Fallout 1 & 2

[Derpus von Herpus]

I thought I was the only one who didn't really like the first two, but mostly the second. The first was great, and it really had me going for awhile, but I dropped it about halfway through and honestly not once did I ever consider playing it again.

The second... ugh. The intro section made me furious, mainly because of the way I play. I am a firearms user in Fallout, and I like it that way, because pretty much everyone in the wasteland has a gun. But the intro section, you either had to have your Speech incredibly high to talk the final brave into letting you pass, or Melee/Unarmed if you wanted to fight past him. Let me show you what my combat log always looked like:

You punch at Brave. You miss.

You punch at Brave. You miss.

You aim a spear thrust at Brave. You miss.

You stab Brave with your spear! 2HP damage.

Brave stabs you with his spear for 15HP.

Brave critically stabs you with his spear for 60HP! The scars will heal nicely, and might make for good conversation pieces.

You die...

Man, hell with that. Why would I play this if I was absolutely forced to sink most of my points into skills I don't want?

 

[scnj]

I hope for the next one they bring back the altered dialogue based on intelligence. I want a choice between being a total idiot or a post-apocalyptic Stephen Fry.

 

[6PrinceofDarkness6]

Why are there TWO super soldier programs. Why would you need Super Mutants if you're making Deathclaws for the SAME EXACT PURPOSE.

No answer for this, haven't played them in a while. Somebody else want to take this?

There is this thing called "redundancy". Most ambitious R&D programs don't work out. That's why the real-world military tries lots of different things.

Also since the Super Mutants were like eight year-olds without their soda and Deathclaws were like well fed, bred, and led German Shepard's.

I thought I was the only one who didn't really like the first two, but mostly the second. The first was great, and it really had me going for awhile, but I dropped it about halfway through and honestly not once did I ever consider playing it again.

The second... ugh. The intro section made me furious, mainly because of the way I play. I am a firearms user in Fallout, and I like it that way, because pretty much everyone in the wasteland has a gun. But the intro section, you either had to have your Speech incredibly high to talk the final brave into letting you pass, or Melee/Unarmed if you wanted to fight past him. Let me show you what my combat log always looked like:

You punch at Brave. You miss.

You punch at Brave. You miss.

You aim a spear thrust at Brave. You miss.

You stab Brave with your spear! 2HP damage.

Brave stabs you with his spear for 15HP.

Brave critically stabs you with his spear for 60HP! The scars will heal nicely, and might make for good conversation pieces.

You die...

Man, hell with that. Why would I play this if I was absolutely forced to sink most of my points into skills I don't want?

That's why you steal shit.

 

[Derpus von Herpus]

That's why you steal shit.

I was stealing his spear.

With my chest.

 

[letsnoobtehpwns]

I got the first 3 Fallouts (1, 2 and Tactics) the same time I got Fallout 3. I popped Fallout into my laptop and I have never been so bored in a game. Sorry, I'm trying to endure it but I'm stuck in the game and I don't have the patients to try to continue!

 

[6PrinceofDarkness6]

That's why you steal shit.

I was stealing his spear.

With my chest.

Kinky.

 

[scnj]

Maybe the main problem is that you're taking the whole thing way too seriously. Granted, it's a postapocalyptic RPG, and granted, Fallout 3 was pretty serious, but Fallouts 1 and 2 are black comedy.

 

[Lordmarkus]

I'd like to hear the four games that you find greater than fallout. It's my favourite game, but I'm willing to try what you suggest, providing it runs in wine.

1. Half-Life 2 (A bit overestimated but I can't stop loving the game)
2. Half-Life (Pretty much the same)
3. BioShock (Awsome story, great turns and insane atmosphere)
4. World in Conflict (Fast paced RTS, great story, nukes and made in Sweden)
5. Fallout (See my other posts)

Poor Call of Duty 4 was exiled because of Fallout.

 

[Superlordbasil]

I think one good example of the extent that fallout 1 and 2 are excellent rpgs is that i believe you can complete the first (not sure about the second)without directly killing anyone.

 

[Knonsense]

Some snipped:

I'm listing all the plot holes.

*Why are there TWO super soldier programs. Why would you need Super Mutants if you're making Deathclaws for the SAME EXACT PURPOSE.

*Why was the G.E.C.K not mass produced and kept somewhere the government could get to them?

I don't think that much of what you describe here qualifies as plot holes. I'll cover what hasn't been already covered from the looks of it.

Spoiler

According to the Fallout wiki, Death Claws were created by the US military before the war. Super mutants were created after the war by the Master, Richard Moreau. The master found the deathclaws to be unsuitable for his army. Also, most death claws are unintelligent, so they wouldn't really make a fitting replacement for humanity as the Super Mutants were intended to be.

Every vault was supposed to have a GECK. That seems like enough.

Also, there is at least one in the government's base anyway. And the government is evil. Why would government access of GECKs change anything? It's not like they're going to pass them around to mutants that they intend to exterminate.

EDIT: I guess people did respond to these. Oh well.

 

[Mjolnir07]

I'm going to agree with several others here and say that I've never met anyone who didn't enjoy the first two Fallout games. The only explanation for this could very simply be that you must be of a younger generation who wasn't privileged to 3d engines before a 3d engine meant more than 2 dimensions with cleverly placed shadows and the capability to move in 4-5 directions instead of 2-3. If this is not the case, then it certainly isn't surprising that you like neither final fantasy or fallout, because turn based game play is fairly common combat dynamic for RPG's. This simply means you do not like RPG's.

Additionally I can't say that if you don't like the original Fallout right off the bat that giving it more of a chance will make it better for you because I don't relate, I loved it instantly. But I still recommend attempting to adjust to it before bashing it, and I definitely recommend against comparing it to fallout 3 because the only thing the 2 truly have in common is that you can loot corpses for interesting post apocalyptic shit and sell it to interesting post apocalyptic people with interesting post apocalyptic morals.

Lastly, you don't really need to understand or even know the stories behind the first two to play the most recent because they are only mentioned vaguely in the last in order to inspire some sort of charming nostalgia in fans of the original. The stories are pretty much the same in fallout 1 and 3 anyway, give or take a few minor details (replace mutant overlord with new world order and reason for leaving the vault from quest to find water with quest to find dad)

 

[tehweave]

After playing, loving, and beating fallout 3 I decided it was a good idea to buy the original two and try them.

Yeah... Big mistake.

You're really not meant to go back and play the originals after beating the sequels. Thats why I could never go back to elder scrolls 1 and 2 after beating morrowind and oblivion.

 

[Chicago Ted]

The only turn based game I could really stand was FFX.

Other then that, if I want a true RPG, I feel that table-top with a good GM is the only way to go. If they can cope with what you throw at them, you can do anything you want in any situation with them. Sure they're aren't graphics, but combine this with a bit of LARPing to make dialogue feel real, and you really get easily immersed.

That's at least my take.