This isn't a vs topic it's a comparison topic so people like myself will understand what Fallout 3 lacked in comparison to Fallout 1&2, so could any people who have played Fallout 1 or 2 explain what was bad about Fallout 3 compared to Fallout 1&2

In brief (very brief) ~direction and intent...

I will suggest that you ask a moderator to look at this thread, if its kept open, I may edit this post with a longer reply.

*But you can also buy the games for the cost of a sandwich, (online) and make your own [personal] comparisons of them. IMO, its peers are few.

Their different. Very, very different. IMO comparing 1&2 to 3 is just plain unfair; their worlds apart. That's a kind way of putting it

Indeed... very unfair :rolleyes:

It's probably better to just play the demo of Fallout, or buy the games and judge for yourself.

:whisper: I mean in the sense that 1&2 are better Well, 2 and tactics anyway. I havn't even played 1.

F3 is supposed to be a sequel to F1 & 2, so comparing them shouldn't be adding apples and oranges. Though I agree with Gizmo in this one, this thread smells like it's going to be closed, so I won't bother to reply unless a moderator gives an okay...

:whisper: me too :thumbsup:

[spoiler]*also an inside joke for Matt

It lacked:
Dialog-It is not as funny and devirsed,like in fallout 1 and 2.
Diffulculty-It not as hard as the first two,like in FO1 and 2 stimpaks and ammo was more hard to come by.Also your enemies can cause critcally hit on you and were much harder.
Weighted ammo-ammo actually had weight in them,so make sure on what you carry.
Isometric view-Not one of my promblems but some fans missed this view (Bird eye view),you had to point click on where to move.
Turn based-It lacked the ablity to take turns while in a batle,AP was used for your turn moves(ex.moving,bringing up your inventory,interact with things,and attack moves.
Skills-There is almost no penallty for having a low enough skill(ex.having 15 in energy weapons,your not gonna hit a target mostly at all because your skill is to low for that weapon type.
S.P.E.C.I.A.L-One of the biggest promblems in FO3,Your stats don't affect your charcter almost not all,unlike in FO1 and 2 where if you had a 1 intelligence while talking to people,your dialog options appear unintelligent,and having 3 in strength means you couldnt handle the bigger weapons better.
Exp system-In the vanilla version of FO3 your required exp to lvl up is low,In FO1 and 2 the ex requirement for lvling up is much higher.
In all though I still enjoyed Fallout 3 though.

I see no reason why reasonable comparisons can't be made as long as there is no flaming, others opinions are respected and opinions are not force fed and one or two members don't monopolize the thread leaving no room for others to voice their opinions. Nobody minds folks comparing the three games but nobody wants to be treated as if they don't understand or just don't get it and thus these threads oft serve as flamebait.

Make your points once, state your opinions and try not to do too much debating of it since of course, folks will have differing opinions and that is just fine.
edit:
And wouldn't it be nice to have this sort of thread with many members opinions expressed without fear of having to debate their opinion for a change? We might get a better picture in the end of what a cross section of the entire forum thinks about it. May fill up with loads of opinions and may just drop to the 10th page but at least it's an open thread this way.

Hint taken :thumbsup:

If you haven't any experience with the series, I might suggest first watching this small video clip to get a basic primer on the series' initial premise. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6gvAzuipU

Fallout did not actually ship as a GURPS based game though... the license was rescinded due to graphic violence, so they altered the rules into what was called "ACELIPS" (changed to SPECIAL, no doubt for obvious reasons).

Matt as in the guy who gets his upper torso gibbed by Horrigan?

I believe FO 1 an 2 were much harder then 3

still enjoyed 3 though (very much)

I've tried to play 1 and 2 after 3 and I just can't, its just tedious to do ANYTHING.

I'm sure the adventure and story are great, but if its more work than work I don't see the point.
Back in the day, sure you had nothing better to do with your 40Mhz computer, but these
days I can put just as much work as playing those two games into making a new one.

i tried to play the original i couldnt get into it point click point click............ehhhhhh

Just shows how different the look and feel of the games really are. Game mechanics are very different. Liking one set doesn't guarantee liking the other, and, in fact, the large differences between the first two and the third frankly makes it difficult to like all of them, and yes, as someone posted, it's like comparing apples to oranges.

I tend to detest FO2, but I like Fo1 and Fo3 for different reasons. I'd agree with the others and suggest you play at least fO1. It's cheap enough to buy that it costs about as much as a fast food lunch, so if you don't like it, you won't lose much.

I liked Fallout 3, probably a bit more than the average "old Fallout" fan, but it was missing a lot of Depth, beyond megaton and Rivet City the 'towns" werent up to code, and the ending not showing consequence was unforgivable.

Like has been said, they're just very different games. You can like all three, but just not for the same reasons; and for some of us old fans who went into Fallout 3 looking for a "fix" to sate our appetite for what we liked about the previous games, it just wasn't there. (Like if you go into a store and want a jelly donut but all they have are custard-filled donuts. You might buy the custard ones and they might turn out very good, but chances are you're still going to be craving a jelly donut anyways...)

But I would agree that really getting down and comparing them is a bit unfair (even though I've done my share of it, surely.) I like playing XCom, and I also like GTAIV; but there's not really going to be anything gained from a side-by-side comparison of the two. F1&2 were trying to emulate (to an extent) the experience of playing a tabletop roleplaying game, and it's approached in pretty much the same manner. (Especially for a gamer like me who used to work out all of the combat with miniatures, graph paper, etc...) Fallout 3 is trying to be a different sort of RPG, however - and other people would be better able to describe that than I could.

For myself, I have some reservations about Fallout 3 (and of course the previous two titles as well,) on it's own merits, and not just because it's not enough like the previous titles. But I've also come to terms with the fact that it's very different from what I at least was expecting from a "sequel." (And that's mostly because Todd Howard and I have different views on just what a sequel should be...)

I'll join the choir and say that they are very different games. They share a thematic setting, and are supposed to be in the same line of games and Fallout 3 is an RPG (as far as that goes nowadays), but FO1&2 were turn based, isomorphic view, harder/less forgiving (intentionally), and are a product of the time they were made in. Being able to make bad choices that blows your game? Totally acceptable at that time to have that in your game. Loads of print dialog and awkward interface? Yep, a given. But I still loved playing them, and were no less imersive at the time. Don't get me wrong I very much enjoy FO3 as well, and none of the games in the series is perfect, but I'm an older gamer and turn-based combat and loads of dialog was somethng I came to computer gaming with (out of old table-top, often alongside for a while). Some games are just good, good enough to overcome the limitations of the time like dated graphics and interface, and the old Fallout games are in this catagory along with X-Com and Planescape and others I won't bother to mention.

Will Fallout 3 be as fondly remembered in 10 years? I think the answer is yes. But only time will tell.

Both good games for their time. I personally enjoy fallout 3 more.

i tryed Fallout2 and after 2 hours i deleted it... for these times fallout 2 is nowhere near fallout 3 its like different games from different time and everything ... you can't get the apocalypse feeling in FO1 or FO2 at least not as like in Fallout 3 :>

Graphics and sandboxy exploration are the only things in which Fallout 3, imo, excells over the first two games - everything else feels downgraded. That doesn't necesserely make Fallout 3 a bad game, just less good. And as said 3rd is so different than 1&2 that the comparison is difficult to say the least.

Fallout is not exactly a sandbox. Movement discontinuity is small in a sandbox. Not like Fallout with an abstract world map for traveling or locations split into separate maps that let you choose which section to enter.

I found Fallout 3 a worthy successor to Interplay's Fallout efforts. It felt like Fallout. Though, to be perfectly honest, it felt more like a Prequel then a Sequel. Everything in the Capital Wasteland from people's dialogue to just the ages of the settlements screamed "50 years after the Bombs Fell" more then 200 years.

Apart from isometric 3rd vs 1th person view and everything related to it I would sum my opinion somehow abstractly like this:

Playing Fallout 1-2 is like reading good book ...with story which svcks you in. You forget everything around and live that story yourself.
Playing Fallout 3 is like getting new expensive model of PDA , you admire all its new hipped features, its technical perfection and clean design. But thats about it.

In other words, Fallout 3 is solid piece of software, well made, attractive but lacks depth, humour and personality of its predecessors. Original Fallout humour is what I probably miss most, with its references to politicians, film industry, Scientology and many Easter eggs tossed all around wasteland. Fallout 1-2 characters with all their isometric 2D limits were colourful personalities. Can you name one NPC from Fallout 3 comparable to Sulik for example with his "spirits"?

I like Fallout 3, its good game and in my opinion developers made their best to get close to original Fallout and its world. Once Bethesda took over project fears appeared it will be Oblivion with guns and while you can feel its based on the same engine I can say those fears did not come true, Fallout 3 is not Oblivion with guns. But I cant shake myself of impression that while FO 3 was made by team of professionals backed by large respectable commercial company, FO 1-2 was made by bunch of cheerful enthusiasts with pockets full of ideas to use.

On the other hand Fallout 1-2 were masterpieces in its time and came to be legendary, it is sure difficult to match that legend.

Oh! ...and there is one other important difference ...rats! There was nearly dozen different solid kinds of rats in FO 1-2. In FO 3 we got one, which doesn't resemble rat at all <_<