This question is directed at people who played the old games when they came out the first time. It's not important how much you liked these games. what is imprtant is you completed most part of the games. If you played Fallout1 and Fallout2 after you played Fallout3, please state this.

But please do not compare things like Fallout3 being 3d and Fallout2 being 2d. Or Fallout2 fights being turn based and Fallout3 being realtime. Or Fallout2 being third person and Fallout3 being first person.

As these things depend on taste rather than facts. I may like it first person, you may like it third person.

Write about things that are better (even if the difference is marginal) in Fallout3. Compare the role playing aspects, game mechanics, the matureness level. Give examples and compare them. Hide the spoilers about Fallout3 if necessary. and write about things that doesn't come to my mind write now.

The graphics. That's about it.

1) Wasteland is open and able to be explored.
2) More and larger game spaces.
3) More character detail.
4) More realistic combat
5) Better animated and more useful Sneaking.
6) Easier learning curve for new players.
7) Hair and face customization.
8) Voiced NPCs.
9) Better VATS.
10) No time limits.
11) Much longer game length.
12) Better looking enemies.
13) Holotapes and notes.
14) Behemoths.
15) More interesting intro.
16) More interaction with factions

I'll continue the list later I'm getting anxious to view other threads.

1) check: game is 1st person
2) check: game is 1st person
3) check: graphics are better
4) check: game is realtime
5) check: graphics are better
6) check: this is the kind of facts that I'd like to see. sneaking is much useful when trying to hide from enemies.
7) check: They are great ideas unfortunately implemented poorly. (hair clips with body and armor and is not animated)
8) cross: they are badly voiced. Role playing games don't need full voiced characters. Even if you don't agree, take into consideration the old games came out years ago when CDROM's were new.
9) cross: game is realtime. Besides you could target more body parts in the old games including the groin and the eyes (hilarious)
10) check: I don't like any kind of time limits.
11) not sure
12) check: graphics are better
13) check: they are good ideas
14) check: good idea
15) cross: while the intro sets the mood right, the intro in Fallout2 shows people (including a child) getting out of the vault being killed which shows the satiric reality that lies deep inside the Fallout idea, and it has a cold shower effect.
16) not sure.

6,7,13,14 are absolutely valid things that are done better in Fallout3. The rest are not what I'm asking about as they are relative. Hope you understand.

Again as a reminder: Please don't compare things such as advantages of being first person, advantages of more storage space and higher technology, and please don't compare realtime and turn-based.

I'll go with the graphics bit (obviously) as something that's objectively improved over the original games. Not just from a technological standpoint, but in how it opened up the gamespace to allow some very interesting moments that wouldn't have necessarily been as impressive if conveyed without full 3D. (I won't get into the whole "bird's-eye view vs. third- vs. first-person thing, since I think that has more to do with what and how much information you're trying to convey at any given moment...)

My first time stepping out of the Vault and into the sunlight in Fallout 3 was quite an amazing experience for me. It's one thing to see a little blurb in the text-box at the bottom of the screen in Fallout 1, it's another to actually "experience" that first-hand and in-game. And that's something that really took advantage of the fact that you're playing a fully 3D game, the "show, don't tell" storytelling philosophy, and that didn't require the use of cut-scenes, or some other method to convey the same information.

It was also just a real treat in general for myself, as a long-time Fallout fan, to be able to finally take a good up-close look at a Brahmin, or to be able to finally give my character a real "face." Those are elements that really have nothing to do with what perspective was used in the game, and more about taking full advantage of what you can do with current technology - things that couldn't be done to the same effect in two dimensions, necessarily (or at least not as easily...)

Also, while I still think there's a good deal of improvement that Bethesda needs to do in regards to their new version of the "SPECIAL" ruleset - I do agree with their decision to streamilne the skill list a bit. There were a number of skills in Fallout 1 and 2 that never really got as much "love" as others, and many that didn't have as clear an advantage in raising to high levels as others (like when I assumed that there was never going to be any need to raise Science above 100, etc...)

In Fallout 3, each skill "feels" fairly well-balanced to all the others (in that 1 point in one skill generally seems to be as beneficial as giving that point to another,) and each one is something that even if I don't particularly have much need for it, is still a skill that I feel like my character could benefit from improving. (There's the whole problem with it being pretty much a given that I'll max them all out mid-way through the game - something that tends to take away from the whole "point" of individual skill levels in the first place, but at least in terms of the skill list I'd say that I consider it an improvement...)

Please no graphics comparison



Agreed that skills are more refined leaving no more ambiguity like it was in the old games. But don't miss the point that using different skills don't lead to different outcomes in Fallout3; Just different ways to accomplish the same goal. (ie: you use intelligence or charisma or barter to have the higher reward in Fallout3. - But in Fallout2, you may use perception to realize that some guy is selling something bad and you can use this opportunity to do something bad to the guy. or you can use barter to buy from him cheaper, etc,etc) In my opinion this is not something done better in Fallout3, but worse.

1) How is the gameworld being able to be traversed and explored (not just fast traveled over) relative to the first person view at all?
2) Another "Check:Game is 1st person" that doesn't make sense. There are more game spaces and they are larger in design, period.
3) Their graphics technology doesn't excuse the fact that they could have added more detail. Starcraft fits more detail onto their units and they're several times smaller and the game was released in the same year.
4) Still more realistic hands down, no argument.
6) You got #5 mixed up with 6.
7) They still give us the option, which is more than Fallout 1 and 2 has done. And yes if Runescape can do it, so can FO.
8) I can take that into consideration, but again must point to games such as Starcraft. It has more voice acting in it and it's not even an RPG it's an RTS; they could have voiced more characters. And RPG's not needing voice acting is purely opinion based. Just because you like books doesn't mean your games have to be just like them.
9) I agree I wish we would have had more targeting options, but you just asked what FO3 did better and for me more fun= better. In FO 1+2 I took the Fast Shot trait or w/e just because I cared about VATs in those games so little.
11) You'd best be sure. And if you're not then just add in the DLC.
12) I wasn't talking graphics-wise, design wise. Example: The old supermutants look like humpback morons. But that's just my opinion.
15) Pardon, I meant the first portion of the playable game. Killing rats/killing ants in dull tunnels like in FO 1 and 2 or killing Radroaches, having dialogue with unique detailed characters, helping/hurting NPC's in mini-quests, and shootouts with Vault Guards while frantickly trying to escape in FO 3.
16) Much more things to do with factions. Sell slaves to slavers, tech to Outcasts, quest for BoS, hunt outlaws for The Regulators, etc.

So yeah just to clear those up with my own spin on them. I'm glad you liked some of my suggestions, but I might rethink my earlier statement that I'd continue the list as I can't help but feel similar to a person working to give coins to a bum just to have him complain which ones aren't shiny enough for him (lol not that you're a bum or anything... :whistling: ). There's probly someone else that can give you much better examples anyways. I can't deal with the headache of double checking which might be relative and whatnot.

This.

Can't really think of anything else that was actually improved. The PoV isn't an improvement in my eyes, just a design decision which, while not necesserely bad, was somewhat wrong for this game (IMO).

the exploring.

The game world seems more realistic and bleak.
There are A LOT more lore-related details in the game.
Gaming is not limited to small towns and random encounters.
Plot, while not perfect, is a big improvement over Fallout 1/2's. For once there is actual plot twisting and a "moral of the story".
Vaults are more realistic with laboratories, classrooms and dining rooms.
Main characters of the game, such as the Overeer, Colonel Autumn and Amata experience much development during the story. Only a few characters turn out to be what they seem like at first.
While not realistic and makes the game easy, you can enjoy all weapons and armor of the game as you don't need the most powerful guns and armor to beat the game.


To name a few.

Counter argument, original games both cover most of California as area.



How does starcraft have more detail? Original Fallouts give quite detailed information with look function on console, hit descriptions are also quite detailed in some cases.



Realism is lacking in both games, but far more in third. In Fallout 3 skill level on weapon effects it's damage and not hit probability in most cases, hit change is only affected while in VATS. In real life anti-tank missile would make same regardless of operators skill if it hits. Same applies to all weapons except melee weapons, technique is quite important in that and in unarmed combat. BTW, Fallout 2's version also reflects skill factor in unarmed, on higher skill levels you'll get different unarmed attack options.



And yet runescape could have been made bit later on than Fallout and Fallout 2.



How much voice acting did you find in StarCraft or any other generic 1997 RTS, mostly just confirmations of orders, stuff like we are under fire and in mission briefings. Back then it was far harder to fit lots of sound into games, processors weren't powerful enough to decode mp3's real time while running game.



There wasn't VATS in original Fallouts, it was called aimed shot.



Dunno, It took me about 12 hours for first play through of FO3, but I played it fast intentionally on first time. Original games have lot more content, there is much more dialogue and unlike in third, dialogue has far more endings in almost all cases. Only thing that there is more of on Fallout 3 is ghoul filled metro tunnels.



You can sell slaves in Fallout 2 (to multiple factions), sell tech to Brotherhood on both originals, you can hunt outlaws and other folks like gamblers on losing streak for plenty of factions. You can even trick factions to attack each other only based on your potentially inaccurate information or lies.

Probably only thing that is in my opinion better that isn't related to simply better tech is introduction part, ie escape from vault.

Okay I'll try to keep it short. First off - I started out with FO1, FO2, Tactics and then FO3

What I like about the originals:

- Maturity/Humor
- The character system. Like traits which are left out in FO3. Plus having a true character not all stats 100% over time = true RPG.
- Better karma system and thus interaction with factions. More consequences. (Thank God! Obsidian will put more emphasis on this matter in New Vegas)
- More towns with certain laws: Like anarchistic towns or farming/trading/science communities. The only real towns in FO3 I found are Megaton and Rivet City, that's it.
- The side quests. Okay, the main quests are a bit of a dissapointment maybe especially in FO2, but I luv the SQ's.
- Dialogue. The option of scamming/blackmailing people for example.
- Challenging not everything is pointed out.
- The weapons like the FN FAL for example.
- Exploring

To name a few...


What I like about FO3:

- Exploring
- Some humor/dialogue. But definitely not the same kaliber as FO1&2.
- Combat is better graphicly, I'll admit that. Only a bit bugged sometimes.
- I really like GNR-Radio. It's wonderful to see gamers of today enjoying 40-50thies music (stuff my mum/dad listened to) which they would have discarded otherwise.

Hmmm... well... that's about it really.

And as for VATS, VATS is a cool feature. But IMO it should have been some sort of "turn-based" system based on AP like in Tactics, so the enemy also has a shot at you.
Sorry but I think that VATS is way too easy as it is now, feels more like cheating. Difficult situation = enter VATS!

However I must add: on consoles VATS is a good thing because aiming with a gamepad is alot trickier than with a mouse.

I want to add three of the most important things in Fallout3. You can jump over obstacles, you can swim and you can crouch. (unfortunately, npc's cannot jump and swim, and they have suicidal tendencies. They keep sending themselves down high cliffs. )

Also you don't have to tell npc's that are on your way to move aside. You can simply push them by walking towards them. (unfortunately they simply slide on the ground)

True, but the jumping and walking feature in 3th person feels a bit off IMO. It feels more like I'm ice skating or something.

I always get stuck when standing too close to an object trying to jump. Really irritating btw. I had to use mods to make jumping less annoying.

And hell yeah, npc's are beyond irritating when traveling. I don't even bother to let npc's join. Only when moving a lot of stuff from point A to point B, I'll consider putting them to use.

But npc's in the first series weren't that reliable either. Although giving them burst weapons sometimes provoked hilarious situations, if you felt suicidle that is.


Swimming isn't an issue in the first series coz there ain't no water and crouching was invented for Tactics back in the day, so it's not a new feature either.
More of a sneak option if you ask me.

No, they don't. Not really. This is one of the big things that I hated about those maps. You don't travel anywhere. You go in and out of screens constantly. IMO it doesn't compare to what your character does in FO3. The map is smaller in FO3 but your character can walk the entire map and only goes through a loading screen when entering a door, which at least feels natural.



My answer to that is in that playthrough you hadn't really played FO3. The MQ isn't the true and total experience of the game. You don't even have to play it. FO3 is primarily about being in the gorgeous, open sandbox world. The MQ and the sidequests are part of what you do when you are in it. It isn't entirely true to the original franchise and I wouldn't claim that and it isn't a great shooter, but it is a great Bethesda game, and it's an even better one because of the influence of the original Fallouts. There is a lot of content for the player to discover throughout the world. And there is SO much more to find than ferals. Saying that shows that eithere you haven't spent much time playing it or it just isn't your kind of game. Which is fine. You don't have to like it. But for those of us who do, well, that is just a laughable comment.




No. They are all unrealistic.




You might be right that the dev provided excitement is better. I didn't find it all of it to be that amazing v. FO3; but ya, some of it was good, and if one, as a player, relies on a game for that, then they are better. However, the world discovered excitement wasn't so good in the originals. What I prefer about FO3 is that I get to create most of my own fun through exploring and using the assets Bethesda has placed all over the world to do it. And in no particular order. And I can do whatever quests I want to or don't want to do with any particular character. So each one is different in that way. And all in this gorgeous world that I can walk just about every square inch of and pick up stuff in and generally just roam in for hours. And, btw, you can trade tech to the Outcasts in FO3. And hunt bad guys or good guys if you want. There isn't joining of factions though, which is definitely a minus in FO3, and would have been a good thing to have added. The Raiders are pretty bland in FO3 too, which is another minus.

llamaRCA: It was not possible back in the day to create and include a map as huge as Fallout3's into any game. We just had random encounters when traveling in the wasteland. And making the game first person automatically make the world seem bigger because you are now seeing the horizon.

Indeed ancalimon,

FO was big enough in its time. You have to see it from a zeitgeist point of view, DVD's weren't even around then. Can't compare a game of 600mb to 8gigs nowadays, really. :shakehead:

If they made FO1 or 2 on 8 giga bytes of memory with the same engine as in the old series that would be one hell of a world map!

A lot of memory is used for graphics btw, so I think FO2 not FO1 ,is approximately the same size as FO3. Maybe FO3 is some what larger in size but FO2 has more real towns IMO.

And if you know what you're doing you can finish FO1&2 in a couple of hours. But this is no argument because I can complete FO3's MQ in a couple of hours also.
Without even having to know WTH I'm doing, just follow the marker that's all it takes.

Yes it is since the MQ is a very, very small aspect of the whole Fallout 3 package. However, Fallout 1 and 2 to a lesser extend depended completely on the main quest.

Yup I agree. It felt like a bit of pressure to find the waterchip or save the village of Arroyo. However the game gave you enough time to explore every little detail.
But I can see your point of view, that gamers felt the need to hurry up with the MQ and were more focusted on that. Even I felt that the first time.

And as for realism: none of the FO's are real, it's just a game.
Hmm... I see it more as a comic book or cartoon. There are lots of comics based on realism, but however you look at it they still are comic books.

That would be Vault 13 where the waterchip went, Arroyo needed the GECK.

I felt that the MQ having some significance was a good thing. It made the games feel less "random".

Sorry. I don't really care. It comes up all the time in these discussions and it is extremely relevant to them. If you insist on comparing the games you cannot decide that you must protect the old games because they are older and certain things just couldn't be done then. There are older games I really liked but I would never defend certain parts of them as superior if they are no longer superior. Saying that you can explore "all of CA" simply isn't true about the old games. It isn't. So don't say it. Exploration in the old games isn't a great strength. Fake rules that you make about not talking about grahics or whatever is fine, but then let's not bring up stuff into the discussion that was limited by what the games could and couldn't do. Sheesh. I'm willing to say that I liked better, more interesting Raiders. I'm willing to say that a SM I could have a good conversation with was fun. Making characters that were really unique from one another was a great thing. Ya, there are good things in the old games. But exploring in the old game was NOT one of it's good things. It wasn't even good in the same map segment. It clearly wasn't meant to be much of a wander around and see what's what kinda of game, and if it was, well, it wasn't very good at it.

If all three games are being compared here, this might be better suited for Series discussion.

I loved the original games but 3 has one huge advantage.
With the GECK, Nifscope and the plethora of mods it is relatively easy to radically customize the game to suit your personal tastes.

I believe we are talking about the series without any mods and with the right editors the old Fallout data, sound and critter files are also moddable.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=category&cat_id=6

FO3 however has more mods and modders, that's a fact indeed. I bet it's easier to work with FO3 editors.
I'm not much of a modder, I do a little tweaking here and there. It could be very interesting to learn more about the game mechanics.
But I simply do not have the time to indulge myself into it. Which I regret actually.


I meant that, only squeezed the two quests of FO1 and 2 into one sentence.

FO1: Find waterchip for vault 13
FO2: Saving Arroyo equals finding the GECK of course.


The MQ is more exciting because of the significance and the time pressure in a way.
Well... after my first walkthrough understanding the game mechanics better the time issue was there but felt less stressful then, realizing I had oceans of time.
To be honest I'm not that keen on games with tight time limits, never was nor will be. But I always made an exception for Fallout.

Still I do not like the Temple of Trials in FO2 especially when I'm a sniper or diplomatic character. Always investing in agility instead of melee so the ants can't get me, but it takes forever! :meh:
Difference with the rats in FO1 and the Temple of Trials is that I didn't have to kill all the rats and could make a break for the exit. The Temple is more or less mandatory. After that FO2 ROCKS!
It's like Vault 101 in FO3 which is fun but only the first time however. Oh well... just a training level you'll have to go through. Nothing more, I guess.