Is the original fallout worth it?

[Lordmarkus]

They give you lessons in probability that makes you want to pull your hair out but the setting, dialogue, story, characters, items well makes up for it... *drifts away* Buy them know!

I love both the originals and the new ones equal (although the first one will always stand tallest), perhaps because I'm neither dazed by nostalgia or graphics. I simply acknowledge that they both are different but outstanding products of their timeperiod.

 

[lacktheknack]

In my experience fans of 3 don't like 1 or 2. Fans of the originals don't like Fallout 3.

Like me for instance; I think 3 was a piece of shit.

So yeah, I think you're not gonna like it. "Oh man, the interface is all like... old and junk. How do these quests work? Hey, wait, this isn't what I expected at all, how could anyone play this?"

I adore all three. Your hypothesis now has a hole.

OT: If you're okay with a learning curve, then YES. YES, IT'S AMAZING.

 

[onewheeled]

Get it from Good Old Games (gog.com) instead. That way, for only a dollar more, you can get the second game with the first, for only $6.

OT: I was in the same boat as you, I loved Fallout 3, and was interested in playing the originals. I bought the first two as I suggested, and I'm loving it. The games are VERY different from what you're probably used to, but once you get past that, it's the same Fallout atmosphere and feel that you know and love.

 

[HHammond]

I got Fallout 1 and 2 a while back after really enjoying Fallout 3 (as in it's in my top 5 games). I played 1 for about 8 hours but I found myself really disappointed with it. It wasn't the combat or the graphics or anything it was just the way the world presented itself.

Fallout 3 managed to balance an incredibly interesting world with great characters and fun quests. It balanced the humour and the unrelenting bleakness of the wasteland really well. I didn't feel the world of Fallout 1 was as tight as 3. And no, I don't mean because the gameplay was so different. I'm used to RPGs like Fallout 1 so it wasn't that but the world just didn't feel as alive.

But maybe I just went into the game in the wrong mindset. Maybe I was expecting a world like Fallout 3 and was met with something different which was jarring. I think I might boot up Fallout again tomorrow and start a new game. I might enjoy it more./

 

[DustyDrB]

Yes, it is worth it. I know it's a style of gameplay that most people aren't used to, but it's full of wonderful humor, a great story and great characters. It's not much of a risk either, as you can get it for $3 right now [http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/fallout] from GOG (same goes for Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics [http://www.gog.com/en/promo/interplay/]). That offer ends really soon, though, I think. But $3! Why not give it a shot?


But a tip: Save often.

 

[Enamour]

A lot of people will have problems with the differences but a lot won't. It just depends on what they liked about their trips to the fallout universe. While I've got your ear you should try New Vegas. If you've the elasticity to accept a bit of change it's a great return to form for the series, feels a lot like fallout 2. A LOT.

Played through New Vegas about 6 times on the hardest difficulty; a flawed but amazing game. And I agree 100%, a great return to form. The whole play on Republic vs. Empire vs. Anarchistic Tribalism philosophy coupled with memorable characters and ACTUAL fakkin morality choices that forces the player to consider the consequences one way or the other. A large part of what made the originals great was that the game engine was used to convey amazing narratives while New Vegas had the branching story archs which were individually just as good as the original narratives.

Oh yeah and to those clever munchkins pointing out that some people might like 1, 2 AND 3; you apparently missed the context modifier "in my experience" which means it's a personal and subjective experience and not stated as fact. Has it become fashionable to add disclaimers to disclaimers nowadays? Are we really not allowed admittedly flawed experiences or opinions on the internet without a posse of clever people pointing out the realistically flawed nature of those opinions and experiences? Let me strengthen that sentiment then with an extended context modifier:

"In my subjective and not overly extensive experience, fans of 3 don't like 1 or 2. It is my own opinion, which I do not state as fact or claim any kind of actual factuality for that fans of the originals don't like Fallout 3; but this is just an opinion arising from my own lacking empirical faculties as a limited human being.

As in my own mind(based on non-verified evidence nor with claims of such) for instance; my own faulty conviction consists of the personal belief that 3 was a piece of shit."

Is that clear enough or should I write an essay on effective comprehension of semantic usages?

 

[DustyDrB]

big fan of fallout 3 here, and the original fallout is on sale for 5 bucks in steam, should I get it?

Hey, just wanted to make sure I got your attention. I posted already a minute ago. Fallout, Fallout 2, and Fallout Tactics are all on sale at GOG.com for $3 each. And there's absolutely no DRM when you buy from GOG too. So, I'd go with that.

 

[MacJack]

I'd say get the second, its so much better...well apart from the fact that it looks like a fallout 1.5 (which is interesting since people say that nowdays games are like that and that in the past they were full fledged sequels"

Anyway point is that the first game has a timlimit in the begin in which you gotta find a water chip.

In any case its not like fallout 3, its FARRRRRRR more rpg focused. Also a fan fact the story in the first game is pretty bad, another reason i reccomend the second over it.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

Fallout 1 has the best story of all the Fallout games, but it has the worst gameplay. I love it, but there it is: the gameplay is pretty painful. Fallout 2 has much better gameplay, but the story, while longer, is kinda dumb. Fallout 3 is prettier, but has a story on par with 2. They're all good in their own rights, but liking one of them is no indication of whether you'll like the others.

 

[thenamelessloser]

Yes, Fallout 1 and 2 are both great. Fallout's only problem I can really think of besides maybe things because of its age such as graphics is that it is a bit short. Fallout 2 is a lot like fallout one gameplay wise and maybe a bit less focused but so much bigger.

Also, what did you think of Fallout New Vegas? It has a lot more in common story wise and general feel than Fallout 3 had with the earlier games. Personally it would make more sense to me to think of Fallout: New Vegas as fallout 3 and Fallout 3 as Fallout Washington DC.....

Oh, yeah like someone else said, buy Fallout 1 and 2 on GOG and not on steam.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Play them so you can see first hand how much Bethesda screwed up the Fallout universe and overall feel.

Also if you haven't I recommend you play New Vegas, it has much more in common with the originals in terms of story, feel and message.

 

[thenamelessloser]

I have the first two Fallouts, can't stand them. Combat is terrible - it's click miss click miss click miss click miss poisoned click miss click miss click hit click miss. So utterly slow and dull. And then the dialogue system never seems to have the obvious choice of thing to say or ask. I put up with maybe two hours of each one.

Try increasing the speed of animations in combat. I think they went fairly quickly when I changed that on the option menu.

The choices in dialogue in that is not obvious is generally consider one of the positives in an RPG I thought...

 

[Yureina]

In my experience fans of 3 don't like 1 or 2. Fans of the originals don't like Fallout 3.

Like me for instance; I think 3 was a piece of shit.

So yeah, I think you're not gonna like it. "Oh man, the interface is all like... old and junk. How do these quests work? Hey, wait, this isn't what I expected at all, how could anyone play this?"

Not true. I've loved all Fallouts i've played (not Tactics yet though), and 3 was my first. They are all good games as far as I am concerned. :3

 

[VladG]

If you can stomach the very outdated graphics, the game is superb.

Fallout 2 is in my opinion much better than Fallout 3 (and I did like Fallout 3)

New Vegas is much closer to the original two games, and far better for it, bugs and all.

 

[bitCrusher]

big fan of fallout 3 here, and the original fallout is on sale for 5 bucks in steam, should I get it?

I guess, if you don't mind the out-dated graphics.

personally, I can't stand old PC games like Fallout, no matter how good people say it is.

 

[kickyourass]

YES, Fallout 2 even more so. As long as you understand that, gameplay wise, the originals have almost JACK SHIT to do with Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I'd say give them a shot.
Hell you can get both the originals along with Fallout Tactics (Which is also awesome) in a bundle for about 20 bucks so if you've got a little extra cash I say go for it.

 

[Theron Julius]

In my experience fans of 3 don't like 1 or 2. Fans of the originals don't like Fallout 3.

Like me for instance; I think 3 was a piece of shit.

So yeah, I think you're not gonna like it. "Oh man, the interface is all like... old and junk. How do these quests work? Hey, wait, this isn't what I expected at all, how could anyone play this?"

I played Fallout 3 and New Vegas and I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout 2. I found the combat a bit clunky, but enjoyable nonetheless. I plan on getting Fallout 1 soon.