FO1 vs. FO2

Sykotik · Post by **Sykotik** » Sun May 26, 2002 9:04 pm

How does FO1 compare to FO2? Cooler, crapper, etc. etc.

Lynxer · Post by **Lynxer** » Sun May 26, 2002 9:10 pm

Fo2 is on top of Fo1, in my opinion. Larger variety of fiends, more places to explore, more weapons to wield, more people to talk to, decent storyline.
Regarding the last point of argumentation i must say that i thought the plot of fallout 1 was better, but except for that i liked fo2 better in every aspect.

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Sun May 26, 2002 9:43 pm

Man, if i had a nickle for every thread about Fallout 1 vs Fallout 2 i'd buy Interplay and make Fallout 3.

Back on topic, Fallout 1. Simply because it was a truly post-apocalyptic game with an actual wasteland, and the towns and locations had more of a post-apocalyptic feel to them than they did in Fallout 2. Things that has been mentioned as pro's such as more weapons is something i consider bad.

Warlord · Post by **Warlord** » Mon May 27, 2002 1:04 am

Fo2' coz it has much more to do.

But Fo1 is a legend as well is the sequel and I like to play both.

Slider · Post by **Slider** » Mon May 27, 2002 4:31 am

FO was so much better because it seemed how people would act in a world with so much devastation and had a darker more realistic atmosphere. FO2 was just too happy for me and had real world weapons not to mention various other bugs. So I pick FO over FO2.

This is Gonna Hurt · Post by **This is Gonna Hurt** » Mon May 27, 2002 7:56 am

Fallout had a better plotline in my opinion. Fallout 2 had MUCH better technical stuff (NPC controls particularly). I think if Redding and New Reno had been in Fallout it would have been perfect.

...How are real world weapons a 'bug'? I like that FO2 tried to use more realistic firepower for at least part of the game, even if it had to go to the minigun of impossible use, etc. I would have rather FO2 used guns actually in use rather than mostly a series of weapons that wound up as discontinued prototypes.

Pred_667 · Post by **Pred_667** » Mon May 27, 2002 9:54 am

They each had their merits. I liked FO1 I was jonesing for something "different" than the usual run of the mill RPG i.e. D&D, until I bought FO and wow, I was blown away. The only thing I didn't like was the time limit. never could do that game in the time allotted. I liked FO2 for sheer length and freedom of choice on how you wanted to accomplish things.

Slider · Post by **Slider** » Mon May 27, 2002 9:56 am

I didn't call real world weapons a bug I said I didn't want them in FO, for various reasons. I then went on to say that FO2 had many more bugs which I didn't state but mentioned.

twiztid wanderer · Post by **twiztid wanderer** » Mon May 27, 2002 12:18 pm

Fallout 2 had many many qualities that I liked over the origional FO. Such as being able to control your npcs and actually able to give them better armor. Along with this it got very annoying when you had to try to take stuff back from your partner in FO I mean you had to give them something in return thus you had to steal from them. Fallout had the "ask about" button which i found pretty useful. FO2 wouldn't have been nearly as good as it is with out FO and all the difficult things in it so overall i would have to say FO is better even tho ive only beaten it 4 times. But hail to the grandfather WASTELAND!

The Shrike · Post by **The Shrike** » Tue May 28, 2002 1:27 am

Fallout because it had an amazing story a dark atmosphere and the humor fit the setting.

Fallout 2 was a good game but there was no dark atmosphere way too many pop culture references the real world guns did not fit the alternate retro 50's universe of Fallout loads of bugs. these keep it from being better than the original.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Tue May 28, 2002 2:22 am

This is Gonna Hurt wrote:Fallout had a better plotline in my opinion. Fallout 2 had MUCH better technical stuff (NPC controls particularly). I think if Redding and New Reno had been in Fallout it would have been perfect.

...How are real world weapons a 'bug'? I like that FO2 tried to use more realistic firepower for at least part of the game, even if it had to go to the minigun of impossible use, etc. I would have rather FO2 used guns actually in use rather than mostly a series of weapons that wound up as discontinued prototypes.

The reason that the real world weapons didn't work so well in Fallout 2 is many.

1.) Fallout's setting is based on 1950s sci-fi. A pancor jackhammer isn't 1950s sci-fi. That's a pretty obvious one to anyone that didn't like New Reno.

2.) This kind of fits in with #1, but notice the AK-112 Assault Rifle in Fallout. It's the top of the line for it's classification in 2077AD in Fallout's universe. Note that it's a hell of a lot less advanced than those late 1990s prototype weapons from our universe.

3.) This carries over from #2, but most of the weapons you see in Fallout are being manufactured by people in the game. The Gunrunners and the Brotherhood of Steel are producing them. It's a lot harder to make the more modern weapons than the ones that existed in Fallout's universe circa 2077AD. It's a lot easier to make ammo for them as well, considering they were simple ammo types. You might as well forget about making caseless ammo and weapons in a machine shop.

Dirty · Post by **Dirty** » Tue May 28, 2002 4:05 am

effectively, they were the same game "Save your people by travelling to a vault and getting something, then killling a group of evil stuff." that was the plot for both, even though the first one was more logical...

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Tue May 28, 2002 7:33 pm

They're both great and I don't like to see you people arguing about their betterness...

grapedog · Post by **grapedog** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 3:58 am

I liked FO and FO2 about the same, they both had good and bad points. I think FO2 was a logical extension of FO. People are not going to remain in the dark ages forever, especially since any number of people can still remember, or at least read about some of things they once had technologically. I think they will try to move on and move away from the more depressing times. No one WANTS to voluntarily live in depressing times...so they will eventually try to better themselves.

Tank · Post by **Tank** » Tue Jun 04, 2002 5:54 am

FO 1 was far the best. Superior storyline for one. The weapons, references, bugs and ton of irregularities in Fallout 2 made it a mere "game" and not a true treasure like Fallout 1 was/is.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Sun Jul 14, 2002 5:53 pm

fallout 1 for being very elaborated and having a decent storyline , the locations are just wonderfull and well imagined ( defensive walls , guards
primitive towns , shortage of ammo ...) not like fallout 2 , the storyline was not so good , the towns sucked in terms of post nuclear communities
( no defensive walls almost no guards , guess there were no raiders and
other beasts roaming the wastes ) and the communities that had walls and guard had too much technology , like ncr and vault city .
I hope i made my point .

Warlord · Post by **Warlord** » Sun Jul 14, 2002 6:30 pm

But those towns came from a Vault and they had G.E.C.K

How would Klamath have defensive walls and many guards when it was just a little bunch of people trying to survive. They also lived up in the north where there was only tribals, no raiders.

Fallout 2 has much more to do than Fallout 1 , but it is true that the story in FO 1 is better, but still I can't say which is better.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sun Jul 14, 2002 7:03 pm

grapedog wrote:I liked FO and FO2 about the same, they both had good and bad points. I think FO2 was a logical extension of FO. People are not going to remain in the dark ages forever, especially since any number of people can still remember, or at least read about some of things they once had technologically. I think they will try to move on and move away from the more depressing times. No one WANTS to voluntarily live in depressing times...so they will eventually try to better themselves.

The problem with getting out of the dark ages is that it's not easy at all. Technology breaks down over time, especially when there's no one around to maintain it. The second they leave those vaults, they're in an environment that's hard, where survival isn't a sure thing. They have to devote more time to it. More time on survival is less time passing down knowledge.

Hell, it took Europe over over a millenia years to claw themselves out of the dark age they had after the fall of Rome, and they didn't have nearly the problems you'd have after a nuclear war - especially when you factor in the hostile lifeforms in Fallout.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Sun Jul 14, 2002 11:45 pm

warlord klamath has more or less the same number of people shady sands had in fallout 1 ...
There are all kinds of creatures that would try to attack klamath , radscorpions , geckos and other beasts .
How can you say there are no raiders in klamath ? in the random encounters i get near klamath i got mainly raiders attacking people ...
some raiders are nomads so they have no specific location , also not all the tribals are good , some are even canibals ...
Your justification of the reason klamath didnÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´t had any walls and guards is incorrect .
Shady Sands also came from a vault and they had ver little technology ...

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Mon Jul 15, 2002 1:30 am

Raiders are everywhere in Fallout. And besides, Klamath is very close to the Den, so travelers leaving Klamath are probably preyed upon by slavers. And there might also be some tribals that are more agressive than the ones from Arroyo.