try playing Fallout 1 today ^^

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:59 am

do you really still enjoy it over 3 and 4? ^^

I currently started playing it and I barely see any advantages over the Bethesda Fallouts

the game really hasn't aged well

the UI, the combat, the locations, the missing voice on NPCs

I feel like I'm playing with a calculator, rather than playing a game

I really do not care about the graphics, but the rest of the game is as '1997' as they are

every single aspect of the game was completely overhauled in the last 18 years

User avatar
Haley Cooper
Posts: 3490
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 11:30 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:01 pm

They are two entirely different games, one being Turn Based ISO View and the other being First Person Real Time. So, you have to get past that first. Also, there are mods that improve how the game looks on modern monitors, mostly by allowing you to see more of the game world at once.

Some of the people involved with the first Fallouts are making this game which is also Turnbased Isometric

I am not a huge fan of Turn Based Games, but you should also look at Planescape:Torment, particularly modded so you see all the dialogs and the graphics update. That is the epitomy of an RPG.

In any event, it is not the snazzy graphics that makes Fallout Fallout, it is the dialogs, the quests, the stories.

User avatar
Posts: 3447
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:52 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:21 am

You can get an HD patch for both FO 1 and 2 as well. But yeah, it not graphics. And yeah, I would rather play FO 1 than FO 3, not so much yet FO 4, but 4 is new.

User avatar
Posts: 3417
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:35 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:39 pm

If you want shiny pretty things stick with Fallout 3 and 4. If you want a role playing game give 1 & 2 a shot.

Somewhere in the middle? Check out Morrowind with lots of texture mods, although it may be too much like a calculator for your liking. It does involve numbers.
User avatar
Cedric Pearson
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 9:39 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 5:30 am

News flash: People like games for different reasons, and a lot of those reasons have nothing to do with how dated the gameplay and interface are. Temple of Apshai was still a good game in '97. Fallout is still a good game now.

Absolutely boggles me how people refuse to understand that.

User avatar
Joe Bonney
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 12:00 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:00 pm

Fallout 1 is the only game that doesn't age for me. I can still get in and do full play through, I finished this game so many times that it sums up to more hours than Fallout 3 and NV and 4 together, but it has been a lot of years of gameplay.

I think you can only enjoy it if you played it on release. It is the same case, where people start watching first Star Wars now and can't understand what is so cool about it. Well, now nothing. It was when it got released. Can't understand why it is so hard to comprehend...
User avatar
Heather Stewart
Posts: 3525
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2006 11:04 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:41 am

That's probably the point for many people who got into the franchise with F3 and FNV (like me).

I really don't care about the graphics (I'm a really old gamer - believe me, I've seen much worse...) but it's quite difficult to retro-fit myself to the controls.

Playing F1 is a little like watching a documentary about how something or someone got famous.

User avatar
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:58 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:59 pm

This - so much this!!! The story, the players actions actually matter, the amazing/epic NPCs, the interesting locales, the factions... that is what Fallout is all about! It's a story about survival, about hope and rebuilding the world!

Oh and I did play Fallout 1 "today". I got it right after finishing Fallout 3 and Fallout NV, because I wanted to see how/where it all began!

User avatar
Luis Reyma
Posts: 3361
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 11:10 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:56 pm

I've played Fallout 1 off and on since 97. Probably the last time I went through was about a year or so ago. Some things haven't aged well, but its still one of my favorite games.

I like a lot of different styles of gameplay, but I've always been a svcker for turn-based games (probably my most highly-anticipated game for next year is XCom 2.)

There's just more than one way to skin a cat.
User avatar
josh evans
Posts: 3471
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:37 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:36 am

Yes, I still enjoy playing Fallout: A Post Nuclear Role Playing Game whenever I get the chance to play it. I can play all three of them, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas twenty years from now, thirty years from now. I can play any video games forever.

I don't know if I will ever get to purchasing Fallout 4.

User avatar
Sharra Llenos
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:09 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:39 am

I am someone who didn't get into fallout until 3 was released, but I still find myself regularly replaying fallout 1 and 2 a couple times a year. I didn't find them too hard to get into
User avatar
Kelsey Anna Farley
Posts: 3433
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:33 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 10:46 am

Considering I've just finished it again very recently, I'd say it aged better than Fallout 3. visuals look great, writing is still good, and barring the clunky UI the gameplay is still fun.

Fallout 3 nowadays, without mods, is unplayable for me.

User avatar
Len swann
Posts: 3466
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:02 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:21 pm


The fact that you don't seem to know how broad the term "game" is aside, why do you feel like that?

User avatar
Maria Garcia
Posts: 3358
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:59 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:54 pm

I like the writing of 1, 2 and tactics but overall I prefer the gameplay style of Fallout 4 and New Vegas. I also feel Bethesda is getting better with the writing of the Fallout series when I play 4 as 4 has a lot of cool ideas, characters and quests.
User avatar
Posts: 3498
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 12:40 pm

I would say while generally the writing is better, the game underachieved in the cool ideas and quests. It is too much of an action game, which makes it feel nothing like Fallout and more like an advanced Far Cry. In the old Fallout games, combat was just another option. You could navigate the world and almost every single map zone without any combat. It was there, if you went looking for it, you COULD get all the combat your heart desired. To me, this game more than even FOT feels like more of a spin off, an action game set in the FO Universe. So many cool locations that lack depth and interaction. Sigh.

User avatar
Posts: 3414
Joined: Fri Sep 15, 2006 6:36 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:41 pm

I still like the original Fallout game a great deal, its good fun. Don't really care that much about the graphics, the style used in those late 90's early 2000 Isometric games hold up fairly well today. Still i will never play without the HI-Rez mod, its much needed. Quest wise its not exactly the most exciting, but its fairly interesting, and i do enjoy the Brotherhood of Steel in that game, when i look at Fallout 4 i see the BoS inspiration mostly from the original. The way the power armour looks, and how they move in it etc. Nice callback, in my opinion. I still like Fallout 2 better, but mostly because of the dialogue. I think each Fallout game brings something very different to the table, and i am glad it changes up abit every now and then, even if it causes controversy.

User avatar
Ernesto Salinas
Posts: 3399
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2007 2:19 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:44 am

Usually I do not care for it too. Seriously, when revealed this new KoF and everyone was complaining, I did not understand why. Once specified that it was because of the visual, I finally understand.

But the little variety of NPCs is annoying. Worse, they repeated the same in F2. There's even a joke that the Chosen One says it's something like this: since I leave Arroyo, I always seem to encounter the same ten people worldwide.

User avatar
kyle pinchen
Posts: 3475
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 9:01 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:40 pm

Quick Question

I feel a hankering for some Isometric CRPG gaming goodness, Pillars of Eternity or Wasteland 2?
User avatar
Sheila Esmailka
Posts: 3404
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 2:31 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 4:07 pm

if you played neither, then I guess the question is do you want to shoot stuff and adventure in the post apoc or go the fantasy route. I played Wasteland 2 to completion and liked it, and I have Pillars but haven't jumped into it yet. Prolly will now that I can't hardly bring myself to play FO 4.

User avatar
N Only WhiTe girl
Posts: 3353
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:30 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 6:54 am

Depends. Wasteland 2 is basically a modernized Fallout 1 and 2 (it has very little in common with Wasteland 1 beyond its setting/story) with better combat but weaker role playing than Fallout. Pillars of Eternity is a modernized Baldur's Gate with stronger writing and role playing but a weaker overall story than Baldur's Gate.

Personally I preferred Pillars since it felt more professional, and I'm a svcker for good role playing. Both are great games that are worth playing eventually, though.

User avatar
Posts: 3566
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 11:41 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 8:23 am

Actually it wasn't, I did research on it and pacifist run in Fallout 1 isn't possible and in 2 it's only possible by manipulating glitches. Non-combat was only a legit choice in Fallout New Vegas. Even so just because you can't kill anyone doesn't make it "Far cry" or any such nonsense. You can have a story riched game and still have it have combat, hell Spec: Ops the Line is one of the best written war games we've had in a long time and the fact you're forced into a combative role means literally nothing

Fallout 4 isn't "advanced far cry" and the idea it is is just plain out silly to make a bad point. I get it you hate action games but that really doesn't excuse you for making really awful and flawed points.
User avatar
Chad Holloway
Posts: 3388
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:21 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 7:58 pm

Well the research you did is totally mistaken. In FO 1 and 2 sure, you have to blow places up which kills stuff, but you don't have to enter combat in either of them. In 2 you can assassinate Richardson via many ways(super stimpacks) and with Horrigan you can talk the Enclave squad and use the turrets to defeat him, never holding a gun yourself. Yes, you blow places up, yes people die, but you can play the games rarely even entering combat if you so desire(although in FO 2 this requires some quests to never be completed, or areas avoided, raider base, mariposa).

Also what makes it an advanced Far Cry is the non stop action. I don't hate action games, I hate that Fallout 4 has become an action game instead of an RPG. It is horrible that there is one skill check in the entire game, actually, it is a Stat check, because there are no skills. If you follow the MQ of FO 4 it is non stop fighting and killing from your first mission. Just because a game has a story doesn't make it an RPG, you just admitted that yourself.

User avatar
Kari Depp
Posts: 3427
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 3:19 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 9:30 pm

Except here is where your ignorance comes into light, there are ways to solve quests non-violently, there are quests that don't even have violence in them. It's not "Advanced far cry" or "non-stop action" and saying so is blatant ignorance. Calling it "advanced far cry" is laughable in itself and you're saying numerous RPG games are like that because what, they don't offer a majority of the quests being non-violent solutions?

Not everything is comparable to Farcry, not everything is "like" Farcry because it chooses to be more action-paced and honestly at this point it's complaining about the evolution of not only the industry but of game design itself.
User avatar
Laura Ellaby
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:59 am

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 11:48 am

Really? Please do enlighten me on the quests that can be completed without any violence in FO 4. There are raiders, super mutants, ghouls and various mutated critters all over, going from point a to point b you are bound to run into something that is going to force you into combat or run away, so yeah, it is action packed, and clearly from a design standpoint. If it wasn't by design you could play the game with zero combat or constant running for your life, which you will be forced to do one of the two, fight or flee(and eventually you are going to have to fight).

User avatar
Posts: 3400
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:58 pm

Post » Tue Jan 19, 2016 3:58 pm

Well there is the Battle for Bunker Hill, you can go through Bobbi No-Nose's mission without a single shot, numerous BoS missions, some missions for the Institute and some for Railroad, the entirety of the mission where you have to find Patroit for the Railroad or the mission where you have to find out who has been helping synths out, there is the paint the wall quest in Diamond City, Getting a clue doesn't have any violence in it, Dangerous Minds, The quest to find Virgil, the quest to build the teleporter to the Institute, the quest to hook up a network scanner to the institute, the quest Kells gives you to kill Virgil can be solved peacefully as can Blind Betrayal, settlers getting kidnapped can be solved without violence, the quest to get various tech for scribe Haylen, the lost patrol, Road to freedom, I think there are even still more to cover but I can't think of them right now and I'm not combing through the quest list

Also someone already did a pacifist run of Fallout 4

That's a zero kill so they didn't even use companions as companion kills are tallied under your kill rate, so what was that about Fallout 4 being constant action with no other way around things?
User avatar
Czar Kahchi
Posts: 3306
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 11:56 am


Return to Fallout Series Discussion