Fallout 1 vs 2 discussion

[Anonymous No.5154260]

1fags, please explain how 2 isn't a vast improvement by every important measure, besides the ending acting. Help me understand your mindset and reasoning.

[Anonymous No.5154262]

haven't played either lolol

[Anonymous No.5154264]

>>5154260
I’ve never seen someone say 1 was better than 2

[Anonymous No.5154269]

1 is better than 2.

[Anonymous No.5154273]

1's map was smaller than 2 but had a more contained adventure and more frequent and interesting events.

2's map was bigger but had a lot of nothing and quests were more of roleplaying a delivery boi.

[Anonymous No.5154274]

>>5154273
If you play fallout fixt it has a bunch of improvements that make it even more enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.5154276]

>>5154264
3 is better.

[Anonymous No.5154289]

>>5154273
roleplaying a delivery boi.
Yes, but that is essentially the premise of both games. There is more complex stuff in between.

[Anonymous No.5154486]

>>5154260
you know it

[Anonymous No.5154489]

>>5154260
F1 does world building and narrative feeding much better - very important for any media
F2 is too sandboxy for its own good imho
still great and one of the best RPGs of all time, but F1 is more cohesive

[Anonymous No.5154496]

>>5154260
The early game sucks and Fallout 2's HP bloat is the worst shit ever. Early game enemies in 2 have the HP of late game enemies in 1 and compounding this is the new accuracy formula that takes way longer to give you results than 1's.

Also grenades got turned into living shit for whatever reason when they were actually pretty good in 1.

[Anonymous No.5154506]

>>5154260
I played Fallout 2 back when it was new and replayed it somewhat recently. Then I played Fallout 1, and it's so extremely different so much better in every way conceivable (not counting the bugginess, of course). Man, this "lawl the 50s omg ha ha ha SPACE WHALE" was not a thing in the original game. It had a thick as fuck atmosphere and the world felt special. I played the game as a curio and out of sheer boredom, but it's just a much better experience. Fallout 2 is not all that far removed from Fallout 3, really. Only Fallout 1 is actually special.

[Anonymous No.5154514]

>>5154260
FO1 : FO2 :: Gremlins 1 : Gremlins 2

[Anonymous No.5154519]

>>5154260
Because Fallout 1 felt much grittier and atmospheric. I also actually like the fact that it was small, focused, and tight-knit. Sometimes less is more. It's a personal preference and I totally understand why some people prefer FO2 for having more towns, characters, dialogue, side content, quests, and so on. But for me, I just prefer the fact that FO1 is short, sweet, focused, and never gets bogged down with other stuff.

[Anonymous No.5154580]

Fallout 2's issue is that a lot of the content seems forced, 1 is a more polished product all round but is bound to be as it's much less vast.

[Anonymous No.5154602]

>>5154580
>but it's much less vast
That's better IMO. Maybe this is just me getting older, but I've grown tired of too much side content in games. I want to complete things I stumble across, but hate how very open-ended games with lots of side content (especially bethesda games) just have you constantly going down rabbit hole after rabbit hole of side stuff and next thing you know, you don't even remember where you were on the actual main quest.

I liked how in F1 the side content was typically short and never distracted you from your goal. You're going south toward the hub and you stumble upon Junktown. You go in and hear about the local corruption problem and help clear out the fat bastard and his goons. Takes like 10 minutes and then you're on your way. I like that sort of thing.

[Anonymous No.5154704]

>>5154602

On replaying it, I found it too sparse. There's just too little to do in 1, too few options. You'll see most of the content by just following the main quest, and most options in quests are just A) help the good guys or B) help the blatantly evil guys

[Anonymous No.5154729]

>>5154704
All you did was rephrase what I said I liked about it in a cynical way. I don't like FO2's wide open distracting sandbox that takes away from the main quest

>help, you need to save your village!
>also lmao go to Reno and be a porn star xD

[Anonymous No.5154739]

>>5154260
>Fallout 2
The tone is all over the fucking place.
Random encounters are everywhere and are very annoying at times (such as when you face dozens of spore plants).
The balance is pretty crap.
The early game is pretty shit.
If we get anal, the story is ridiculous: one tribal dude/gal destroys the remnants of the U.S. army.

At least in Fallout you were more likely wearing Power Armor when facing the Super Mutants, and by any metric of the lore they should barely scratch you.

[Anonymous No.5154745]

What a silly question!

Older = always better

[Anonymous No.5154779]

>>5154745
>Older = always better
not in the case of ur mom lol

[Anonymous No.5155726]

>>5154276
unironically this.

i like the lore of the classic games, the RPG & gameplay improvements of new vegas and the artstyle of 4. but i had more fun with 3 + it was the only 3D fallout to not break on me.

i kinda wish that there was a game that combined the good parts of each fallout game.

[Anonymous No.5155919]

>>5154260
The original is one of the few RPGs I've played that ended before I started getting burnt out on it. As good as Fallout 2 is, my enjoyment of it started to wane by the time I got to San Francisco.

[Anonymous No.5155931]

>>5154729
everything in F2 is extremely cynical and depressing as well, it's just not a good time unless you despise humanity in general

[Anonymous No.5156227]

>>5155726
>the good parts of each fallout game.

3 has no good parts.

[Anonymous No.5156450]

>>5156227
>no good parts.
if you're a grognard maybe...

[Anonymous No.5156462]

>>5154273
>Game literally has less content and less of everything
>more frequent and interesting events.
You mean being attacked by the same group of 5-6 raiders armed with SMG?

[Anonymous No.5156464]

Faggots, this is /vr/. Want to talk about FO3, go to >>>/v/ or >>>/trash/

[Anonymous No.5156519]

Almost no one notes that the F2 is not so much a post-apoc as a western. Music, the atmosphere of small cities, gnawing among themselves. Crime, opposition of the north and south in case of Vault City and NCR.
The close army, which, like the IRL, solved all the problems when the bandits allowed themselves too much.

If you argue in this way, a certain clear style can be traced.

[Anonymous No.5156531]

>>5156464
I'll talk about whatever the fuck I want bitch. Just for that I'm gonna link your post on my twitter and get my tens of followers to laugh at your old lameass. Ohhhh whatcha gonna do about it bitchboy? Whine to the mods? Pfft I own the mods beeyotch! Money rules this world mutha fucka and I make loads of it hustling worn out hoes like your mom. Kerchow wrekt hamphlet hmph.

[Anonymous No.5156563]

Cain and Boyarsky are playing 1 RIGHT NOW on obsidian's twitch.

[Anonymous No.5156567]

>>5155919
Stop begin ADHD tweaker, then

[Anonymous No.5156735]

>>5156567
You didn't have fun in San Francisco or the oil rig and you know it.

[Anonymous No.5156887]

>>5156735
I don't have fun in any of the old games if they go on for too long. For me Fallout 2 was more of inertia thing after the first Fallout. Fallout was just so nice and sleek, while Fallout 2 was bloated and you could feel that gameplay systems from the first one were not meant for game that long.

[Anonymous No.5156891]

>>5154260
Someone please give me the most optimal gun build.

Im going to play these gems but the first time i built wrong or something and got raped by raiders travelling to junktown.

[Anonymous No.5156902]

>>5156891
It's not so hard actually. Go for high speech, moderately high small guns in the first one, and might as well google how high repair.
There's no reason to switch from small guns in fallout 2. Other skills are much less critical than speech, weapon skill and repair.
You need high agility, you can get one point for 'free'' later in the game and at least moderately high intelligence.
Strength is relatively unimportant, thanks to the power armor, you can do with low endurance and there's a whole lot of free luck in Fallout.

[Anonymous No.5156932]

Doing my first run of Fallout 1 & 2. Already finished FO1 and loved it, currently around 50 hours in Fallout 2. Restoration mod for removed/censored stuff, otherwise vanilla.

Fallout 1 got little too easy after a while, I felt like I couldn't fail in that game when I got my pistol skills high enough. Fallout 2 is way more difficult, and not only because of more balanced skills, but because there is just so much stuff going on. I can't even remember what the fuck I was supposed to do because I got lost in New Reno and became a pornstar and then some mafia guys wanted my help and then a stand up comedian thing and some boxer guy and and and and... what the fuck was I supposed to be doing in this game?
I still dislike the pip boy and quest log, it just states the mission name and nothing else. Good luck remembering some random asshat from a quest you started 30 hours ago.

[Anonymous No.5156965]

>>5156891
all into agility, baby

[Anonymous No.5157021]

>>5154262
Why are you even in this thread?

You're worse than a homosexual vegan.

[Anonymous No.5157202]

>>5157021
>a homosexual vegan.
That's redundant.

[Anonymous No.5157549]

>>5156891
>the most optimal
Gifted, Small Frame
ST: low
PE: high
EN: low
CH: dump completely
IN: >=7
AG: >=8
LK: >=6
Small Guns
Speech
[Energy Weapons, Lockpick, Doctor, in FO1 also Gambling and Barter due to being utterly, hideously broken]
PE, IN, AG and LK are the only skills that have a big impact on the game.
ST exists for convenience (carrying capacity) and in FO2 Unarmed types put it at 5 at most, everyone else can dump it depending on how much they hate inventory tetris (NPCs are amazing packmules and in FO2 there's the car).
EN is a nice HP cushion but it doesn't actively do much for you and sniper builds don't get hit much, so if you need points, you remove them from there.
High PE makes you a sharpshooter even without tagged Guns, and is useful for quests.
Investing into CH does pretty much nothing except a few bits of fluff in dialogue. IN is the diplomat stat ("smarter" dialogue choices with pumped Speech).
AG can be from 6 to 10 depending on how much you want to abuse drugs, but "the higher, the better" is the golden rule. Having high AP dictates victory in combat.
IN equal to 7 unlocks all dialogue options.
LK 6 gives you the best perk in the game at level 9, but more won't hurt, esp. since there's only four good stats.
>I love hoarding though
Cut Small Frame and get that +1 AG point from one of the not important stats.
>What are other good traits?
Good Natured, everything else is either completely neutral or marginal (Fast Metabolism, Bloody Mess, Chem traits), actively harmful (Bruiser) or contentious: some fags swear by those and others think they suck, or they require some expertise to understand what you're getting into / only shine in gimmick builds (Finesse, Kamikaze, Heavy Handed, Jinxed).
>inb4 hurf durf metagaming fagget
he asked for "most optimal"

[Anonymous No.5157562]

>>5157549
bear in mind that you don't have to play like this, BTW. I generally
>play without Gifted OR Small Frame
>give myself average ST just because I'm a lazy pack rat
>keep AG average because I know where to find drugs
>like to play attractive chicks (CH >6) just because it makes me feel good
>overall my stat spread is something very average with maybe one good stat because I enjoy playing characters that are plucky survivors

but in general, this post is like the most cookie-cutter build you can ever come up with, and barring some variations and flavor preferences it's basically *the* template for running things as the most basic build

Also, in FO1, Big Guns aren't fun to use, but FO2 makes them really good, so I recommend playing a Small Guns -> Energy Weapons build in FO1, and in FO2, experiment with Big Guns. Big Guns are my favourite things about FO2 and I could write a lot about those.

[Anonymous No.5157589]

>>5154260
i liked that "Maybe" meant more in Fallout 1's context than "A Kiss to Build a Dream On" did for 2

[Anonymous No.5157878]

>>5157549
Thanks

[Anonymous No.5157916]

>>5156891
For 1 & 2:
7 IN, 7 PE, 10 AG, do whatever with the rest of points
Traits: Gifted, Small Frame
Tags: Small Guns, Speech

For 1
Tag Big Guns

For 2
6 CH
Tag Lockpicking

Pumping any non-combat skill beyond 93% is pretty much pointless. Pumping combat skills above 140-150 is pointless, too.
That's literally it.

[Anonymous No.5157918]

>>5157589
This is (You) right now

[Anonymous No.5157924]

>>5156891
>>5157916
Oh, and in case of FO2, be absolutely sure to recruit Sulik, Vic and Cassidy. Later in the game, when you will get the shades and module rising your CH, add K-9 to the pack. Or just use Mentats.
Forget about meme followers like Marcus or Goris or god-forbid Skynet (enjoy inability to use stimpacks).
In case of FO1 followers are fucking shit and all you will ever need is Ian, because he has unlimited carry weight, so you can load that fucker with all your gear, just remember to not give him any Melee weapons nor ammunition to the guns he's given for hauling.

[Anonymous No.5158068]

>>5157918
Not that guy, but why would you want to demean someone who wants to speculate about or discuss subtleties and developer intentions?
Do you really feel better about yourself for not investing time and passion into your interests?

[Anonymous No.5158072]

>>5158068
>Do you really feel better about yourself for not investing time and passion into your interests?

But that's for nerds!

[Anonymous No.5158107]

>>5158072
I didn't think of that. Good point.
>>5154260
I've played through Fallout 1 about five times and Fallout 2 only once all the way to the end.
I always end up distracted and just do quests or grind gear and cash for hours.
To me the tone is what stands out in Fallout 1, there's very seldom not a crushing despair hanging over everything, yet a lot of people is going about their lives as well as they can, finding comfort and work arounds in their own little ways. It was not until my latest playthrough of Fallout 2 where I really started listening to the music of each area that I started to feel the soul. Dream Town, Gold Slouch and Many Contrasts being the best examples. The music tells me more about the culture and feel of these towns more than graphics ever could. I just feel that the npcs and the quests do not really reflect the feel the music is trying to convey. I get this great immersive feel from San Fransisco's music but I feel the gameplay gives me something wholly different. I felt this less in Fallout 1. The Cathedral and Junk Town felt absolutely amazing to me.
All in all, I think Fallout 2 could have benefited from someone looking over the narrative feel of the game and tried to put all the pieces together. New Reno and Vault City is a hint of how great the game could have been.

[Anonymous No.5158181]

>>5154262

[Anonymous No.5158373]

>>5158068
>Do you really feel better about yourself for not investing time and passion into your interests
Another pic related for you

[Anonymous No.5158630]

>>5154260
Shitty quests in fallout 2. Balance of rewards are broken for them(you get very crap money and or exp for most of them - for example completing one line of one of the bosses in New Reno,Mordino, for all that fucking around, earns you a LEATHER ARMOR, and only if you pass Charisma check and did everything perfectly). OR many borring quests in the northern side of the map(bring me alcohol, fix the power plant, optimize the powerplant, go to the ghost town, go there again, bring eddy or some other bob, go see suzy, brin me my anal plug etc. What is pathetic, it involves no roleplaying whatsoever, aside choosing witty remark on quest completion - there is no branching out, good alternatives, not even skill checks.

Balance in weapons- some skills got scaled, some were forgotten like throwing. Some skills are shit without proper build now(big guns, due to Enclv DR) They were obviously rushed., because it's not that hard to think of a few fucking grenade types.


Fallout 1 works in this regard - you have missions Junktown of lesser difficulty, but that could still kill you, and they pay you accordingly. Siding with the police in the Hub is risky and not much rewarding - as it should be, according to the lore. Also setting, story, talking heads, and less fluff.


Also I don't have time for such ridicullus combat that F2 puts emphasis on in this turn based engine - you are often faced with dozens of enemies and even when you fight allone and with fastest settings on this gets boring and not very tactical. Fallout 1 is not focused on squad fighting, the group of enemies are smaller, and the fights end quickly and nicely. Combat is still balanced and deadly - you get punished for bad decisions- ensuring good roleplay. In F2 it's more reloading because the 20th enemy got a critical from that minigun or your squad member died, and more "wait let me run to this brink of map on random encounter once more".

So all in all, mechanics, balance, engine limitations, lore.

[Anonymous No.5158740]

>>5158630
>Balance of rewards are broken for them
As opposed to looting literally metric fuckload of leather armours every random encounter, right? Oh noes, the game actually expect from you to play, rather than throwing money on you, how bad!
And it's totally not that FO1 is one fuck-huge fetch quest, where ALL you do is going between places.

The issue with skills is the same for both games, non-argument, while FO2 has better balance for non-gun weapons and actually makes them viable.

The spread of difficulty is exactly the same in both games, with awards also being according to the location and "part" of main quest.

>Also I don't have time for such ridicullus combat that F2 puts emphasis on in this turn based engine - you are often faced with dozens of enemies and even when you fight allone and with fastest settings on this gets boring and not very tactical.
The exact same shit applies to FO1. Only this time you can't even tell who is on your side AND your followers are useless anyway.

> the group of enemies are smaller
They are the same and in fact the battle for Boneyard is infamous for being the biggest and most messy fight in entire history of classic Fallouts (so 1, 2 and T)

>and the fights end quickly and nicely
Bullshit. It's like you never even tried to face Khans.

>Combat is still balanced and deadly - you get punished for bad decisions- ensuring good roleplay
Same shit in FO2

So all in all, you've made up bunch of shit that has ZERO relation with either of the games, just to be smug how great FO1 is, blatantly leaving all the issues or pretending they don't exist. Or outright lying.
Get fucked. You aren't "fitting in" for shitposting this bunch of crap.

[Anonymous No.5158748]

>>5154260
>new sprites are made in a style that clashes with old sprite
>boring and generic settlements - in 1 each settlement had a unique culture with unique graphics, but in 2 most settlements share a generic "wastelander" culture
>boring world map that only shows dirt and not cities like in 1
>humour is 100% referential and lolsorandom
>literally every NPC you meet wants all your money

[Anonymous No.5158762]

>>5158748
>>humour is 100% referential and lolsorandom
Original game opens with Pulp Fiction joke and only goes from there. The whole "Memout 2" meme is pants on head retarded

[Anonymous No.5158763]

>>5158740

Nice trolling. Try to come up with some arguments.

>And it's totally not that FO1 is one fuck-huge fetch quest, where ALL you do is going between places.
No, It's not. It has large amount of quests that end in the same location.

>The spread of difficulty is exactly the same in both games, with awards also being according to the location and "part" of main quest.
Except it's not. Compare reward for entering kung fu competition or clearing tanker hold in San Francisco( a big amount of fucking nothing, since you can get fuel regardless if you saved the girl) with getting best small gun in the Hub or getting whole stash of weapons and power uping power armor for clearing deathclaws. I could write more examples since I completed both games a couple of times.

>They are the same
No they are not the same you retard in Fallout 1 you meet 4-5 critters at best. Or even one Radscorpion. In F2 you can get a whole army of raider and bandits or 6 wanamingos/fire geckos in a single random encounter.

>Bullshit. It's like you never even tried to face Khans.
I think 10 Khans with 30 HP go down faster than whole mine of Wanamingo in Fallout 2. And so on and on.

>Same shit in FO2
Except not really like you can kill shopkeepers in the Den with weakest character. And there is dumb roleplay since the choices are retarded or there is no choice at all.

>Only this time you can't even tell who is on your side
Well if somebody is fucking stupid like you, then it's highly likely.

Combat in Fallout 1 requires less time EOT. You can even go pacifist route.

[Anonymous No.5158767]

>>5158740
>The issue with skills is the same for both games, non-argument, while FO2 has better balance for non-gun weapons and actually makes them viable.

Non gun skill like throwing? Because they totally broken that one. And melee still gets a super sledge like in Fallout 1, despite the fact that the enemies are stronger now.

[Anonymous No.5158774]

>>5158763
>I think 10 Khans with 30 HP go down faster than whole mine of Wanamingo in Fallout 2. And so on and on.
Not with a Flamer. Going Aliens on these motherfuckers is a highlight of all my playthroughs, and FO2, with its Bozar, LSW and various Miniguns made me love Big Guns, contrary to your assertation that FO2 has worse big guns (whereas FO1 has only three of them) or that they require a specific build to be effective (optimally making a primary-Big Guns combatant in either game required you to go Fast Shot to synergize the burst strategy instead of forsaking the most overpowered feature - shooting the eyes - for a bit of crowd control and overall worse range and damage)

[Anonymous No.5158782]

>>5158767
Throwing is terrible in either game, I have no idea why anyone would choose that particular hill to die on.

[Anonymous No.5158795]

>>5158782
Throwing is ok in Fallout 1. It can kill main boss easilly and end-game critters.

>>5158774
>with its Bozar, LSW and various Miniguns made me love Big Guns, contrary to your assertation that FO2 has worse big guns (whereas FO1 has only three of them)
less =!= worse. Big guns were powerfull in Fallout 1. In Fallout 2 they tried to scale miniguns(they still didn't scale flamer and bazooka properly) and it's crap.

[Anonymous No.5158801]

>>5158795
>Throwing is ok in Fallout 1. It can kill main boss easilly and end-game critters.
You can do that in FO2 as well, but it's going to be cumbersome because neither game gives you a lot of grenades and there are pretty much no perks to support this playstyle.
>less =!= worse. Big guns were powerfull in Fallout 1. In Fallout 2 they tried to scale miniguns(they still didn't scale flamer and bazooka properly) and it's crap.
I have absolutely no problems with Bozar/Vindicator/RL in the end-game. Flamer is very good at the time you get it, and clears entire rooms very fast with Fast Shot.

[Anonymous No.5158815]

>>5158801
>You can do that in FO2 as well, but it's going to be cumbersome because neither game gives you a lot of grenades and there are pretty much no perks to support this playstyle.
You can't do that in FO2, you'll get fucked. Enemies are better armored, have more HP. Throwing is good in FO mid-entry, mid, and late game.

>I have absolutely no problems with Bozar/Vindicator/RL in the end-game
Yeah sure after fast shot and 2xbonus ranged damage. Still worse than unarmed, small/energy weapons, that require next to none maintanance. In fallout 1 big guns did what they were supposed to do.

[Anonymous No.5158830]

>>5158815
>Throwing is good in FO
Where do you get the grenades to sustain this playstyle? Thrown Knives and other such weapons suck, grenades are too expensive for what they are, and if you want to use Frags/Plasmas to deal with masses of unarmored critters, FO2 also lets you do that, it's just not even effective even then.
>Yeah sure after fast shot and 2xbonus ranged damage
why would you complain that a burst damage build asks you to get better at burst damage?
You *can* run a build that uses Big Guns without these traits (e.g. Rocket Launcher to push people away, Flamer to insta-remove masses of low-armored enemies that plague you in the mid-game) and still be effective.
Just like you can be effective with Unarmed / Small Guns / Energy Weapons without Better Criticals or Living Anatomy.

[Anonymous No.5158869]

>>5158774
>Wanamingo vs. me, Vic and Cassidy, all armed with Pancorns
Best feeling ever

[Anonymous No.5158872]

>>5158767
>Hey guys, let me pretend Fallout 2 didn't have better Melee and Unarmed, because I would have to admit my arguments are invalid!
>Let's bring forgotten skill like Throwing
Which, due to abundance of PRACTICAL throwing weapons in FO2, is still superior to FO1, where you have grand total of what? 50 Grenades? And we are talking boring frags, that third of enemies will just shrug off. And it's still a trash, marginal skill in both games

>>5158795
>Throwing is ok in Fallout 1. It can kill main boss easilly and end-game critters.
Just like FO2, because IT'S THE SAME FUCKING ENGINE YOU ABSOLUTE DOUBLE NIGGER

It's like you are not only baiting, but actually believe in your own bait.

[Anonymous No.5158884]

>>5158872
>ABSOLUTE DOUBLE NIGGER
Not him, but aren't you that guy from the other thread who constantly screamed that expletive and then was blown the fuck out with evidence that he was wrong? He kept yelling "DOUBLE NIGGER".
"THE SAME FUCKING ENGINE" is not even an argument. Multiple things work differently in FO2. Energy Weapons are comparatively weaker than in FO1 because more enemies are resistant towards their damage types, particularly Laser weaponry is flashlight tier. Fast Shot no longer applies to melee weapons.

I disagree with the guy on his fandom of Throwing, but if I'm correct and you're the same guy, then it's the second thread you're shitting up wth incoherent screaming and non-sequiturs.

What I would say is that Frags/Plasmas are an *okay* choice against masses of unarmored enemies, but FO2 power scales much further but there are no good grenades given to compensate. So I kinda agree that Throwing is worse in FO2, but it's not even particularly attractive in 1, they require too much prep and resources to acquire and still don't do enough. For AoE dispersal, there are better choices that also are in tune with what most people build towards. It's "viable, but not much else" in my book.

[Anonymous No.5158898]

>>5158763
So... your entire complain is that FO2 is not papering you with treats and free shit on every step, but instead expects from you to... you know, suvive?

Also, explain me something. How does this exactly compare:
15 Khans, all in leather armour, armed with ranged weapons. Your weapon is 10mm pistol or Deagle you can get from their cold, dead fingers. You have no armour. Your only hope is Ian, also armed with shitty 10mm pistol.
vs.
You, at least a mid-game weapon with sufficient ammo, combat armour or better and from 2 to 5 competent followers, all armed to teeth and in half-decent armour, against bunch of enemies that literally can't engage at any other distance than directly standing in front of you, can't heal, won't use drugs and are just dumb fucking animals.
You literally couldn't pick worse comparison. At least if you tried, you could talk about the hideout for raiders (which was also tons of fun to do, because again, you get there mid-game, so you aren't just a random fucker with a pea-shooter) OR assault on Metzger and Slavers, using just sharpened spear, .44 magnum and with a bit of luck a double-barrel shotgun for that point-blank eye-gouging (but that was fucking THRILL to pull, because you have to think this over very carefully to not end up dead)
You are barking at all the wrong trees that are only possible, mate.

>You can even go pacifist route.
Just like FO2. You don't even need to touch Horrigan yourself, there is gorillion of turrets and Granite with his squad for that shit.

[Anonymous No.5158904]

>>5158898
>(but that was fucking THRILL to pull, because you have to think this over very carefully to not end up dead)
Just steal the Psycho from one of the Slavers and/or buy one from Tubby (or kill him) and lockpick-close the front door while shooting them from the windows. Easy money.
>Just like FO2
Lots of people argue that FO2 isn't a true pacifist ending because your Kills feed shows the One Final Boss and that you have to participate in combat with him, whereas FO1 just let you arm the bombs and leave. It's probably where he's coming from.

[Anonymous No.5158909]

>>5158884
>"THE SAME FUCKING ENGINE" is not even an argument
Also not the anon you are replying to, but how's that a non-argument? The game uses the exact same ruleset to decide effect of being hit by thrown weapon. The things you can pull in Fallout 1 are the same you can pull in Fallout 2 in regards of thrown weapon. Which is ironic, because you then proceed to list all the things that got changed, but fail to realise Throwing along with weapons for it is unaffected at all. In fact, Throwing weapons are better in Fallout 2, because there is Living Anatomy perk out there. Considering the enemies unaffected by that perk are the ones that go down from Pulse grenades instead, while the perk allows to turn Flares into lethal weapons of destruction... yeah, so much about meming how Fallout 1 has better throwing. Which, as previous two anons pointed out already, was a completely situational skill anyway and you are obsessing over it for the sake of it. All while it's 1:1 between both games in terms of mechanics.

[Anonymous No.5158910]

>>5158904
>Just steal the Psycho from one of the Slavers and/or buy one from Tubby (or kill him) and lockpick-close the front door while shooting them from the windows. Easy money.
I know that, but you can sell it after killing them. And if you want to go explitative, you could also lock-pick doors to thin down the crowd and never face more than 5 people at once, but where's fun in that?

[Anonymous No.5158920]

>>5158909
>Also not the anon you are replying to, but how's that a non-argument?
Because the original debate is about whether Throwing weapons were overall stronger in FO1 than in FO2. Just because it's "the original engine" doesn't mean dick if FO2's late-game enemies have stronger resistances and higher HP counts than FO1's end-game enemies.

Yes, the flare-thrower cheese build does exist, but it's a meme. It's not the most efficient killer and it is time-consuming to throw 12 flares per round, and it takes a while to actually kill anyone with it.

All that guy was arguing for was that Throwing is better in FO1 because grenades are more relevant throughout the game and FO2's HP/resistance bloat gave them a much smaller window to work with.

Again, I'm not a fan of Throwing in either game, most people aren't, but I can see where he's coming from. I just don't think "Throwing was good", and I certainly didn't agree with his assertion that Big Guns were better in FO1 (with all their bulk, lack of variety, and being plain inferior to Turbo Plasma Rifle) because you actually have to synergize them in FO2 to maximize their effectiveness. But at least he's not screaming "DOUBLE NIGGER" while spouting falsehoods. We're, for the most part, having a nice debate - as nice as it gets on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.5158923]

>>5158869
This is why I like FO2: your followers are useful. In FO1, they were literally exerimental script to see if its even possible to have them in the first place and were half-baked because of it. Lack of weapons made them further useless. Meanwhile, in FO2 you have a reason to get those people along and do shit together.
>inb4 b-but FO1 is more of a solo experience!
It wouldn't be, if followers weren't shit. The whole meme about FO1 being "more of a single stranger against all odds" comes directly from how god-awful followers were. You can still drag along a team of 3 people and a dog, but the question is - do you really feel like eye-rolling when they do something stupid every other turn? So you go "solo" with Ian as a pack-mule, then upgrade for Tycho, because he can use weapons with rifle animation.

[Anonymous No.5158929]

>>5158920
You were just caught red-handed on lying and as expected, your reaction is stammering something about it not being a point at all and how it never was.
Why you even bother? Nobody gives two shits about Throwing in either game and that skill is 1:1 between both games. Yet you insist on using it as your "argument" how Fallout 1 is better over 2.
To put that into perspective, it's like arguing if the curtains should be light pink or lilac, while you didn't even pour concrete for foundation.

[Anonymous No.5158937]

>>5158929
>Yet you insist on using it as your "argument" how Fallout 1 is better over 2.
You are calling me a liar caught red-handed, but I literally never once argued FO1 > FO2. I never even argued for the superiority of Throwing in either game. I don't like Throwing.
All I'm saying is that, to my understanding, Frags and Plasmas are okay (not optimal, not the best, and certainly not very efficient) weapons to throw at people with not much beyond a leather jacket on them, and I *assume* that the guy who raised the issue in the first place (again, not me) believes that FO1 Throwing is overall better because more people are susceptible to grenades without having to build your character entirely around them.
Yes, we agreed already that Throwing is shit. I never stated otherwise, nor any of the other things you're assuming I am behind.
Stop attempting to read between the lines and just read what's in the actual post.

[Anonymous No.5158949]

>>5158884
Double nigger is 3rd most common slur to throw at people, right after "stupid faggot" and "retard".
Remember times when mongoloid was still popular? It got kicked from the stand by "double nigger" thanks to political tourism

[Anonymous No.5158971]

>>5158949
Perhaps, but in most FO threads there's at least one guy who goes off his rocker whenever there's an argument and starts screaming (and overusing) that slur. And usually, whenever he does that, he says that on top of saying something inaccurate. I'm thinking it's always the same guy, the tone of post suggests that.

[Anonymous No.5158981]

Play Fallout Nevada you double reddshit niggers.

[Anonymous No.5158986]

Anyone played Fallout Nevada now that it's got an english translation?
How is it?

[Anonymous No.5158990]

>>5158986
Worth playing.

[Anonymous No.5159005]

>>5158986
It's better to be played in Russian, but the English translation is pretty good and not missing much. As for the game itself - definitely worth playing. Has its quirks, but it comes directly from being frankensteined out of FO2 engine.

[Anonymous No.5159149]

>>5154260
>>5154273
>>5154489
>>5154496
>>5154519
I don't need to go farther in the thread.

[Anonymous No.5159264]

>>5154260
Both games are shit design compared to Under Rail

[Anonymous No.5159483]

>>5156462
That was actually a glitch that would occur past a certain point in the game, not an intentional design choice.

[Anonymous No.5159550]

>>5157924
Wouldn't Goris be better than K-9?
also Marcus isn't too bad if you give him the pulse rifle

[Anonymous No.5159670]

>>5159550
>Wouldn't Goris be better than K-9?
Not him, but:
Goris has fewer AP and the annoying cape animation that he frustratingly toggles in and out of during combat. His Melee Damage stat is like +22 higher than K9s (NPCs actually pump that statistic to be somewhat worth a damn, PC can't but PC compensates by being able to make smart decisions in combat rather than follow a poor algorithm), however. And Goris is marginally tankier.

So I kinda don't know why that poster likes K-9 but not Goris, they're fairly similar in function and both appear competent.

Marcus is also a pretty good damage dealer, he just has a really hard time surviving against late-game enemies due to lack of armor.

Cybernetic Brain Skynet has a ridiculous amount of HP and can be told to snipe, so he's not really all that bad, either. I don't know if K-9 can use Stimpaks, either (though logic tells me "not really") and K-9 has less HP and is an exclusively melee attacker, yet he's recommended in that same post.

[Anonymous No.5159780]

Why didn't Fallout 2 fix the glitch where characters can get perks by taking drugs or wearing power armor?

[Anonymous No.5159786]

>>5159780
because it was intentionally left in for munchkins to abuse

[Anonymous No.5159790]

>>5159786
I guess you could say it's just optional, but at the same time it's annoying reading recommendations for newbies saying shit like
>Don't bother with 6+ strength ever because the coding is retarded and you can get perks anyways

[Anonymous No.5159793]

>>5159264
I am not even mad at this view.
After being a fallout fan forever, I see now that the gameplay was and has always been buggy garbage. The ui has always been painful. The main attraction to the series is comic violence and occasional lore
Gameplay alternates between pixel hunting and garbage collection and just passable combat.

The most shocking realization was what a good successor this made fo 2 3 4 and nv

[Anonymous No.5159795]

>>5159793
>The most shocking realization was what a good successor this made fo 2 3 4 and nv
this is bait

[Anonymous No.5159815]

>>5159795
Search your heart, you know it to be true.

Better check that pile of goo for the key card you need. Open that locker to search it

[Anonymous No.5159817]

>>5159815
3, 4, and NV are trash. 2 improved on the formula yet failed in other regards.

[Anonymous No.5159839]

>>5159790
It's just that a ST 5 and a ST 10 hand-to-hand fighter don't differ much in combat performance, so every single guide for newbies exists pretty much to allow the creation of an "everyman" character who has no problems dismantling combat situations and can always get the "best" quest resolution (most complete/happy, or just granting the most XP).

If you wanted to play a competent "melee fighter" who can naturally become a Slayer (pretty much the only perk that actually has a Strength requirement and is worth a damn) and all the other goodies, then here's my rough stat draft without any traits and without dump stats (because dumping Charisma is for munchkins):
ST 7 (+1 chip to hit 8)
PE 4 (our non-Gifted future Slayer melee savant can't even pick up the Sharpened Spear in 2 unless you swap this stat with EN)
EN 6
CH 4
IN 6 (take Smooth Talker at level 3 if you really want all the "smart" dialogue options; you can't take Toughness anyway)
AG 8
LK 5 (+1 LK in Boneyard [or +2 LK with a glitch] or a successful Zeta-Scan in FO2 to enable Better Criticals)

I can't get over how fucking bad Max Stone at his one schtick is in this game because of how fucktarded the physical stats are. Can't close gap, can't melee kite, his PE and IN are awful so he can only stand there and trade punishment, which is not favorable at all. He's bad at everything, *including* combat. Narg is a much better "pregen" design for someone who just wants to crush and maim in multiple ways, and not just because he has Gifted.

[Anonymous No.5159851]

>>5159839
I'm a moron and this build can't even take Better Criticals because "naturally" it requires PE 6, which we aren't obtaining any time soon with this character. So, we would *have* to swap PE with EN. But it's really antithetic to the idea of a brawler fighter who actually has the stats to reflect that and isn't just circumventing how crappy SPECIAL is.

Maybe the way to go is to ignore Better Criticals. If you punch something in the eyes long enough with something that has Weapon Penetrate, it should still die... but then you're a combat-oriented character who willfully ignores one of the best combat perks in the game.

The guy who made Age of Decadence said once that Fallout on paper is supposed to be a game where you can't unlock all the content with just one character and you have to make multiple runs to do stuff. Unfortunately, the system is fucked and the game can be bent to not work that way, that's why everyone makes a diplomat sniper thief who retains a golden tongue in spite of Charisma 2. And there's nothing in-game to incentivize pumping Strength other than the one perk you get at level 24, which you won't even realize because you'll be in Advanced Power Armor by then.

So bottom line is, if you want a character that is a strong fighter, you're basically paying SPECIAL points for playing pretend instead of getting decent return on your investment. That's what investing into Strength is like. Gun characters don't ever fall into this trap because PE, AG and LK are useful to every character.

Or you can just pick Gifted. +7 SPECIAL means you can afford a massive budget of fluff points. I suppose it's only fitting, from a role playing perspective, for the guy that can do everything to be naturally talented at everything.

[Anonymous No.5159887]

>>5159264
If UnderRail had running, it would be a perfect game.

[Anonymous No.5159893]

>>5159550
>>5159670
K-9 has absolutely crazy amount of AP and can cause knock-back. He takes stimpacks, levels up nicely and has no requirements aside getting him.
Goris has less AP, worse armour (and this makes a huge difference considering the stage of game), his attacks are WEAKER and he also has bunch of secondary requirements, along with the fact he leaves your party and heads back home, so you have to fetch him back.
K-9's weakness in this comparison comes from the fact he can't be used as a pack-mule, but that's literally it.

As for Marcus, the other anon already described the problem. Marcus is made out of taffy. He has relatively large HP pool, but it's almost entirely "soft", meaning he easily bites the dust. On the other hand, he's the main reason why your party might die or be seriously wounded, unless armed with Turbo Plasma Rifle, because he is going to fire at enemies without taking into account friendly fire from Big Guns.

K-9 can take stimpacks (against all logic, I know), which is the reason why it's superior to Skynet. Skynet can only be repaired. This already is a problem. Then there are requirements to get the cybernetic brain for it, which is simply not worth it.

So, to wit:
Goris is a melee fighter with inferior AP, AC, armour statistic and damage and annoying secondary requirements.
Marcus has no armour, so he's extremely vulnerable by late game, requiring a rigorious control over his HP state and a steady supply of stimpacks and super-stimpacks. Then there is the problem with murderous friendly fire.
Skynet is basically a middle ground between Cassidy and Vic (but I already have those two, so why bother with adding third?), but unlike them, takes stupid amount of otherwise useless skill and most importantly, can't be healed with stimpacks.

K-9 meanwhile nicely synergises with Sulik, can be healed with stimpacks, is good damage dealer, has knock-back and drop, doesn't come with additional requirements, has fantastic AC and has good armour

[Anonymous No.5159894]

>>5159839
You need ST 6 to make Unarmed viable, due to requirements for special attacks. Just saying.
Also, Slayer is bugged. It was supposed to work like Sniper (luck-based), but instead turns every attacks into critical.

Also, your build for melee (doesn't matter if Melee or Unarmed) is trash, for both FO1 and 2.

[Anonymous No.5159898]

>>5159893
To put it into a broader context:
My go-to team is Sulik (melee), Vic and Cassidy. This means Sulik basically charges alone into the combat, being the only melee (unless I also play Unarmed or doing a tribal run). So additional melee follower is a great help here. And considering what are the options, K-9 is the best of them all. Probably if I wasn't playing with melee Sulik, I wouldn't bother and just add another gunner, but all thinks taken into account, Sulik is utterly wasted potential if not fighting in melee. His Small Guns, along with possible choice of weapons, is laughable, even on max level. But he goes nicely in melee combat, thus giving him a dog for extra punch in the front lines is a godsend. Goris doesn't really compare and every other dog is fucking joke (fuck you, Dogmeat, you are a meme character that was never good)

[Anonymous No.5159905]

>>5154260
Fallout 1 had less combat which made it automatically better considering that Fallout combat is garbage.
>miss
>miss
>LOL CRIT FOR 125 DAMAGE BYPASSING ARMOR YOU DIE

Fallout 2 encounters on the world map with groups of bandits every 100 meters was annoying as hell. It all boiled down to savescumming since with 5 people shooting at you, there is always a chance for a lucky crit and instant game over. And if you took companions it was even worse considering how easily they died too.

[Anonymous No.5159913]

>>5159905
>>miss
>>miss
Have you tried not making shit characters for a change?

[Anonymous No.5159920]

>>5159894
>you need ST 6
No special Unarmed maneuvers in FO1 and in FO2, the ST5»6 investment only gives you Power Kick which is +1 AP cost and +2 dmg over Haymaker, which is unlocked at 5. Unarmed chars want ST5, and only in FO 2.
>your build is trash
Gee, it is as if it was specifically made with a multitude of restrictions that were already acknowledged in the post as being only there for fluff / RP purposes.

[Anonymous No.5159928]

>>5159920
Just because you pretend your build has "RP value" doesn't make it any less trash. You actively block a handful of very useful perks for no other reason than having weird point distribution.
But probably nothing beats your solution to having 6 IN instead of 7 - you pick a fucking perk to cover for it, but a DIALOGUE perk, rather than rising the IN or simply starting with 7 for actual benefits.

[Anonymous No.5159930]

>>5159928
Yeah, I acknowledged all of it. I made follow up posts to comment on it. You are boring.

[Anonymous No.5160003]

>>5159894
>Also, Slayer is bugged. It was supposed to work like Sniper (luck-based), but instead turns every attacks into critical.
>The Slayer walks the earth! In hand-to-hand combat all of your hits are upgraded to critical hits, causing destruction and mayhem.
There's no bug here. Sniper has a different description that specifies it makes LK-based rolls; Slayer does not. To obtain Slayer you don't even need any LK.

[Anonymous No.5160016]

>>5159905
>People are actually this fucking bad
>They blame the game for it

[Anonymous No.5160052]

>>5159905
This is bait, right? I mean this has to be bait.

[Anonymous No.5160343]

>>5159887
your character is always "running", it's just that low agi characters are fucking slow nerds

try playing a high agi character with infused hopper leather and tabis, you fly everywhere

[Anonymous No.5160349]

>>5160343
the fact that your character is a hunched over paleskinned troglodyte from living their entire life in a cave is fucking hilarious once you realize it's completely intentional

[Anonymous No.5160358]

>>5159905
People who think this is bait are unironical retards or people who can't into reading.

Fallout had garbage combat because late game combat meant you went mostly unharmed or instantly died to a critical hit. Fallout 2's was even worse because of the shitload of enemies you encountered.

There was nothing tactical about Fallout's "tactical" combat. It was simply bad.

[Anonymous No.5160368]

Fallout 2 is simultaneously too long and unfinished. It suffers from underpowered weapons and hp bloat.

When it originally came out and I was a kid, it was my favorite game ever, but now I find it tedious and the writing awful. Fallout 1 on the other hand is entirely replaying.

[Anonymous No.5160410]

>>5160368
>It suffers from underpowered weapons
Yeah, because having entire plethora of high-end guns that can blow you to pieces is underpowered. Totally not like FO1, where we have THREE weapons in Big Guns and all three suck ass, while Small Guns are all mid-tier, without anything really good in them and you absolutely HAVE TO go for Turbo Plasma
>hp bloat
HP scaling is literally the same as in the first game

At least try making things up in a way they sound belivable to anyone ever playing both

[Anonymous No.5160414]

>>5160410
I don't know how you think you can post something like that after literally stating a falsehood like "small guns don't have anything really good in them".

[Anonymous No.5160473]

>>5160410
I don't think you ever played the game at this point. Those three big guns can kill most end game enemies in 1-2 hits, and mid game ones in one hit. Without perks. Oh, and those khan's you mentioned? Smg from vault 15 and it's done. Throwing is useless against enclave, whereas it kills mutants from fo1 easily. You get the ammo from lockpicking and vendors, and use it for strategic points like freeing initiate. I'm not even replying to the rest of garbage you are spouting, everybody can see you are obviously retarded at this point

[Anonymous No.5160529]

>>5160414
They don't have anything good end-game in FO1. Sniper rifle is the closest thing, but suffers from shit AP costs

>>5160473
>Oh, and those khan's you mentioned
... I didn't. Are you aware 4chan is more than you and just one person?

[Anonymous No.5160532]

>>5160529
So either you don't know how to find the .223 pistol, or you have some sort of twisted logic as to why it isn't "end game". In either case, I don't really want to hear the excuse.

[Anonymous No.5160556]

>>5154260
I only played Fallout 1 as a kid, couldn't survive for more than 10 minutes outside the cave. Also, game was 2 spooky so I usually turned it off after that. Popped in Blade Runner instead.

[Anonymous No.5160560]

>>5160532
>.223 pistol
>End-game weapon
>Powerful weapon
>Good weapon
It's the epitome of mid-tier gear.
How's even .223 compare with, dunno, Pancorn (accurate burst says hello) or Gauss?
And in terms of .223 ammo, we have Light support weapon (hello, .223 pistol that actually does damage) and Bozar (hello, dead squad of Enclave troopers in single burst).
Even in context of FO1 alone, it gets absolutely obsolete by end game and is the gun you can give to Ian if you feel sentimental about keeping it, rather than selling.

[Anonymous No.5160563]

>>5160556
>Popped in Blade Runner instead.

[Anonymous No.5160569]

>>5160532
Generic Combat Shotgun is better than your meme pistol.

[Anonymous No.5160584]

>>5160560
I'm not talking about Fallout 2. I literally said in my first post that Fallout 2 has shit weapon balance.

[Anonymous No.5160601]

>>5160569
Combat Shotgun is ok, too. These are yet more reasons why Fallout 1 is great, while Fallout 2 is not.

Fallout 1 weapons are actually balanced around the amount of HP enemies have, most weapons are usable.

[Anonymous No.5160676]

>>5160584
Here is your post

>>5160601
The exact same applies to FO2, thou. Thing is, the "sequence" is not railroaded. So you can end up in places where you shouldn't be too soon. And I'm not talking about Navarro run. The game goes "linear" until Vault City and then it basically tells you "listen up, kid, this map is huge, here are some curious places to visit, go check them". While you can THEORETICALLY stick to the "right" sequence, it's a pure theory and usually after Vault City/Gecko things go to shit in terms of keeping it on the rails
FO1, for comparison, is pretty much on-rails all the time, so the progression is much more visible.

As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter that much (weapon balance), but the fact it's non-linear in FO2 is great

[Anonymous No.5160756]

bigger =! better

1 has an actual narrative and story to tell.
2 has evil mustache twirling republican opressing savage nobles.
1 has a good blend of serious and humorous moments.
2 is full on "dued u can be a pornstar xddd monty python reference!"

[Anonymous No.5161375]

>>5157562
FO2's big guns just boil down to "steal the Bozars off the merchant guards as soon as you get to NCR" though. That's it, that's your first and last big gun.

[Anonymous No.5161430]

>>5161375
>big gun sniper rifle never ever.

[Anonymous No.5161685]

>>5160756
1 is generic Mad Max rip-off mixed with Wasteland riffs
2 has a plot and world on its own
1 has forced jokes that doesn't fit anything at all
2 is cohensive western-like narrative, with proper blend of everything

>>5161375
>That's it, that's your first and last big gun.
>What is Light support weapon
>What is Vindicator
Let me guess - the only build possible in FO2 is Le 10 LK Sniper maymay?

[Anonymous No.5161687]

>>5160756
Also, you are quoting the person that's predominately responsible for fucking up Fallout lore for everyone as some sort of gospel. Avellone is literally the last fucker out there to be asked about anything

[Anonymous No.5161708]

>>5154260
1fag here with a soft spot for 2
1 has better pacing and isn't annoyingly difficult at the beginning
There's better progression with armors
Story is better
yadda yadda

[Anonymous No.5161721]

>>5154260
I played Fallout 1 twice in '99: once at my friend, reached Junktown and was generally meh. Then, few months later, played on my own and forced myself to complete, hearing from everyone how great it is, so I was constantly waiting for that greatness to finally show up. Never returned to it since then.
Didn't touch Fallout 2 until '05, that's how turned off I was after experiencing first game. And since then, I've lost count how many times I've re-played it.
Never understood the hate it gets, never understood the praise the first one gets. If anything, 1 feels like a demo or some sort of experiment to make 2 - short, simplistic, less of everything, useless features, useless followers, lot of time spend on bullshit stuff like talkng heads and so on.