Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'm going to say Fallout 2. I agree that Fallout 1 has a more consistent tone and cohesive design focus, but there's also a couple of things that make it difficult for me to go back to the original:
-It just lacks the quality of life fixes of Fallout 2 - I don't like that Friendly Fire causes companions to turn on you all of a sudden. To be fair it also kinda sucks fighting in crowding areas in Fallout 2 and aggroing the whole town, but that's easier to ignore.
-The Mutant Timer is too half-implemented - This is probably exacerbated by the fact I've never seen the version with the 500 Day Time Limit(The idea of the Water Merchants raising the timer on the Water Problem but lowering it on the Mutant problem seems cool to me) - But even so, like the way a lot of stuff is implemented just sucks, like hearing from NPCs that the Mutants have overrun The Hub and Shady Sands, and you go there and everything's fine, or how there's a hard time limit on endings. The Mutants destroying Necropolis is cool because you actually get to see it, but in general I don't like this "You have limited time before the Mutants destroy everything, except not really because most of the content for it was never implemented" It makes it unclear whether to play the game casually or with a sense of urgency, and it just irritates me having something this big very obviously unfinished.
I also just like Fallout 2's world. It feels like the most interesting world to explore.
I like the big caravan routes, I like how governed by economics everything feels - Like you have Redding where which company is producing gold is really important to determine which major player is going to benefit, or how Vault City is unsustainable because it's reactor can't power it forever, and will inevitably have to make deals with the outside (Including possibly changing their perspective on Mutants and working with the Ghouls in Gecko) to survive - Fallout 2's conflicts overwhelmingly revolve around people's actual day to day needs rather than moral principles, or good vs evil or ideas - It makes day to day survival, where people are getting resources from, and the power that old-world technologies have in determining the world important questions. It makes the world feel grounded.
I'm also always surprised that the devs apparently thought the world wasn't interconnected enough and locations only worked in isolation, because IMO Fallout 2 always felt like the most interconnected Fallout world to me - Even if we take the most rushed, disconnected area (San Fransisco) - You can still hear rumours in a bar about the hubologists building a rocket in a bar in Redding. For more developed parts of the game, it's everywhere: Characters in Klamath and The Den will talk about New Reno as a place they import their drugs and booze from, It's clear who the Slaver's Guild are selling to because the tattoo, as well as alienating you from anti-slavery factions like the NCR Rangers, will allow easier access to Vault City and the New Reno families because they cut business with the slavers.
I think the game world, how your signposted where to go next, quest design, the roadblocks it puts in your path, everything is really well designed (Though this is equally true of Fallout 1 and New Vegas) - I think the early monetary fee on rescuing Vic, your only lead at that point (Even if he's a complete red herring) is a good example - It gives you incentive to go out and interact with The Den and Klamath to make money - You have reason to get involved in the gang wars, or to learn to skin Geckos, or if you're doing an evil playthrough, it's a good motivation to join the Slaver's Guild, which will be your most reliable source of income that early in the game (The Slaver's Guild is also just a really well done part - Because it makes Evil Playthroughs more of an 'alternate path' like stupid playthroughs, where you make a really early decision, and have it continue to have consequences down the line, that give you new options in some places, and close off options in others)
And even if parts of the writing make me cringe, I also think there's some real high-points to it. There are some genuinely funny moments, and to be honest a lot of it just sticks in my head for a lot longer. Even when it's been a while, I still remember a lot of characters and interactions, like for example in Klamath, after my first time playing I just vividly remembered every interaction for ages afterwards, the "Town Greeter" trying to scam you at the entrance, the jovial boxer in the tavern whose willing to teach you Unarmed, the snobbish woman telling you how the only way to the Garden of Eden is hard work something that you tribals don't understand.
It's true that there are a lot more straight up Good VS Evil conflicts - Like Gizmo straight up runs child prostitution rings, or how in the conflict between the Regulators and Blades there is a correct answer to what's actually happening.
But there are also situations where I think it's less straightforward. It's not really clear who the good guys in The Hub are. Like yeah, Decker is clearly a bad guy, so there's not much ambiguity there, but then you also have stuff like the Water Merchants, the town's Water is basically monopolised, and sold across the Wasteland. People in the Hub largely seem desparate, and that's why the Unity can establish a presence there, because they can disguise themselves as a charitable organisation looking after the needy.
The Brotherhood are another example - There are lots of good people in the Brotherhood, and they're not strictly a malevolent force, but the game seems very clear that they're not really good for the Wasteland - I mean Maxson straight up tells you that the Brotherhood Paladins wanted to torch The Hub because they were ripped off in a deal, and it's only because The Elders obstruct rash action that it didn't happen.
Either way, I don't think Moral Ambiguity is a bad thing, or a more conventional Hero's journey is a good thing, it's all contextual IMO. Some narratives really benefit from having straightforward conflicts, others it makes sense.
Me personally, I like the idea of if we're in a post-apocalyptic setting with a focus on rebuilding, that asking tough questions about what you think would be best in the long run, or challenging your beliefs, is a part of the setting.
-It just lacks the quality of life fixes of Fallout 2 - I don't like that Friendly Fire causes companions to turn on you all of a sudden. To be fair it also kinda sucks fighting in crowding areas in Fallout 2 and aggroing the whole town, but that's easier to ignore.
-The Mutant Timer is too half-implemented - This is probably exacerbated by the fact I've never seen the version with the 500 Day Time Limit(The idea of the Water Merchants raising the timer on the Water Problem but lowering it on the Mutant problem seems cool to me) - But even so, like the way a lot of stuff is implemented just sucks, like hearing from NPCs that the Mutants have overrun The Hub and Shady Sands, and you go there and everything's fine, or how there's a hard time limit on endings. The Mutants destroying Necropolis is cool because you actually get to see it, but in general I don't like this "You have limited time before the Mutants destroy everything, except not really because most of the content for it was never implemented" It makes it unclear whether to play the game casually or with a sense of urgency, and it just irritates me having something this big very obviously unfinished.
I also just like Fallout 2's world. It feels like the most interesting world to explore.
I like the big caravan routes, I like how governed by economics everything feels - Like you have Redding where which company is producing gold is really important to determine which major player is going to benefit, or how Vault City is unsustainable because it's reactor can't power it forever, and will inevitably have to make deals with the outside (Including possibly changing their perspective on Mutants and working with the Ghouls in Gecko) to survive - Fallout 2's conflicts overwhelmingly revolve around people's actual day to day needs rather than moral principles, or good vs evil or ideas - It makes day to day survival, where people are getting resources from, and the power that old-world technologies have in determining the world important questions. It makes the world feel grounded.
I'm also always surprised that the devs apparently thought the world wasn't interconnected enough and locations only worked in isolation, because IMO Fallout 2 always felt like the most interconnected Fallout world to me - Even if we take the most rushed, disconnected area (San Fransisco) - You can still hear rumours in a bar about the hubologists building a rocket in a bar in Redding. For more developed parts of the game, it's everywhere: Characters in Klamath and The Den will talk about New Reno as a place they import their drugs and booze from, It's clear who the Slaver's Guild are selling to because the tattoo, as well as alienating you from anti-slavery factions like the NCR Rangers, will allow easier access to Vault City and the New Reno families because they cut business with the slavers.
I think the game world, how your signposted where to go next, quest design, the roadblocks it puts in your path, everything is really well designed (Though this is equally true of Fallout 1 and New Vegas) - I think the early monetary fee on rescuing Vic, your only lead at that point (Even if he's a complete red herring) is a good example - It gives you incentive to go out and interact with The Den and Klamath to make money - You have reason to get involved in the gang wars, or to learn to skin Geckos, or if you're doing an evil playthrough, it's a good motivation to join the Slaver's Guild, which will be your most reliable source of income that early in the game (The Slaver's Guild is also just a really well done part - Because it makes Evil Playthroughs more of an 'alternate path' like stupid playthroughs, where you make a really early decision, and have it continue to have consequences down the line, that give you new options in some places, and close off options in others)
And even if parts of the writing make me cringe, I also think there's some real high-points to it. There are some genuinely funny moments, and to be honest a lot of it just sticks in my head for a lot longer. Even when it's been a while, I still remember a lot of characters and interactions, like for example in Klamath, after my first time playing I just vividly remembered every interaction for ages afterwards, the "Town Greeter" trying to scam you at the entrance, the jovial boxer in the tavern whose willing to teach you Unarmed, the snobbish woman telling you how the only way to the Garden of Eden is hard work something that you tribals don't understand.
Least Moral Ambiguity? I kinda disagree - The Master is far more ambigous than say, The Enclave, insofar as there is at the very least he has an argument as to why he's the best hope for the Wasteland (Even if he's wrong) - And will kill himself out of guilt for what he's done when it's revealed that the Supermutants can't reproduce, and thus all his efforts had been for nothing. The Enclave meanwhile is kinda the definition of Evil, being willing to do horrific things to benefit themselves because they don't view their victims as even being human.
It's true that there are a lot more straight up Good VS Evil conflicts - Like Gizmo straight up runs child prostitution rings, or how in the conflict between the Regulators and Blades there is a correct answer to what's actually happening.
But there are also situations where I think it's less straightforward. It's not really clear who the good guys in The Hub are. Like yeah, Decker is clearly a bad guy, so there's not much ambiguity there, but then you also have stuff like the Water Merchants, the town's Water is basically monopolised, and sold across the Wasteland. People in the Hub largely seem desparate, and that's why the Unity can establish a presence there, because they can disguise themselves as a charitable organisation looking after the needy.
The Brotherhood are another example - There are lots of good people in the Brotherhood, and they're not strictly a malevolent force, but the game seems very clear that they're not really good for the Wasteland - I mean Maxson straight up tells you that the Brotherhood Paladins wanted to torch The Hub because they were ripped off in a deal, and it's only because The Elders obstruct rash action that it didn't happen.
Either way, I don't think Moral Ambiguity is a bad thing, or a more conventional Hero's journey is a good thing, it's all contextual IMO. Some narratives really benefit from having straightforward conflicts, others it makes sense.
Me personally, I like the idea of if we're in a post-apocalyptic setting with a focus on rebuilding, that asking tough questions about what you think would be best in the long run, or challenging your beliefs, is a part of the setting.
