Fallout 1 VS Fallout 2

Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Robb Stark, May 13, 2015.

  1. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    The renewal cult [based on the film Logan's Run] is inside the town; presumably the PC could expose and confirm it to the inhabitants... unlike encounters out in the deep wasteland; unlike for instance, the dead whale & daisies [petunias] from Hitchhiker's Guide.

    Also... The renewal cult is led by Brain [as in Pinky & the Brain]... a talking mole rat.

    Fo2_The_Brain.png
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2021
  2. Hardboiled Android

    Hardboiled Android Vault Senior Citizen

    Jun 7, 2015
    Is it based on Logan's Run? Granted I've only seen it once, but I don't remember something called the Renewal Cult. Was that the framework that Carousel took place in? In any case unless there's something more I'm forgetting (which is probable) the similarities end at the name.

    The fact that you can't expose them is really only a commentary on ther interactivity, and there's always some lack of connections in these games, some things it would be nice if there were a quest option for but there isn't.

    Now granted, I never made the Pinky & the Brain connection before, that's not great. But no, I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a handful of talking animals, especially in the manner Brain was presented I think it works quite well. It's not, to me, cringe like the S'lantesh. Really it's not that much worse than talking deathclaws, and you could even justify it as being meant to warm players up to that concept.
     
  3. Doddson

    Doddson First time out of the vault

    9
    Sep 16, 2021
    Fallout 1 and 2 is a suite in two parts. The same people did it, NO bethesda, and it chronicles the rise of humanity in california after the apocalypse.

    If played through and through they tell the story of how one person, male or female, formed a bloodline that shaped the california wasteland and had a huge impact on the people there. One was possibly a Bos member and defeated the master and the other became a made man and defeated the enclave.

    It starts with just the vault dweller geting kicked out into a very violent low tech wasteland, and ends with the chosen one finishing what the vault dweller started with Arroyo, forming a thriving city in the wasteland. In-between you get a really good and detailed view of how life in the wasteland progressed and the people inhabiting it.

    You can't just judge Fallout 1 or 2 isolated. You got to look at them together because they are connected in so many ways. They have a distinct theme, feeling and mood that starts with the intro to fallout 1 and ends with the ending in fallout 2.

    I'd rate this suite 10/10 Its up there together with shit like OT star wars philip k Dick.

    Its a duology. Can you call it that?
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  4. Iprovidelittlepianos

    Iprovidelittlepianos Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    443
    May 12, 2020
    Yeah not really. Fallout 1 and 2 can be quite different in terms of tone and themes. Not to mention that the series was never planned out in the first place. Fallout was supposed to be a modest success, a one and done game. Fallout 2 was only created because the first game did so well that Interplay had to make a sequel.
     
  5. Doddson

    Doddson First time out of the vault

    9
    Sep 16, 2021
    No they're not that different at all. They are inseperable. They have a very consistent tone and the influences they both draw upon are very obvious. They even have the same graphics, same kind of intro etc. If you are talking about pop culture references, well, I hear that sometimes, that Fallout 2 is over-the-top, but I really disagree.

    I think that people say shit like "Fallout 1 has shitty writing" or "Fallout 2 has too many pop-culture references" as excuses not to play the game.

    Also, do you disagree with me about both of them sharing the big epic narrative about cali?
     
  6. Iprovidelittlepianos

    Iprovidelittlepianos Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    443
    May 12, 2020
    I just don’t see the two games as being one, in the sense that you have to judge them as pieces of the whole. I guess they share a “big epic narrative about cali”, in that the games show the growth of post-war civilization in the area, but that’s about as far as it goes. The enclave and the master don’t really have anything to do with each other for one. I’m not really interested in getting into my thoughts about this, I’m sure I’ve talked about it before and many many many posters have talked about the disconnect between 1 and 2 thematically. I’m not just talking about pop culture references btw
     
  7. Doddson

    Doddson First time out of the vault

    9
    Sep 16, 2021
    Sorry for being so aggressive, I'm really gonna try no to be that way. I sincerely apologize.

    However, I think that they thematically link up and what you are saying doesn't make any sense. Did you get into these games recently?

    Both involves THE VAULT DWELLER and THE CHOSEN ONE, same bloodline and even wearing the same outfit, either defeating the masters army and the cult or the enclave, both two evil groups kidnapping people in the wasteland and they both use the FEV to PURGE AND CLEAN the wasteland of the unworthy, it's always this very almost nazi-level evil. Also, Shady sands is featured in both games, and vault 13 is visited in both games. In the end, the chosen one saves both his tribe (Arroyo) and his ancestors vault and his own origin, vault 13, and they unite again and form a strong citystate that becomes a part of the NCR. Just like Shady sands.

    I think that these essential elements are presented very coherently, and I find the tone a mix of several things, that I reckognize from scifi litterature or games.

    Also, I know for a fact that Fallout 2 was started pretty much as soon as Fallout 1 was released. Fallout sold a lot, but it didn't sell THAT much so they wanted to push another game. It only took 9 months so for all things considered I would bet that it was developed in like one sitting.

    I think it comes down to this. What do you consider fallout? Not just canon but when you think about fallout, what's your primary reaction? I consider the two original games the only 120% bible-level canon. I get it if you started with Fallout 3, and consider the two older games some kind of retro curiosity you tried out once when bethesda gave it away for free.

    I don't care if a lot of people here bash fallout and say retarded things like "It's not thematically coherent" etc. It is. You guys are wrong.

    I don't get it why you want to shit on the games so much. I think it's a bad attempt at fitting in and appearing sophisticated. You are exactly like people who say that every skill except small guns, big guns and speech are uncesseracy. You are the people who say that the sneak skill is broken, without ever using it, or saying the temple of trails is "too hard", often hiding the fact that you suck at the game with comments about how the automatic doors are weird or whatever. For me, it takes TWO minutes TOPS to finish the temple of trails. I don't kill a single ant. If you do your homework you can even talk your way out of the fight at the end, so it's like clicking yourself through a corridor and then clicking some more.

    You should play the games at least 20-30 hours before you say something, or at least play them through and through once.

    Answer me this. Have you completed Fallout?
     
  8. Norzan

    Norzan Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Apr 7, 2017
    Gonna give an hard disagree on both being inseparable, if anything i see both giving different experiences. Fallout 1 is far more consistent in terms of tone, lore, quests, characters, story and so on. It's clear that the devs thought a ton through about it, hence why it's so consistent. Fallout 2 on the other hand is all over the place and that's not mentioning the pop culture references. The highs can be really high, some rival the highs of the first game, but the lows can be really low (maybe not as low as the Bethesda games, but still low). It's clear that the rushed development of Fallout 2 caused it to be inconsistent because a lot of it wasn't thought through.

    If you want a consistent, less focused on combat experience, then you pick Fallout 1. If you want a bigger emphasis on the wacky side of the wasteland while having the occasional burst of brilliance mixed with some very questionable design choices and a bigger emphasis on combat, you pick Fallout 2.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  9. Iprovidelittlepianos

    Iprovidelittlepianos Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    443
    May 12, 2020
    No problem, I didn’t think you came off as aggressive. Sorry if I come off as rude, I’m just trying to politely disagree.
    Been playing the originals semi-regularly since 2013 or so, though it got into the fallout lore around 2006. My point is I’m not some newbie that hasn’t played the originals. My username is even a reference to a certain dialogue option in fallout 2, just as yours is a reference to private Doddson at the Sierra Military Base (I think? Boy it would be embarrassing if I’m wrong about this)(Edit: never mind, that’s private dobbs)

    Now we’re getting to the meat of the matter. You compare the enclave and the master as if they are similar, but the two groups are actually quite different, and I think this is a great example of what people mean when they say fallout 1 is more thematically consistent, or that fallout 1 and 2 differ thematically.
    You say they both want to use FEV to purge and clean the wasteland, but in reality this only describes the Enclave. The master doesn’t want to use FEV to “purge” anything except human nature. His whole motivation is to “forcibly evolve” the human race into something that can actually get along and not destroy themselves in war. This ties in well with the tagline: war never changes. The master actually wants what in his mind is the best for everyone. The enclave might say they want what’s best for humanity, but they only consider themselves to be truly human, and literally want to genocide the rest of the world. The master wants to bring everyone into his Unity, not kill them.

    The other things you mention don’t really convince me that Fallout 1 and 2 are inseparable and should be judged as two pieces of a whole. Things like the protagonists being related or shady sands and vault 13 being present in both games have more to do with the fact that fallout 2 is, well, a direct sequel, so it’s going to share the same setting as the first game, likely taking place after the events of the first game. And the fact that arroyo and vault 13 get reunited at the end is entirely something that happens in fallout 2, it’s not foreshadowed by the plot of fallout 1 or anything like that.
    Where do you think we are? This is one of the few places on the internet that loves the originals and hate the Bethesda ones. The fact that some of us think fallout 2 is “thematically incoherent” or whatever is a holdover from back when fallout 2 was originally released, and a lot of fans had complaints about it. Granted, most of us active here now weren’t around here back then, but I believe that’s where the sentiment stems from.
    You’re being a little accusatory here. I don’t relate to any of these sentiments. I’ve played the game quite enough to know what I’m talking about. I’m actually in the middle of a fallout 2 play through rights now.
    What do you mean, Fallout 1 or Fallout 2?
    (I really wish I had a gif of the bridgekeeper exploding right now)
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2021
  10. Millim

    Millim Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Oct 13, 2010
    Fallout 2 does bring things full circle for the first game. While the two are largely the same in terms of gameplay, they come from different places mentally. Going into Fallout 1, you could tell they set aside to make a fun little PC game. It was meant to be something that was a cult hit (much like a lot of the late 90's Interplay RPGs are) but it kind of blew up.
    There were ideas for Fallout 2 when F1 was being created, so there were ideas being mapped about, but these ideas fell through when BIS came onboard.

    Fallout 2 continues a lot of the same ideas as 1, it's just got a different mindset going in. It's set to expand rather than introduce. For that, there is a lot more flexibility when it came to developing the second game.
    For that, I think it worked against them. Fallout 2 is certainly the better game when you look at them mechanically, but it terms of narrative, F1 wins hands down.

    In retrospect, the two play off each other very well, you almost can't have one without the other. New Vegas works as an epilogue to the stories set up in 1&2, placing itself at the end and giving us a finale which brings together everything from the first two games.

    It's part of the reason why 3&4 never really fit in with the rest of the series, by setting it on the other side of the Country, it can't bring together themes and ideas from the first two games, and by bring concepts other from those games, 3&4 can't progress their story as essentially the BoS from 3 is a different faction to the one in New Vegas. It can only really start anew. Even 4 seems disconnected from 3 by regressing them to a state where they were in F1, thereby ignoring the events of the 3rd game and making their story mute.

    Anyway, f1 is better than f2 for me, but that's only because I think F2 kind of goes on a bit.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  11. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    I agree with all of this outside of what makes F1 better than F2. I just like the tone and cohesive design of 1 far more than 2. But you're not wrong about any of it.

    Also, I feel that 3 and 4 really both lacked confidence in themselves. 3 was too focused on making sure old fans would see the Fallout materials whether or not it made sense and reiterating essentially both 1 and 2's plot into one. 4 tried to emulate New Vegas with its faction choices and failed.

    I feel that if Bethesda had just used the universe with a few ideas from the originals and done largely their own thing with it, it would have worked out better overall. Would have it been the sequel we wanted? Fuck no. But it would have been more tolerable than orc Super Mutants, BoS vs Enclave East Coast showdown, and whatnot.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  12. Millim

    Millim Half-way Through My Half-life
    Orderite

    Oct 13, 2010
    The annoying thing is, F3 could have had its cake and eat it. There are a hundred ways to do that type of storyline. It was just brought down by the simplicity of it all.

    F4 could have had a much larger impact than it did, all it needed was multiple endings. It could get away with being shallow if only the end result was unique, but it didn't and it just made People go back and reevaluate New Vegas.

    I like f3&4, but Bethesda did the one thing they shouldn't have done, and that was split the Fallout fanbase.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  13. Canagan

    Canagan First time out of the vault

    11
    Sep 21, 2021
    At the absolute very least, one could say the modern entries have brought in fresh eyes to see the classics. I myself am an example of that, being brought in when I was... shit, thirteen I think? I played Fo3 a lot as a kid, and I could argue that Bethesda's Fallout was my gateway drug to the old boys' Black Isle Fallouts. I played Fo3 religiously, played FoNV religiously when it came out, then maybe a year or so later I delved into Fo1/2. Loved every bit of it.

    Granted, a few good ends won't make the overarching flustercluck any less bad; especially in recent times I guess.


    But were I to touch on the topic of the thread instead of just chiming in on second dialogues, then I guess I'd simply say both are good to me. With Fo1, my chief complaint has always been it feels short, yet the tightness of the story I've always appreciated; Fo2 had way more content, but a lot of it felt disconnected from the overarching plot-line, but that doesn't mean I haven't played Fo2 a lot itself.

    It also doesn't mean that I haven't made like... maybe eight different playthroughs for Fo2 all the way up to getting the Geck, one of which I actually completed the game, and one of those characters that didn't make it to the end was around level 24 or something equally as OP. That doesn't count in the possible thirty I've had total that just went no-where as I was experimenting with character builds. Which game is objectively better in my mind? I'd say it depends on my mood. Do I want to play a Fallout game to experience a story, or do I just want to play a bunch of classic Fallout without much rhyme or reason? Both had decent RP moments, yet the former's a good solid story that's solid, and the latter sometimes feels like an on-going TTRPG style game; you've got the plot-line sure, but sporadic content and girth of said content in the different towns kinda lent itself to play to forget about Arroyo for a bit.

    As far as the rando-encounter wackiness of Fo2, I never minded it too much. Just added more of that TTRPG feel I guess.
     
  14. Blastwave Dave

    Blastwave Dave First time out of the vault

    22
    Sep 12, 2021
    I've always preferred the tone and general restraint of Fallout 1's storytelling to 2. A lot of Fallout 2 is good but much of it is way, way, too silly for my tastes. I generally dislike over the top silliness in the Fallout franchise and prefer when the humor is black, not just pointing to another thing that exists and going 'geddit?'

    I know Fallout 1 and New Vegas have some of this stuff too. And 2 has a lot of things I still enjoy and consider upgrades from 1, like more detailed companions and such, but I feel like 2 kind of strayed too far away from the bleakness and Van Buren looked like it was going to do even worse in that regard.

    So, personally 1 > 2 for me, though I've played 2 more since it has more content to fuck around with.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  15. Canagan

    Canagan First time out of the vault

    11
    Sep 21, 2021
    I have to agree with yah there; Fo2 is that more relaxed, moar content, yet sillier release for me personally. Both 1 and 2 have merits, yet as I said earlier they're 'mood based' for me. Sobering and tight story with some extra challenge via Fallout-Fixt? 1. Wanna just play some turn-based Fallout stuff with a metric arse-load of content to chew through with admittedly silly but fun content? 2.

    Do I wanna bleed from the eyes and just play a Fallout skinned shooter? 3/4; in the end I like each installment on their own merits, even though I will fully agree and admit that each game has flaws, with some far more than others.
     
  16. John Cassidy Joestar

    John Cassidy Joestar First time out of the vault

    46
    Aug 22, 2017
    I never understood that thing about the "tone" of Fallout 1 and what ppl say about Fallout 2 where its jam packed with pop culture ref, these refs are clearly out of the normal path and to find it is more of a funny reward rather than something on your nose, lets just remind you all that Fallout 1 had as much pop culture ref but due to its little size and relatively short game, most people simply brushed it off. There is litterally a Tarvis, a dude named Kenny wuth a funny remark when he dies, and more. But like Fallout 2 these things were out of the normal path.

    Sure the first Fallout is dark, and really disturbing at times, but I think people like overhype the thing. Half of the game is litterally a Western Sci-fi story where you go search for water. You meet banditos harassing a village, a sheriff vs a casino owner, a bigtown with big problems, gangs against an oppresive police force. Where is the tone different from anything from Fallout 2 ? Because a lot of what I describe comes from both games. What really set Fallout 1 from 2 was actually the mutants and horrible manifestation of the Great Wer, something waking up again both litterally and metaphorically with the Master's Army, and in an ironic (but also peotic) way, it all ends up like the great war do. In nuclear fire.

    Fallout 2 has more of what Fallout 1 has, its bigger, smoother, better to play and also way more confident in its writing. You could really tell that most characters had personality, where Fallout had mostly depressed people or really total psycho. You had actually Trappers with their funny remarks, gangsters from Reno imitating Italian Sterotype, named characters that had sillyness yes, but nothing bland in it. You can clearly tell that writer had a blast with the world. The only big issue was that nothing felt connected, apart from Vault City, NCR, Reno and Broken Hills. The other locations dont have much in themes, tone or storytelling. They clearly tried to connect it all, towns like Redding had a power struglle on which faction will have this town. But it all felt like a theme park. However, I still think that Fallout 2 is the better game, because, it plays better, you have much more freedom and roleplay to do, and also the world building is way better than F1 imo. Just the power struggle and or reading the different cultures in the wasteland is so interesting.
     
  17. Canagan

    Canagan First time out of the vault

    11
    Sep 21, 2021
    I'd have to agree for the most part, yet I'd think it might be the sheer exposure to said wackiness, or the collective exposure perhaps in the fandom. Fo1 I remember seeing the Godzilla footprint and Star Fleet shuttle once, and I don't think I ever found the tardis to be honest, yet in Fo2 I must have seen the Hub with all the side-gag characters -- the Hub of Dreams I think it's called -- across at least eighty percent of my characters. Is it luck based? I believe it is in a way, or maybe literally just rng. Rando-encounters and the overall chances of receiving said encounters, never-mind the randomness within the encounters themselves; the knights searching for the holy hand grenades, the bridge keeper, the portal that throws you back in time (which admittedly I've never gotten before).

    That is also only those rando-encounters, which if memory serves in the FoBibble the writer tried to ask people to ignore them for the sake of lore stuff questions. Beyond that, the general tones might be best divided in bluntness. If one plays Fallout 1 and goes to Junktown you find the western aesthetic Lawman versus Crooked Casino boss archetype; both of which are fairly generic (if one could call Gizmo 'generic') and they are main dude in the settlement. Go off into Fo2 near San Fran and you find a somewhat similar setup between 'The Dragon' and 'Lo Pan', where they don't necessarily have the same power structure, but similar struggle. The latter group is literally ripped from old Pre-War kung-fu movies so the dressing is obvious, yet the former are just survivors who try to enforce their perspectives of how the town should go on. It is only a side-note in a way that it is a typical western style story.

    The ultimate 'wackiness' of Fo2 comes down (in my opinion) to the fact Fo1 somewhat established the vast majority of survivors -- and their future generations -- know next to nothing of the world that came before, and yet in Fo2 you have a bunch of people whose entire identities can be boiled down to such pop-culture references. As you said, there was nothing explicitly bland in Fo2, yet to be frank if Fo1's factions were emblematic of anything, it was a subtle way of displaying it. Thus the exposure portion of the wackiness.

    This all might sound overcritical too, but in the end I enjoy playing Fo2 more than the original, even though I personally feel that Fo1 was tighter in scope, plot, and more focused on the 'War never changes' theme in a novel-esce manner of succinctness; unlike this post, wall-o-text my bad.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  18. Gizmojunk

    Gizmojunk Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Nov 26, 2007
    Fallout was crushingly, and relentlessly dark; tolerable only by the humorous interludes. As intended.

    Fallout 2 is pop-culture obsessed, and has verifiable magic and occult aspects... a spell casting super mutant, a talking rodent, a bespecticled chess playing, and lock picking scorpion, and talking plants.

    The FO2 devs did not seem to know that it's not an 'anything goes' IP without ruining the dark atmosphere and suspension of disbelief.
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  19. John Cassidy Joestar

    John Cassidy Joestar First time out of the vault

    46
    Aug 22, 2017
    Its luck based, and you're quite lucky because I rarely get them even with a very high Outodoorman and 10 Luck :)
    And God knows how much I need a Bridgekeeper Robes in my Ironman Runs....

    Exactly, I feel more like the problem was more San Francisco who was clearly out of place, and designed separately. The idea isnt a problem, quite the contrary, Chienese culture and factions based around the ancestor of the Chienese People's Army is completely in the lore and in the setting. However, mixing these already out of place culture in American soil, with the Hubologists was to me the big issue. To me SF is really the low point of F2, if I ever had to rewrite F2 its specifically this town, there is way too much issues + Lore wise we could've get a better power struggle against the Enclave where they have still a grudge against the Shi or even that they dont risk to fight against them which could mirror the Great War and the Chosen One is the wild card in the Power Strugle that can tip the balance of power or even work for cooperation in the future.

    Well apart from the BoS, the Followers, the Children and the Master's Army, most of the factions in Fallout 1 felt bland to me.


    To me, Fallout was always wacky but trying to say its realistic or even tonaly very dark isnt even true, at the very least until you investigate the Mutants Army. F2 didnt had that gruesome part inits main quest like F1 had, and thats why most people assume that F1 is le dark and realistic post nuclear world. A really dark Fallout is Fallout 1.5, where there is child molestors, assholes all around and no heroes. Fallout 1 had things that actually balanced it out, it wasnt edgy or dark all the time, it knew it was a silly video game in a silly '50 uchronia but it also used enough dark elements to make it stick out from the Western Sci-fi setting.
     
  20. Iprovidelittlepianos

    Iprovidelittlepianos Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?

    443
    May 12, 2020
    We’ve already established that wacky random encounters are acceptable for fallout, but when you start putting that shit in towns like Broken Hills or San Francisco it crosses a line. Leave the talking plants and rodents out in the wasteland where they belong, to be encountered by potentially delirious and dehydrated player characters
     
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4