Beth removed them when the license for the two games were transferred to them from Interplay in order to change some legal stuff in the game and never bothered to put them back except on Steam.
If I'm new to the Fallout series, which game should I start with?
- Thread starter Pathfinder
- Start date
Beth removed them when the license for the two games were transferred to them from Interplay in order to change some legal stuff in the game and never bothered to put them back except on Steam.
I will never understand complaints against Fallout 1-2 being dated gameplay wise. The only annoying parts are the inventory in 1 (Item stack limit is so low, but got added an extra 0 in 2) and the lack of the "Push NPC" button, but it's an extremely simple game to navigate around and way faster than the Bethesda-engine games. Going inside places does not require loading screens (and you can see inside houses from outside), reaching places does not require walking but rather clicking on a world map. Combat is just clicking where you want to go, clicking what you want to attack, and sometimes doing special aiming. (Turn up combat speed to fastest) An entirely mouse-driven interface is far from unintuitive.
It was really refreshing to play Pillars this year because it's just a lot faster to play than most 3rd Person RPGs. It may take a bit to get used to it at first but you save up a lot of time on the long run.
Bethesda's engine for 3 and New Vegas is the one that feels dated in comparison with how long it takes to do anything.
It was really refreshing to play Pillars this year because it's just a lot faster to play than most 3rd Person RPGs. It may take a bit to get used to it at first but you save up a lot of time on the long run.
Bethesda's engine for 3 and New Vegas is the one that feels dated in comparison with how long it takes to do anything.
Octavianus
Banned
If anything I felt like Fallout 3 was far less refined than Fallout 1 and 2 in just about every way.
I don't remember 1 or 2 having level scaling, broken fps combat or a messed up SPECIAL system which was pretty much irrelevant due to me being a demi-god whenever i press the vats/awesome button.
Wouldn't exactly call Fallout 3 pleasant to look at either, but to each his own I guess.
Skull_Splosion
Neo Member
LOL Ah yes, the good ol' "God Mode" button. With one simple press or a key of button you are now the god of time and headshots in the FO universe. Those young Deathclaws never stood a chance...
Lanrutcon
Member
3 and NV are very similar, and both share the same strengths and weaknesses. Of the two, NV is undoubtedly more fleshed out, but the games are still 'walking around and seeing cool shit' simulators. It's all about the exploration, because the other elements of the game are pretty shallow. I would not shed a tear if VATS were removed and combat sharpened up, for example.
User 479360
Banned
I've only played Fallout 3 (plus all of its overall very solid DLC), and New Vegas: Complete Edition. You need to play those for sure.
Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas, but I'd still start with it.
Fallout 3 is better than New Vegas, but I'd still start with it.
Personally speaking, I tried to play both 1 and 2 when GOG had them for free, and I just couldn't get into them. A lot of that has to do with me having a hard time getting into older games that I never played previously. The outdated graphics are the biggest deterrent for me but I still wasn't really into either game.
Everybody is different but I would recommend going the same way I got into the series, play Fallout 3 and then play New Vegas. By the time you finish both games, assuming you like to explore most everything, it wouldn't surprise me if Fallout 4 is just right around the corner.
Everybody is different but I would recommend going the same way I got into the series, play Fallout 3 and then play New Vegas. By the time you finish both games, assuming you like to explore most everything, it wouldn't surprise me if Fallout 4 is just right around the corner.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Do you know why Fallout 3 VATS is considered god mode?
ProvenDeadly
Member
I personally believe Fallout 3 has a better setting than New Vegas, as I found Vegas wasteland to be pretty boring outside of some areas. But New Vegas had way way way WAY better quests and story lines. Plus it improved on the gameplay mechanics.
Skull_Splosion
Neo Member
I consider it God mode because you can literally stop time in the middle of combat and land unrealistic critical hits from very awkward positions. But I'm curious to hear your reason?
On topic: If you really want to immerse yourself in the lore before playing, you should read the wiki. It has TONS of info on the game's universe, complete with a timeline of prewar and postwar events.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_world
I can somewhat agree with this. Although, I thought a lot of areas in the mojave and adjacent to the mojave were very interesting. Big MT, Repconn HQ, and New Vegas itself are hands down some of my favorite places to explore out of ALL FO games.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
You take 90% less damage, all enemies on screen are slowed down, and you get a 15% chance to crit. FO3 VATS is ridiculously OP. It makes everything trivial from level 1.
The Vault (The gamepedia wiki) is a lot better orgainized imo
http://fallout.gamepedia.com/Fallout_Wiki
MightyHedgehog
Member
If you're getting into Fallout now because of FO4 hype, you should at least try or watch the very beginning of Interplay style of the games with FO1 or 2 first, but FO3 and NV would be more or less a taste of what you're getting with 4 if you're not into the older school CRPG. And if you go with Bethsoft brand of Fallout, I'd play FO3 first because it's a genuinely fun take on the universe and basic idea, but also because it will make you really appreciate NV for what it does differently and better.
Which sucks for anyone who has a Mac running any sort of current Mac OS (the last Mac OS to run Fallout is probably at this point 5 years old or older and 5 is a conservative estimate). GoG was the only one who put effort into making Fallout run on current Mac OS. Which I recently discovered was they put it on a windows emulator that runs on mac (found out when it crashed and I had a windows error message *giggle*). I don't care that's how they did that, I can play the old Fallouts (but only cause I downloaded them when still available on GoG)!
So now you'll either have to run windows on your mac or dual boot an old Mac OS (which many new Macs can't even run I don't think) to play Fallout if you have a Mac.
As for 1+2 looking dated? I think the fact that they are turn based games and aren't too graphically oriented helps in that matter. They aren't relying on a lot of top of the line graphics to play. I think people who have trouble more have trouble with turn based (which is seen as being outdated though it seems there is a resurgance for it) vs. live action. I will give them that the current Fallouts are more fun for exploration if that is your thing (which it is mine and partly why in general I prefer the newer Fallouts to the older ones). But because they didn't have to put as much effort into graphics and building up an entire connected world, they can put more into dialogue and allowing you a lot more varied things that can happen (it was easier to put in random little quests/stuff or have several changes in outcomes).
Honestly, they are not bad/outdated games. They are just different. And sure, they're not for everyone, but that's also why you also have old school fans who think Bethesda ruined the series by making it more like Elder Scrolls in how it plays. And then you have people like me that likes both (and I'm happy about that). Though I will admit I prefer the new style (though 2 is my second favorite just cause of the writing and how much crazy stuff can happen and how much they allow you to do). In fact Fallout 2 is making me remember why I like turn based games (a lot lately try to mix turn based and live action and honestly, while I like both, I hate it when they try to mix the two. In general I find I dislike the combat when they do unless it's mostly one type).
Skull_Splosion
Neo Member
Nice! I love FO lore and somehow I didn't even know there were different Wikis. Blame it on google I guess.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
I played 3, and LOVED IT. Played New Vegas and loved it as well but still prefer 3. If 3 had more mechanics from NV (more factions, better story and balanced leveling) I think it would be praised a lot more.
3 has no compelling narrative and horrible quest design. People like to talk about Baldur's gate as a series about choice, but it was never as deep as Fallout was to me. Fallout 1 and 2 offer some of the best quest design in the world and you can truly play those games any way you want AND IT SUPPORTS YOU. Fallout 2 is the Deus Ex of RPGs. Fallout 3 is just random shitty things everywhere with 1 or maybe 2 token solutions to them, like an Elder Scrolls game. Your choice is basically to accept the mission or not do it. MAYBE it'll be 'kill the quest giver in a radical betrayal' at the end, but it's absolutely nowhere as freeform as the stronger entries in the series.
Compare it to New Vegas, which uses the same engine, but has tons and tons of ways to progress even in the main story and you can end up with wildly different paths taken.
But no Bethesda RPG does, it's just not the style of game they make.
Oh, and VATS looks cool but it was always a poor replacement for the FO1/2 aiming. The fact that THAT was what Bethesda took away as the most important 'fallout' aspect of the series was always troubling. Yeah, it's memorable that you can shoot someone in their balls in Fallout, but it's rarely something you use (most of the time you just shoot at them OR go for a headshot), and they chose to ignore all fo the more important aspects.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Enjoy.
If you dont like dealing with mods then do not worry, the game is fine without them.
If you have done modding with Bethesdas other games and are comfortable with it i would suggest getting a UI mod. i am partial to Revelations interface mod. edit: Nexus is down atm so no link
If you are a complete modding junkie and refuse to play any game unmodded use this site that Branson pasted in the FO3/NV mod thread and go down that rabbit hole.
As for the DLC play order, i would go with Honest Hearts->Dead Money->Old World Blues->Lonesome Road. If you are unfamiliar with how Bethesda games do DLC in game, you will get breadcrumb quests to them near the beginning of the game. After character creation when you exit to the outside world a bunch of quests will pop up in your log. Here is the breakdown of the starter quests and the dlc:
- Honest Hearts - Happy Trails Expedition - this can be done any time but level 15 is a good level to start doing DLC
- Dead Money - Sierra Madre Grand Opening - this was the first DLC release and it has ties to the subsequent DLCs
- Old World Blues - Midnight Science Fiction Feature - play after Dead Money
- Lonesome Road - The Reunion - play after Old World Blues but save this until the end of the game is in sight imo
Skull_Splosion
Neo Member
edit: Nexus is down atm so no link
NOOOOOOO! I was about to look for and download a new companion!
Edit: I just realized that the reason it's down is most likely because people are starting to re-play FO 3 and NV because of the FO 4 announcement.
DAREALGUMMY
Member
Oh and I would play 3/NVtotally blind if you want to get lost in them in a immersion sense. Both games have armor which makes it easy to plow through that I think kind of ruins the experience on your first go.
I thought that was pretty clear. Quest design in FO3, like every Elder Scrolls game, is shit. There's an abundance of things to do, but actually doing them isn't interesting. Fallout 1 and 2 are freeform in how you approach nearly every task, just like Deus Ex was.
Anyone claiming Fallout 3 (Or oblivion or new vegas) is anything but the ugliest shit ever put to a hard drive is insane. Yeah, fallout 1 and 2 look dated and low res, Fallout 3 and NV are legitimately BAD looking games. Huge difference.
Look, I have ranted about people who have the "it's new so it sucks and games back in my day attitude". I'm totally not one who plays an old game for it being an old game and I am all for graphics getting better.
And fallout 2 does not feel dated to me. Or at least not in a it's hard to get over the dated feeling way. For one the type of game it is really doesn't rely on super good graphics. The icons are small anyways so it's not like you are playing this game to be all wowwed at the prettyness (If so why are you even playing 3 and vegas which do age worse because type of games they are graphics matter more!). The UI is a little clunky but if it was that bad people wouldn't like it back then either.
Maybe the issue here is that your preferences have changed over the years. That happens.
Besides, if you are playing any of the fallouts for graphics you are doing it wrong. None are graphical marvels.
Honestly, snubbing a game because it is old is just as closed minded and snobby as those who snub games that move on and try different things.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i didnt realize that. i wonder if anyone in the thread that wants to play FO1/2 for the first time but cant because they have a Mac and GOG doesnt have it any longer.
Yeah but I think you meant to say 'Fallout is the Deus Ex of cRPGs', I'm just being anal I guess.
Well, the nice thing is GoG isn't DRM'ed so maybe they can find some one willing to copy it for them. On the other hand, they'd have to find some one willing (I felt bad when I saw some one on reddit asking and the paranoid part of me decided to stay quiet cause I do have the versions he needs but I don't want to get into pirating it for some random person, even though it's not like he can buy it at this point).
I think also I was seeing something about getting a "wrapper" to get it to run. I don't know anything about that, I think it's what GoG did to make Fallout work on my computer honestly. I think that guy even said he tried that.
There are some things you can do. You can dual boot macs to run Windows (but you have to have enough hard drive space and then run windows, a lot of effort for one game). Or connect a hard drive and run an old Mac OS off it (I think they made it so you can boot a Mac now off an external drive). But I think at some point the newer Macs just can't even run an old enough Mac OS (I could be wrong on that. I know that was my plan when they announced the new Mac OS was going to stop supporting software that ran using cocoa. Fallout was the only thing listed that I felt I would miss by upgrading. But that was years ago and I'm not sure if that would work anymore, at least on my newest mac. I still have an old mac I know used to run OS's that would run Fallout though).
Oh, and Fallout on my mac is how I discovered GoG (some one mentioned them when I was lamenting I couldn't play old fallout). And one big reason I love those guys and they are up there in my favorite developers despite until very recently not making any game that really was a hit for me (Witcher 2 was ok. I was hoping to love Witcher 3 and I do).
Well, I don't think 3 is that ugly. But yeah, I would say 3 and Vegas (and keep in mind Vegas is my favorite Fallout) will probably look dated a lot quicker than 1 and 2 (which if you think about it are really old games. They were older when 3 came out than 3 and Vegas are now. I am willing to bet when 3 and Vegas get their age they are going to look far more dated than 1 and 2 look now (as I said, type of game matters here too. 1+2 not being a style that needs super good graphics are going to be more timeless than 3 and Vegas).
Depends what you dont like about those two games.
I found the mechanices pretty hollow and just couldn't get engaged in either game. Spent about 5 hours on each before getting bored.
Fallout-NL
Member
Agreed.
The Fallout 4 thread didn't get big due to Fallout 1 or 2, but because of Fallout 3 and it's expansions and that's all you'll ever need.
Maybe, but that doesn't mean more isn't better. Fallout 1 and 2 are different games but plenty of people can enjoy them. No, they aren't for everyone (but then neither is 3. Plenty of people who got turned off of Fallout by 3 who loved the previous games).
Just gotta keep in mind they are different so you can't expect the same game (but expect better story and more humor along the same lines as the story and humor of 3 and New Vegas. Oh, and more ways you can approach situations and more freedom to try whatever you want - benefit of them being cheaper games to produce they could focus more on differing pathlines of story and also on what they allowed you to do).
And just cause you like 3 and New VEgas doesn't mean you won't like the first 2 (I like both styles. Hell, I prefer 3 and New Vegas's game style though 2 is my second favorite due to writing and being a much more true RPG that really allows you freedom to do what you want). Not everyone only likes one type game.
Count of Monte Sawed-Off
un33dab@dpu$$y
If you think 1 is pretty clunky, 2 isn't much better in that regard. You won't really miss out on that much if you do skip it. 1 is pretty short though, so maybe stick with it and see if something clicks.
edit: I will say that I was pretty late to playing Fallout 1 & 2, only played them about a year before Fallout 3 came out. And I found them to be really clunky too, just didn't like the way the games played at first. But after some hours and a couple attempts to get into them, I did adjust and had a great time with them.
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll