It's apples and oranges, really. I loved Fallout 3, and I loved Fallout 2, but they're vastly different in a lot of ways that I don't feel particularly motivated to list. They're similar in setting, but that's about it, which means that believing one to be superior to the other is strictly a matter of preference. There is no right answer.
The original has a better atmosphere to it, and better humor.
But like many have said 2 completely different styles of game. Even as a fan of the first two, I can totally understand how a "new gamer" as it were would find the old ones dated and/or hard to play, because they are. They are pretty punishing games that just don't give a fuck if you screw up.
My personal reason that sums up why I like the first one better?
You can bypass the last boss fight by convincing him TO KILL HIMSELF if you have high enough speech.
You can't do stuff like that with FO3 because it's so focused around being a shooter. (Again, not a bad thing, just a lot different)
Fallout 3 just drew more people to the franchise and had them notice it for the first time.
Honestly, Fallout 3 was a fine game, but it was a crappy Fallout game.
Butchered lore, crappy writing in comparison, unkillable children (I don't care who you are, when a road of nuclear cars explode, you die) and it merely game the illusion of choice.
Just wondering but what exactly did they do to the lore in Fallout 3 that it was butchered? Not trying to start a flame war, just wondering what did they do to it.
All it really contains is some seeds, fertilizer, and instructions on how to use them and how to build basic houses. Yet in Fallout 3 it apparently turns everything around it into a paradise. And if it did do that, why it the world would your dad want to destroy it to purify water which can be obtained in any number of ways. Although I guess the last part is more of a grip with Bethesda's crappy, plot hole laced writing.
There are other instances, but most of them are either small or not worth mentioning. Perhaps I was a bit harsh, but I still stand by my statement.
I guess my main problem with Fallout 3 is its crappy writing.
Better writing and the games actually felt "larger" if you can believe that. Plus, there wasn't anything you could compare them with at the time. X-COM? No. Diablo? No. Fallout 3 can be compared to most first-person games. It's still a great game, though, and worth of the Fallout name.
Plus, the general crappiness of the visuals meant you had to put a lot more imagination into the game. It's like how reading a book can be so much more rewarding and immersive than watching a movie. A lack of visual stimuli makes your brain work harder.
It's easier to play Fallout and Fallout 2 on Windows 7 than it is to play Fallout 3.
Also, the Fallout 3 gameplay revolved around exploration and looting (its strengths), which is not really what I look for in an RPG. I prefer a deep character building system, multiple solutions, and choice that matters. I did play Fallout 3 first, so I have to thank it for introducing me to what is now my favourite game.
Obviously, Fallout 1 and 2 are going to be harder to play straight away. They assume that you read the manual, like every other game at the time. I tried playing XCOM once without reading the manual- it wasn't pretty.
The original has a better atmosphere to it, and better humor.
But like many have said 2 completely different styles of game. Even as a fan of the first two, I can totally understand how a "new gamer" as it were would find the old ones dated and/or hard to play, because they are. They are pretty punishing games that just don't give a fuck if you screw up.
My personal reason that sums up why I like the first one better?
You can bypass the last boss fight by convincing him TO KILL HIMSELF if you have high enough speech.
You can't do stuff like that with FO3 because it's so focused around being a shooter. (Again, not a bad thing, just a lot different)
President Eden was a supercomputer, and if when you find him and have a high enough intelligence you can indeed use logic to make him do himself in.
As much as I loved the first two Fallouts though my truly favorite open ended RPG was freakin' Planescape: Torment. If any game deserves a rerelease it's that one.
The original has a better atmosphere to it, and better humor.
But like many have said 2 completely different styles of game. Even as a fan of the first two, I can totally understand how a "new gamer" as it were would find the old ones dated and/or hard to play, because they are. They are pretty punishing games that just don't give a fuck if you screw up.
My personal reason that sums up why I like the first one better?
You can bypass the last boss fight by convincing him TO KILL HIMSELF if you have high enough speech.
You can't do stuff like that with FO3 because it's so focused around being a shooter. (Again, not a bad thing, just a lot different)
President Eden was a supercomputer, and if when you find him and have a high enough intelligence you can indeed use logic to make him do himself in.
As much as I loved the first two Fallouts though my truly favorite open ended RPG was freakin' Planescape: Torment. If any game deserves a rerelease it's that one.
Can't really say which is best, I've never played F1 & 2. Never going to either, as I hate turn based games with a passion.
For me, Fallout 3 was one of the greatest games I've ever played, certainly the best 360 game. The immersion, the scenery, the gameplay, the scary ass places. I loved all of it.
To be honest I never noticed the so called 'terrible writing'. And for all the people complaining about it in this thread, I've seen very few examples given. Just sayin'.
1 and 2 were only classics after fallout 3 was popular?
Right...
Get back to us when you know what your talking about. Those games were good far the 3d change up.
I played Fallout the week it came out, and fallout 2, your talking 90's computer population to pc + ps3 + xbox...yeah you have no comparison to your spit out facts.
Nah I liked to point out again. But I also dislike anyone who makes threads that start like yours. "Hi I have a topic, but since I can't think of a good way to do it. I'll just insult something, someone or the like."
I like to read the 1st message, respond to it. Then read the rest. I see topics asking questions as that. You asked me a question, I don't care if someone else asked it...I will state my own observation like requested.
Maybe ya should edit your first post and edit the bad facts?
I gotta ask, how is "Why are Fallout 1 & 2 better than Fallout 3" an insult? Sounds to me like a sincere question asked by someone who wanted honest descriptive answers.
Your shitty attitude makes me hope that everyone crushes you with criticism at every mistyped, misinformed post you ever write. Belligerent Jackass.
Anywho, 1&2 were fun in their own right. It took me a while to get into it, I was never one for that kind of gameplay. The same reason I could never get into Icewind Dale. 3 was good current game. A little mindless, and easy to get captured into your character. You could do that in 1 & 2 as well, but thinking about how to play it usually pulled me out of character.
I prefer 3 obviously, but if only for the mentality it provoked. Spiky brass knuckles The Muttonstache and a gung-ho attitiude was the most fun Ive had in gaming since my first Halo lanparty.
These are some of the reasons why I like FO 1 & 2 better then FO 3:
* The world in the older games felt larger and weren't as densly populated as the newest game. In the newer game it almost didn't feel like the world had gone through a nuclear war.
* Things such as poison and radiation causes allot of problem in the older games. If you were poisoned you could very easily die if your HP were low and things such as radaway costs a fortune in the older games. So they're hard to come by. In fact, all high tech stuff is very expensive in the older games (which is good IMHO).
* In the older games you could avoid blodshed almost entirely and you could use extremly different play styles.
* The world in the older games is very gritty and harsh and the game doesn't stop you when you try to do bad stuff.
* The world had small details that made it more realistic. Things like wells and fields where the wastelanders grew vegetables. The world felt ALIVE. Also... you wouldn't find loot EVERYWHERE like in FO 3... In FO 3 there's loot even in places that should have been explored/looted a looooong time ago. I also hate it that electricity exists pretty much everywhere in FO 3... It would have been cooler if you had to use a flashlight/torch/your pipboy 3000 instead.
I'm sorry if this thread was already made, but why is Fallout 1 and 2 considered better than Fallout 3. 1 and 2 were only considered classics AFTER Fallout 3 was popular. Seriously how many of you knew the Fallout series exsisted before Fallout 3 was released. Fallout 3 also moved 4.7 Million copies which is more than Fallout 1 and 2 when they were released.
EDIT (PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING!!!): I am now aware that some of these facts are false and can people stop brining that up in every other post? I apologize for believing Wikipedia -_-
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were very succesfull, very well know RPGs on the PC, ever since they went on the market, way before Fallout 3 came out.
I can't say why they are better, though, since i have not played the third. Maybe i will, but i don't really care, so don't think i will any time soon. (The whole first person thing, and the combat does not look that great for me.)
I'm sorry if this thread was already made, but why is Fallout 1 and 2 considered better than Fallout 3. 1 and 2 were only considered classics AFTER Fallout 3 was popular. Seriously how many of you knew the Fallout series exsisted before Fallout 3 was released. Fallout 3 also moved 4.7 Million copies which is more than Fallout 1 and 2 when they were released.
EDIT (PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING!!!): I am now aware that some of these facts are false and can people stop brining that up in every other post? I apologize for believing Wikipedia -_-
Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 were very succesfull, very well know RPGs on the PC, ever since they went on the market, way before Fallout 3 came out.
I can't say why they are better, though, since i have not played the third. Maybe i will, but i don't really care, so don't think i will any time soon. (The whole first person thing, and the combat does not look that great for me.)
If FO3 had been built on a good shooter first and ammo and stimpacks and caps weren't everywhere, I would've rated FO3 higher, despite the inferior dialogue.
If FO3 had been built on a good shooter first and ammo and stimpacks and caps weren't everywhere, I would've rated FO3 higher, despite the inferior dialogue.
how about processor power handling, and not whining about specific graphics cards... >.<, 1 and 2 were defnitly better in that respect ( cause my sandwich had enough processing power to handle them, but ignore that little flaw in my logic XD )
If FO3 had been built on a good shooter first and ammo and stimpacks and caps weren't everywhere, I would've rated FO3 higher, despite the inferior dialogue.
FO3 runs on the same engine as Oblivion and the game can be considered as an extreme Oblivion mod. I reckon it may have been too hard to make a responsive shooter on the engine.
Many problems are also pure design flaws, like the abundance of resources, merchants buying everything and uneven progression in equipment.
Finally there's a lack of polish, like bullets hitting invisible bounderies, often happens when you're standing near columns.
Fallout 2 was a joke. The entire game was joke after joke and pop culture reference after reference. It was ridiculous, and easy. I much preferred the first, just wish it was longer.
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.
