Why are Fallout 1&2 better than Fallout 3?

[AgentNein]

1 and 2 were only considered classics AFTER Fallout 3 was popular.

THIS is complete BS. Trust me. There has been near constant praise for the first two Fallout games way before Fallout 3 came out, not our fault that no one paid attention to the Fallout name till 3 came bout. Hell, Escapist itself has written a few articles about how freakin' great the Fallout series is way before 3 made it on the scene.

 

[Judgement101]

1 and 2 were only considered classics AFTER Fallout 3 was popular.

THIS is complete BS. Trust me. There has been near constant praise for the first two Fallout games way before Fallout 3 came out, not our fault that no one paid attention to the Fallout name till 3 came bout. Hell, Escapist itself has written a few articles about how freakin' great the Fallout series is way before 3 made it on the scene.

For the third fucking time! I adressed the fact mix up!

 

[Feste the Jester]

I couldn't stand FO 1 or 2. I bought a pack with FO 1, 2, and Tactics and couldn't get past how the combat worked. My character's accuracy seemed to be of that of a blind man. Therefore, combat turned into long games of tag where I'd attack and use the rest of my action point to run away. A battle against one scorpion at the beginning of FO2 took me 15 minutes.

However, I hear the writing is really good and I'm set for another go at them to see if I can get passed the combat.

 

[Carlston]

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.

For the second time, I already adressed that my facts got mixed up, read previous posts before you post.

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?

 

[Save us.A7X]

I recently tried the first two games after playing 3 and hated them tbh. Just not my kind of game, from what I've read the writing and storytelling is indeed better but I just couldn't get past the gameplay. So to answer the OP's question from some people view their not better, it's all opinion based at the end of it all.

 

[Judgement101]

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.

For the second time, I already adressed that my facts got mixed up, read previous posts before you post.

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.

That actually makes sense when you put it that way.

OT: The combat system really messed with me. You had to change combat mode by clicking a button which would switch back if there was an enemy anywhere near you, even if it had not yet seen you.

 

[Carlston]

I couldn't stand FO 1 or 2. I bought a pack with FO 1, 2, and Tactics and couldn't get past how the combat worked. My character's accuracy seemed to be of that of a blind man. Therefore, combat turned into long games of tag where I'd attack and use the rest of my action point to run away. A battle against one scorpion at the beginning of FO2 took me 15 minutes.

However, I hear the writing is really good and I'm set for another go at them to see if I can get passed the combat.

It's a system that makes you not the epic warrior at level 1. Once you got the idea down of moving, aiming, torso shots...it was easier. And of course if it was to hard to hit, melee or use a shotgun

 

[Judgement101]

I couldn't stand FO 1 or 2. I bought a pack with FO 1, 2, and Tactics and couldn't get past how the combat worked. My character's accuracy seemed to be of that of a blind man. Therefore, combat turned into long games of tag where I'd attack and use the rest of my action point to run away. A battle against one scorpion at the beginning of FO2 took me 15 minutes.

However, I hear the writing is really good and I'm set for another go at them to see if I can get passed the combat.

It's a system that makes you not the epic warrior at level 1. Once you got the idea down of moving, aiming, torso shots...it was easier. And of course if it was to hard to hit, melee or use a shotgun

Wait, you get a shotgun at the start of the game ?

 

[Talson]

Mk, I wasn't a gamer when the original two were released. I bought them as a package along with Tactics after I played F3. People here talk alot about how the writing was better, well... they're right. The first two just have way more dialog options (because they didn't have to pay Voice Actors probably) and some really nice, inspired moments to them. I really liked having multiple ways to kill the final boss in the first one (the second... not so much, though it had a bunch more content).
There is one thing I didn't see brought up earlier (because it's really a wussy sort of thing) and that's the difficulty curve. If you arn't an RPG junkie, don't like turn based games, or just don't like games where you die, these games will cause large amounts of headaches. I'm like that sometimes, I admit it. I died so many times fighting the rats in the cave outside of vault 13 because I wanted the exp for beating them. Even after turning down the difficulty I still died often and when I did I stopped playing the game for up to a week at a time before coming back. I'm glad now I did go back, but at the time I wondered what it was I spent my money on. F3 isn't like that. I have heard a few complaints about how it's too easy and to an extent I agree. Even after the cap was raised to 30 with Broken Steel, I felt like the only thing that changed was the amount of bullets I emptied into a bug of a different color. I'm getting off topic...
Anyway, I can see why people like the first two better. The writing was better, the game mechanics were more complex and the enemies didn't scale with your level (leading to really fun times running from Arryo (sp?) to where the G.E.C.K. was in F2 (guarded for spoilers)). However at the end of the day I find myself playing F3 again for it's large amounts of content and non-turn based combat, because mods help fix the level scaling issues.

 

[Snarky Username]

Their writing was good, fallout 3's is shit.
Their writing is ok, fallout 3's is broken.

Can someone please explain why the writing was better? For those of you who don't know, the main part of Fallout 1's story was finding a water purifying chip. How is that interesting?

And Fallout 3's story was "find your father" what the fuck's your point (reductionism is fun!)? Fallout 1/2 had dialogue that was interesting and well writen. They had stories that while not original were full of humor, they brought us things like the master and the drill instructor, they had funny and interesting dialogue for non standard character types (idiot and max int/chr being the most obvious ones) and they had good voice acting. And you've obviously never played fallout 1 or you'd know the story was a bit more than just find the water chip (yes the main story not counting side quests)

Actually, I have played every fallout game (excluding Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel(it was an origional Xbox game, I did play the pc version). I guess I never really got into the story and just blindly thought that it was one task.

Well there's your problem! The original Fallout games are the kind of games that are driven by story. You can't just blow through it if you want the true experience. It's like a lot of other people in this thread have been telling you: Fallout 1+2 are driven by story and humor, Fallout 3 is driven by action and gameplay. I feel like you would enjoy the original two a lot more if you paid attention.

Also, I want to reiterate that the original Fallout was extremely popular before Fallout 3. The reason no one you know has heard of it is probably because it came out nearly 10 years before Fallout 3. Most people are only interested in current gen console games that have the shiniest graphics, not PC games from 10 years ago. Because of this, most people I know haven't even heard of games like Half-Life (which depresses me severely)

 

[Savagezion]

It's all subjective and the societal norm of outcry at new things that are different.

I knew that Fallout 1&2 existed. And i think it's entirely impossible to compare the different titles. They're completely different styles, types of games, and were made by different developers.

Again, it's all subjective.

The developer thing is another issue, everyone says that Black Isle handled the series right but Bethesda seemed to make the Fallout world more lively than Black Isle did.

Bethesda's people were horrible. The wastes are a touch of atmosphere and it was good. Bethesda managed to capture a good sense of roaming a desolate. It did not capture what it would be like to live in that world. The NPC's are robots as is you charactor. The beuaty that the old games have going for them is it leaves some things to the imagination. (Imagery, tones,) It only sets the mood and atmosphere and it does those well. Then it tells the story.

There is something to be said about overhead view vs. 1stP view here but I will just skip it.

Now let's mention the story for a moment. Bethesda had a chance to do something great with the story here being as it was in D.C. (the other side of the nation) But instead they used carbon paper and suddenly the Enclave is showing up. Now I know people will throw this subject and a few others around all day but my point is: It was Black Isle's story. Of course they did it right. Bethesda added nothing new to spice things up. If you played 1 and 2 you know the story in 3. They took the west coast from FO 1 + 2 smeared some ink on it and folded the nation in half stamping the east coast with the same thing. Bethesda was not inovative, was not willing to advance the game world. The story went stale.

I personally find that the wasteland feels more alive than the towns also. Bethesda's NPC's are robots in all there games. Crap voice acting, they are the epitome of bad dialogue, and quest are very 1 track minded. Basic fetch quests and what have you.

Bethesda seemed to make the Fallout world more lively than Black Isle did.

I gave explanations for my view. I showed you mine, now show me yours.

 

[Carlston]

FO1 I used to know where to get a double barrel, like at level 2...just took a bit of wandering into places you should not be...man now I have to play again.

 

[Judgement101]

It's all subjective and the societal norm of outcry at new things that are different.

I knew that Fallout 1&2 existed. And i think it's entirely impossible to compare the different titles. They're completely different styles, types of games, and were made by different developers.

Again, it's all subjective.

The developer thing is another issue, everyone says that Black Isle handled the series right but Bethesda seemed to make the Fallout world more lively than Black Isle did.

Bethesda's people were horrible. The wastes are a touch of atmosphere and it was good. Bethesda managed to capture a good sense of roaming a desolate. It did not capture what it would be like to live in that world. The NPC's are robots as is you charactor. The beuaty that the old games have going for them is it leaves some things to the imagination. (Imagery, tones,) It only sets the mood and atmosphere and it does those well. Then it tells the story.

There is something to be said about overhead view vs. 1stP view here but I will just skip it.

Now let's mention the story for a moment. Bethesda had a chance to do something great with the story here being as it was in D.C. (the other side of the nation) But instead they used carbon paper and suddenly the Enclave is showing up. Now I know people will throw this subject and a few others around all day but my point is: It was Black Isle's story. Of course they did it right. Bethesda added nothing new to spice things up. If you played 1 and 2 you know the story in 3. They took the west coast from FO 1 + 2 smeared some ink on it and folded the nation in half stamping the east coast with the same thing. Bethesda was not inovative, was not willing to advance the game world. The story went stale.

I personally find that the wasteland feels more alive than the towns also. Bethesda's NPC's are robots in all there games. Crap voice acting, they are the epitome of bad dialogue, and quest are very 1 track minded. Basic fetch quests and what have you.

Bethesda seemed to make the Fallout world more lively than Black Isle did.

I gave explanations for my view. I showed you mine, now show me yours.

Perhaps "lively" was not the correct term. Depressing or Isolated. Your choice.

 

[Icehearted]

Superior storytelling, but otherwise it's all taste. I've played Fallout 1&2 several times, and I admit freely to wandering the wastes just for a chance to get into a good old fashioned bandit brawl. Sure it's a slower turn-based combat system, but at least it doesn't pretend to be a shooter then have you hit everything that isn't in your cross-hair. Fallout 3 has a lot going for it, but I still, to this day, think it should have been a re-branded title to take place in the Fallout universe, and let someone with some respect for that which is sacred to the fans develop a proper sequel in the spirit and image of it's predecessor.

As for Canon, at least it followed the bloodline of the VD, and old faces return enough to remind us why the first was so damned charming. I'm not a stickler, but While FO3 was indeed a pretty good game in it's own (especially when modded tyvm), it didn't really feel like Fallout to me. Imagine all the controversy they could have avoided if they hadn't numbered it 3, but chose something like FO Adventures, or FO Chronicles, or anything that isn't 3

 

[Cody211282]

I loved them all but I had the most fun with Fallout 3.

 

[rees263]

Personally, I'd never heard of Fallout before Fallout 3, and let me say I LOVED Fallout 3. I've sunk a lot of hours into that game, and done most (still not all) it has to offer.

I thought I'd give the first ones a try since everyone seems to love them so much. My opinion - I have absolutely no idea how the writing compares because I couldn't play far into Fallout without dying of boredom. I cannot stand the gameplay. It has nothing to do with turn-based combat - FFX is my all time favourite game and I love games like Fire Emblem and the Disciples series. Still, I hated the UI and the clunky feel of the controls.

Basically I didn't give it a chance - as soon as I got the slightest bit immersed something about the game would piss me off so much I would lose all connection with the (supposedly brilliant) Fallout world and I quit. I'll never experience all that amazing story, dialogue and humour because I won't bring myself to play it again.

If Fallout Vegas does what we think it will and mix the gameplay of Fallout 3 with the lore of Fallout 1 & 2 I think I will have a nerdgasm.

 

[Shynobee]

I know I never heard of Fallout before Fallout 3. Personally, I love Fallout 3, and don't really see any problems with the writing. Its a fun game with lots of replay value and a great atmosphere. If Fallout 1 and 2 were anything like that, I'm sure I would love them too.

 

[Carlston]

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.

For the second time, I already adressed that my facts got mixed up, read previous posts before you post.

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?

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.

For the second time, I already adressed that my facts got mixed up, read previous posts before you post.

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.

That actually makes sense when you put it that way.

OT: The combat system really messed with me. You had to change combat mode by clicking a button which would switch back if there was an enemy anywhere near you, even if it had not yet seen you.

It allowed you to stealth, leave combat and get sneak attacks when your skills to do so were high enough. Times you start a random encounter, you could sneak, end combat then move around and snipe them or backstab the enemy...course knowing you could do that was hard when the manuals were limited.

 

[Judgement101]

I just realized I never really game my opinion. Fallout 1 and 2 seemed more like something from a book. Fallout 3 seemed like an actual game. The technology when 1 and 2 were released was not nearly as advanced so I really can't say anything about graphics or audio. I thought 3 was the best and 1 was the second best. (2 just confused me)