Game Skyrim Forum

I've never played the first or second Fallout's, and i don't understand what the big fuss is about Fallout 3 not being like them, i've seen pictures of them and in my opinion Fallout 3 looks ALOT better. Can someone please explain to me why people are so frustrated with Fallout 3 not having the sort of gameplay the first 2 games did.

Yes, it looks better, but Fallout 1, and especially 2, have a thousand times better role-play system.
An usual person in FO3 has some 3 initial dialogue options, and a single story to tell (usually quest related).
While in FO2 nearly every named NPC will have tons and tons of dialogue, including up to 8 dialogue choises for you.

I can provide you with some good dialogues from Fallout 2.
Definately not the longest ones, but shows how good the dialogue and acting was done in FO2, and 1.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpcuiWR4Y_8
(my personal favourite)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjSnjKheGHg&feature=related
(another good Enclave dialogue)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwParkw9ElA&feature=related
(Tandi, president of the New California Republic)

Fallout 1's last boss, The Master has an epic speech regarding Super Mutants, but sadly nobody has recorded the full speech.
Other notable stuff is that the governor of Junktown, Killian Darkwater was voiced by the same guy who acted McGyver. You know who I mean.

EDIT: typos

EDIT2: Plus, Fallout 2 is twice longer gam.. No, three times longer game than FO3.
Also to note that FO1 and 2 have much more canon in them, and the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. really meant something more than carry weight and skill boosts.

Ok, one of the most important aspect of a game is that they play well. Looks come after.

Fallout 1 was made in 1997, Fallout 2 in 98, engine limitations of the time prevented games looking as omfg amazing as can now.

I'm trying to remain as impartial as I can, but judging a game on "pictures" is...extremely uninformed.

Your argument (or question in relation) is contradictory, you're asking why people are frustrated with Fallout 3 not having the same gameplay when it looks better..well the two don't work in tandem.

A game can play well, another game can look good, on the rare occasion a game can achieve both. For me gameplay will always be more important, even in this day and age, I'm happy to play a butt ugly game as long as the gameplay is balanced, themed, and logical (to a point, this IS sci-fi afterall). That's not to say that I will seek ugly games because they will play better, that's not true, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating, I don't want to eat shiny turd (I'm not referencing FO3 in any of this, I'm just qualifying an important distinction).

So that's it. Fallout 1 & 2 played better to most of those who were aquainted with Fallout 1 & 2 before Fallout 3, naturally. They don't play the same, as good as Fallout 3 looks, it doesn't play the same, there's not alot more to say on the matter of the two having different gameplay, I imagine that argument is pretty self-explanatory.


This cannot be true in any sense, with freeroaming games like this either game in the series can be as long as the player permits it to be (until the end, of course) I'd say Fallout 3 would be longer simply because of the method of travel, even if you bring fast travel into it, it still takes you a few minutes to walk to a destination initially, in previous games, simply because of the world map interface, you're going to get where you're going alot quicker. If you're refering to the main quest line, you can skip the sequences in every title in the series, you could complete FO1 in less than 10 minutes if you REALLY practised. FO2 fixed this somewhat with san fran and the oil rig, but you can still skip to that part of the story as soon as you leave Arroyo. Just like in FO3 you can go straight to Vault 112 provided you know where it is.

Well, to put things in perspective, Fallout 1 did come out in what, '97? Both 1 and 2 are about 10 years old now, give or take. Any game from that era isn't going to look as good as pretty much any game on the market nowadays. Compared to it's contemporaries, though - Fallout 1 was about as pretty as Diablo was (which came out around the same time.)

And the general concensus, I think, is that Bethesda did a very good job with the art direction in Fallout 3. Few people, I assume, would deny that Fallout 3 is a visually impressive game - especially compared to the first two games, which again are very dated by today's standards.

As far as gameplay, that's just a matter of preference. If you prefer the thoughtful pacing of a turn-based game, and more traditional RPG values, then you're going to really enjoy Fallouts 1 and 2. If you find that type of game too slow and boring, then you're not going to like it as much. If you prefer a more action-oriented RPG that is a bit lighter on the game mechanics, then Fallout 3 is going to be right up your alley.

For myself, I feel that for all the improvements Bethesda brought to the franchise, we also lost a number of things in the translation. I am very much not impressed with the more streamlined usage of the Attributes in Fallout 3, and the lack of pros and cons that come with deciding where to spend your limited amount of Attribute points during character creation. Not to mention the far-reaching implications of your Attribute values regardless of the type of character you are going to play.

The original Fallout series was more about adapting your playstyle to make use of the Attribute values you picked, while Fallout 3 is more about playing however you want regardless of those same Attributes. (Making informed decisions about what options will be available to your character, as opposed to limiting your options yourself dictated by how you best feel it relates to your character.)

Hm, ok. Don't get me wrong, gameplay should come first, but Fallout 3 seem's more.. FPS-ish than the first Fallout's, that is what i meant by look's. Im guessing if Bethesda made a Fallout 3 like Fallout 1 and 2 with amazing graphic's then i guess i could appreciate the first two games more.

EDIT: And i didn't know they came out in 1997 and 98

Oh well, yeah - if you're looking for a "FPS-ish" game, then you're probably not going to like the original Fallouts.

Oh, but i LOVE rpg's, Fable 2, Star War's, etc. Level games bore me, i love freeroaming roleplaying games.

Well, the previous games had no FPS at all. They were Turn-based Isometric, this was an important design choice I feel, games like Doom did what they did well, but it was very hard back then (and still to a degree even now) to implement any groundbreaking RPG elements in the same way.

Fallout Tactics looks alot better than FO1 and 2, it was made in 2001 and under the command of another company mainly. Looks alot smoother, and for what it offers it plays very well, it offers Tactics, and it gives you that, its RPG element are almost non-exsistant compared to previous games (there is dialogue, but almost never an option to talk back, for instance). But I really like Tactics, because it brings to the table what it promised. It's combat oriented, with tweaks to that end, and a workable real-time interface, with the old Turn-Based system for anyone who wanted the option. It offered something to a different market, but it never pretended to be something it wasn't, so I can enjoy it knowing what it stands for.

That's the thing right there. Fallout 1 and 2 were not FPS games. So the fans that it drew in for the past decade were not FPS fans to begin with. Not everyone holds FPS in as high regard as you do.

And then Bethesda turned it into an FPS. So naturally a lot of people got pissed because it didn't offer the same type of gameplay that the series was known for. Sure it has the same name, some RP elements, but it's an entirely different game. Imagine if Gears of War 3 comes out, and instead of a 3rd person shooter it's a real time strategy game. One type of gameplay isn't necessarily superior to the other, but people who bought the previous games did so because they were FPS fans and came to know the Gears of War series as a shooter. They'd naturally be pretty pissed.

I personally enjoy shooters, but to get my FPS fix I play Left 4 Dead, Unreal Tournament, or the Half-Life series. I enjoyed the Fallout games because it offered a unique type of gameplay from the hundreds of other shooters in the market. But now it's become a shooter itself...so I don't know how long I'll stick with the series when there are better shooters out there.

I'll pretty much second this in it's entirety

you don't mean....... Richard Dean Anderson is Killian Darkwater holy hell that's awesome, i didn't even know that, shame on me.

man i loved McGyver how he was always making like semtex with a piece of string a paperclip and some chewing gum, fantastic
(well maybe not exactly that particular example though)

loved him in Stargate to such a good series that guy is just so funny.

Yup, it's him:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Richard_Dean_Anderson

yes, tis true, tis awesome... http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Killian_Darkwater

Dangit, got beaten to the punch by the vault-man himself.

Killian actually even looks like Anderson.

I personally think if they added some slightly more RPG-ish stuff like having to scav for things to sell for caps (or get stuff off your enemies) to get more supplies and added the same style dialogue trees as the first two games, then Fallout would be perfect. I myself personally liked to talk back to Lynette just to see her get pissed off And maybe some sort of way to have a profession, like caravan driver or scrap metal collector?

The thing I think FO1 and 2 have that is better than Fallout 3 the most is music.

Har...

No really, I'm serious.

Har Har Matey, good thing I don't take you serious

I hated Tandi's voice in Fallout 2. Giving her that Wild West accent was a terrible idea, in my opinion.

Also, there's no way Fallout 2 is three times longer than Fallout 3. If you explore the whole map and get all the DLC's I'd say Fallout 3's probably twice the size of Fallout 2. :/

Yeah, DLCs, but as a game alone it's sadly nothing like F2 and it's endless random encounters etc. :shrug:

BUT

F3 has a great attention for details, I gotta give you that

Fallout 1 was the best RPG ever. Fallout 3 is good but it just doesn't compare to the awesome turn based, more skill needy game that is Fallout 1.

You can complete F3's main quest in less time than you can the MQ in Fallout 2. F2's random encounters guarantee that.

Not really, speedrunners have done FO2 in like 15 minutes, and FO3 is over a half hour even with glitches.

Mostly because Fallout 2 doesn't have this many unskippable cutscenes.

Cooler still, the Fallout 2 run was done with no saving or anything... can you imagine how many times he started over due to an Enclave encounter?