I'll admit I played Fallout 1 and 2 after playing Fallout 3. I still liked them better. Maybe it was the turn-based strategy combat (although poorly done) that you don't see anymore these days. Maybe it was the memorable characters and locations. Junktwon with the power-struggle between Gizmo and Killian in Fallout 1. Modoc with the case of the "haunted" farmstead in Fallout 2. Harold- good old Harold- I love that ghoul. The choices that really felt like they had consequences with the endings that showed you how you impacted each settlement. The dialogue and many ways to solve each quest. Fallout is, to me, the pinnacle of modern RPGs.
Why are Fallout 1&2 better than Fallout 3?
- Thread starter Judgement101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I didint know about the Fallout series until the 3rd one.
I hear a lot of good things about the previous fallout games, so im curious at how they are.
I see Fallout to be more of a stand alone game because it starts at your birth and not the character from Fallout 2.
I hear a lot of good things about the previous fallout games, so im curious at how they are.
I see Fallout to be more of a stand alone game because it starts at your birth and not the character from Fallout 2.
Fallout 1 & 2: Better Writing, More Likable characters, a hell of a lot harder, in Fallout 2 you had a car
Fallout 3: Better Gameplay, much bigger, more sidequests, Liam Neeson
I've played all of the (main)Fallout games and these were the things that were good about them to me. One thing that dragged down Fallout 3 for me was that it's main storyline wasn't terribly original. You grow up in a vault, something forces you to leave, you are forced to deal with the harshness of the Wasteland, your main quest involves fresh water some how, the Enclave come and kills your family, you go up against them in a big final showdown to decide the fate of the Wasteland. So pretty much it's a combination of story elements from Fallout 1 & 2.
Fallout 3: Better Gameplay, much bigger, more sidequests, Liam Neeson
I've played all of the (main)Fallout games and these were the things that were good about them to me. One thing that dragged down Fallout 3 for me was that it's main storyline wasn't terribly original. You grow up in a vault, something forces you to leave, you are forced to deal with the harshness of the Wasteland, your main quest involves fresh water some how, the Enclave come and kills your family, you go up against them in a big final showdown to decide the fate of the Wasteland. So pretty much it's a combination of story elements from Fallout 1 & 2.
That was sort of like Fallout 2's start. You are a tribe warrior in a tribe that is desendants of the "Vault Dweller" (A.K.A. The guy from Fallout 1)JohanGasMask said:
What's better about Fallout 1 and 2 over 3?
The writing, the plot, the characters, dialogue options, freedom of choice, moral dilemma, moral ambiguity, the setting, the diversity, the sense of humor, the wittiness, the attention to detail, the character creation, the rpg mechanics.... I could go on and on, it'd actually be easier to point out what Fallout 3 did better than the other two games.
Let's see. Fallout 3 had more entertaining combat. Not better combat really, but it was certainly flashier. Better graphics, obviously. And.... umm... erm.... that's about it.
Which isn't to say Fallout 3 was bad, not by any means. I actually quite like Bethesda, even if I have been kinda disappointed by their latest works (Morrowind is still my favorite of their games!). But Fallout 3 'as an rpg' was quite poor compared to the original games. There was less freedom, less options, less dialogue and less plot compared to either of the old games. Instead Fallout 3 seemed to focus on elements of gameplay completely different from those of 1 and 2. FO1&2 had a tight focus towards sharp writing and freedom of choice for the player. Fallout 3 meanwhile seems to focus on exploration and combat.
That's about it. If you prefer the elements that Fallout 3 focused on, then you'll probably prefer it over the original games. If however you prefer the elements which the originals focused on, then you, like me, will prefer them. It's that simple.
The writing, the plot, the characters, dialogue options, freedom of choice, moral dilemma, moral ambiguity, the setting, the diversity, the sense of humor, the wittiness, the attention to detail, the character creation, the rpg mechanics.... I could go on and on, it'd actually be easier to point out what Fallout 3 did better than the other two games.
Let's see. Fallout 3 had more entertaining combat. Not better combat really, but it was certainly flashier. Better graphics, obviously. And.... umm... erm.... that's about it.
Which isn't to say Fallout 3 was bad, not by any means. I actually quite like Bethesda, even if I have been kinda disappointed by their latest works (Morrowind is still my favorite of their games!). But Fallout 3 'as an rpg' was quite poor compared to the original games. There was less freedom, less options, less dialogue and less plot compared to either of the old games. Instead Fallout 3 seemed to focus on elements of gameplay completely different from those of 1 and 2. FO1&2 had a tight focus towards sharp writing and freedom of choice for the player. Fallout 3 meanwhile seems to focus on exploration and combat.
That's about it. If you prefer the elements that Fallout 3 focused on, then you'll probably prefer it over the original games. If however you prefer the elements which the originals focused on, then you, like me, will prefer them. It's that simple.
I personally prefer 3 to 1 and 2. All has their nonsensical flaws, the dialouge was no better so their shouldn't be any complaints about that (Fallout 3 gave every NPC voiced dialouge, something the first 2 didn't), you had the same moral dilemmas although they became a little crazier for evil bastards the more you played, you still had quite a few choices about how to tackle your problems, you really had the same amount of options for the first 2 for solving your problems, the gameplay was better and more forgiving and you had a strategy better than have the biggest effing gun in Fallout 3 and you should stop visiting those stuck up Interplay fanboys on No Mutants Allowed. Their freaking forms don't even consider Fallout 3 an actual Fallout game, they treat the first two games like gifts from god and make up lame excuses to run Fallout 3's name through the mud. Those guys hated Fallout: Tatics because even though it added strategy and had a good story they cannot accept anyone but Black Isle making a Fallout game.
They have less antipathy for Fallout New Vegas because a few people ex Black Isle employees are working on it, they have skewered views and are stuck in a stupid whiney fanboy hole of bile, piss and bullshit. Sorry if a few Escapists are members of that shithole I just can't stand the majority of that population.
They have less antipathy for Fallout New Vegas because a few people ex Black Isle employees are working on it, they have skewered views and are stuck in a stupid whiney fanboy hole of bile, piss and bullshit. Sorry if a few Escapists are members of that shithole I just can't stand the majority of that population.
Its barely connected to the previous Fallout at all. 3 was connect due to the whole nuclear war thing.JohanGasMask said:
It's hardly a Fallout game itself. Like Far Cry 2 wasn't like Far Cry in the least, but it was considered a sequel (not saying Far Cry 2 was bad, mind you).
Fallout 1 and 2 have a better story and over all have more depth as mentioned before.
I still loved Fallout 3 though and I can't wait for Fallout: New Vegas.
I still loved Fallout 3 though and I can't wait for Fallout: New Vegas.
Well since you've already been lashed to hell and back about your silly assumptions, I'll just say why I consider them to be better.
I've never played a game where I can go through an entire game and not kill a single person. The options were sometimes near limitless, considering all of it was(well, almost all of it) was just text. The conversations were hysterical, the games had a great vibe, and I actually enjoyed the combat.
Fallout 3 is a great game, don't get me wrong, but I have such great memories of the originals that they will never be topped by Fallout 3, or even New Vegas.
I've never played a game where I can go through an entire game and not kill a single person. The options were sometimes near limitless, considering all of it was(well, almost all of it) was just text. The conversations were hysterical, the games had a great vibe, and I actually enjoyed the combat.
Fallout 3 is a great game, don't get me wrong, but I have such great memories of the originals that they will never be topped by Fallout 3, or even New Vegas.
Just to point this out, New Vegas is being over hyped. If Bethesda is making it then I would be excited but Obsidian just killed all my thoughts of it. Before people quote this saying its the origional developers, OBSIDIAN is not BLACK ISLE STUDIOS. It has a FEW of the people who made the origionals but not all.Sassy McFuzzers said:
Well it wasn't a very good question to begin with. Fallout 1 and 2 have always been considered classics, however they were never multi-million copy sellers but rather catered to a niche market. Much more writing & greater depth, slower paced but more tactical combat, high degree of difficulty, this catered to a fanbase that probably measured in the 6 digit range in size, and to that group Fallout 1 & 2 were two of the best games ever made. Those people never went anywhere and their opinions never changed when Fallout 3 was released. In fact, you might say from their perspective Fallout 3 was 'casualled'.Judgement101 said:
Fallout 3 of course is a great game in it's own right, however with game changing designs created to give it a more broader appeal and increased sales, it's not necessarily the direction those fans in the original niche market appreciates. This makes them popular targets for internet bashing & flaming but keep in mind that equivielent games don't exactly get made anymore.
I been hearing that a lot lately...But is that necessarily a bad thing, Because a couple of my friend´s own Fallout and Oblivion and they like them both.Judgement101 said:
This is probably where most of the confusion would come in probably for someone who knew nothing of FO before 3. When you play FO1, to actually see it for what it is and was to the fans you have to sit down and play FFVII, Tomb Raider 1 and 2, Starfox 64, or any other game from 1997-8. You will see that these stories are very linear. Combat usually looked like this in RPGs:Judgement101 said:
Attack <
Defend
Special
Item
Stories were not dynamic back then. And it has taken the game industry ten years to start pushing that envelope again. And fantasy was starting to really blossom into the elf/orc infestation it currently is today. Apocolypse was something else for the most part. We had Mad Max's aging rear end. You have to put yourself into the time to see why it is so highly revered.