Don't know how many other people haven't played the original Fallout but it's quite briliant. Sure the graphics are ancient but the game is still immersive.

Have you tried FO2 yet?

That seems to be the one New Vegas is going to have the most in common with.

I have the trilogy and have installed all three. I really like Tactics but could never really get into to 1 or 2. Maybe later on today I'll give them a shot again.

Kinda sorta. The major factions in Fallout 2 are carried over from Fallout 1, so to get the full arc of what is going on in New Vegas, playing both is essential.

i'd get them but sadly its impossible to play a game on a computer w/o being able to see what you're doing (free time in school ftw)

Aw. Sad face.

Call me nostalgic if you will but I think the first Fallout is still the best game in the series. Fallout 2 improved on game mechanics, but they stuffed in too much sillyness and it didn't have the same atmosphere. As for Fallout 3, it is not a proper sequel to the first two games but an action RPG spin-off. A decent and fun spin-off mind you, but a spin-off nontheless.

So yeah, I'd second the recommendation of giving the original a try if you can. It's awesome. Just don't make your first character a big guns user because big guns svck (they fixed that in FO2). Energy weapons on the other hand rock (Turbo Plasma Rifle FTW), but you'll be 33%-50% through the game before you get them so you need some other kind of weapon to get you through the early levels.

The pre-determined time-limit (yes I know there are ways around it) always made me prefer FO2 over 1, but they are both brilliant games.

Got it, completed it, played it again, completed it again.
Fallout 1 is the best one though, after that it just goes downhill, don't get me wrong, Fallout 2 is still one of the best games I've ever played but it could never reach it's predecessors level of epicness.

Sweet. Thanks for the advice because that's probably what I would've done right away.

Heres' to nostalga! :foodndrink:

The way I've always thought of it was that Fallout 2 can be more fun to play, Fallout 1 is the better game overall.

You know, after playing Fallout 3 for over a year and literally 1000 plus hours it finally and predictably grew stale. And after reading all the hoopla from many folks around here about how great and awesome the original was, I bought the Trilogy pack from Steam.

Unfortunately, it went downhill from there for me. I have tried and tried to really get into the game but I just cannot get into it. Part of the problem is that it constantly locks up or crashes my rig.

But the biggest issue I have with it is simply the way you move around and do stuff. (Click over here and wait for your character to walk over there. Click some more to go over here etc. It's just clunky, slow and boring as hell. Then, the "combat" (I can hardly call it combat though) is even worse. I guess it's just the "turn based" system or whatever you call it. But it's just not any fun at all for me.

The other thing is the "top down" view or whatever you call it. Isometric I think? I just cannot get used to it at all. It does not feel like I'm a part of the game at all. But in all fairness I can't stand ANY game that is in 3rd person and don't understand for the life of me why a game developer would not include 1st person as an option. If it cannot be played in 1st person I simply don't buy it. It totally blows the immersion for me. (That's why I didn't buy Dragon Age: Origins.)

But as I said, I genuinely tried 3 different times to get into it, and it really bothers me that I dislike it so much, as I really did want to experience the original game. And it's really disappointing, but no story is good enough for me to have to suffer through the crappy game mechanics, old graphics, crashes and view of Fallout just to experience the story line. (Balok runs and hides from the hard core, old school Fallout fans...be gentle...)

Well if you can't get into them then you can't get into them.
Nothing wrong with that.
If you like reading you can always read the games at the wikia, it's still entertaining and you'll learn about the old games anyway.

Why would your lack of enjoyment in the classic Fallout games matter to us? They're not for everyone and most of us, if not all of us, understand that. At least you actually tried them and have an informed opinion. You're also regarding your opinion as just that, an opinion, and you're not trying to pass it off as a fact.

Yep, I read the whole FO Bible, several walkthroughs and some other stuff. I particularly liked The Chosen One's journal. Do you know of anywhere that there might be a summary of the games written in a story form as opposed to wiki entries? That would be nice!

I never encountered the time limit. I read that it was removed by one of the patches.



Another piece of advice is to pick the Gifted trait. Gifted basically gives you 7 extra SPECIAL points at the price of 5 skill points per level. But since each point of Intelligence grants 2 extra skill points you can then put 3 of the extra points into INT to offset the penalty (with better dialogue options as a bonus) and still have 4 points to spend on whatever you want.

An alternative advice is to never pick the Gifted trait because it's overpowered and will ruin the game.



Cheers! :foodndrink:

Yes, FO2 had notably improved game mechanics. For example I really like the improved follower management (especially the ability to give them better armor and telling them to move out of your way), the new Big Guns, and how a high Unarmed skill gave you access to better unarmed attacks. Also, clearing New Reno of mobster scum with my bare hands while wearing a Combat Leather Jacket was epic. But then it threw stuff at you like king Arthur and his knights in power armor searching for the Holy Hand Grenade, which was hilarious but ruined the atmosphere.

I have heard that there is a mod that allows you to play FO1 with the FO2 game engine, which should provide the ultimate Fallout experience. Damn, I will now totally have to replay them both.

Well, you might wanna try to look over some fan-fiction at NMA or similar old-school fallout sites.
A fan-fic where the player wrote down what he did under his playthrough and what the consequences were of that only a little more fleshed out.
I could do that but one thing I failed was swedish class (learning grammar, and how to write novels and stuff) so it would probably end up like a 2nd graders try at a novel. :laugh:
And I'm playing with Killaps patch that adds all cut content.

Wow, you're missing a metric buttload of excellent games, then. Heck you're missing entire genres full of excellent games. :blink: Some types of games simply cannot be played in first-person.

I don't know, fallout 2 seems way more involved

...And I would have paid triple the cost to get a real FO3 that was true to the game mechanics and style of the original (IE. why I liked the first two, and why I would return to a series sequel). :shrug:
Like the others said, Its all a matter of taste in games, and what exactly one wants and appreciates, or finds impressive.

If you decide to try again... consider trying this....

Choose or create your character and imagine the PC is one out of a dozen citizens who draws the short straw and gets drafted onto this suicide mission to leave the vault. (Something they had been told all their life was tantamount to insanity). *You can also imagine that the lottery was possibly rigged.
Decide in your opinion how naive the person is, and (based on their stats), what they are comfortable doing, and how they will handle themselves and situations in general. Are they paranoid, distrustful, cynical, altruistic, generous, cowardly, courageous.. smug? ~and why exactly (given their background). Do they respect authority, or rebel against it (and which would they encourage others to do). Then imagine that they belong in this post apocalyptic hell (having been born there), and that they can affect their world within their human limitations. Now that you know their identity (the role). Imagine that you are given a peephole into their world.

As far as Fallout goes (or any top-down RPG), with this attitude, the point & click mechanics of walking around are not so awkward. You select where you want them to go and they try their best to go there. When talking to others in the game, you know everything the PC has seen, but are restricted by how they would interpret what they have seen and heard ~it's their speech ability that must convince, their acumen that will connect the dots and allow them the option to mention something they perceive; and its their face that is perceived by others. (stats & skills at work).

For combat: The first thing to keep in mind is that AP's equate with time ~directly. The game may pause abruptly while the player decides what to do, but it is pausing in between the seconds.... The fight is considered real time from the view of the combatants. Everything is considered to be happening simultaneously but the player gets an augmented view of absolutely everything. This is not possible in life as we know it, and its somewhat similar to say... a police detective scanning though the surveillance tapes of a bank robbery a few frames at a time. Where he sees more than any one person who was actually there.

That's my abridged 2￠ anyway.

I think Fallout 1 has had the best story in the series to date, but Fallout 2 is more fun to play gameplay wise since it included a lot of fixes. Fallout 3 presents the Fallout series as I always wanted to play it - first person and detailed - where I can really inhabit the world. On the other hand, I'm not to fond of FO3's story, but it's certainly no worse than FO2's story. (Both stories share a few too many parallels - the hunt for a GECK to save the people you care about, but the Enclave gets in the way and kills a loved one to appropriate the GECK for themselves, the Enclave plans to use a modified FEV virus to wipe out mutations in the wasteland . . . any of this ringing any bells?)


I liked the time limit to get the waterchip, especially since there were ways to extend that time limit. I liked the added sense of urgency it added. Besides, the 150 day time limit was pretty generous. As long as you didn't constantly travel back and forth between settlements or just wander the map you had plenty of time to go to each settlement and complete the quests there and move on to the next.


I don't mind the isometric perspective and the interaction method, probably because I played RPGs for a decade that used the same graphic style and interface, such as the Baldur's Gate, and Icewind Dale series, and games like Planescape: Torment. Of course, I would love if the games were in Fallout 3's graphical style and interface. I agree about the turn based combat. I got used to it back in the day, but it is annoying to go back and try to adjust to it now. Nothing is more frustrating that facing an enemy and having a five minute exchange of "You miss. Ant misses. You miss. Ant hits you for 1 HP. You miss. Ant misses. You punch ant for 1 HP. Ant misses."

Arrgghh! Damn you Temple of Trials!!! :banghead: *clears throat* Anyway, moving on.

It is also frustrating when combat involves a ton of easy enemies, and you have to wait for them all to slowly move and take their turns before you can act again, even if they are no threat to you and you can kill them with a single hit, you still have to slog through a long, pointless combat, either because you need the XP, or because you must pass through the area.

So I understand where you are coming from, even if I love Fallout 1 and 2. Also, don't be so quick to dismiss any game not in 1st person. That's my favorite perspective too, but passing over a game like Dragon Age because it doesn't have it? That's crazy talk. Do you not play Mass Effect either? Making 3rd person perspective a game denial condition is cutting you off from some of the greatest RPGs of all time.

See here is where I had the most fun. I loved causing three way+ wars in New Reno (Mobsters, prosttutes, junkies, dealers, customers). The reason I like Tactics is mostly for the combat. :shrug:
(One of the few peeves I have against FO3 is that the series combat is gone.)

IMO I like Fallout 2 more. it feels more immersive. I like becoming a Prizefighter, or a Mob member, or getting married etc I think it's fun and I know it's not for everyone but I like the Fallout 2 humor. Running into King Arther or seeing a guy selling finger lickin good meat is funny to me. Like I said, not for everyone.

Wow... I love FO3, it's my favorite game. I always thought FO1/2 were [censored] compared to FO3. And that everyone that was saying the opposite was either trolling or just a crazy really devoted fan.
But then, I decided to give FO1 a second try, my first time I looked at those graphics and turn-based gameplay and said "[censored] this game is horrible" and uninstalled it, but then after months I decided to try again, and left behind all my ignorance, after I exited Vault 13 and headed to Shady Sands, I realized: "THIS IS AWESOME"

The game is pretty immersive if you don't mind the graphics. The dialogue is well done, and the towns and settlements looks alive and full of things to do and see.

I recommend this game to ANY Fallout 3 fan!

i'm glad to know that somebody who came in on Fallout 3 tried the first game out and enjoyed it alot, because i've been meaning to buy the first two and play them.

just so i know, where did you get your copy?