Hi, i understand the graphics are pretty blaaah but for pure gameplay value is the game worth it?

If you like turn based games, yes.

And if you like RPGs. It's a pure RPG, more or less.

To somebody who was not old enough to be gaming in the late 90's maybe. Anyway, if you can get beyond the fact that we've all come to expect "shiny" more than anything, you'll have one of the most unique (and amazing, imo) RPG experiences of your life. :tops:

I find the graphics very beautiful. Ofcourse FO3 is more realistic in graphics but Classics got that abstract beauty in it.

Graphics don't even come into the first two Fallout games. They're simply not the type of games where graphics should make the blindest bit of difference. In terms of gameplay and character development they're excellent, and definately worth a pop at ~?5 each.

Buy Fallout 1 first. They're both great games but Fallout 2 has a very strange feel to it - it lacks much of the science fiction 1950s feel of the original Fallout. Hell, Fallout 3 is truer to that theme than Fallout 2.

yea im guilty of shiny graphics syndrome ha, i remember when games like shadowbane satisified me though

Give these titles time to adjust. When you first play it sometime hits you in the stomach graphics wise... But that faded paint is only the exterior, the rest of the game is a jewel. =]

I decided to try Xcom UFO defense, and while the graphics are horrendous... the gameplay, its there! Same with Fallout.

That's good advice.

There's a Fallout games pack you can buy now with all the previous FO games on it and it's sells for something like $15 I think?

I would say it's worth it as you'd still have a good gaming experience. Fo 1 & 2 are still lots of fun even if they don't have the flashy graphics of FO3. It's the storyline that is the key here.

Fallout 2, beats Fallout 3 hands down! It has both a superior storyline, and will provide you with hours of entertainment.

The website gog.com Good old games has them for 5 bucks each.

I recently got Fallout 3 and beat it, i wasn't sure if I wanted to try the other two, but I may.

Eh, if you ever play a game that's part of series - always make an effort to play the ones that came before. I jumped in at CMI, went back and played MI and MI2, wasn't disappointed.

I bought the Fallout Collection, the first three games, for ?5.99 in Morrisons. That's in the U.K.

The Fallout Collection is a good way of getting the first three games to a cheap price if you can stand the cover, that simply stinks of retro-pack-esqueness but it's really a great bundle, all of it on one DVD. I have it myself. Try either Fo1 or 2 first. I played 2 for years before trying 1. I'm not much of the stick to the chronology- kind of guy, if there is no true reason to play one before another, i never recommend to necessarely do so, and there is not one since they both are separate. Yes there are references to FO1 in 2 but so what, it's easy to understand that those are references.
These are the differences:
2 is bigger, has more content, weapons monsters quests. More diverse quests. more of the infamous pop cultural references that many hate but I don't mind, BETTER dialog, yes really much better, FO1's dialog can be quite sparse and stupid. not as desolated feel, i should not write that cause im no hardcoe desolated feel-fan, but it's true still so.. the wasteland has become a bit rebuilt since FO1, but instead cities with more "personalities" that stand out, as a result of this. Still it has enough of the core idea of the wasteland for beginners to get it so yes, i like FO 2 better. slightly better graphics. FO2 also has more of the "advlt" themes and is sometimes quite sick like getting positive karma from killing prosttutes and cynical stuff like that.

What 1 really have is that it's easier and thus easier to get into. It's shorter and don't take up as much time as FO2 which sometimes can be a good thing, sometimes a bad. But quests are much easier and sometimes having the right stats are enough. This is really a good thing to learn to know the skills and stats better, . I admit I used the walkthrough a few times for FO2 and I hate to be forced to do that so FO1 felt more like a straight path to walk. It's the original and presents the gameplay for the first time and sticks to being a sequel to Wasteland more than FO2 does.

I say MI2 > CMI > MI1.

I don't even count EMI.

Fallout 2 has a pretty good story, I purchased the game pack ( fallout 1, fallout 2, and Tactics) for 10 bucks. I played through them all back when I was a wee lad and they are just as much fun, if not more now, the graphics are not up to par with some of the other games of the era, but that really doesn't take away from the game, as it's more about story than being pretty.

I didn't discover the Fallout series until a couple of years back, when I purchased both games for my Mac. They quickly became two of my favorite games ever, prompting me to buy an Xbox so that I could play Fallout 3. Although the gameplay is very different in the first two than in the third, I love the role-playing elements and the overall feel of the game. For $5, I would say that Fallout 2 is easily worth it, since you can get hours and hours of play time out of it through exploring or playing the main quest several times in order to see everything. The first game has a more cohesive storyline but the second game has lots more to do.

Buy it. It will seem complicated at first, but when you get the hang of it, it will become much better than Fallout 3.

I had a fun ride playing in the wasteland. I got about 80 hours of distractions for my 50 bucks -- definitely worth it.

I completed the game twice, once following the plot, and a second time on a speed run. Then I spent some time messing around exploring the wasteland with a bunch of mods installed.