Red_Avatar: I just replayed Fallout 1 and I must say, I agree. The first FO1 wasn't really that good:

- the game is actually pretty short (okay, FO3 was too if you followed the quests) and it was possible to finish the game in an hour of 5 of playing

- there aren't that many NPCs you can talk to that have anything interesting to say and most were just forgettable. I loved that guy Richard Dean Anderson played, but in general they were pretty boring

- the quests were too basic. Go there, do that. We're used to quests that branch off these days, but FO1's quests were like "go to point X and do this, then return" which seemed a bit underwhelming to me.

- the locations were mostly so so too.

Fallout 2 was brilliant though: much better NPCs, much better quests, a far bigger world, took a lot longer to complete the game, some brilliant locations, etc. Ironically, Baldur's Gate had the same problems: dull locations, not enough proper NPCs, etc. and Baldur's Gate II was also far better in contrast. Seems they had to learn from the first game.

If you put FO2 vs FO3, it becomes a lot harder. FO3 was a better experience if you want to get immersed in a post-apocalyptic world, but FO2 had better combat (if you ignored the ridiculous and unpredictable insta-kill criticals that could kill you no matter how strong you were) and it just felt bigger and more epic. FO3 (and NV even more) always suffered from having tons of locations at a few 100 feet apart.

jefequeso: See, I find that odd. I thought Fallout 1 was a unique, enthralling experience, and Fallout 2 killed some of what made the first so memorable. Sure, there was more to do, but it didn't really make you feel like you were a wasteland survivor (which the first did so well). It just felt more like a typical CRPG in a somewhat unusual setting. And the concept of having a main quest that was only hampered by your own lack of knowledge of the world was, in my opinion, pure genius. Sure, an experienced player could sit down and beat the game within an hour or so, but anyone not familiar with the game had to dive in and actually think like your character would have to think. I find that to be a much more immersive roleplaying experience than any amount of quirky quests or humorous characters.

Red_Avatar: Ah but see, this is the thing: it's a game. The story itself isn't even that special: you move out of your vault, get the waterchip from Necropolis, give it back only to find out you're kicked out, then have to find the mutant infestation and that's it really. There's no story in-between even. You collect bits & pieces from talking to NPCs but there's no deep story underneath. It's more a matter of collecting scraps of info to get the bigger picture, only for it to be told once again when you find the base.

On top of that, Fallout 1 made mistakes. You say "wasteland survivor" but in reality, I felt that the world didn't feel right. There was not enough evidence of the disaster that happened. You walk out of a vault and no-one is interested where your vault is. When you mention it (like when you want water to be supplied) it's treated as if it's dead normal. In reality, people would have gone crazy wanting the tech inside. And I never felt that the people were struggling for survival - and neither was I. It was easy to get all sorts of weapons and ammo, I rarely got radioactive, and the areas didn't really show me a disaster had happened. Not enough ruins. You had the "glow", sure, but that's it. Fallout 2 at least had stuff like a power plant and Fallout 3 added a lot more locations that I wanted to see.

jefequeso: I think the point was that the entire world is just completely barren and decimated. There's hardly anything left, not even dangerous things. It's just a wasteland. And I personally had a heck of a time finding weapons and supplies (although that's maybe just because I suck :P). In Fallout 2, I barely felt like anything had actually happened in the world. It was too populated. Put simply, in Fallout 1 it was like the entire world had disappeared, save for little patches of humanity. In Fallout 2, it just felt like a typical post-apocalyptic locale.

As for the story, I personally think that Fallout 1 was a case of "less is more." And we'll just have to agree to disagree on that subject.

lowyhong: After doing slave runs for Metzger, you would be pretty much self sufficient already. Fallout 2 (and New Vegas) lacks the scavenging, despair feeling that Fallout 1 evoked, at least initially. There was a sort of loner feeling to it, amidst a strange, alien and quirky new world.

Not to say I didn't like Fallout 2. It was the first Fallout game I played, before I got around to playing Fallout 1 in 2002, and I still love it - just not as much as 1.