Well i recently purchased fallout 2 after beating everything possible in fallout 3 because i heard that fallout 1 and 2 were better than 3.
Heres some conclusions so far being only 5 hours into FO2:
Graphics: Yes FO3 is better than 2, but even with 2's graphics considering it was a standard over the top view of the time, its still not too bad(dont understand why some games dont go back to this view, as im sure with technology now adays it could be made better).
NPCS: After just completeing one mission, i found out if you ask a gaurd enough to go inside somewhere that eventually hell get annoyed and let you in. How come fallout 3 doesnt do this?
Speacil, stats, and perks: SO far, in terms of SPEACIL, i havent noticed a huge diffrence between fallout 2 and 3 in terms of what they can do, but i also havent messed around in combat so much yet, so we'll see. Perks, however, are diffrent. I enjoy the fact that almost every trait/perk has an upside, and a downside to them. Makes you think more about what your going to do.
Stats, i like. more of them and they effect combat and rolls better than FO3 does so far
More to come later.

Well 'better' is a purely subjective term, I think FO1/2 are 'better' than 3 but there are things 3 can do that the originals can't, even if it's simply because of a different engine. But overall, I find there's too much wrong with FO3 in comparison. So that's where I'm at, but that doesn't make it any more or less definitive.

The originals will never win any beauty pageants, to be honest, this has never discouraged me from a good gaming experience, and the originals are a good epitome of this point.

NPCs were definitely alot better in the originals, there was more of a dynamic and flexibility in both disposition and dialogue, in the originals you made sure you were careful what you said around certain people, or you'd get your head blown off, you could also stifle many future dialogue options by being outlandish and rude, often alienating people into not wanting to associate with you. There are also a few speech checks going on it the background in the originals, whereas FO3 makes it perfectly clear when you're excersising your speech skill, or any other skill that corresponds to dialogue at any given moment.

SPECIAL is definitely alot more tailored in the originals, I'm often at a conflict as to where to put my last few stat points, they have much higher sense of value I find. If you break down each of the stats individualy, you'll be able to make a clearer comparison to FO3 SPECIAL.

Perks too, were alot more useful in the originals, that is to say, I found myself constantly conflicted with which ones to take, because alot of them had something I wanted, and it was a case of deciding which would benefit me the most. In FO3 I just choose the perks that change an aspect of he game in someway, child at heart as one example, perks are a no-brainer in FO3 as far as I'm concerned, and becayse you can take one every level, you never feel like you'll miss out on anything you need by level 20. Perks don't have a downside in the originals, but the abilities do, and they also further increase the unique aspect of character building, and what's more, they're completely optional. Though this feature was completely removed from FO3.

I seem to go against FO3 in every aspect you've raised, I'd put that down to sheer coincidence. But I am probably one of the more 'bothered' veterans, of this transition

This is the one thing I most agree with, when comparing FO1&2 to FO3: I liked how the prior FO's perks worked. More of them changed your gameplay experience, rather than JUST being skill modifiers.

I miss perks like Awareness (see exact hp of enemies, plus their weapon equipped, and their ammunition left); Empathy (shows reaction levels/effects during conversation - you could see which responses would produce which sort of reaction); Magnetic Personality (have an extra follower); Night Vision (the world became 20% brighter); Sharpshooter (+2 Perception when determining range modifiers to hit%, in combat), and many others.

(I also prefer the way skills, especially Tag! skills, worked in the previous games, especialy FO2 and it's 300% cap.)

You guys want to hear the truth ? F3 is dumbed down !

Yes, that's nothing new. Been there, vented that. Care to add any flavour to the thread?

Comparing apples to oranges here.

2D vs 3D
Old game mechanics vs new game mechanics.

Whilst this is true, I still don't agree it's a good enough, or even a valid reason for the 'dumbing down' FO3 experienced. There are some things you can argue, Bethesda broke simply by bringing them forward in the first place, or at least they didn't bring them forward with the right balance or execution. I'll take the small guns skill as an example.

Due to the changes in perspective and combat interface, the small gun skill (and many other skills for that matter) represented your characters ability to succeed in that specific task. This case in FO3 is that you as a player are playing for your character, and your reaction speed, accuracy and depth perception are your own. So the small guns skill just becomes a damage/spread buffer, and whilst it may affect V.A.T.S it's too much of a secondary and optional (and from most people's experience, broken due to a patched engine) system to be considered worth the increase in small guns. This works in tandem with S.P.E.C.I.A.L skills like perception, which is practically meaningless as most of the game requires your own sense of perception due to the interface.

However with a little more work these things could have been added upon to give your character more of a personal affinity to his/her skill/S.P.E.C.I.A.L sets. Small guns could have affected things alot more specifically, such as reload speed, handling of weapons correctly (preventing jamming, losing clips etc) and even giving repair skill bonuses within that specific skill set.

People need to stop using that cop out. I can compare apples to oranges if I want, and as a matter of fact I do.

Not a cop out its a fact.

It is and it isn't.

Saying combat in FO3 is easier or harder than FO2 can't really be argued, because the interface is completely different.

However it's a fact that the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system plays less of a part in FO3, because its features are significantly less in comparison to the originals, that at least can be said, as well as a few other things. It's just a question of what can be compared and what can't.

so far i find combat more difficult, even with 2 followers

F3 needs no gameplay improvements. Think of the children.

F3 has a better story, but F1/2 have better graphics.

Lies. The writers of Fallout 1 and 2 actually cared about their story.

The writer for Fallout 3 let a bad ending slide for the sake of having "cool followers". This is a http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3172024.

And...wait...you have that backwards, there's no way anyone is going to say Fallout 1/2 had better graphics lol....

Fallout 2 svcked in many aspects.. Lack of freedom outside character creation, nothing new compared to FO1 for instance.
Fallout 3, too and orcourse, has it's flaws. Poor-ish storyline and dialogues. Yet the gameplay side of Fallout 3 is remarkable and graphics are no doubt in 2008 level.

Could you elaborate a bit on that? I don't quite get where the freedomlessness occurs.

Are you on crack ? :stare:

What if i want those bountyhunters and a "5.000$ alive, 10.000$ dead"-wanted poster?



In a way i actually agree with F1 and F2 having better grapics than Waistlander. My vote here goes to the "talking heads" and gore in contrast to its ages tecnology.
F3 looks bad, the blood looks fake and nobody EVER blinks <.< The gore is badly done in pure contrast, the "real" advantege Waistlander got is that its in 3D.

Congratulations on giving absolutely no argument to back up your stance. :rolleyes:

Seriously, apples and oranges is a cop out for the indecisive. You CAN compare apples and oranges, and you CAN compare Fallout 1/2 and 3 as well as you can compare say, Halo and Halo 2.

It has only been considered a cop out for the indecisive because most people are either unable to use it correctly or refuse to use it correctly. Of course they can be compared, but it would be pointless to compare them to see which makes the better apple pie.

FO1&2 vs FO3 threads are nothing but flamebait, but I'm gonna take a shot at it. Most of the arguments that people have against FO3 are more often than not the ravings of pure fanboyism. Often they'll say that the game doesn't belong in the canon because it deviates too greatly from the original story, that the SPECIAL system is too weak, that it didn't have the same quality of writing... blah blah blah. The fact of the matter is that most modern games seem to be being made as a replacement for cinema and literature. In fact, the video game market is roughly double the size of the box office. As a result, more and more gamers who in another life would've been movie snobs are being absorbed into the video game realm where developers are feverishly trying to satiate their lust for "good writing" with $60 cutscene collections like MGS4 and GTA4. It's not good enough that a game simply be fun, like FO2 & 3, or particularly well written like FO1, but today it seems that if they aren't both the game must be a failure.

As for the arguments about deviation from the original formula: bullocks. Metroid Prime was a complete deviation and still incredibly fun. Mario RPG was nothing like any of the little plumber's other incarnations and may have been the best in the entire franchise. Though the naysayers will never admit it there are a lot of rose-tinted bouts of nostalgia in their criticisms, but I can't say I don't completely understand. FO1 & 2 were only RPGs I played for my entire freshman year of college, and the only video games outside of what my SNES. To say I loved the games would be a gross understatement, but that is not to say that the games were without their flaws. One main reasons that FO1&2 was the only RPG I played for that entire year was because compared to most other RPGs of the time they were really easy. Incedibly easy. At times, even embarassingly easy. The worst thing about their being so easy is that I am terrible, TERRIBLE at mid 90s RPGs. I never got past level 5 or so on Diablo, Sacred, Baldur's Gate, any of the D&D Franchise... I was and am still awful at computer RPGs.

So what was the magic formula? SPECIAL. More like SPECIAL education, amirite? If you can count to ten, you can conquer any game that employs it. Realistically speaking, SPECIAL is only slightly more technical than the Blood Point system in White Wolf games... which required a measley ability to count to five. But even though SPECIAL games are easy, they are still FANTASTIC games because they are generally fun and quick but are still closely related enough to legacy RPGs to hold their own in the P&P arena... Except Lionheart. [censored] Lionheart.

I suppose my point here is that ever since Half-Life came out, gamers have this notion that they are owed some sort of mind-blowing cinematic experience everytime they pick up their controller. FO1&2, no matter how great they were, were not mind-blowingly cinematic. They were games written to fellate our ids and tickle our egos and at the end of the day be nothing more than light RPGs that are more fun than any of their more serious competitors. FO3, even though it has a million technical differences from the other two, serves the same purpose. It's one of those games, like its prequels, that mockingly echoes our mothers' shrill demand: "Don't get so mad... it's just a [censored] video game."

tl;dr
Of course these games can be compared, but you might be a little surprised to find more similarities than differences.

lol, what is this "gameplay" many seem to think is so great about F3? Aimlessly wandering like a hobo amassing stuff & becoming uber in the process? Weightless ammo & carrying multiple copies of weapons to continually fix them because they are so stupidly fragile? "perks" which are largely skill/SPECIAL boosting rather than imbuing special ABILITIES? Also, if NPCs & story/dialog/choices are un-interesting to me then what is left is largely an exploration simulator and not an RPG, IMO. Also F3 graphics aren't that great. The texture quality on non characters (inanimate objects etc) are less than high resolution. So what's so great about it? To me nothing.

Then why are you here?

My guess, is that this is the Series General Discussion board, and whilst FO3 killed the series for some of us, the series still remains in its predecessors.

Without sounding too brazen and critical, I have to side with H0loKaustO that FO3 may aswell be an exploration sim. People's response to the shortcomings of the story is that there's plenty to do elsewhere, but there isn't really, whilst there is great quantity in location, it becomes all too familiar and meaningless. There's not alot to do, there's just alot to find, and finding doesn't become that fun after the first few times, let alone 80+ (not even taking into account unmarked locations). More than 90% of these locations don't have any quest tied to them, not even on the most basic level, they're just hoard spots with a few enemies to fight, sometimes not even that. All FO3 has is countless, disposable locations with little of interest beyond loot and cannon fodder, and then a more than mediocre linear main questline, with 'essential' NPCs just to rub it in.

I'm not much...anymore. But who cares about that I want to know specifically what is great about F3 gameplay since people seem to be so hooked. What's so amazing about it? I've been PC gaming since 1993 BTW so I have a firm grasp on what I consider a good PC game. Anyway, let's hear it!

Hear, hear.