Good post, Cheeze.

Fallout 1 and 2 are cRPGs with traditional turn-based RPG combat, not shooters with RPG elements like 3.

I am surprised no one has asked the obvious question yet: Have you played other late 90's early 00's isometric cRPGs before? Baldurs Gate, Arcanum, Planescape? If you are not used to these kind of games it can be very awkward to get into them this many years later. While fans of these kind of games have been experimenting for years figuring stuff out, a complete newcomer might not have the patience to study the character building system, figuring out how effective weapons are in combat and so on. And the Fallout games will kick your ass if you don't know what you are doing.

Fallout 1 and 2 are from an era where every developer had their own solutions to control schemes, user interfaces and naming conventions. Hard to imagine at times that the very intuitive WASD + mouse layout did not become the defacto standard for first person shooters until mid 00's for example. What it means for the Fallout games is that they are a bit lacking in helpful tool tips and in fact any kind of in-game tutorial, stuff that makes you not needing to read the manual to play a modern game.

If you are willing to brave being thrown into the wilderness without any hand holding, having to rely on common sense and understanding what it means to survive in a post-apocalyptic setting, I think you will see that these are timeless games. If you're not used to this era of cRPGs however, you may (incorrectly) identify them as impossible and unfair games. Be willing to spend an evening researching the games properly, it will be very rewarding.

fallout 1 i did not like very much because it is still very buggy.
The story is good though and worth playing through.
Although fallout 2 uses the same engine and looks exactly the same it had a lot less bugs and i enjoyed it way more.

The main problem with the game are the graphics.
And by that i don't mean that it's ugly, but that it is inhabited by clones.
there are only very few character models and that is very annoying.
Just like Skyrim having 2-3 voice for over 100 different people.
Once you get used to the old graphics and controls it is a lot of fun though.
Like somebody said fallout:nv is basically the real fallout 3, it has tons and tons of little easter eggs and hints to the older games.
The "feel" is also the same, with an immersive story and world with tons of great characters and sidequest and heavy focus on story telling and conversations instead of just tons of combat like fallout 3.

I will try an other approach, because the question, if a game has aged well, is a question we have to consider with many of this 90s iso rpg´s.
What gameplay wise would we change, if that would be a new rpg.

First thing what comes in my mind, is inventory management in combination with slow gameplay, because of the clunky Interface.
The truth is, that in "my" games, really a lot of playing time is consumed by inventory management, buying/selling/collecting stuff, opening crates, doors and so on. It´s really work. And sometimes I´m too lazy for this kind of stuff, or feel overhelmed, in special, when I had a break for several weeks and don´t know any more, which char is equipped with which weappon, amno and so on.

Modern games often have an other approach, with focus an gameplay, instead of managing a little warehause.

You can cut down on this a bit over time as you learn what items you need and what items you don't need.

Keep in mind, though, Fallout is a simulation of a tabletop pencil-and-paper RPG using a modified version of the GURPS rules, and opening chests and doors is a big part of p-n-p RPGs. Chests and doors can be locked or trapped, and having a character with the skill to overcome those things is a core part of the game.

FTFY

While I agree that Fallout doesn't exactly have the best inventory management system (actually, it's pretty mediocre) but as UniversalWolf said, this issue can be over come by finding out which items are keepers and which to get rid off. Problem is, modern gamers usually don't have the patience for learning curves in games and can be quick to slam a game if it deviates too far from their comfort zone. To see the truth of my words, just head over to Steam and have a look at some user reviews of classic games.

However, Fallout was pretty blatant about what your top armour and weapons were, it was the misc items and chems that could be problematic to sort out.

Sorry, maybe my words did sound a little bit harsh. I love the fallout games.
And I don´t want to hang on that inventory thing too much.

Just wanted to make an example for things, that can cut off new gamers from playing older games.

Which is the *exact* reason why I don't play the original 'Baldur's Gate' at all compared to the original 'Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn'!

Let's see you swap out 5 different compact discs every time your party avatars enter a location...

---on a laptop!

"No fun... at all!" --- Haer'dalis

:(

No kidding! Or how about loading a game from a.........*drum roll*................. cassette tape!!!!!!!! Those things took forever to load and didn't always load properly. I'd rather swap CDs than go back to those days ;)

Here's a few paraphrased negative user reviews of great games that I've seen (3 of them I saw on Steam)

"The controls for Worms Armageddon are impossible for anyone to master"
"Sanitarium (a psychological thriller ADVENTURE game) is bad because there isn't enough ACTION and there's no first person view"
"Fallout is a bad game because combat is slow"
"I'd rather play Dungeon Keeper online cos the first Dungeon Keeper is from the 1980;s and the graphics suck"
"Thief is a bad game because it's too hard killing zombies with broadhead arrows"

So when people slam a great game because they missed the point of the game, can't be bothered with the learning curve, have a head full of sewage instead of brains or whatever reason, it does irk me because such people are a major influence in the mainstream gaming market.

"Oh, God. Never underestimate the power of stupid things in large numbers!" - Serious Sam

I remember swapping CDs for Baldur's Gate. That was bad.

Anyway, it's not worth wasting too much time on the youngsters who aren't willing to learn how to play our old favorites. Had they been born earlier they wouldn't have been playing games much in the first place, since it used to be a "nerds only" kind of thing. And that was before everyone started claiming to be a nerd.

I'm just glad some younger folks still have the attention span to figure out classics like Fallout.

Which can be viewed many different ways. I may have played video games since Pong but at the very least, I've always found time to enjoy my childhood; I've played outdoor sports. I've played traditional board games. I've read books. I've watched television. I went to the movies. I've chased girls at the dance clubs. I've danced at the clubs. If it was something hot and popular, I've been there, done that.

So, it wasn't really a 'nerd' thing for me to sit back and check out what's new in video games 'cause I learned how to manage my time.

These kids today...? Yeeeesh!
:(
They don't even go outside to play or anything.

:/

Fallout 1 already at its release didn't aged well: it's UI was not usefull enough.
The UI of Fallout2 was slithly upgraded, but it was good enough.
About F2, the combats are good, but the game is better for its stories (nasty humour, disturbing politics, ...)

Sure they do!! Why, just last week I saw 4 kids hanging out, each on their mobile phones ignoring everyone around them :)