No, this isn't a post criticizing the game. I think most of that has already been said when I talked about fallout 2.

This is about how proud and happy I am that I managed to keep Dogmeat alive throughout the entire game. A lot of saving and reloading went into it, but your lovable canine companion is worth it.

I will say one thing, for all the problems I may have with the ancient engine, and the isometric RPG formula and all that stuff, the story is god-tier. No other fallout game has managed to match it.

Fallout 1/2 were both great IMO, New Vegas being the superior one. With Fallout 4 falling highly behind on its story telling, and its RPG mechanics, which ended up being extremely inferior & simplistic.

Don't even know what the hell 76 was. Everything in that game is apparently a retconn. I don't think there's ever going to be any games that can step up to the plate, most content nowadays is rushed, and ripped of its soul, later to be sold as DLCs, expansions and micro-transactions. That's the reason people keep coming back to games like these.

I agree on 1 and 2. Absolutely great storytelling. The superb music scores certainly helped.

It's something I lamented about in another post; as we get further and further from the era of the Cold War we lose more and more what it was like to live then, and it's seen in the shift in the two most recent games.

I like fallout 2 more than 1. They both have amazing storys and lore but i feel like i had more freedom to do whatever i wanted in fallout 2.
Not saying fallout 1 is bad bc of that.

I think what made FO1 such a great game was that The Master wasn't just a generic meat sponge final boss monster. If you invested in the right skills, and did your homework, you could defeat the greatest threat the wasteland by talking to him. And not just a straight up "here's your proof." You actually had to convince him to ask his own troops because he wouldn't believe the hard data you had on hand. He lost by calling your bluff.

Also, it tickles me that one half of the voice acting team who voiced The Master also voices Winnie the Pooh.

mattgunboi wrote:

I like fallout 2 more than 1. They both have amazing storys and lore but i feel like i had more freedom to do whatever i wanted in fallout 2.
Not saying fallout 1 is bad bc of that.

FO1 is a "smaller" game, but has a sharper focus on the main story. The ticking clock element adds a needed sense of urgency.

FO2 is a bigger game with a lot more questing to be had, but can feel a little slow to really build momentum in terms of the main quest to some.

I guess it depends on where you like your focus. As much as I love both the original isometric games, The Master will always be a more compelling end game than Frank Horrigan.

When I saw the dialogue system in F1 and 2, I thought a new bar had been set, a new minimum, for rpgs. I was, for some naïve reason, absolutely sure that it would now need to be like this everywhere -- where charisma didn't just make you a better liar or something, but rather, charisma and intelligence actually changed your dialogue options. A 1 int character is almost a different game because the dialogue is so different.
I've never seen it replicated again. Even New Vegas doesn't let intelligence and charisma change the dialogue options quite as thoroughly as f1/2/

I don't think you can go back to that level of depth. Not for the main series titles anyway. Fallout has become too streamlined of an action/adventure shooter for it to go back to being a "Post-Nuclear Role Playing Game". Those types of mechanics don't translate especially well into the new style of fully voice acted and animated 3D adventures in the Fallout setting. Plus, I think fans of the newer games would openly revolt if you moved the gameplay style from the current "What would you like to do in this game world right now?" to the older "What would do if you were this character in this given situation?" style found in FO1 and FO2. That's a lot of control over the gameplay to remove from the player.

On the other hand, I'm reminded of an old video by Super Bunnyhop where he talks about Fallout spinoff games and how they can be used for more experimental or fan service style games provided they were quality titles that stayed faithful to the canon. Numbered titles could be considered mainline games, while "Fallout: <insert city here>" could be more of an anthology series where smaller stories could be implemented, but provided added depth and mechanical complexity. Drop the crappy voice acting, and focus on the writing and systemic depth. Explore new (or revisit older) locations the main title series isn't interested in. Salt and pepper to taste.

Use these spinoff games to foreshadow events or introduce characters/factions upcoming in main series titles and you could have a win-win. The main series fans get Easter eggs for their next looter shooter scooter, and fans of the older games get to enjoy a deeper and more complex Fallout experience.

The problem with this of course is that Wasteland has staked a pretty big claim in the "winning over fans desperate for a deeper post-apocalypse RPG" territory. And with inXile and Bethesda both owned by Microsoft, there would likely be too much concern for cannibalizing sales of each franchise by going the spin-off route.

Sirdanest wrote:

When I saw the dialogue system in F1 and 2, I thought a new bar had been set, a new minimum, for rpgs.  I was, for some naïve reason, absolutely sure that it would now need to be like this everywhere -- where charisma didn't just make you a better liar or something, but rather, charisma and intelligence actually changed your dialogue options. A 1 int character is almost a different game because the dialogue is so different.  
I've never seen it replicated again.  Even New Vegas doesn't let intelligence and charisma change the dialogue options quite as thoroughly as f1/2/

fallout 1 is a good game but 2 is better