I've never understood it, I felt Fallout 1 was clearly the superior game, and I now think Fallout 3 is also superior to Fallout 2, and maybe even 1 but that's a tougher call for me.

Fallout 2 was so full of juvenile sensibility and lacked the serious, somber, believable tone of the original I felt.

I am just perpetually baffled by Fallout 2's popularity... can anyone enlighten me?

The gameplay/ui fixes. The Enclave. The car. The characters.

These are just some of my reasons, it'll take me a while to think of everything. I'll try to post more later if this thread develops.

Yeah. I loved Fallout 2.
More character options, come on.
The other characters in the game? Weee.
Enclaaaaaaave.
But I suppose it depends on whether you like "silly" humor in your game. I do, as long as it isn't overdone. All those random encounters were fantastic. Bridge of Death keeper? Star Trek? Another Star Trek? What was it.. the Cafe of Broken Dreams? Yeah.

I liked the story better. Not to say the first was bad.

Fallout 3 is for children. Fo2 is maybe the most challenging

Same here.

As a matter of fact, I never finished Fallout 2. Half-way through it and I got bored. Not enough of a difference from the original to keep me interested. I was a BIG fan of FO1 but I'm no fan of greedy remakes.

one word Bozar !! oh yeah and 2 words gauss rifle !!!

seriously though fallout 2 was more of everything more guns more quests more story more insane situations
sleep with the daughter kill the father sleep with his wife then rob and kill them then walk over next block and film a pormo.

thats was one of the most memorable moments in any game for me .


yes fallout 1 was great but 2 gave those who wanted more , the whole enchilada (in my opinion at least)

fallout 2 is probably the best example of what a sequel should be .

expands upon the original game with more in depth game play .

more story line and added features that expand the possibilities of the original game mechanics .

and just one more moment from fallout 2 .

going to the januine antique dealer showing off the mummy and wake up the mummy and tell him to run run away i thought that was sooo funny ..

quite simply it was just more of what made fallout great .

If we're talking between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, as was said, mainly because it had more of everything. Especially side-quests.

One highly debatable aspect though was that Fallout 2 just couldn't stay in character. For me it didn't matter, some people loved the OOC jokes all the time, but equally I know a couple of people for which it was a _major_ turn off and broke the suspension of disbelief right there and then. YMMV, basically.

If we're talking about Fallout 2 vs Fallout 3... well, for me it's mainly because Fallout 2 could be played tactically, sorta like chess. I know FO3 does have VATS, but it's more like some... combat magic, than really making it playable turn based. TBH, I would have liked it more if it were really usable all the time, _but_, to keep it balanced, if it were really just a way to queue commands. I.e., without the slowing down NPCs, reduction to damage to the player, etc.

Well, that and there's that thing about side-quests again. It really could have used a few more. Well, a lot more. For example the guild quest arcs from Oblivion would have been nice. Surely there are some organizations out there I can align myself with. E.g., ok, I suppose alligning with the BOS is just a matter of following the main quest, but what about the Outcasts? Surely they need some museums raided or some spying on the BOS or whatnot. E.g., Big City. Ok, so I helped them with the Super-Mutants, but didn't they also mention a slaver problem? Just an idea.

I also do realize that I didn't explore all that much, and probably missed a few places. Fair enough, guv'nor. But here's a simple game design idea: how about sending me there? You only need to have played WoW or, yes, Fallout 2, to notice that there are quests whose whole role is to send you to the next bunch of quest givers. Following the story of Fallout 2 isn't just a string of missions and places to buy ammo from, but sends you in turn through all the towns in the game, and each has its own bunch of quests.

Well i fell in love with fallout 3, which made me get fallout 1 and 2, even though just playing the intro fallout 2 seems better, though i dont like that starting temple there to determine if i am strong enough eh? i were killed by two guys in an encounter just soon after leaving the village

"Run, Woody, ru-... uh, well, gimp for it!"

Ahh, the mental image of a startled toilet paper-wrapped ghoul jumping out of a cardboard coffin and limping his way out of a ramshackle room, trailing TP, is one that will live with me foreve.r


More to the point: What was said earlier. Also, ending vignettes. I always seemed to catch SOMETHING new every time I beat Fallout 2. Last time around, I got the two bars in the Den to make nice and share a still. Turned out to effect the ending vignette.

Why not you, Fallout 3?

Well for me, it was the UI.

I got Fallout free with Fallout 2, which I bought because it was heavily discounted and I thought I'd give it a try.

Played Fallout 2, loved it, went back to play fallout and I couldn't get past the UI differences. It was a beautiful game, and the differences were fairly minimal, but it was just that littlest bit annoying to deal with(especially since I knew they'd fixed all the annoyances) and that ruined it for me at the time.

There was nothing wrong with fallout, it was just that slightest bit harder to interact with so I never got as fully into it as I did fallout 2. I may have to see if I can find my disc and give it another shot.

I quite like fallout 3 as well, it's not exactly the same, but a lot of what you could do in fallout would never fly in today's world where the "think of the children" brigade is examining everything.

P.S. I'm terribly disappointed that fallout 3 has no gaus rifle, I tore through so many things with that.

For me, the refined gameplay went a long way to me forgiving F2 for a couple more questionable choices. Improved UI, the ability to double-click instead of holding down shift to move, being able to "push" characters that always seem to insist on standing right inside of doorways, slightly more intuitive color-coding on enemies during combat, etc. Also, I think the pacing was more refined in that game as well. Starting out as a "tribal" relying on more primitive weapons to start, so that the first time you get a decent gun is a fairly big deal. Meaning some of the choices you make early on have a real impact. It's quite tough in the first couple hours of that game if you've decided to make a non-combat character. It can be tough even if you had. Really tough choice on whether or not to improve melee/ unarmed at the start. Ditto with armor. In general, I found myself going a long time in that game between armor upgrades. Really having to work and save for better armor. I'd get that improved leather armor in Modoc, and run with that for a pretty fair portion of the game. Just generally better progressions like that in general. Felt more natural to me in that way. Really quite tough for alot of that game, so that when you become the walking death-dealer later on it's a real relief.

I also liked the greater number of places to visit, and a more complicated interaction between places. Really tough choices in certain parts, figuring out who to side with in alot of cases: do you support Vault City or NCR, knowing both to have some real flaws? Or make your own path? Do you side with any of the Families in New Reno, and how does that turn out in the end? Also better implementation of various playstyles. Alot of the "-boy" character builds had their own little subplot things to open up. The unarmed-boy types getting the arena fights/ boxing matches, for example.

I don't know, the humour, I suppose, was more "juvenile," but I still think the mechanics were more solid than F1. New Reno actually didn't throw me too much. It seemed like the world had begun to repopulate to a certain extent, trade was opening up across the wasteland, people were a little more free to travel around to an extent. Just seemed to fit to a certain extent, for me. I think it's akin to Escape from New York vs. Escape from LA. They're both pretty good movies, set in the same universe, with quite different senses of atmosphere/ humor.

FO2 my personal No.1 top game for following reasons:

-really many different entertaining quests with wide array of solutions based on your choices in character creation & development.
-world bends around you character & her/his descissions which make every run with different skills unique. You never had the feeling its pointless whatever char you have.
-No time limits & ability to continues play to either get praised in New Reno for saving the world or just to get a few levels more or finish some unfinished bussiness.




Everybody hated the Temple of Trials. Even the Developers. Puplisher forced it possible because of the many complaints of less-patient gamers that they don?t get how to play FO1 (no mention of the manual now please).




Todays games are:
-more expensive
-need to get a wider audience because of that
-need to take a closer look at political correctness

One big example regarding time/money factor: Quests. I made a few trys to create a lil NWN Module with its toolset containing quests with consideration what type of character the npc are talking to. To create a dialouge tree (responding to different types of characters in terms of gender, class, skills, stats, alignment, past deeds) a char clicks trough in 2-3 min could easly take the same or more time than a dungeon filled with cratures, treasure and some athmospheric design which would take the same char 2-3 hours to play through. While a PnP simulation like FO1,2 Arcanum and (to some extend in terms of quests) the first half of Bloodlines are games that would be insta-buys for me they are (possibly) the most uneconomical games which is represented in their rarity.

Maybe I am an anomaly but I really like Fallout 3 more than it's predecessors. It is hard to play through FO 1 and 2 again in this day in age. The games themselves were fantastic back in the day. I liked Fallout 2 for the simple fact that the UI was better and the game itself seemed to have more content than FO 1.

I *LOVE* Fallout 2 because it came when I thought my Fallout 1 experience would be over when my character blew away the Mutant Overseer.

I also was pleased with the new GUI of FO2 as compared to FO1. The game had more features and was made more complex. But the thing I like most about Fallout 2? You can virtually play it forever. No game overs like in FO1.

Oh yeah, hated it when they scrapped the Stealth Boy in FO2.

Fallout 2 was the more solid Gameplay experience, but I too was turned off by the Humor and Pop Culture Satire.

I also wasn't too fond of the setting. It didn't feel Post Apocalyptic. It just felt like I was in some futuristic Western.

Radiation? What Radiation?

Frank Horrigan ftw he was one bad motha, i couldn't beat him until i figured out how to get some help

here is how i rank them
FO2
FOT
FO1
FO3

OK, pretty good points, here's my side of the story for the Fallout 2 and 3 duel:

1) In F3 unarmed and melee combat is plain obsolete and useless. No reason to spend skill points on them since it's made unusable and ineffective. In F2 there were even new unarmed combat techniques according to your skill level, and matches were held almost up to the end of the main plot

2) The biggest towns or settlements in F3 barely have more than 5 sentient characters around; maybe 10-13 overall. Conversations are pretty shallow, and all your charisma/speech skill has to boast is an extra dialog option (if there is one at all). Speech is humorless, superficial, and "mature" only by gargantuan use of the F word. Heck, in F2 you could sleep with a Mafia lord's wife and daughter, become a pormstar, impregnate a character, or even get involved in a gay marriage. There was a scene were you could kill a senile Mafia boss by stealing his oxygen tank, and remark "Hehe I love killing old people", which i'm sure cracked everyone up. Even your sidekicks had their own family/marital issues

3) Missions were much deeper than *walk a lot-kill 3 raiders and a dog-pick a lock-walk again-get a seizure from all the dark corridors-kill 2 mutants-walk again". Seriously, F3 gave me a migraine. I remember spending hours doing actual negotiations between towns in F2 (like NCR, Vault City and New Reno). And the 90's references were at least tasteful and not in the form of Three Dog, who sounds just like he was borrowed from GTA: Vice City.

4) The inventory in F3 may be in neat alphabetical order, but misc items that could be actually used in F2 are now little more than dead weight. No item descriptions, no images, no way to use them around..which reminds me of..

5)..use of explosives, way too simplified into grenades and mines. No TNT or plastic explosives that you can actually use to blast objects and people (and justify your explosives dexterity)

6) What's with the 20 Level cap and definite end in a sandbox world like F3? I don't recall F2 to have such a limitation. And even after you completed the game, you could go back to New Reno and find that book which boosted all your skills to 300%, and be congratulated by every critter alive

7) In F2 there was conflict and espionage between the Brotherhood and the Enclave. In one mission you should steal Vertibird designs and bring them over to the Brotherhood. In F3 the Brotherhood is reduced to a smooth-talking camp with a senile leader, and a few random outcasts (that bear no relation to the plotline)

8) It may be fun for some to walk vast distances in F3 in hope to stumble on something, but for most gamers it quickly gets plain tedious. In F2 you could have the luxury of owning a vehicle, both convenient (you could also use the trunk to store your stash) and interesting; a case where it was stolen (in New Reno) spawned another side mission. Now imagine, let's say, having a nuclear-powered motorcycle in F3 to roam through the wastes..how cool would that be?

9) I may sound retro, but the lack of a we-all-love-to-hate supervillain (like Frank Horrigan) in the end made the experience lame. In F2 there was also a bigger variety of creatures to deal with (remember the aliens-Wanamingos in the mines? I thought Sigourney Weaver would pop from somewhere)

10) You can't kill children.

11) In F2 there is clear indication of your Karma, or Karma tags (like gravedigger, child killer). In F3 there is little cause and effect. Only for couple possible sidekicks can recognize you as either too good or too bad (but when your Karma is neutral, you can't really tell which by yourself)

12) No plot twists. It's all so blatantly clear and almost fate driven. In F2 you learn that the whole Vaults project was only a social experiment by the Enclave in order to create a superior American race. Oh, and I really think that Enclave was named as such because of having its HQ in a god forsaken "poseidon oil" rig.

13) You can't rest in F3 without having to sleep on a bed. Well, all this life in the Vault maybe spoiled our character a bit too much

14) In F3 you get almost everything instantly. Only 10 minutes in the game and you get a flamer. I'm the rushing type myself, but I appreciate it more where there's some escalation. The vendors as well, all sell pretty much the same merchandise. And when do they ever replenish their supply?

These and many more i'm unable to recall ATM. F3 may be a decent game but it's all style over substance, when diverse (and often controversial) content is what made the Fallout series excel. All I can recall from this game is the slo-mo head explosions, and the excellent papa James' voiceover by Liam Neeson. If it weren't for mr Neeson actually, I'd rather leave dad in Tranquility Lane to play fetch with the evil girlie forever