 for reasons I mentions before in this forum. But Fallout 1 has one neat thing that's missing in Fallout 2...
...The "Tell me about" feature. It's a pity it got cut from Fallout 2.

To be honest I always found that feature totally useless until I discovered the cues for it in the Fallout Bible.

 

[Risewild]

Part of the fun was finding out which words would work.

 

[JustAShcookius]

Well for one I disagree but that's subjective. What's objective however is that the differences between Fallout 1 and Fallout 1 are fairly marginal in the gameplay department, all things considered. There are differences of course but for one to be a dinosaur fossil and one to be great, that seems weird to me particularly when there's only a year between the two.




This is a product of you being quite young (He says as a 21 year old zoomer) in that you would have been expected to give the manual (Which, btw Fallout 1 has a very cool manual) a flick through in order to learn the controls and also basic background story fluff. The manual very simply and comprehensively explains it all so when you jump into the game, everything is fine. I did just that when I first played Fallout 1 back in 2013 when I was younger, and I did just fine. The Rat Cave is a perfectly fine introduction to the game, and I'd say sets the tone quite well for your "Call to adventure" moment of stumbling into natural sunlight and heading into a very hostile and alien Wasteland. It's grim, lonely but not overtly challenging. Allows you to get immersed for a moment.

Fallout 2 is extremely ham handed in this. The Temple of Trials is absurd in presentation and worldbuilding justification, the idea that Arroyo has this gigantic fuck-off ancient temple next to it when otherwise it's a primitive agricultural tribe is really dumb. The Temple of Trials doesn't look like Fallout and it is an absolute slog on repeat playthroughs or to anyone who knows what they're doing. It was a design decision forced on them by higher ups and it shows. If you've read the manual for Fallout 2 prior, the Temple of Trials is absolutely superfluous. It's not terrible as an introduction and it never really blights my enjoyment, but it is contextually unneccessary.




I agree to an extent but I think there's a quality v quantity argument to be made here. By the admission of the developers themselves, whilst Fallout 2 was greatly expansive compared to Fallout, it lacked hugely in thematic cohesion. The worldbuilding, tone, themes et cetera in Fallout feel very focused as if they are forming a cohesive whole, a singular artistic vision. Fallout 2 teeters down the beginning of the road towards Bethesda Theme Park design in that at times the world of Fallout 2 can feel very much like scattershot gimmicks, however it's saved by largely good writing and quest content, as well as at least some connective muscle tissue of thematic cohesion.

Similarly the main storyline in Fallout 1 is very well designed in that it feels like everything you're doing large and small will connect back to it in clever ways. In Fallout 2, this really isn't the case outside of the Enclave-New Reno cameo.

Testament to this is that if you read the design documents for the cancelled Fallout 3 (Van Buren), maintaining thematic/tonal cohesion in their design and writing seems to be something they figuratively nailed above the door as a guiding principle, which I imagine comes off of the back of Fallout 2's criticisms. To my mind this is why I get a much clearer tonal picture when I think of Fallout 1, New Vegas or even Van Buren whereas Fallout 2 always feels more like a hodge-podge of stuff.

I enjoy Fallout 2 more than Fallout because of its expansiveness, but I admit that it is much more flawed than Fallout 1 which IMO is a very cohesive piece.

I suppose fallout 2 has atmosphere going for it at least. The art and aesthetic seemed a bit more lively and fallouty.
I guess interplay noticed how blah the beginning of fallout 1 was and decided to smack a totally accurate "tribal temple" to lure players into the story.
I present this because I myself found fallout 2 more approachable than fallout 1 at the beginning.
I agree that the temple of trials was 100 percent out of place as was many of the little references and dumb jokes like the star trek shit.
The main thing I disliked was the apparent abundance of prewar weapons and ammo. I would have expected more makeshift weapons to come into existance like muskets and Calvary revolving handloaded pistols or some crap.
Also the vault suit was none the worse for wear I guess. It totally had not been across half of california with dried Wannamingos blood and Floater puss on it. The chosen one has good taste for old sweaty synthetic clothing.

Typing this on my phone because my house is still uninhabitable a month later since 242 fire

 

[TorontoReign]

I like Fallout 2 because there is more to do. I don't mind retarded elements since I am in fact a retard.

 

[Atomic Postman]

I suppose fallout 2 has atmosphere going for it at least. The art and aesthetic seemed a bit more lively and fallouty.
I guess interplay noticed how blah the beginning of fallout 1 was and decided to smack a totally accurate "tribal temple" to lure players into the story.
I present this because I myself found fallout 2 more approachable than fallout 1 at the beginning.
I agree that the temple of trials was 100 percent out of place as was many of the little references and dumb jokes like the star trek shit.
The main thing I disliked was the apparent abundance of prewar weapons and ammo. I would have expected more makeshift weapons to come into existance like muskets and Calvary revolving handloaded pistols or some crap.
Also the vault suit was none the worse for wear I guess. It totally had not been across half of california with dried Wannamingos blood and Floater puss on it. The chosen one has good taste for old sweaty synthetic clothing.

Typing this on my phone because my house is still uninhabitable a month later since 242 fire

With regards to the weapons, IIRC the early hours of Fallout 2 are very scarce on firearms. Which makes sense. But also, you can go for the New Vegas justification that the Gun Runners are a thing and they're building weapons to pre-war specs

 

[Black Angel]

Fallout 1 is much more tight and overall more cohesive experience due to the fact that pretty much every settlement in the game are linked via caravan running, including Necropolis, centered on the Hub. The only place exempt from this are the Military Base, Cathedral, Raider base, Vault 15, and Vault 13 (all for obvious reasons), and strangely Shady Sands, though the fact that some random encounters involving traveling merchants does have some who're on the way to or from Shady Sands.

However, Fallout 2 has a lot of neat functionality which made it the better designed and made game, and has personally made returning to Fallout 1 kinda hard because of it (still doesn't prevent me from replaying it every once in a while). I know Fallout1-in-2 is a thing made by the esteemed sir Lexx, but unfortunately the last time I tried it the ambient music is not played while traveling on the overworld map. This immediately turned me off, and I've tried various things sir Lexx suggested and nothing works, although I'm not sure if with patching it has been fixed. I'm in no rush to find out because currently I'm super busy with real life and what day off I got during the week is used to mod New Vegas and care for my cats.

Anyway, I also think it's a shame for the Tell-Me-About feature of Fallout 1 having been removed from Fallout 2. It's the thing that could be used to emphasis the fact that our player character has been isolated in a community that has been, for decades, isolated from the rest of the world. It's obvious the feature is geared toward asking about very specific keyword-based stuffs like the names of NPCs and places, but they could've introduced it more clearly to the players. Katrina, the first female NPC you encounter in Shady Sands could do the job as she's the first to help VD with getting started (while at the same time helping the players). The feature could then be used to accommodate detective/investigation quests as certain NPCs began to open up their dictionary of things you can ask about related to quests. The feature would've been VERY useful in Fallout of Nevada, where a HUGE chunk of the quests there are detective/investigations, and in many places in Fallout 1.5:Resurrection. What a shame.

Lastly, I also don't mind San Francisco. Literally the only thing that made it out of place from the rest of the game is the fact that pretty much nobody talked about it, except for Louise the owner of Malamute Saloon in Redding for no reason other than she mentioned her saloon as the 'finest house north of San Fran'. It doesn't help that caravan running doesn't get you here, since caravan running doesn't get you anywhere other than Vault City-New Reno-NCR-Redding (the Golden Trail), which is a shame.

 

[Atomic Postman]

San Francisco suffers from being a shallow Americanized version of Chinese stereotypes, which would make sense in some contexts but not in their culture being literally rooted in actual Chinese people from China itself. There's not much more to it than that, although the Shi being a technologically powerful city-state is interesting. I think shallowness is more the problem for the Shi/San Fran rather than absurdity.

 

[Hulk'O'Saurus]

No one mentions the antagonists in Fallout 2 and how they are worse than Fallout 1. Borderline slapstick. Yikes.

PS: Both games have horrible combat, but Fallout 1 was more conscious of it. In Fallout 2 the combat rules break down when you reach end-game.

 

[Atomic Postman]

They are worse in a number of aspects but I still think the Enclave are cool villains if not completely two-dimensional.