What I really appreciate about the original Fallout is that the whole "vaults are actually secret experiments" subplot is completely absent. That and no Enclave or any real remnants of the old world. The only information you get is what little can be gleamed from the intro exposition and a few sentences from Harold, who barely remembers it. I still think the og works best as a standalone game with only the manual and the game itself containing any canon lore.
then Fallout 2 came out
>>12565812It's pretty barebones and boring, playing it safe, so there isn't anything wild for nerds to nitpick and shit on. The cult was the wildest thing and the most stupid.
It's weird usually I prefer 3D games since I just find them much more immersive. Rarely would I pick a 2d RPG over 3d one. Yet the 200 hours I put into FO3/NV were inferior to the 10 or 20(?) put into FO1
>>12565949Put 200 hours into FO1 and see how you feel afterwards
>>12565949/threadI don't care about the miss miss miss simulator that are fallout 1 and 2
>>12565949>"I liked FO1 a lot more than 3 and NV">>12565957>"Yep, this. End the thread. FO1 sucked."i feel like im going insane
>>12565961people who lack the patience for rpgs struggle to understand a few sentences. big surprise
>>12565961reading comprehension is really going down.
I was 14 when this game released, and I still remember what it was like playing it for the first time. It had a pretty big influence on me when it came to what I like about RPG's. It's unfortunate that the game is relatively short, something they "fixed" with Fallout 2, but I don't think it holds the game back. It's just long enough to sell the setting and world, and I have played it a hundred times for sure. It's a lot like how Diablo 1 feels for me, too. Both are dark and gritty in their own way, Fallout because it feels so hopeless, and Diablo 1 because of its gothic architecture.
