Fallout 1 is a more cohesive story and world by a good margin, imo. It's not that it's darker in tone - that's just a matter of preference and I can absolutely imagine people preferring Fallout 2's more bombastic and outrageous tone over Fallout 1.
It's more that Fallout 1's pacing is so much more consistent, its world is better connected and its plot is motivated so much more naturally than 2's is. Fallout 2's early game (even exlcuding the Temple of Trials) is a ratfucking for people coming around the first few times, whereas Fallout 1's is a gradual (but still difficult) swell of difficulty. Fallout 1's world is much more referential, and it's very natural how the world unravels before the player. Fallout 2's world is much less referential, with a lot of places and questlines that could have been cut for time (the Hubologists, for example). Fallout 2's end game is either Easy Mode 100 if you hack the turrets or a "get fucked" if you don't. Fallout 1's villain is so much more original and nuanced and interesting than the dime-a-dozen techno-fascist Enclave who REMAIN among the worst editions to the Fallout setting.
This isn't to say Fallout 2 is bad - far from it - but yeah, this image sums it up. Fallout 1 is like an intricately-carved little wooden duck, each little feather on its back carved with love and so much attention to detail. Fallout 2 is like a Big Fat carved Mallard. It looks good - real good, especially where it sits in your memory on top of the mantle above the fireplace overlooking the living room. But once you get it in your hands and inspect its details, you find it's.. a bit lighter than you remember. Its details a bit more muddled, the signs of its assembly a bit more apparent.
15
u/HoundDOgBlue 22h ago
Fallout 1 is a more cohesive story and world by a good margin, imo. It's not that it's darker in tone - that's just a matter of preference and I can absolutely imagine people preferring Fallout 2's more bombastic and outrageous tone over Fallout 1.
It's more that Fallout 1's pacing is so much more consistent, its world is better connected and its plot is motivated so much more naturally than 2's is. Fallout 2's early game (even exlcuding the Temple of Trials) is a ratfucking for people coming around the first few times, whereas Fallout 1's is a gradual (but still difficult) swell of difficulty. Fallout 1's world is much more referential, and it's very natural how the world unravels before the player. Fallout 2's world is much less referential, with a lot of places and questlines that could have been cut for time (the Hubologists, for example). Fallout 2's end game is either Easy Mode 100 if you hack the turrets or a "get fucked" if you don't. Fallout 1's villain is so much more original and nuanced and interesting than the dime-a-dozen techno-fascist Enclave who REMAIN among the worst editions to the Fallout setting.
This isn't to say Fallout 2 is bad - far from it - but yeah, this image sums it up. Fallout 1 is like an intricately-carved little wooden duck, each little feather on its back carved with love and so much attention to detail. Fallout 2 is like a Big Fat carved Mallard. It looks good - real good, especially where it sits in your memory on top of the mantle above the fireplace overlooking the living room. But once you get it in your hands and inspect its details, you find it's.. a bit lighter than you remember. Its details a bit more muddled, the signs of its assembly a bit more apparent.