Will the game bore me? Can I roleplay? Are the weapons and story good? Anything I should know?

It's old, it has ugly 2D graphics, it's turn-based(!), it's isometric.
It has very little spoken dialog (you will have to read most of the time).
Your companions are very likely (in fact - certain) to hit you during battle, while, unless you are really good with your weapon, you are going to be missing most of the time.
It needs absolutely no 'physical' skill (such as reflexes or precise aiming) to beat, you only get to click with your mouse and that's it .
You get no information from your journal about the quests other their title and there isn't even a compass or anything to help out a bit.
It has punishing difficulty early on and, arguably, one of the worst beginnings ever.
It just can't take itself serious - throwing all sorts of comical messages and easter eggs all over the place.
You can't even get a decent gun until after you've spent a few hours looking... (and you don't even get energy weapons any until halfway through the game.)
It has extremely few mods.
All enemies of the same kind look pretty much identical, you can't even see their faces.
You only get a perk every 3 levels.
There are no elaborate joinable factions, though there are some but they don't have long questlines or anything (even the BoS has almost one quest).
And it's one of the best pure RPGs even made.

Yes. Buy 1 and 2 or get the 3 pack /w Tactics
one of the best RPGs out there, sure the graphics are dated but its still better imho than 3 for cohesive story. it also has one of the best Atmospheric soundtracks ever

Spoken Dialog is overrated

nothing like shooting a raider in the groin and him yelling "Argh.. that bit the root" then falling over.

just my two caps

You should get FO1 and 2, you can get both on GoG.com for the price of a decent sandwich. Tactics I got to tide me over until the price on FO3 dropped... it was more like playing chess than an rpg though.

I got them 5 years ago, and even then the graphics were horrid. Plus they are notorious for "false starts", meaning that you'll have a couple crap characters before you get one you can beat people in a fight with. It takes a while to get going in them, and some of the easter eggs won't go over as well today because they're sort of faddy.

I'd definitely recommend playing FO1 before 2 though. Might as well start in the beginning. The depth is better in 2, but you'll appreciate it more if you play 1 first.

edit: Oh, and FO1 & 2 force you to roleplay. They do that by not giving you many skill points (plus training in higher levels costs more points). You have to plan your character for the whole game. Getting perks every 3 or 4 levels helps you roleplay also. You're not some cyborg-pyromaniac-ninja-cannibal-beastmaster like in FO3.

Honestly, if haven't played those isometric games before dont try.

I wanted to be really into the fallout universe, but I just couldnt take the graphics, turn based stuff etc.

Call me ignorant or whatever, but i was too young to play those game when they were out. And its VERY difficult to go back that far (technology-wise)

Well, I'm here to give the opposite opinion. I find that FO3 is far too easy. The older games do indeed run on older technology, but are far more challenging. You will pay for your mistakes in those games, You won't max out your stats, you can't heal yourself by sleeping an hour. And you will have to use your brain more than your fingers.

To this day Fallout 2 is still one of my all time favorite games that I ever played. But it really is nothing like Fallout 3 except in genre. I like to compare the two to basketball and soccer (football). In basketball you score all the time, so any given basket isn't really worth that much. In soccer you don't score often at all, so when you do, it is absolutely exhilarating.

One time on my old machine I got my character to Level 56 or something, and I didn't use the "Fallout 2 Strategy Guide" item or whatever from Father Tulley (priest in New Reno if that's his name? can't remember)..... I must have had way too much time on my hands. It took a loong time to level that high but it was worth it, I could destroy all of Reno with a combat leather jacket and bare fists and still not be required to use a stimpack. Well maybe a couple, I forget.

Its won of the best games of all time. unless you play halo and call of duty all the time. but its great

I would say, would you need like millions if XP to get that high? IIRC 1/4 million put you to like lvl 14 or something....

Yes, you should. And from my point of view, you should buy it from good old games (www.gog.com); you should also buy Fallout 1 and Fallout: Tactics.

If you like those sort of games, then yes. Fallout 1 and 2 were very good examples of that sort of gameplay style. (Though to be honest I always really liked the old Buck Rogers games a bit more...)

But if you're looking for something to cure your need for a Fallout 3 fix; or if you dislike turnbased games, or older graphics - then you might want to give it a pass. They're one of my favorite games, but I wouldn't recommend it to everyone just because I happen to like it.

If you don't like TB combat games it might be because you never played good TB game. Granted Fallout Tactics is the only game in the series with a decent TB system.

The other option is to get a save game editor like Falche
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&file_id=52

and give yourself good starting skills and equipment, but don't go over the top or the game will be boring. Keep skills bellow 100% and don't pick the best weapons and armor right away. This should give you a comfortable start.

why would you advise cheating to someone who hasn't even started playing yet?

Its as much cheating as lowering a difficulty meter. Besides if players are not interested in TB combat they won't play Fallout 2 anyway.

No it's not. An in-game difficulty meter is supposed to be thought of enough to provide an easier but still balanced experience.
Using a editor to give yourself an unfair advantage without knowing what you're altering is good for finding the game too dull and easy, (and then coming here to complain of how turn based combat has no challenge and how it takes forever and how stupid the ai of the enemies is etc.) So if players are not interested in TB combat better stay away from it altogether rather than cheating blindly and wasting precious time on utterly pointless clicking.

Buy 1&2 and stick with them for a while, it might take a few hours for you to get past the turn based combat and the sparse graphics but once suspension of disbelief kicks in you should find yourself in one of the most well realised rpg worlds ever created.

I played Fallout 3 first and have never been a fan of turn based combat, to be honest it's quite a grind for the first quarter of the game, but once you build up your character it turns into more of a chess type game, with really satisfying death scenes (take bloody mess straight away, you aren't given another chance after character creation).

They're so cheap you owe it to yourself to give them a try

I'd start with Fallout 1, not 2 if I were you.

Ahh, the memories. Thanks for reminding me, I'd forgot all about Buck Rogers. Nostalgia ain't what it used to be.

Just don't ask these questions and play.... you don't need someone else to tell you if its good or not. It varys from person to person, the games over 10 years old so i doubt you would find it enjoyable. As for me ive been playing this series for a long time so im used to the classic rpg. And if your worried about roleplay let me just say thay you have a better chance at roleplaying with donkey Kong than you do with fallout 2. Of course if your view of roleplay is endless lisbian six with you character then by all means theres tons of that in fallout 2!!!!!

Im also thinking about it does it cover any information (storyline) leading up to FO3?

Would you also say that the games are up there with Diablo?
And by turn-based do you mean like chess?

Answer my Query if you can.
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=1030988

Yes, particularly regarding the Enclave.

Holy crap! I blame the MMOs and the first person shooters!
You have to "read" in an RPG!!! Who would have thought! Devastation! No reflexes required! OMG!
No Compass!!! I have to read what the quest giver is saying! My journal doesn't say anything!

Too young to have played a decent cRPG or pen and paper, my son?

Turn based vs realtime? Cats vs dogs. Beer vs wine. ect. Both work for me.

Isometric view vs 1st person? Same as above. Personally I prefer isometric person view in RPG's, old habbit.

Old vs new?

In computer games tech and game design have often improved. Still old classics often have better story even while visual effects aren't as neat as in newest blockbusters. New computer games are much more expensive to make: Things taken as granted in newer games like voice actors, do cost production money. Better screen resolutions increase need for graphic desingers, while better modelling tools also make their job easier. When two original Fallouts were made games were often done with smaller budgets and design teams, Black Isle due to that had bit more creative liberty in case of potentially morally offensive issues. six, drugs, gambling... etc. Annoying kids can be shot or killed in other ways and you don't have save those brats. Companions can be sold to slavers. Lot more filth and brutality. Difference is like between 50's westerns and spaghetti westerns or Shield and 60's police shows.

Stories, humor and game mechanics?

There is more opportunities to play bad character and lot more choices to make in game. Quests in both I and II have more alternative ways of doing and more alternate endings. In general combats can be avoided in most cases and most quests have other ways to solve than shooting the bad quys. They often offer bribes to kill guy hired you to kill them or you even can choose 3rd option: kill both original employer and guy who tried to bribe you and keep all their money and stuff. Due to more optional ways of doing things there are lot more working character builds. Basically only "must have high" stat is INT, even then there is option of playing INT 1 or 2 character who is too stupid to speak. CHR is lot more useful than it is in third game. So are PER and AGL as they affect combat lot more due to turn based system. Characters also have option to take traits that are like perks but also include bad things, traits affect characters a lot. Gain some and lose some.

Original Fallouts have lots of popular culture references and jokes. Most of those are also bit nastier, like certain grave yard scene witch might resemble The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

Fallout 3's story is more character driven than original games stories are. I think first has best story. Second part has probably best quests and part of story, but as whole story isn't as good as first. In case of playing in alternative ways second game has most options and it's probably most versatile single player RPG ever published.

With both first and second parts fan made unofficial patches are something that I do recommend as must do thing. Killaps Fallout 2 restoration project-mod improves game a lot by unlocking huge number of game features that didn't work in official publication due to bugs and adding content that was planned by makers but they didn't have time to make properly.

Weapons?

Gauss pistol+fast shot+bonus rate of fire+better criticals+action boy (x2)+bonus ranged damage(x2)+sniper+Luck 10+couple shots of Jet=Do you really think that gatling laser packs punch?



I personally recommend to buy collection that also has tactics. Retail price is about 20? or $, older game collections and reprints are often in discount. I paid 9.99? for collection couple years ago as I had lost disk of first game.

2 is quickly becoming one of my fav games, it just feels like the subject matter is more advlt, Jimmy hat condems lol. Every where I turn I see something that is expanding my wasteland experience, its like walking out of a Vault the first time!

That being said graphics are horrible, and the turn based is way different than FO3s FPSrpg style. It feels clunky and inaccurate, but hey it is great! I just picked up trilogy edition, have had two since 3 came out.

Agreed 100%

RPG heaven
Agreed 99% ['Cept I don't fault the graphics one bit].