Fallout 1 better than fallout 2

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 8:12 pm

I have just finished fallout 1 for the first time ( first i played fallout 2 )
and for me fallout 1 itÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s a lot better than fallout 2 .
The dark wasteland atmosphere , the primitive towns that looked more like strongholds due the constant raider and other attacks , an excelent history ( i am refering to fallout 1 .
Fallout 2 in the other hand lacks the dark post nuclear atmosphere a lot ,
the majority of towns looks like normal towns , no protective walls no guards , take for example klamath ...
Also the history wasnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t so elaborated and good as it was in fallout 1 and the development and techonology for god sake too exagerated .
I hated ncr with those policeman and theirs shiny uniforms , i hated San Francisco where you could buy a power armor in a regular store and i specially hated new reno ( that town looks better than Las Vegas )
I know this topic is not new but i would like to see what do you guys think ?
I think that besides some gameplay issues like lootings corpes and bartering fallout 1 is a lot better than fallout 2

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Thu Jul 11, 2002 9:49 pm

That's exactly how I feel too. Fallout 2 lacked some of the dark atmosphere. Towns in Fallout 1 were more secluded and it's more logical that way. Rather than towns and societys that wish to expand and conquer the way they did in FO2 (NCR, VC, New Reno, Enclave). The BOS and hitech thingies in the game was well balaced, at least they were more limited and rare than in FO2. Towns like Junktown, the Hub, Shady sands, Boneyard and Necropolis are special in a way and different enough from eachother. There were no boring 'fill-up' locations (there actually wasn't any in Fallout 2 either, but some areas were a bit boring and uninteresting, Redding for example). Towns in Fallout had their own ways to survive. Yes, Survive. They needed water, trade and other important stuff for small societys to live. And you could sense that, people were hard working and struggling. The gameworld was slightly smaller and the action was more intense, at least I feel that way, which is good. The wastelands in Fallout were just the way I like to see it, and you could feel the dark atmosphere throughout the whole adventure. The mission felt somewhat more important than in FO2. You had 150 days to find a waterchip and then destroy the mutant threat compared to the 'obtain a toy named GECK so your tribal village can survive' plot in FO2. Dogmeat.

Fallout lacks some of the replayability value that FO2 has. Although you can complete Fallout without firing a single shot, FO2 is bigger, larger and has more opportunities for your character to play the game than Fallout. Bigger, larger isn't always better. FO2 utilizes the possibilities for different characters better than in Fallout. And the 'push' command is not in Fallout. I guess everyone has its personal opinions about these two games but this is how I feel.

Warlord · Post by **Warlord** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 12:28 am

Again? Are we fighting about this again?

Well, okay....you really can't compare them....

end of story.

Kleptomaniac · Post by **Kleptomaniac** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 2:12 am

I don't understand how can you people like one better than the other, it's bassically the same game at different periods. I think Fallout would never be complete without Fallout 2.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 2:38 am

They sure have differences.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:23 am

kleptomaniac you mean the other way right ?
fallout 2 would never be complet without fallout 1 .
DonÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t get me wrong i loved fallout 2 itÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´s one of my favorite games !
But after playing fallout 1 i realized that f2 had some major issues , maybe to some people the olny thing that matters is more weapons and more armor and more cities and more of everything ...
But the main idea of fallout a dark post nuclear world was almost erased from fallout 2 .
I like fallout 2 a lot but the sequel has some serious issues ...

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 8:26 am

I enjoyed Fallout more then Fallout 2, soley because Fallout was more atmospheric.

Slave_Master · Post by **Slave_Master** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 1:05 pm

Fallout 2 lost all of the post apoc, wastelandish atmosphere. Which makes it just another sci fi game, actually. So I love FO1 more. Still love FO2 though.

Kleptomaniac · Post by **Kleptomaniac** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 1:31 pm

I dunno, I loved them both the same. Sure, Fallout has a more dense atmosphere, but Fallout 2 improved the interface, and the story has gotten alot thicker. I consider both of the games just part of the whole Fallout universe, so I can't decide which one I like more.

Bulldog · Post by **Bulldog** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 2:18 pm

I think any Fallout is good Fallout. So what if FO2 was far enough ahead in the timeline to see more established cities and greater technology. It made many elements of the story interesting and doubled that "bizzare shit" factor that I love about both games. Hell, I even like the story parts of FOT.

Kleptomaniac · Post by **Kleptomaniac** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 5:37 pm

Bulldog wrote:I think any Fallout is good Fallout. So what if FO2 was far enough ahead in the timeline to see more established cities and greater technology. It made many elements of the story interesting and doubled that "bizzare shit" factor that I love about both games. Hell, I even like the story parts of FOT.

Same here. I think I will love anything that has to do with Fallout

Warlord · Post by **Warlord** » Fri Jul 12, 2002 11:49 pm

Can't argue with that. I might even buy Tetris if it would have Fallout inserted somewhere.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sat Jul 13, 2002 6:51 pm

I don't think Fallout 2 completes Fallout at all, because it doesn't really compliment it at all. There's several reasons for this:

1.) Quantity over quality: That's basically the theme for Fallout 2. They never spent the time to make sure anything felt post apocalyptic or even fit the setting, they just tossed it in. New Reno is a prime example of this. They needed another location, so they just tossed in Sin City from Wasteland, regardless of how good or bad it was with the originally Fallout setting.

The weapons were the same way. Who cares if the weapons prototypes from the 1990s were more powerful than the 2050+ era weapons? We need more weapons, right? Toss them in!

Oh, and because there's all those weapons now, and locations, you need a car to store your PH4T L3WT! Regardless of what Fallout said about the impossibility of cars, you need something to store PH4T L3WT, so they tossed one in. YAY!

The NPCs were the same way. The kiddies want Deathclaws as an NPC! Let's make them talk! Supermutants, let's make them friendly so they can be NPCs too! Who cares if none of this makes any sense, or isn't good for the atmosphere? We need more NPCs!

Really, there's a whole lot of superfilous crap in Fallout 2 that there's more of, but the one thing there isn't more of is what's really important - atmosphere!

2.) Bugs: This is an easy one, so here goes. Even after 1.02D, there's stabilities issues, broken quests, and so on. Play an evil character sometime, you'll notice a lot of it was untested.

I don't think anyone can argue that not much care was given to Fallout 2 to make sure it was a sound product.

3.) Post post apocalyptic: As pointed out before, Fallout 2 isn't really post apocalyptic. Other than the whole, "Arroyo is dying, get the GECK!" thing, there's very little focus on basic needs. Post apocalyptic is all about gathering basic needs. Also, when you think about it, there's not one iota of urgency in meeting Arroyo's needs, because you spend most of the time doing silly jobs for people with no focus on Arroyo at all.

Furthermore, it's cute that they added Tribals, because that shows that civilization is slipping backwards after the aftermath. That's a good thing, and there should have been a lot more of that there. However, there are no "tribal lands" per say, and Arroyo is right next door to Klamath, which is pretty civilized. What's worse is that Arroyo is spitting distance from The Den, which is slaver central. Even more worse is that most of Fallout 2 is a hell of a lot better off than anything in Fallout 1, so the whole tribal thing just seems tossed in haphazardly.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Sat Jul 13, 2002 8:40 pm

My feelings exactly , i am never bored when i play fallout 1 wheter i be
a evil character or a good character =)

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Sun Jul 14, 2002 2:18 am

Personally, I agree. Even with my whole philosophy on a prequel to Fallout I still have a lot of issues with Fallout 2. While I enjoyed Fallout 2 the lack of urgency for the main plot made me simply wander around with little else for an aim than walking around exploring. I think the development of towns and cities was way too accelarated. Shady sands was pretty civilized in fallout 1 but they should never have reached the level of development of the NCR in 80 years.

Cars, ugh. shouldn't have been involved in fallout 2. there is no justification other than as Saint P stated "ph4t l3wt". with no time constraint on your mission why do you need to drive anywhere? there was no point in adding a feature which wrecked the atmosphere like that.

vault city i was quite happy with. they had the technology from the vault and little more. they were a little too free in letting you join as a citizen but other than that. i quite liked it.

modoc was essentially at the same level of development as shady sands in fo1 yet they had no fortifications. why no walls? surely they would have suffered raider attacks, not to mention other beasties roaming the wastes.

its a shame there were no more towns like junktown or small settlements. granted, people do tend to congregate for safety but the level of development in fallout 2 was just too much.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 3:25 am

Saint_Proverbius wrote:1.) Quantity over quality: That's basically the theme for Fallout 2. They never spent the time to make sure anything felt post apocalyptic or even fit the setting, they just tossed it in. New Reno is a prime example of this. They needed another location, so they just tossed in Sin City from Wasteland, regardless of how good or bad it was with the originally Fallout setting.

Yeah, I think this was the biggest flaw in FO2. Designers could've been more innovative. Although, I wouldn't call New Reno a 'fill-up' location. Redding, golgotha, sierra army depot and Broken Hills were, at least I think so. They aren't important areas and don't bring anything new to the game. New Reno on the other hand, the idea is good, 4 rival families, lots of quests and possibilities. New Reno represents a sad truth in post-apocalypse world. Crime exists, because there is no law. New Reno was.. different, the main area in Fallout 2, IMO. Like the Hub in Fallout, but just a meaner version :twisted:
Problem is, it is hard to associate NR with the retro 50's future, which is an important part in the world of Fallout.

The weapons were the same way. Who cares if the weapons prototypes from the 1990s were more powerful than the 2050+ era weapons? We need more weapons, right? Toss them in!

This is true. And it was made even worse in FO:Tactics!

Oh, and because there's all those weapons now, and locations, you need a car to store your PH4T L3WT! Regardless of what Fallout said about the impossibility of cars, you need something to store PH4T L3WT, so they tossed one in. YAY!

Well, I don't mind having a car. I think a big ol' rusty 50's style highwayman was a nice addition in Fallout2 and wasn't against the Fallout principles. But I do think one car is enough. Jeeps, tanks, APC and stuff in Tactics is ridiculous. As well as the thought of NPC being a society with many cars as Chris Avellone introduced. But the car idea is not impossible and it eased traveling in the worldmap, I guess it's just a matter of personal opinions here.

The NPCs were the same way. The kiddies want Deathclaws as an NPC! Let's make them talk! Supermutants, let's make them friendly so they can be NPCs too! Who cares if none of this makes any sense, or isn't good for the atmosphere? We need more NPCs!

Yeah, most games have this same fault. Look at Fallout 1, there weren't many of them but they all were different and had their own personalities. In fact they were so few you had hard time choosing who you'd take with you. So why have more NPCs? In fallout 2 Goris is basically a same type of character as Sulik. Both are good at close range combat and carry much so why include a talking deathclaw? Because it would look cool?? Intelligent deathclaws, please no more.

Really, there's a whole lot of superfilous crap in Fallout 2 that there's more of, but the one thing there isn't more of is what's really important - atmosphere!

The atmosphere was still there but it wasn't nearly as good as in Fallout 1. I enjoyed playing Fallout 2 but all the minor faults/bugs/easter eggs ruined some of the excitement I had when playing FO 1. Hopefully BIS remembers this when they're making the sequel because this is essential.

2.) Bugs: This is an easy one, so here goes. Even after 1.02D, there's stabilities issues, broken quests, and so on. Play an evil character sometime, you'll notice a lot of it was untested.

This is mainly because the game is so huge and there was some sort of time limit. A very common problem in game industry. Yet, I don't blame the testers, they should have gotten more time to finish their job.

3.) Post post apocalyptic: As pointed out before, Fallout 2 isn't really post apocalyptic. Other than the whole, "Arroyo is dying, get the GECK!" thing, there's very little focus on basic needs. Post apocalyptic is all about gathering basic needs. Also, when you think about it, there's not one iota of urgency in meeting Arroyo's needs, because you spend most of the time doing silly jobs for people with no focus on Arroyo at all.

Furthermore, it's cute that they added Tribals, because that shows that civilization is slipping backwards after the aftermath. That's a good thing, and there should have been a lot more of that there. However, there are no "tribal lands" per say, and Arroyo is right next door to Klamath, which is pretty civilized. What's worse is that Arroyo is spitting distance from The Den, which is slaver central. Even more worse is that most of Fallout 2 is a hell of a lot better off than anything in Fallout 1, so the whole tribal thing just seems tossed in haphazardly.

The designers should've thought more on the plot instead of all the useless stuff we have seen. I never liked the idea of finding a GECK, it was just plain stupid! The idea of tribals is OK and fits in the concept. I guess it makes some sense. However, being a tribal yourself isn't the best possible starting point to a fallout game. In fact, I didn't give a damn about my 'tribe'. Again, some may not agree with me on this but it's my opinion.

Talps · Post by **Talps** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:28 pm

so a waterchip is better than a geck? compared to a geck, the WATERCHIP is the toy

So fallout is a classic, so what, fallout 2 continues off that, so its just as good, and fallout 2 has so many improvements

fallout 2 is alot better, and harder too, and about 10x longer
I can beat fallout in a day if i try.. fallout 2 would take me a week or longer (this is assuming i play 16 hours a day) but thepoint is fallout 2 is better

atleast its not like some games, such as the first few final fantasies.. in that, its like they take the exact same game, change a bunch of stuff, and slap on another roman numeral

well atleast fallout 2 didn't start sucking like many lame sequels

Haplo · Post by **Haplo** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 12:55 pm

F1 is much better, both in context and originality.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 4:54 pm

Talps wrote:so a waterchip is better than a geck? compared to a geck, the WATERCHIP is the toy

So fallout is a classic, so what, fallout 2 continues off that, so its just as good, and fallout 2 has so many improvements

fallout 2 is alot better, and harder too, and about 10x longer
I can beat fallout in a day if i try.. fallout 2 would take me a week or longer (this is assuming i play 16 hours a day) but thepoint is fallout 2 is better

atleast its not like some games, such as the first few final fantasies.. in that, its like they take the exact same game, change a bunch of stuff, and slap on another roman numeral

well atleast fallout 2 didn't start sucking like many lame sequels

Waterchip quest made a lot more sense to me. Though it's only a small part of machinery, it is very important for a vault. Now broken, the vault is in desperate need of another one. So you actually have to save a whole vault from dehydration before water runs out. The 150 day limit is good, shows you how important the quest is. The Garden of Eden creation kit quest is as silly as it sounds like. Help your tribe to survive with help of a neat briefcase looking thingy, doesn't impress me. The game doesn't even explain why it is so important. Does it make crops grow? No. Does it turn wastelands into lush, green grassland? No. It's just a briefcase full of technical data how agriculture works. Must be pretty dumb tribals if they don't know how to grow plants. What have they been doing for 80 years then? Eating eachother?

Fallout 2 is about twice as big as Fallout, which wasn't a short game in any way. Does it make Fallout 2 twice as better? I don't think so. And it's possible to complete Fallout 2 the 'quick way' too. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Fallout 2. I'm sure most of us did. It just didn't impact me the same way Fallout did. And there are several reasons to this, explained earlier.

Just give me few reasons why Fallout 2 is better than Fallout.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 11:18 pm

Obviously, nothing can really surpass Fallout 1 for most of us. It's because it was the first one--our first taste of that wonderful post-apocalyptic goodness. By the time Fallout 2 rolled around, Fallout fans were already used to the setting and its inhabitants. Everything was new and cool in Fallout, especially seeing how the survivors might go about, well, surviving. But in Fallout 2, it was more or less more of the same. But that's not a bad thing. It's like they say: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Fallout wasn't broke, so they didn't fix it.

However, I personally don't like this Fallout 2 bashing. Yes, there have been some excellent points made as to why it's less good than the first, and I agree with most of them (especially the whole FEV mess), but Fallout 2 was still an excellent game, and a worthy successor to Fallout. If Fallout 3 is anywhere as good as Fallout 2 (minus bugs and plotholes), we can consider ourselves lucky. Now let's get back to bashing Fallout: Tactics. The Brotherhood came from a Vault? What the hell?