Poll: Fallout 1/2

[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

 

[KingKronus]

Fallout 2...Just because of the jokes

 

[Kif]

My friends and I basically agreed when we played Fallout 2 that Fallout 1 was like a demo for it... so by that conclusion it would be Fallout 2.

Though, I think one disadvantage that 1 and 2 will have on this site is the average age. Low tech games for some young people these days lose a lot of appeal just because they are low tech.

 

[imnot]

3 because its the only one ive played, but to be honest i more of a shooty death gun explosion dinosaur violence fest so...

 

[Flying Dagger]

FO1 not having an autosave put me off it.
Dying about 2 hours in was enough to make me not want to bother giving it the time to try it again.

FO3 however, has got me to my third or so playthrough.

easy decision

 

[imaloony]

Fallout 3! Because... well, it's the only one I've played.

I want to play 1 and 2, however.