I started FO1 yesterday, and I gotta say, this isn't my type of game, which fucking sucks since I don't like 4, I already beat NV and 3 is shit from what I hear.
I don't care about the graphics, I don't care about the isometric angle, I don't care about the turn based combat, what I care about is Roleplaying.
And while FO1 does it better than 4, it fails in the gameplay aspect.
The one thing I love about 3/NV/4 is how I can play however I want, I can go out guns blazing killing anyone, or I can just avoid every single encounter, I can just stealth through a Vault without needing to kill the Mole Rats.
Whereas in 1 and I assume 2, I can't run past the enemies due to my movement being tied to AP while in combat, meaning I can't stealth my way out of encounters or just run past them.
I love playing Stealth, in every game I try to be Stealth, even in gun blasting games.
I like to get the flank on my enemy, but in this I just can't.
I hope FO1/2 will get remade in the style of the later entries, apparently someone was doing a Mod for NV which was just 1 remade, but I can't find anything out about it, seems like it is dead.
Reason why I made this thread was to see why people like the games, why they don't, and to hopefully not feel bad for not liking the OGs.
Not everyone who played 3/NV/4 will like playing 1/2/etc. and that's okay. They are relatively dated games that were great for their time and still offer a lot of inspiration for future installments of the series to draw from and reference.
There is a huge selection of high quality modern RPG's to play, there's nothing wrong with not enjoying Fallout 1 and 2.
Just bought 1 and 2 on sale and am having a blast.
Dialogue choices actually mean something, I was asking the first NPC how much he'd pay me to go save his daughter and he got so pissed he pulled his gun on me and shot me.
So used to the modern RPG mindset where you have to be actively hostile to get attacked, and not just a dick.
The systems are a bit archaic, but the artstyle and especially the portraits for the important characters have oodles of charm, so I'm really excited to move onto Fallout 2, as I've heard it's a lot better than the first.
I have them and I tried to play them, but they're too old school for me. I'm not really into that kind of gameplay, as much as I love 3 and New Vegas.
I remember playing Fallout 2 for a bit and enjoying it a lot. It's really down to personal preference, if you like these old type of games or even grew up playing them, you're a lot more accepting of their flaws than if you've played the newer games and then gave the classics a shot.
uh you can totally stealth in the fo1/2, a high agility character is also able to outrun most fights.
you don't see it too much at the start but almost every quest can be completed by fighting, talking or sneaking. sneaking particularly in the late game.
Ah neat, didn't know that.
Still, FO1/2 didn't grab me as much as I did so I'm gonna sit on them, maybe try it again in a few months, years maybe.
I want to love old FO games, but I just fucking hate the results of its old age.
Basically, I initially wanted to get into FO1 & 2 after having played thousands of hours after FO3 was released, I wanted to take in the original takes on the wasteland and also wanted to experience questing without indicators.
But then it turns out that everything is just fucky, you get told where to go once (barely), have no real quest log, can't ask other npcs for directions and to top it all the info you're given are outright wrong at times (like when they tell you to go North and the guy you're looking for is south-east). That plus the time constraint, and the frankly not-that-meaningful sets of choices made me lose interest pretty damn quickly.
On the more gameplay-oriented side of things, I felt like my character basically couldn't do anything more than take half a step and shoot once unless I filled my agility way up. That, and difficulty felt inconsistent, like old-game inconsistent where 3 enemies are in the same room, but one of them is just 15 times more dangerous in ways that feel out of place, like he gets to walk half a room, shoot twice and reload but the other dudes barely take 2 shots.
Weirdly enough some of those problems (well, problems for me) seem to have bled through every FO games, namely feeling like you're forced into one crucial stat and then have secondaries, Agility in FO1 & 2, Intelligence in 3 & NV and perks that increase weapon type damages in FO4.
it's not perfect, a lot of interactions are scripted to trigger when you get within a certain range of an npc, so sometimes sneaking is impossible.its a lot better in fallout 2.
also patch your games with the unofficial patches, fixes heaps of annoying bugs.
i'm biased though because fallout 2 is my favourite fallout game.
I've never been able to get into top down grid based games (which is a shame because I really want to but they just don't do it for me) and I've gotten as far as a few hours in 1 but I appreciate and respect the games for it's world building and lore. While I may not explore the games myself, reading the history of the games such as the Master, The Enclave, Brotherhood,etc is still really entertaining to me.
FO2 has always been my fav. Don't quite remember why but 1 frustrated the hell out of me and I gave up pretty close to the end.
I've played them both but, eh, I've just never been a fan of turn based combat/games, it's not just Fallout. I had a demo for Fallout 2 back in the day and really enjoyed just running around interacting, but the combat turned me right off.
Fallout 2 was my first Fallout game, and I first played it back in 1999, so my perspective then was a bit different than new fans coming to it now. The fact that you could go anywhere, do so many things, and feel like a badass while doing is blew my 90s mind. Even so, I still understand the difficulty with going backwards in a series. When I tried to play Fallout 1, I quit shortly into my first playthrough because even the jump between 1 and 2 was pretty dramatic in some ways. You could only move a little bit of currency at a time, your inventory stacked at the bottom, so you constantly had to scroll all the way down to find new things, and your had much less control over your companions. In fact, my first playthrough of 1 ended when Ian blocked me in a corner and wouldn't move, and without the Fallout 2 "move please" option or a recent savegame, I was forked.
My first fallout game was fallout 3 and it took me several tries to get into Fallout 1.
I didn't really like turn based combat outside of games like worms so that was a barrier, and then the interfaces didn't help.
Once i tried it again though and I pushed through and got to Junktown it really clicked for me. I think it's one of those games where you have to have a different frame of mind to start it off.
The narrative in FO1 is kickass and the game is extremely atmospheric and creepy, plus speech actually mattered so that's a plus. I skipped really difficult encounters my first time through using speech without even knowing until my second play. Seriously, go to the glow in Fallout 1, the only game I can compare the feeling to is something like STALKER.
I had to look up the place to go to extend the water chip timer though, the later timer is fine but when you start off if you don't find it quick it becomes too much of a hamper. So yeah, it's not one of those games that's aged flawlessly but I'd say it's worth pushing past some of it's annoyances to experience.
I enjoyed FO1 quite a bit, I feel like having played the very first XCOM and Dwarf Fortress has made me able to tolerate horrible controls and UI to an extent. I finished FO1, then tried FO2 immediately after. The "tutorial" was hot garbage and should have been just cut outright, forcing you to do melee and unarmed was a really dumb decision. After that I went to the first town and just couldn't really get into it. In FO1, the game directs you to the starting town where it's small, there's some clear "talk to these people because they're the important ones", the first quest they send you on is easy, and there's some decent leads to indicate where to go next. In FO2 you're immediately sent to a big city where there's lots of people you could talk to, missions that are way too difficult for a beginning player, and a much more vague sense of what you're supposed to be doing. So the awful start to the game and weak sections immediately afterwards really just soured things for me and I haven't picked it up since. Sometimes slogging through a bad intro to a game is worth what comes after but first impressions are really important and I just have no drive to pick up FO2 again after what I've seen of it so far. I haven't seen anything that makes me say "this adds so much to the experience that it's worth powering through early fallout controls for another 20 hours".
Took a few tries to get into Fallout 1, due to how clunky and slow it is (protip: increase enemy movement speed, unless you want to lose years of your life in fights).
Inventory management is terrible. Your journal holds so little quest information it's useless. Combat has barely any depth. Indoor environments are obscured by walls in the lower corner, of which only the tiniest bit is made visible around you. The game will gladly throw you into unwinnable scenarios without you realizing it.
And yet there's something to it.
No, it honestly doesn't. You just don't interface with it, and you're not a fan of it. Which is fine, but to say that it fails, as an authoritative statement, is incredibly wrongfooted.
I do respect them, and I never meant it to be an authoritative statement, it's subjective.
I thought this whole thread would have made that clear since we all have subjective opinions on the games.
Having played through quite a lot of both 1&2 when I was really too young to understand much of it, I was surprised that I found it way too tedious to play when I had a go at 1 last year. I think JA2 has permanently spoiled me on turn-based tactics games. F1 was glacial, one of the most frustrating things being that the game pauses for the UI animation that reveals the end turn button every time you enter/exit combat
FO1 has really great setting and the writing is very okay-ish, but it lacks A LOT. FO2 feels like filthy fanfiction of the first one, overall content is much bigger than in the first one, for example unarmed or small gun runs are more enjoyable. Everything beyond 1st one is just le postapo game, but it has " Fallout " stickered on it imo, but FO2 can be greatly enjoyed regardless, especially that the game has all the stuff that the first one lacks.
I can't get through them without a Companion (Ian, Tycho, etc.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
