i havn't actually played it yet but i would choose number 2 because it has a longer story line to it (or so I've heard)

fallout 3 easily. never liked 1 or 2.

I think the main difference between You and I, is that while we both loved F1 and 2, it was for totally different reasons. You say the developers couldn't grasp why people liked the original Fallouts, but then you're generalizing.

What grabbed me in the originals, was mostly the setting and style. By style, I mean the grim and dark setting with a healthy dose of dark humor. It was good to finally see an RPG that didn't take place in some fantasy Happyland with prancing ponies and elves.
F3 delivered quite well in this area, so I'm satisfied.

Based on your signature, you probably liked the originals more for their gameplay mechanics (turn based, strict S.P.E.C.I.A.L., isometric view, etc.) wich are very different from F3's. It's a matter of personal preference, but to tell the truth, if the game played like that, I wouldn't have bought it.



Perhaps he was right in a way, but definately wrong in an other. While the sluggish game speed did allow more time to ponder your course of action, it killed other viable strategies like rushes, hit and run attacks, etc.

The principle applies to real time/turn based. While in turn based, you may have time to execute each manouver precisely, you lose other combat aspects that come fither real time.



Yes, those 4 or 5 heads were rather refreshing to see after all that unvoiced dialogue...But I fail to see what was so ingenious about them. Especially since F3 has people like Liam Neeson and Malcolm Mcdowell as voice talents.

FO3, I dont like taking turns.

I don't know how far this is going to go regarding the "doing Fallout 1 in Fallout 3" thing, but if it's coming together eventually, please keep us updated. I would be particularly interested in how places like the Glow and Necropolis turn out.

No no, you don't understand. My intention is not to redo Fallout 1 in the Fallout 3 engine but rather to flesh out the Fallout 3 world quests and world and to attempt to bring it more in line with the Fallout 1&2 feel.

I picked Fallout 3 only because i've never played fallout 1 or 2. If Fallout 3 didn't adopt the Oblivion playstyle I probably wouldn't have liked it as much.

You should create a dedicated thread in the mods forum. I'm sure a lot of old fans would be happy to supply you with ideas.

I don't want to do that quite yet as I don't want to get hopes too high. I am still learning the G.E.C.K. but all in all it actually seems to be a bit easier than Radiant mapping software for quake 3 and loads easier than mapping for doom. It's nowhere near certain yet but Gizmo has shown interest in working with me on it once we are both confident in our geck abilities.

Well ......I'd have to say FO3 right now. I love the other games including tactics. But Ive played those games to death and I know them fowards backwards and sideways. Ive played FO3 for an incredible amount of time and I really dont think Im even close to the main quest yet. The amount of exploration and side quests and side stories has kept me very busy and I really like that.

fallout 3, the others are also amazing but dont draw me in as much as f3

Oh, sorry I did misunderstand. Still, if something like this would ever happen, and people working together to do what you describe, I'd very much like to know. Like I guess most old fans, I would be happy to be a part of this, even though I'm not even near a computer expert and have no modding experience.

That would be a little hard, I think. I'd support anyone who would go through with such a daunting task (in fact, I may even help), but if you wanted Fallout 3's game world to be more like the first two you'd need to expand well past the borders. Fallout 3's region is only about the size of four squares of the Fallout 1 and 2 world maps. This is one of the reasons the lack of farming settlements and the like in Fallout 3 don't bother me, actually.

I did not mean to imply that they could not grasp why folks like the game... I said that they seemed not to realize the importance of the isometric feature and assumed that an over the shoulder view would suffice ~and so the game they built has no need for it as its use is unsupported.

As has been said many times, Its known that the artists thought that retro fifties "might look cool", and that it was not in the design originally ~A protoype that shipped on the game CD shows it looking like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfOVLdmEHkg&feature=channel_page even...

Its not personal preference (except for the series gameplay itself); One plays Mario if one like platformers, plays Quake if one like a good shooter, plays Homeworld if one likes a good Space RTS... Plays Fallout if one likes a good Turn based topdown classic RPG (http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/f2advert.jpg) ~or at least that's how it was before Fallout 3 ; Now its "Plays Fallout if one likes a Franken-Shooter / RPG with Vampires and toilet drinking, teddy bear gunz & mini nukes" ~Oh my.

TB is more than that... Imagine a game like Streetfighter, but with an unlimited number of unique attacks and combos available to each player. Do you think that a player could (or would) ever exploit the rich options if the game played out in real time? Such a game would have to be turnbased.

What about playing a Bruce Lee style character with say... 75 attacks available (down a bit from the game listed above...). Your Martial Artist knows instinctively which attack to use for the given situation, but you [the player] do not; Would the game work if you had to evaluate from 75 different optional attacks? Again a Turn based game is the solution. ~What of a super hero like the FLASH!, who attacks at supersonic speeds... The only way for a human player to "realistically" control The Flash!, is to pause, or slow the action down to a snails pace, and have the Flash! move at a "normal" speed that the player can perceive, or make it turn based, where the player picks his actions and then sees the results. TB games use Turns to good advantage by allowing players to play at something they cannot do in real time or that requires decisions they cannot make in realtime; or that (often) demands that the player understand the effects of a given action before making his next move. Games like Call of duty do not need to be turn based, but Chess certainly does, and so does Fallout. I did enjoy it for the gameplay ~Its not called a game for nuthin'; Gameplay ALWAYS makes the game.

Part of the fun was surviving a fight with impossible odds due to your own personal choices during your turn. Keeping your NPC's alive where they'd surely die on their own. In Fallout 1 & 2 it was very possible to get killed by one single attack from an enemy (and there might be four or five of them); Try fighting 4 super mutants armed with miniguns and rockets when each one can kill you during their turn and the game takes a decidedly different "turn".

Fallout 3 cannot compare ~It only surpasses its predecessors in the area of visual effects and landscaping.
There were 21 heads, and unvoiced dialog still to this day has more potential and mutability than Voiced. The voices should be just for principle characters, because with them is a shift in gameplay, but with the rest of the entire population of NPC's its just fluff and sometimes distraction.

Neeson & McDowell should have been cut and the funds spent on design & testing. The games would be exactly the same without them, except that there would have been more budget to spread around ~They could have hired 5 actors to play those parts and more, for the money they spent paying the two that they barely used ~Just as they barely used Patrick Stewart.

Definitely Fallout 1.



Of course Fallout 3 is winning, this is Bethesda forum. If the poll was e.g. in the Interplay forum, the results would be vastly different.

I just finished the Temple of Trials in 5 minutes with Chitsa, a non-combat premade character:

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chitsa

Or NMA for that matter...

FO2... it was the FO game I started with, and I missed the improvements FO2 had over FO1 when I played the first one. It also made me laugh a lot more.



Indeed, it does not take a day. It probably should not take longer than 45 mins most, pushing it.

If you have a hth/melee character it would be about 5 minutes.

If you have a small guns, then maybe 20-30 because I had to hit, run, hit, run, hit, run, to avoid losing too much health.

If you are a science/tech/speech only guy, it should take like 3 minutes because you basically run through it.

I don't see how people can complain that ''Well I chose Inteligence, Charisma, Science and Speech'' perks and stuff, but hate having to run from my enemies. This is where FO's original stat system trashes FO 3's, you don't get to be a 'jack of all trades' anymore.

Damn, if you are born IRL and 'tag' science, nerdyness and jedi then prepare to get bullied a lot and have to run a lot in life. Same applies to Fallout 1/2. Yet, if you tag muscle, dumbness and mcgyver then you will be the one doing all the hitting.

But you can't have both. Well technically you can, but it takes a lot more work and effort and only ages into the game.

I'm not a fan of the Temple of Trials, but I prefer a tutorial I can run through in 5 minutes to one with long, unskippable cutscenes, like the FO3 birth scene.

That stupid temple made me abandon Fallout for a further 2 years lol.

To this day it is still one of the things I hate most of the whole game. Which I why I ask people to have patience with the game, once you get out it does get rather enjoyable.

Fallout 1 - still the best. ^_^

Admittedly Fallout 2 has more to do, but the additional encounters drove me insane ("You encounter fighting . And guess what? For some reason, despite you encountering them fighting one another, you're somehow in the middle of it and they're fighting YOU!").

Well to be fair, both sides just assume you're with them. In a brawl, some third party showing up is going to get the "shoot first, ask later" approach.

Oh come now, it's not -that- bad After all it saved Fallout, and we should be glad we have it...or something.

That's a misconception. Interplay held onto the license thinking that they were doing something with it...Interplay was/is practically a different company than they were when Fallout 1 was released (under different management). When they decided to sell the license there were multiple bidders for it...Bethesda just happened to win. Somebody would have done something with the license regardless...Bethesda didn't "save" it.

While we are on that note, who else was bidding for it at the time?

Well, then it's good that they went with that setting. What I wanted to say, is that I liked the originals because of the setting and not the gameplay mechanics.



We're not playing as a martial artist and certainly not as a superhero. It's not like you have an insane combination of things you can do in a battle, in either F1/2 or 3. You can shoot a gun, take a chem, throw something, move or perform a melee attack. That's about it. Only real difference is that in F3 you have to go ahead and do it, while in the originals you had as much time as you wanted.


Yes, that's gone. Good riddance. Each time that happened I felt like punching my idiot character in the face. I wouldn't exactly qualify that as "fun"


No. Just no.


Maybe. Though they are a very nice addition to the game. But some extra progress in the design & testing department would have been welcome.