How is Fallout 2 different from Fallout 1?

[whatusername]

I hear people talking about Fallout 2 being different from Fallout 1. How is this so? What are the differences between the two?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Refer to one of the billion of threads on the subject. There's gobs of them with the summary of Fallout 2 is bigger, but less coherent in terms of setting design.

 

[kingcomrade]

How is Fallout 2 different from Fallout 1?

It's worse.

 

[Roqua]

I liked 2 better than 1. I am stupid. I also liked BoD better than StarTrail, and I also thought part 3 was good.

 

[bozia2012]

I don't know what's the problem? For me Fallout 1 & 2 are just one great game. And talking about how F2's setting is worse than F1's is lame (Nu Reno is teh gey etc.) :twisted:

Fallout 1 has the original Fallout (tm) feeling, but F2 gives you more possibilities (there's more of everything)

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

From a content standpoint Fallout 2 is way too self-aware and breaks character too much.

 

[sheek]

F2 had really dumb scenes and badly designed. There was a lot to do but, to me no sense of connection or plot. It got boring really fast.

The only good thing was the improved engine... combat control, GUI etc.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I liked 2 better than 1. I am stupid. I also liked BoD better than StarTrail, and I also thought part 3 was good.

Bad dog. Bow to the hivemind. Now try again.

 

[bryce777]

Fallout 2 puts the allout in fallout.

 

[kingcomrade]

Yeah, it couldn't quite manage all of the letters.

 

[Monolith]

F2 had really dumb scenes and badly designed. There was a lot to do but, to me no sense of connection or plot. It got boring really fast.

Dunno, I feel absolutely different about it. I prefer Fallout 2 to Fallout. I actually like the diversity...which you may describe as being out of character or whatever.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

...which you may describe as being out of character or whatever.

Even if it wasn't look at them as a whole. Fallout is tight from beginning to end. I admit really enjoy the first half or so of FO2 (Temple of Trials notwithstanding), but at a certain point it starts to noticably unravel and by the time you get to San Fran the wheels have fallen off completely.

 

[St. Toxic]

In comparison to the shit that came after FO2, there's enough redeeming qualities in the game to make it shine like a bright beacon of hope. FO1 came out somewhere around the "chillax days" of the gaming world -- thing's were still getting better -- so I'd guess some define the games by their timeline.

 

[FaranBrygo]

If you were to take out Arroyo, Las Vegas, and San Franciso, the game leaps up the quality scale.

 

[onerobot]

Probably the main reason that Fallout is considered better than its sequel is that it's given a lot of points for doing things first (originality) rather than doing things better. It's the same reason why Civ 2 and Alpha Centauri are considered better than Civ 4, assumably (having never played 4 myself).

The humor in the second is probably what makes or breakes it for a lot of people as well. Fallout 2 is very tongue in cheek and constantly breaks the fourth wall, which probably drives some people crazy. Personally I liked all of the stupid references and jokes. It showed that the devs were having fun making the thing, at any rate.

I still liked Fallout 2 better. It offered a lot more possibilities and improved upon the first in a lot of ways, although admittedly it wasnt as consistant and did a lot of things worse as well.

 

[kingcomrade]

Probably the main reason that Fallout is considered better than its sequel is that it's given a lot of points for doing things first (originality) rather than doing things better.

But it DID do things better. The two exceptions being UI and party control (which still wasn't much better).

Setting, plot, pacing, items, combat (there were many rediculously stupid combat areas in Fallout 2 and I can only think of one similar from the first game). Fallout 2 had more of most things, but most of it was crap.

 

[elander_]

... and party control (which still wasn't much better).

They should have gone with a full party system or even the possibility to split parties like in Wastelands. What was that crap about the player not being able to control his companions anyway? Just some lousy orders and they allways end geting in front of each other and burst themselves to pieces.

 

[St. Toxic]

It's about you, the chosen one; it's not an episodic saturday morning cartoon called THE WASTELAND PALS, in which 4 people are in fact one dynamic entity.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

f2 gives you more possibilities (there's more of everything)

Except for ending options, where it really matters. Fallout 1 kicked the pants off of FO2 in that regard.

 

[bozia2012]

I don't know why you're talin shit about F2 or why are you trying to seperate those games... Fallout was first, great etc... F2 can't be the same. F2 tries to add something more to that world and make you look at F1 (plot, characters) from a different angle.
Fallout 2 also had many more of much complicated quests (like uniting cities etc) and lots of hidden (for a lame player) content...
Maybe you like Fallout 1 for it's more bipolar world?

f2 gives you more possibilities (there's more of everything)

Except for ending options, where it really matters. Fallout 1 kicked the pants off of FO2 in that regard.

Yes you had to kill Frank Horrigan, but I remember Fallout 2 had that sytem where every quest you completed in a city could decide about it's future - and the ending you will see. Maybe for you the only ending is the exploding oil rig.

@kingcomrade:
setting - the same as in F1 *period*
plot - how's quest for a water chip better than quest for G.E.C.K.? Also in Fallout mutants wanted everybody to be mutants, while in F2 enclave wanted to kill all mutants... shit, which one is better? (i think someone said it already )
pacing - you mean that you could accidentally reach Lou at lvl4? (like my friend did) elaborate on this 'coz it's a MYSTARY what did you mean
items - more in F2, or maybe it's too much for you (too hard to decide AK or FN-FAL?)
combat - same engine, same rules: what's the problem? Maybe some examples of ridiculous combat?
crap - talkin' bout Modoc?

 

[LlamaGod]

Fallout 2 = more to do, except everything to do sucks. But hey, more guns and more areas, kewl!

Fallout 1 = less to do, but signifigantly more work and effort put into what all you can do. Good game.


That it summarized.

 

[bozia2012]

Fallout 2 = more to do, except everything to do sucks. But hey, more guns and more areas, kewl!

Fallout 1 = less to do, but signifigantly more work and effort put into what all you can do. Good game.


That it summarized.

How one can love F1 and hate F2 is a mystery to me... I'm wondering if you understood what was F1 about...

 

[whatusername]

I just tried out Fallout 2 for the first time, I hated the setting and the plot.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Fallout 2 was made by a bunch of people who weren't really communicating much with one another, each trying to come up with the knee jerk WOODN'T IT BE KEWL IF scenario independently from one another - and it shows. Every creature from Fallout seems to have an uber intelligent version of itself somewhere in the game ranging from Deathclaws to friggin' Spore Plants(WTF?). Instead of having a unified setting theme, you end up with each town having it's own theme so you can be in Westworld one week and then walk to KungfuWorld the next.

As for the plot from Fallout versus Fallout 2, Fallout left little clues about the plot scattered around all over the place. Fallout 2, the plan kind of came out of no where at the very end. The only thing that might have been a bit of a clue is Mariposa with the dead enclavers there. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense why the Enclave would establish bases on the mainland and set up political relationships with factions when they were just going to gas the planet anyway.

They also removed the whole having to barter with followers thing, which I rather liked. I know players were having trouble with the concept of NPC followers not being complete bitches to the player, but we're talking about a post apocalyptic world here and people who aren't the main character. While ome would probably be willing to give stuff up to the player freely, pretty sure most wouldn't. It would have been better to tie the trade with NPCs thing in with the character's reputation with the world as well as their reputation with the NPC themselves as to how freely they'd be willing to give up their shit. Oh yeah, and factor barter skills in with both the character and NPC as well. But hey, rather than making the concept behind the design better, they simply stripped it.

 

[Norfleet]

They also removed the whole having to barter with followers thing, which I rather liked.

Didn't the "steal" command always automatically succeed on your partymember in F1? I thought that was how you managed their inventories in 1.