I've played a little bit of Fallout 1 so take this with a grain of salt, but they seem like any other well-regarded old game - there are some things that might feel weird or that you might have to get used to, but there are good reasons people remember those games fondly. They're cheap right now so you're not losing much if you don't like it and you're gaining a lot if you do.

fallout 2 is my favorite game ever but no, they don't hold up.

the story and the quests of those games are great but the gameplay mechanics and graphics haven't aged well.

To be honest they didn't really hold up when they were released. People (including I) love those games so much because you really have to love them to be able to forgive all their faults. Especially 2 is one bug-ridden mess of a game. 1 is a little better in that regard, but the games kinda look like someone threw up all over your monitor. If you're interested in playing them, definitely play 1 over 2.

I tried playing 2 after being a big fan of 3 and never got very far.

First thing: playing it like a 2D version of the newer games seems like a very bad way to go.

Second thing: It seemed really difficult and slow to me. I felt like I was getting my ass kicked every time I entered combat. I had no idea what I was supposed to be doing in the game in general.

I imagine there are some probably some primers of the correct way to approach the game, so know going in that it is from a different time.

...That said, people do speak very fondly of it and it is pretty cheap (it's part of the Steam sale right now!) so by all means check it out.

I really love the world in those games but they haven't aged all that well and the bugs will probably make them unpleasant to get into. (It might be unfair to compare them to the Baldur's Gate games, but if they would work with as little trouble as those games I think I would recommend people to play the Fallout games without hesitation if they were interested in them)

Gameplay-wise it's aged very poorly, in my opinion. Very awkward to control and super punishing unless you know what you're doing. Story-wise, both completely blow Fallout 4 out of the water.

Gameplay-wise, not at all. The controls are absolute rubbish.

I haven't tried either of them recently, but Fallout 2 is one of my favorite games ever. The story is much better than Fallout 3 or 4 and there are far more options for using skills and perks to avoid combat (I think I've seen one science check in Fallout 4 so far, and it seemed completely inconsequential). I'm sure without nostalgia it would seem like a clunky mess, but that's true of almost any game from that time.

The UI always was clunky and kinda awful, and remains so. The writing and role-playing aspect of the games absolutely hold up though, few CRPG's have allowed you to create such a wide variety of valid characters in terms of personalities, abilities and dialog choices.

It's hard to answer this in any realistically objective way because I'm a huge fan of those games. Fallout 1 and 2 were basically the reason why I got into RPG's in the first place. So in my opinion, yah, as far as old CRPG's they do hold up because they use a simplified version of the D&D ruleset. Obviously it's a very different type of game than what were used to today. It is slow paced, methodical and extremely punishing, but if you stick with it the combat and abilities become incredibly rewarding. The sheer amount of options in tackling the many quests in that game are astounding even by todays standards. Those are games where you can convince one of the main antagonists to simply commit suicide and skip the fight altogether. The writing was great and most importantly they felt like actual Role Playing Games. Skills and abilities all mattered, and you couldn't be a master of all trades like in most modern games, you chose a specialization and stuck with it.

Once again, I am a huge fan, those games defined a large part of my early teen years and taste in games later to come - so when I say I think they "hold up" take that as you will. They are like any other old game played today: cryptic, a little clunky, a little weird, but they have a ton of creativity in them and a lot of heart. The modern Fallout games are honestly a very pale shadow compared to the originals. It's really up to you how open you are to that stuff and how much old-school funk you're willing to put up with.

For the most part, I'd say so, just know what you're getting into.

One thing that really doesn't hold up is a lot of the humour - particularly in Fallout 2. Get ready for some timely references to Tom & Nicole and Bill Clinton's affair...

If you know what you're getting into (a pair of 17 and 18 year old RPGs), maybe skim a few guides on how to build a character, they hold up alright. Fallout 1 is actually surprisingly short for a CRPG from that era, something like 15 hours long unless you're a super completionist. Fallout 2 is far longer and has far more awkward pop-culture references that don't hold up so well.

The unrelenting avalanche of pop culture references in Fallout 2 probably makes it a lot harder to appreciate than Fallout 1, even though I liked the sequel way more at the time.

The low intelligence run of Fallout 2 is a magical experience though..

Fallout 1 absolutely does

Fallout 2 absolutely does not. It's a really poorly written game that just rehashes the vast majority of the content from the first game (even story beats!), replaces the interesting antagonists with generic props and the well-rounded NPCs with cartoonish stereotypes, swaps out the good writing for dumb fourth wall jokes, endless pop culture references, and stupid-silly characters and quests (Including such things as [mild spoilers] a talking Deathclaw in your party who ~dramatically~ throws off his cape every battle start, a cult of Ghouls run by a hyperintelligent telepathic mole rat, and an entire quest line based around an awful hamfisted parody of Scientology, complete with Tom Cruse and Nicole Kidman stand-ins)

The game was a blatant cash-in, made in less than a year without any input from the original creator of Fallout, and it definitely shows. Even Chris Avellone, one of the lead FO2 writers, has been quite critical of it in recent years.

I highly recommend fallout 1 because it's one of the most memorable experiences i had but there's one thing I suggest which is you should look for a game guide because a) it will relieve you from pixel hunting b) you'll beat the game without missing anything.

Gameplay is fairly simple and easy to get into.

It's probably hard to get into them now, but if you've played them back then yes they do absolutely hold up. I replay Fallout 2 on and off every few years as one of my all time favorite games. And recently replayed Fallout 1 too. The sounds and visual atmosphere in those games is just so goddamn good. Most of the bugs have long since been fixed by official and unofficial patches over the years. Reading the manual or a primer will help lots.

@thebadyetiman: I will respectfully disagree with most of that. Just don't feel like going into details in this thread as I've already done this in detail a few times before on these very forums.

^yeah, absolutely, difficult to get into is right.

I'd say they do hold up. OP if you don't mind dated graphics and you've played old games before, all you need to do is read the manual for the game and go for it. I prefer 2 but both games remain very interesting in their quest design and writing, and the atmosphere is affecting.

They totally hold up. What about the controls is difficult with Fallout 1 and 2? They're turn based games played entirely by clicking on things?

They hold up. It's not 3D but a isometric 2D with a lot of cool bloody deaths. It looks great. The turn based stuff is simple and easy, so yeah, it's not the deepest stuff, but pleasant and playable.

So heck yes.

considering wastelands 2 was released last year I think, with some people praising it, I would say yes they do hold up, since both of them are way superior to that game.

That stuff sounds great though? Although if it's just that sort of thing constantly I can see it not really working.

You're not wrong, but you're only telling half the story there I think. Fallout 1 is great, but it's short, and in a lot of ways only a sketch of what it could be. The Hub and Junktown are great, and a lot of the Brotherhood of Steel stuff is interesting, albeit a bit of a dead end, but the last third of the game is really under-developed (LA Boneyard, Cathedral).

Fallout 2 is a lot more "wacky" and does miss the mark a lot with some of its humour, but it also has a lot of really good content too. The Den is a great area with some neat stuff to do and discover. Modoc is an area that you can miss entirely, but that has a pretty cool story and atmosphere (exploding outhouses aside, maybe). I think the game really gets going with Vault City/Gecko, Broken Hills, New Reno and NCR. Each of these areas is meaty in its own right, but there's also a wider narrative that ties them all together. I think in a lot of ways this really solidifies what fallout is about for me, and it;s kind of what Bethesda miss about it, which is that over the course of Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas you get a story about a place, a sort of developing history. I really like that about it. It also has a lot of refinements to its systems that really work.

As to the question at hand; the environments look like ass, the ui is ugly and the lack of any kind of contextual controls is fustrating, but a lot of stuff about them is really cool, still: The clay heads for important NPCs are at least as expressive as Bethesda's facial animation (not really, I'm being mean, but it is a cool idea); the item progression is pretty good, better weapons come along slowly enough that they feel important, and fast enough that you don't get bored (less true at the end of 2, where some of the late game guns are totally pointless, especially after you get the Boazar); the 2d character sprites don't look great, but the death animations are amazing. There's not a lot that's more satisfying than shooting someone with the starting pistol and seeing a huge hole get blasted out of their torso.

The fallout games were my introduction to cRPGs, and they work well for that because they are simple, combat isn't very tactical, and it all just generally feels quite immediate.

The biggest hurdle to playing Fallout and Fallout 2 for the first time is the wonky quest tracking. If you easily forget things do notexpect what passed for a journal in those games to remember them for you. You've got an objective in your Pip-Boy, but quite often nothing that will point you in any direction. I recommend writing things down if you're forgetful. Seriously. It'll save you a ton of problems if you put the game down for a few days and pick it back up again.

Aside from that, they're both still really good RPGs. Crap UI aside, make sure you read the manual, because there are no tutorials.

Oh, and make sure you take Bloody Mess. Never, ever forget to take Bloody Mess.

If you can play other old CRPGs then you'll enjoy this. If not then the Fallout games will be just as difficult to get in to. However, the choice and freedom in the games is fantastic, as are the stories and characters. 2 is goofier than 1 but I also enjoyed it more. Accidentally kicking off a city wide fight in New Reno is still one of my favourite video game moments :)

I would advise checking out a primer to help you build your character as the start of both games is very tough. I would also recommend fan patches to fix all the bugs in 2 and put the kids back into the game. At least then you won't be getting pick pocketed by invisible thieves. Check them out here -

http://www.nma-fallout.com/downloads.php?do=cat&id=16

Oh and I forgot to say, the progression from 1 to 2 and then New Vegas is great. The rise of the NCR and stagnation of the Brotherhood is really interesting. It's much more interesting compared to how things seem so static in Fallout 3 and 4.

Plenty of old CRPG's hold up, but not the Fallouts or the Jagged Alliance games.

Tough to get into, but there's a lot of really cool things about them. I think it's worth the price of admission to see for yourself personally. Especially since steam has them on sale all the time.

i tried to play it many years ago and all i remember is you fight rats, a lot of rats

So they're $2.50 a pop right now on Steam so it's a great time to find out.

They didn't hold up when I tried getting into them 10 years ago.

I got Fallout on GOG a few years ago...it sucked IMO. Then again, I hate the aesthetic of Fallout. The stupid faux-jokey 1950s aesthetics just turns me off.

I played a few hours of Fallout 1 before Fallout 3 came out. I found it to be impenetrable, frustrating, hard as hell, and yet captivating. I really wanted to like it. Loved the way it looked (although I'm generally a fan of old ass graphics), loved the writing, hated every second I was actually playing it though. I feel like that's just one of those games that I'd have to play through at least once with cheats so I couldn't die and could buy and use anything I wanted to even get through it. Then maybe if I liked it enough I'd try a legit run. That's what I did with Kotor 2 (which I played before Kotor 1), because I was very young and inexperienced with PC rpgs when I tried playing it, and I didn't know a damn thing about D&D rules either. I have since beaten that game like a dozen times and count it among my favorite games of all time.

They both have their problems..but for me those are the same problems they had when they released, none of which seem magnified by time except as already stated if dated pop-culture references are an issue for you.

@relkin: Heresy! You take that back! Jagged Alliance 2 is the greatest game ever made goddam it. :D

I would say so. The games don't look the best now but it still easy to get into them, I think.

Everything about Fallout 1 was fun for me EXCEPT the quest system.

Like a lot of older RPGs, the game's UI would give you no hints as to where a quest is actually telling you to go or what to do, so plenty of the quests may leave you completely lost and dumbfounded. This is especially true for non-combat quests where the game tells you to bug a room or get some NPC to do something for you.

In other words, be sure to have a guide handy to tell you what pixel to click to proceed with a quest.

A lot of people disliked Fallout Tactics, but it is actually a good game. You can turn off the real-time combat and you can absolutely play as a one-man party if that stuff is not interesting, there are even perks for it iirc. It is a bit more modernized than 1 and 2, probably holds up a little better.

The quests are writing are still some of the best you'll find in aNY game, but time has not been so kind to the graphics and the mechanics. Those games weren't particularly well polished when they were new, so now they're definitely a bit rough around the edges. If you aren't used to old CRPGs from the era you'll probably have a tough time getting into it.

All of that being said, I think they're worth I shot. If you can get past the archaic graphics and mechanics, there's still a great game underneath.

Mid-90s computer game should be all you need to know.

"Does it hold up?"

If you mean; is it a playable game? Yes. Is it a well made game? Yes. Is it going to be an easy straightforward game that tells you everything you need to do like most modern games today? No.

Quicksaving, multiple save slots, willingness to start over if things don't work out, actually taking notice of what you're doing in quests rather than "walk to this marked waypoint, now walk to the next" and thinking outside the "shoot everything" box (one of the favourite moments I had playing was causing a gun fight between two rivals in town and they both ended up killing each other with me to take the loot despite them being seriously tough characters) are all part and parcel.

I played a bit of 1 and got super frustrated whenever I would be trying to shoot somebody, but I missed and the bullet hit a townsperson or something, and then the whole town was trying to kill me. Also, I accidentally killed my dog similarly. I think I ended up restarting as a melee character, but it didn't work as well so I gave up.

there's no such thing as games "holding up". What that essentially means is "Is this old game 'on trend' with what's popular in modern games?"

So... not really? They're as good as they ever were, but if you're expecting what is popular in game design at the moment, no. It's a little bit night and day.

I think Fallout 1 is great because it is short. I finished the whole game in a weekend (about 15 hours of playtime IIRC) and I immediately wanted to try a different build on it. Sure, the later Fallout games have a lot more content, but a lot of it also feels the same, and by the time you finish the game, you're too burnt out on it to think about retrying it.

Unfortunately for people trying to play it today, even with GOG's modifications it runs very poorly on my Windows 7. It's damn near unplayable for me.

This was the killer for me, I still want to play them but I am hesitant to because every time i tried, I did so quickly it's demotivating.

You can get Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics (classic collection) on steam for like 5 bucks right now.

Yeah, I really like Fallout Tactics, it's only real issue it's linear nature, where it still has the world map, but no locations to visit until you unlock them. If Fallout 1 and 2 would be updated with FT's UI and movement improvements, they'd pretty much be perfect.

This sums it up pretty well actually. They are old games, you should know what to expect by that. They are also games that appear on multiple Best Games of All Time lists in the top 10 and for good reason.

I played them for the first time in 2008 and loved them. Fallout 1 is up there with Doom for me.

It's still in awesome game, but you can't go into it expecting first person move-to-waypoint-shooty-shooty-fun-time-everything-explodes style gameplay you get in the Bethesda "Fallouts" (and I use that term pretty loosely). The original Fallout is very, very (very) rule based and it expects players to know those rules going in**. It won't provide you with an extensive tutorial or pop-up hints about what you did wrong when you die and it expects you to pay attention.

Clicked through all that NPC text and missed where you were supposed to go? Too bad, there's no quest journal. Maybe you should have learned to read. Accidentally shot an NPC and made an entire town hate you? Well, that's your fault for starting shit around non-combatants.

I remember the early game being balls to the wall hard even when you did know most of the rules. You started with no armor and a pea-shooter pistol in a cave full of radscorpions and like one or two stimpacks. Extra stimpacks weren't just lying around like candy as they are in Fallout 4. You usually had to buy them in town. And stimpacks cost money. A lot of money. If you wanted RadAway you had to be prepared to break the bank.

** For you kiddies out there, there used to be these magical, mythical things called manuals that came with games. It prevented the need for developers to include poorly paced, pedantic tutorials at the beginning of every single game. Fallout came with a glorious, thick, fully notebook-bound manual with illustrations and everything. It even included food recipes in the back. I miss manuals.

Graphically and control wise, not really. But for any fan of the 3D Fallout games, I think 1 and 2 are pretty necessary, if only to see the kind of tone each one has. The Monty Python jokes don't hold up well either, I don't think.

Ya. They're still as good as ever. It helps that they are making these kinds of CRPGs again, though.

Anyone playing for the first time should know, though, even at the time both Fallout 1 and 2 have game breaking bugs that have never been fixed so save 100 million times in different slots.