Poll: Fallout 1/2

[Jfswift]

Fallout 2 was pretty decent. I only vaguely remember playing 1. I liked how in 2 you could mess with just about everything, I even got to damage a nuclear power plant. XD

(one thing all of the fallout games suffer from is how easy they get the moment you can steal a higher powered weapon.)

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Fallout 3. I play games for the gameplay far more than I do for the story or other stuff that isn't gameplay, and FO3's RPG/shooter hybrid was just flat-out more fun than the traditional turn-based PC RPG formula of the first two, enough so that the lackluster story never entered into the discussion with me.

Add to that the fact that the stories in Fallout 1 and 2 aren't much better on a fundamental level anyway.

The delivery is a bit better, as is the humour, but all 3 games stories are just 'save everyone by finding this McGuffin'

 

[ICanBreakTheseCuffs]

fallout 2 probably best story,fal 3 best gameplay(don't like turn-based that much)but Fallout new vegas will be the best because it will be the mixture of all games with will be pure shit or pure epic and my money's on epic, who's with me

 

[veloper]

Fallout 3. I play games for the gameplay far more than I do for the story or other stuff that isn't gameplay, and FO3's RPG/shooter hybrid was just flat-out more fun than the traditional turn-based PC RPG formula of the first two, enough so that the lackluster story never entered into the discussion with me.

Add to that the fact that the stories in Fallout 1 and 2 aren't much better on a fundamental level anyway.

The delivery is a bit better, as is the humour, but all 3 games stories are just 'save everyone by finding this McGuffin'

Bleh. The story never was important in games anyway. A protagonist acing at everything never makes for a good plot, but that's exactly how winning a video game goes.
The alternative is taking control over the PC away from the player to screw up and that always feels lame and contrived.

Good dialogue is important, or rather, absense of bad dialogue is important, but I learned never to hold any expectations for the plot.

 

[RN7]

Fallout 3. Because its the only one I've played, and from what I understand the first 2 were turn-based. Something tells me I'll like New Vegas more. Maybe its the grenade Machine Gun. Maybe its the orbital laser strike. It could be that you start the game by getting shot twice and left in the Nevada Wastes. I'm not really sure.

 

[Legion]

I enjoyed Fallout 2 more. Fallout 1 is brilliant, and Fallout 2 is just the same as Fallout 1, with more content and more things to do. Good sequel.

Fallout 3, I enjoyed immensely, but had a lot that could have, and hopefully will be, been improved upon.

Pretty much this.

Fallout 3 was more enjoyable in the game-play elements I think because it felt more fluid and the combat was a little more fair, but it lacked the humour, freedom and level of detail Fallout 2 had (in both NPC interactions and gaming ones).

Hopefully New Vegas will take the combat/style from Fallout 3 and add the humour, interesting quests and level of detail from Fallout 2.

My only complaint about Fallout 2 are the bugs, even after the Restoration Project and the occasional insanity of the difficulty curve.

 

[Mr.Caine]

Why isn't Fallout tactics on the list? That game actually got me into the series; Fallout 3 restarted interest then eventually I played Fallout 1 & 2. It's a toss up between Fallout 1 and 2. F1 had a better story and great atmosphere and it was hard as hell. The very first time I left the vault I got jumped by 6 rad scorpions. It pissed me off but it was something that never happened to me before in a game.

F2 is great for it's gameplay but it's story is seriously lacking; however the restoration mod is a great addition for it. I recommend everyone that has Fallout 2 to download it. It also makes it much more challenging.

 

[gameo53]

Why isn't Fallout tactics on the list?

Oh, God, your right!
I have failed you!
Nah I'm Playing FOT right now actually. Fun game

 

[Vrach]

Went with the last one as Fallout 3 was the only one I played

I heard a lot of the first two (including some highly religious speeches, descriptions and goading from a friend ages ago ) but I just never got into them. Sadly, I'm the type of player that finds it hard to go back and try most older games, simply because they can rarely live up to my expectations due to current-day games as competition.

Have to say though, F3 was one of the best games I've played to date. Awesome story (I found the beggining sequence an extremely awesome way to teach you the basic controls), interesting characters, great gameplay, vast landscape (I really love huge, non-linear landscapes) and a lot of replay value, not much more I could ask for in a game... only fault was a bit of a grave one, the fact they locked your gameplay after the final mission. Fortunately the DLC fixed that, but I'm torn between the opinions that either they were greedy bastards who wanted to sell their DLC or just amazingly incompetent/inconsiderate to put an "end" in such an open game to begin with.

 

[Flamezdudes]

Well.. i can't say. I'm getting a laptop soon so i will finally be able to play some PC games since my PC at the moment is just total crap, then i'l know. But from what i've heard 1/2 are good and it seems that New Vegas is gonna mix everything together

 

[spookydom]

Have to say Fallout 1. Though I acnoledge that Fallout 2 is a better game, I just could not get into it as much as the first game. As for Fallout 3, its odviously a special game, but it just left me feeling kind of ditatched and cold towards it. I think they missed out a lot of the flavour of the first two games. But at least Bethesda respected the original games which is more than I can say about 2k and the direction they are taking the new X-Com....but thats beside the point really

 

[veloper]

Fallout 3. I play games for the gameplay far more than I do for the story or other stuff that isn't gameplay, and FO3's RPG/shooter hybrid was just flat-out more fun than the traditional turn-based PC RPG formula of the first two, enough so that the lackluster story never entered into the discussion with me.

Add to that the fact that the stories in Fallout 1 and 2 aren't much better on a fundamental level anyway.

The delivery is a bit better, as is the humour, but all 3 games stories are just 'save everyone by finding this McGuffin'

Bleh. The story never was important in games anyway. A protagonist acing at everything never makes for a good plot, but that's exactly how winning a video game goes.
The alternative is taking control over the PC away from the player to screw up and that always feels lame and contrived.

Good dialogue is important, or rather, absense of bad dialogue is important, but I learned never to hold any expectations for the plot.

It's an RPG. The entire POINT of RPGs is story and writing.

No, the point is to go with an overal plan and then build and equip your characters as optimally as possible, while you dispatch the baddies as efficiently as possible.

There is never a good story in RPGs. The best you can hope for is some interesting dialogue and quality VO (Bloodlines). Gameplay comes first.

 

[veloper]

Fallout 3. I play games for the gameplay far more than I do for the story or other stuff that isn't gameplay, and FO3's RPG/shooter hybrid was just flat-out more fun than the traditional turn-based PC RPG formula of the first two, enough so that the lackluster story never entered into the discussion with me.

Add to that the fact that the stories in Fallout 1 and 2 aren't much better on a fundamental level anyway.

The delivery is a bit better, as is the humour, but all 3 games stories are just 'save everyone by finding this McGuffin'

Bleh. The story never was important in games anyway. A protagonist acing at everything never makes for a good plot, but that's exactly how winning a video game goes.
The alternative is taking control over the PC away from the player to screw up and that always feels lame and contrived.

Good dialogue is important, or rather, absense of bad dialogue is important, but I learned never to hold any expectations for the plot.

It's an RPG. The entire POINT of RPGs is story and writing.

No, the point is to go with an overal plan and then build and equip your characters as optimally as possible, while you dispatch the baddies as efficiently as possible.

There is never a good story in RPGs. The best you can hope for is some interesting dialogue and quality VO (Bloodlines). Gameplay comes first.

Tons of them have good stories. Planescape Torment for example.

When you lower your standards. PS:T had a good story for a GAME, not compared to a good novel. PS:T is also a positive exception in game land.

I don't think we're missing out though. Games don't need good stories or brilliant twists, when clever dialogue and VO can make all the difference. I don't think games can have great stories when 99% is about the protagonist clearing every obstacle (with ease).

Did Bloodlines have a great story? No, it just had great NPC encounters.
Did Arkham asylum? No, you're batman and you need to catch the joker, but the excellent joker taunts VOed by Mark Hamill really add to the experience.

 

[Luke5515]

Fallout 3 was my favorite.
It might be because I'm a graphics whore, but i found myself so enveloped in the world, and i loved it.

 

[PissOffRoth]

My only problems with Fallout 3 were the shitty accuracy on all the guns, and the fact that I had to pump people with 4 mags to kill them by the end of the game. (Yes, I was playing on the hardest difficulty. I hate getting to the end of the game and not being max level.)

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

I've got to say 3. I absolutely loved it - being able to look around the wastleland, getting my face eaten by radioactive giant bears...
fo1 was great - decent difficulty curve until you got the power armour, but my god the mission where you took out the regulars took years from all the moving npcs. The tesla armour was kinda pointless though, and the turbo plasma rifle destroyed everything

fo2, the difficulty curve was just... I found it challenging on easy difficulty, where i was fighting a rat god with a pipe rifle. it started badly with the massive temple which was really annoying to have to go through every game. Besides - why did the tribe live in tents in the dangerous wasteland whenthey could live in a massive fortified temple (or for that matterbe primitive tribals at all)? It just didn't make sense.

fo3 was sweet. It was big, it was pretty deep - and it looked great. My only complats could be the weakness of super mutants at the beginning and by the end you were drownin in caps and ammo.

 

[GiglameshSoulEater]

Incidently, shouldn't the thread name be fallout 1/2/3?

 

[AWAR]

Mhmh.. The second one was over-complicated at times, bigger isn't always better. The first one is much more fun overall (except for that time limit thingy). I exclude Fo3 in this, it has nothing to do with the previous games and in a nutshell, it is just "Oblivion with guns".

 

[MorsePacific]

I loved Fallout 3 the most out of all of them. Fallout and Fallout 2 clearly had the better story, characters, setting, etc., but I found that I'm not a fan of the isometric point of view as well as the turn-based combat.

In short, I loved Fallout and Fallout 2 for the lore they created, and I love Fallout 3 for how well it played. Sadly, Bethesda has no idea how to create a compelling story and environment like Interplay did, so Fallout 3 falls short of the mark. I'll undoubtedly love New Vegas, though.

 

[Mechsoap]

fallout 3 had autosave, wich i forgot in fallout 1 and 2 then raged and dident get past lvl 2...... becouse i got killed by villagers becouse turn based running