So ive never played the first 2 before FO3, but i keep hearing how 3 is a step away from the traditional fallout series. Id like to know how so.

Some say that Fallout 3 is hideous monster that was only made to [censored] the originals. But they are just old-goes who reject change.
Sure, Fallout 3 has much more simplified character system, the SPECIAL is mostly a joke, and dialogues are something not to be proud of, but Fallout 3 is still something that I'd consider 'Fallout'.

And they are not really comparable. Fallout 2 was a isometric RPG created by Black Isle in 1998.
Fallout 3 is a RPG with FPS spice on it, created by Bethesda in 2008.

If you like 2D role-playing, the originals are good for you. Opinions differ, however.

As far as setting, Fallout 3 does an exceptional job. The gameplay on the other hand is nothing like Fallout and Fallout 2, those two games were 2D isometric and turn based. The dialog and storylines were better written in the first two, and your stats actually mattered. On the other hand you couldn't truly explore the Wasteland, you could technically stop anywhere on the world map, but all you could explore was a generic desert or canyon area that contained nothing of note.

Fallout and Fallout 2:
- More detailed dialog and stories.
- Stat system that actually made a difference.
- Isometric.
- Turn based.
- Exploration was very limited.

Fallout 3:
- Mediocre dialog and story.
- Inconsequential stat system.
- First person.
- Real time, semi-turn based (VATS)
- More detailed game world that actually lets you explore the Wasteland.

That's pretty much it, all three games have their own strengths and weaknesses. Fallout 3 is a good game despite how different it is from the first two, though.

Listen Firecracker, I'm going to tell you something and save you some money and a whole lot of time.

The people who think they know everything in this forum think of themselves as some kind of game "purists" from "back in the day" and they think they're views on the old geezer style of gaming from over a decade ago is still somehow relevant. They'll decry this post as not listing the "content variables" or "lore" that the earlier versions of the game had or some such asinine thing.

What we have today in Fallout 3 is what the MAJORITY of people would've killed for - what everyone really wanted back then but couldn't have.

Hey talonfire, forgive my ignorance but I'd like to make sure about something. When you say fallout 1 and 2 are turn based, you mean in combat? Like you come up against an enemy and you choose an attack, do it, and then they choose and do an attack? I've been thinking of trying out 1 and/or 2 but if it's like that I'll pass. I've never really been into games like that.

It's turn based in combat, yes. You have a certain amount of action points when in combat mode, and you can spend them to move, attack, access your inventory, reload your weapon, etc. You can also use a targeting system similar to VATS from Fallout 3 where the cost of action points to attack will vary. For example, a shot at the head may cost less AP than a shot at the groin (but you may have a higher percentage chance of hitting the groin). Hope that helps.

its not just that
its from articles that ive read to that have people play the first 2 before the 3rd and most say that FO3 isnt really fallout, in the traditional sense.

so would it be worth trying out fallout 2?

I see. Thanks for the info.

Yes, that's the way it works. You have a pool of action points, and everything you do...shoot, move, access inventory, costs action points. When you run out, your turn is over. You can issue limited, standard commands to your followers.

Personally, I found combat in FO1/2 to be the weakest aspect of the game. If you like RPGs, then I'd reccommend that you overlook the combat...they are good games.

Combat might not be the strongest point of FO1/2, but it still beats the hell out of the FPS combat of FO3 for me.

Ah, the youth of today. Tens year ago is "geezer style", haha.

Its interesting most people who replied gave a rather balanced and accurate representation of all three games, and yet you are the first one to come in here guns ablazing, without necessarily answering the question (well actually you didn't), and making a bold statement which is quite frankly subjective. To say you speak or represent the majority is ludicrous.

Firecracker, the truth of the matter is the first time I played Fallout, I started with the second one. I got stuck in the temple of trials, and quit. I never played the game again for like years. This was like in 2002 or something.

However, I did come back to it eventually, and after giving it patience, figuring out what each button did, how to use the skillset, make decent characters and so on, it is the most rewarding game of the three I think, you really see where all those skill points and traits go to.

Also, it was the first RPG I played, and also the first isometric/turn based game. I was playing Half Life and Unreal tournament and some real time strategies back then too, so it was a definite change. I suggest you at least try it, its not like both games are expensive, and its definitely worth your time.

It's interesting that FO2 was your first iso game. By the time FO1 came out, I had been playing ISO (and top-down) RPGs for quite some time...Ultimas and such. As an ISo game, FO1 was, well, ok. The art was good unless you were inside, then is was bland and uninteresting, IMO. I liked the mechanics and I liked the atmosphere. When I finished playing it (several time) I thought it was a pretty good game, but still inferior to Ultima 7, which had come out a bit earlier.

Looking back on it, the thing I remember the most is the movie that started the game, the voiceover, and the tone of the game. So, unlike some, I think FO1 is a darn good game, but it wasn't all that.

I never played Fallout 1 or 2, but I'm assuming that they were quite similar to other black isle games. Excellent company, and certainly a much different feeling than bethesda games. Better? I don't know, I guess it's a matter of opinion. Good, yes. I think someone mentioned this before, but dont' give up after only an hour of play, it takes a little longer to become engrossed, but the satisfaction certainly grows over time.

To add to Talonfire's difference list:

There's also the matter of the followers. (I've never done FO1, methinks now is the right time).

In FO2 the count of followers you could get at the same time depended on CHA. And there's a perk - "Magnetic Personality" which allows one to acquire one more follower. You could get a decent squad of 5(6).

Possible followers include:
A tribal who wears a bone of his grandfather as a makeshift moustache;
A fat trader calling you "Boss";
A bartender... who's wicked with the Gauss rifle (small guns);
Ladies and gentlemen, the man who invented Jet himself! Myron, baby, Myron!
A ghoul doctor.
A supermutant sheriff who's nothing like Fawkes - both in manners, and, in intelligence.
A supercomputer downloaded onto a bot (req you to get a brain; depending on your SCI skill, you get a brain, and the bot's abilities depend on the brain. So much for hacking computers as being the only thing SCI is good for...). The AI's called Skynet.
An intelligent talking deathclaw.
A Dog, and a few (two?) robot dogs.
Oh... and a spouse/husband due to a shotgun marriage. Better keep those pants on outside of New Reno

Also, there's the thing with the car. Now, the car's not something you roll on constantly;
Think of it as of something of a mobile storage that appears on the map where you appear. And makes fast travel faster. It requires to be refuelled from time to time. And, can be stolen in New Reno.

Also, random encounters. You get those only whilst fast travelling; You just get "dropped" into an event. And, the event might be also a battle - not just "something cool happens". Nasty if you're low on health.

Power Armor. Now, be very very wary of any type of PA, especially the Enclave's one (advanced power armor mk 2). BoS is scared of it in FO3 because of the one in FO2. You don't want to mess with the ones wearing it. Pistols and rifles? You need a critical from point-blank to the eyes to score any reasonable damage. Big guns, energy, gauss. Sniper rifle/caseless SMG/.233 pistol/assault rifle in worst-case scenario. Nothing less for a single enclaver.

i wanna try FO2 lol

Good idea. But. Be very careful of what you do in the game. Most if not all actually matters.

A lot of the decissions/actions you take affect something/someone/someplace else! What you do matters. Think of it like the killing of the Overseer in FO3 and very late in the game facing the consequence, in this case, having to kill the other one... Now imagine almost everything you do affecting the game somehow - not just changing 3Dog's reaction.
Also, the matter of your stats. They matter a lot. Both the SPECIAL, and, the skills/perks. Don't expect to ever have a maxed out uber character, 'till late in the game. Chips replace bobbleheads for the SPECIAL, but you can only get those *installed* a long way ahead in the game.
Also, skills go above 100%, but it costs 2 skill pts per 1 above 100.
And, lastly, the matter of six and gender. Let's just say they matter too.

Enough spoiling... good luck

I somehow never got to seriously playing the original Fallout games 10 years ago. Planescape Torment & Icewind Dale might have something to do with that.

Uhhh ........some of us old geezers who played the original games and loved them are FO3 fans too. And when your old enough to know your ****** from your ****** you will realise that youthful enthusiasm is no substitute for experince. Then you'll be the old geezeer shaking your head.

Well, there are RPGs and RPGs. FO3 and Diablo II fall into the latter category (But I still like 'em. FO3's tad deeper than, say, Unreal Tournament )

Yes, but UT isn't pretending to be something it isn't. Its an FPS first and foremost, and nothing else.

Fallout 3 is some strange hybrid.

so you mean it will like effect the way people look at you in general? not just what they say to you?