Its mostly that a lot of the systems in then seem extremely dated and just dont work very well anymore. I played fallout 1 & 2 when they first came out and there is no way in hell I could ever do that again. The gameplay was just so terrible when it came out I dont even want to think how bad it is now that it will seem even more dated.
Here's the thing, I don't feel most of the good old games feel "dated". "Old" certainly, but not "dated". This is just my opinion of course, but I think the gameplay in the old Fallouts is just fine and I really like the combat. I have a hard time seeing what's people's problem about old games, because they're still good to me.
Still, a broken game is a broken game, regardless of the year it was released. I just don't understand how age supposedly breaks perfectly fine games.
I'd have to say New Vegas. Especially now that there's a mod that combines New Vegas and Fallout 3 into one huge world (or rather, two huge worlds that you can travel between)
Fallout 3 is far superior to New Vegas in my opinion. Gameplay and functionality has been improved by quite a lot in New Vegas, but that post-apocalyptic feel just isn't the same in New Vegas.
That said, neither can even touch the feeling I had when I played the original Fallout games. Fallout 2 is on a completely different level.
Fallout 3, although I did really enjoy New Vegas. I've played both Fo1 and Fo2, and I enjoyed both, but ultimately I just prefered gameplay of the later titles.
although Fallout: New Vegas is built on the same engine as Fallout 3, the story is more immersive. The characterisation is less personal and restircted in New Vegas having you be a "courier" and that opens you to a whole list of possibilities
To me, it's the complete opposite. I got way more immersed into Fallout 3 than New Vegas, in terms of story. A lot of that came from when you...
...finally meet up with your dad again. He confronts you with a lot of the bad things you have done, and that was the first time I actually felt guilty for being a complete dick in Fallout.
Admittedly I've never played 1 or 2, so it would have to be 3 or New Vegas, but therein lies the problem; I like the atmosphere and side-quests of Fallout 3, but I prefer the locales, main quest and improvements of New Vegas. Ultimately I think NV wins, but just.
Fallout 2 by far.
In no other game can you beat an intelligent rad-scorpion in chess by using the advice of a talking plant (with a name that hints at 'Little shop of Horrors') after you've relocated him to a house filled with intelligent ghouls, using 'the flying liver' attack - thus allowing you to win the chess game and afterwards killing the scorpion in self defense.
I love you Fallout 2.
Fallout 3 was non-cannon, it was a nice game that tried to do the same as Fallout 1, but at the end it didn't deliver as much as it could. New vegas to Fallout 3 was the same as Fallout 2 was to Fallout 1. In the original you were a vault dweller, you always carried a reminder from your home, your vault and had to save it. In the sequel you had a remote connection to the vault dweller (or non at all in New vegas) and have a great time in the same universe.
Ah, Brahmin shit jet.
Here is the thing, I thought fallout 1 & 2 were broken when they first came out. The gameplay was well below average at the time. Over the years since then gameplay in games has increasingly gotten better which makes old games with bad gameplay seem even worse.
Broken or not, it doesn't really matter. I get that many people don't like old games, I just don't get why. Maybe I'm just more able to lower my expectations than others (yay me). Or maybe I'm more tolerant to the less than optimal (yay again). Anyway, the whole age thing is just a non issue to me.
It's about 51(Fallout 3) to 49(New Vegas). I liked New Vegas so much because it was every thing I love about Fallout 3 but in a more vibrant setting. I loved Fallout 3 but it was one of the bleakest games I've ever played, even though it made great atmosphere and added a lot of weight to the story. If New Vegas wasn't so glitchy and had a better story I might have chosen it.
Fallout 2 is definitely top spot for me, followed by New Vegas, then Fallout 1, then Fallout:Tactics, then everything else thats remotely related to Fallout.
At very much last place we have Fallout 3 which thought was blindingly mediocre and I still haven't forgiven for its tacked-on
"sacrifice yourself for no apparent reason, even if your pack is full of anti-rads and your buddy the supermutant(or ghoul) who is immune to radiation is standing RIGHT OVER THERE!"
Between Fallout 2 and New Vegas for me. My only problem with 2 is how the game starts nagging you if you're not doing the main quest fast enough. I mean, I get why, I just wish it would shut up and let me explore.
Fallout 3 had awful, awful writing. That's not a big deal for the TES crowd, but I expect a little more from a Fallout game.
Fallout 1 & 2 are infinetly better than 3, i enjoyed 3 a bit but its so buggy, broken and dead it just got to irritate me by the end.. rehashed/reskinned oblivion.
Fonline 2238 is best though! (mmorpg based on fallout 2 engine with loactions from first game also)
I don't know why i didn't like New Vegas more than fallout 3.
Maybe it was the fact the guns felt less powerful
maybe because i put 90 points in repair when the skill was nowhere near as useful as it had been in 3
maybe because by the time I'd finally caught up with benny i didn't care what happened to him (seriously, that was thirty hours ago, I don't care anymore)
maybe because after doing hours and hours of missions for the NCR and killing legion people they both decided to reset my faction rating to neutral, or because despite wanting to help the NCR, I have no idea how to find them to do it
maybe I'd got fallout burnout after putting 200 hours in on a couple playthroughs on fallout 3
maybe because I'd just finished playing Dragon Age Origins (I wrote it off when I first bought it, came back to it and loved it to pieces) when I started playing it
Or maybe because the thirty hours I've put into my character were one thirty hour session.
I don't know, I've given up on it because
I replaced Mr. House with Yes man, I was going to use the robots to help the NCR, when I get a message that if i try to do that, the NCR will attack me, I don't know who to go to to try and help them take over, and my rating with them is neutral.
My only problem with 2 is how the game starts nagging you if you're not doing the main quest fast enough. I mean, I get why, I just wish it would shut up and let me explore.
At least it doesn't give you a game over if you're too slow. Fallout 1 did that. It didn't bother me that much, but I can see it being a problem for some.
Fallout 3 is THE worst Fallout game I've ever had the displeasure of playing (Haven't played the fabled Fallout: BoS mind you). Anyone who tries to make a solid argument as to why Fallout 3 is even a remotely good Fallout game should throw themselves off a bridge.
The best Fallout game? It's a tough one but I'm gonna go with Fallout 2.
I think the reason that Fallout 3 is so popular is because it's a new generation of "gamers" who played it without having played the previous instalments. And there's alot of philosophical, literary and psychological depth in New Vegas that wasn't in 3, at all; I reckon most people completely miss that, and that's where you get comments like "It felt empty."
I voted 2, played it to death. New Vegas second, played through it 7 times on the hardest difficulties, exploring each element; plot, characters, RPG elements, environment etc.
tl;dr Fallout 3 would have been just an unmemorable, average game if it weren't tied to the franchise.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
