This is a kind of tough question. Fallout 1 had an inexcusably bad inventory & RPG system ("RPC" = Recruitable Player Characters). So much so that I never really bother recruiting anyone in that game if I can help it. Fallout 2 had an inexcusably bad ending (with the silly 'You take damage every time you move...you know, so this will be challenging!' nonsense). Fallout 1 had an overall better story (not that I really give a f*** about story in RPGs) but Fallout 2 had better everything else. More fun to replay FO 2 (except for that first dungeon/temple thing with the scorpions) up until you get to that last series of encounters.

So it's a tie...kind of. I tend to prefer Tactics over both of them in some ways.

Dude. >.<

My judgment is rather flawed due to two things. It's been quite a long while since I played through Fallout (1) and I know that game since over ten years, while I only fairly recently got into Fallout 2 and haven't played much. On top of that, I had to start over, since my save files vanished.

But despite that, I have to say that, so far, I prefer the second game. Fallout's biggest quality (which Fallout 2 doesn't seem to reach) it's atmosphere, is actually kind of a flaw for me. The best explanation I could give for that is that it feel a bit very heavy, which... isn't all that clear.

Then, there is the story. I heard that Fallout 2 didn't handle it's story as well as Fallout, but I think even despite that, I'll prefer Fallout 2's story. The reason is the premise. The Enclave, and it's attempt to establish a self-righteous and (apparently) downright fascist nation, is way more interesting than the Master and his super mutant army. Honestly, I think Fallout's story is a little lame.

I know...I know, a lot of people make this common error of assuming story is integral to the RPG genre itself and those same people seem inorindately impressed by Planescape: Torment and such, while looking down their noses at tactical, squad-based games. What these folk seem to not understand is that RPGS ARE tactical, squad-based simulation games and as such their mechanics enable 'storytelling' to be done better. But for the most part RPGs do not have good stories (not as true for table top RPGs but still...) anyway. If you want to read a good story then I am 100% behind that but go get a book.

That's what I do. I let games be games. That way I don't get upset by roguelikes and other RPGs not being Gene Wolfe caliber storytelling.

i like fallout 1 becuase you didn't have to go through that rediculas intro thing in F2 where you had to fight ants with a spear, and trust me, nobody wanted to fight with a spear, everybody wanted a gun. my nephew played it, and he couldn't even get past the fight at the end of it with that dude where you fight him hand to hand!

fallout can be a difficult game i understand this, but still.


other then that, both fallouts are just as good as the other to me, that being said fallout 1 is my favorite becuase i managed to beat it and know it better. otherwise i love both games.

I agree the Temple of Trials sucks, but that's what happened when Interplay wanted a tutorial area shoehorned in. You can run past the creatures, blow up the door and use speech or sneak to get past the guy at the exit.

Hey, I know, this might be a necro, but since this is about a very old game and a topic that is relevant anyway I feel like it is justified to do some necromancy.

That being said I absolutely prefer Fallout 1 to Fallout 2. Yes, Fallout 1 is shorter and has various small shortcomings where 2 is more polished (as said in the preceding posts), but for me, Fallout 1 is the more coherent game. Some elements in Fallout 2 look out of place for me, and I actually prefer the skill system of Fallout 1. The shorter length actually is a bonus for me, too, because it makes it easier to play it again and again and again and... wait, where was I going with this? :)

EDIT: Oh, and why did they change the sound of the .223 pistol in Fallout 2? Such a shame :(
EDIT2: And, of course, dogmeat. Yes, he gets in the way and is downright suicidal in the military base, but I ended every.single.game with him alive.

At once point I thought I might, but then I played F1 again. It's really really good, but F2 is better

I much prefer Fallout 1 as well. Fallout 2 drags on a bit at times and plot-wise it's all over the place. I still love both games of course.

I enjoyed FO1, and finished it.

FO2, I got bogged down in the size and never finished it before losing interest.

I really didn't notice much improvements in FO2.

I prefer FO1.