I just purchased Fallout 1 & 2 and was wondering if anyone had any tips for starting out, I played Fallout 3 and everyone I came across said it didn't hold a candle to 1 &2 so I've come to put those notions to the test.

My advice would be is to not give up on the game, no matter how boring it seems to begin with. This is especially true with Fallout 2, the temple of trials was like murder the first time around, but once you get used to the game(s), it really becomes a great experience. Fallout 1 is also a bit slow to start off with, but nowhere near as boring as Fallout 2's intro.

Try to specialise for combat. I just started a new game up thinking I could get away with melee and small guns as 2 of my primary combat stats and speech as the other. Other then the first 2 levels I have not used melee at all, so if you want a melee character you will need to go all in with it. My advice for a combat focused character would be small guns and then either big guns or energy weapons. Small guns will get you through alot of the early game then one of the other two will be very helpful late in the game.
Make sure you save every so often and have more then one save slot on the go, I would actually use all 10 slots and rotate the saves. Its possible to find bugs in this game or dialog options you can't get out of when started so its best to saves further back to go to rather then have to start again.
Then theres a couple mods you may want to grab before you start.
I'm using the childrens patch which adds the children back into the game that were cut due to censorship in gog version. [url=]http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&file_id=569[/url]
and I'm also using a resolution mod http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/dload.php?action=file&file_id=1273
If you have a high resolution monitor its best to set the mod to something lower like 800x600 or 1024x768, anything that looks good and you can see whats going on, whilst still being able to read the text.
Also as bono said you need to at least stick with the game for a few hours to get into the game but then its great and very hard to put down.

Don't set your standards this high, you'll be disapointed. Fallout 3 does a number of things better than Fallout 1 (haven't played 2 yet). IMO, the places where FO1 is better is charm, meaningful stats, and nostalgia.
While the story of the main quest is FO3 may not be as good as FO1, it is MUCH more fleshed out. There is more to learn from npcs and reading. Also tranquility lane is awesome.
FO3 has more interesting NPC's with much more to say. All the NPCs in FO1 are extremely 1 dimensional with only a few lines. Do you want to help the good guy? Okay, do his tasks and he'll thank you. That's it. No one in town will treat you any differently. NPC's in FO3 are much more reactive to your actions and have more to say.
Outside of the main quest there is much more to do in FO3. Quests like "replicated man", "oasis", "blood ties", and "tenpenny tower" are all much deeper than any quests in FO1. They are morally ambiguous and it actaully feels like you are having an effect on the world. There are also many other fun quests like "stealing indepence", "reilly's rangers", and "shoot 'em in the head", while there are fewer ones outside of the main plot in FO1.
Another obvious difference is the combat. I think that both games are sub-par, with FO3's mediocre shooting mechanics and FO1's slow (and simple) turn based combat with NO part control. However FO3 involves much more combat, which some people don't like.
For there time I think FO1 is probably better. However, today there is no comparison. FO3 is the better game by a long shot. IMO, Gameplay, graphics, story (not so much the main plot, but overall) all are better in FO3. Not to mention longevity. FO1 is SHORT!

Take exactly 6 strength at character creation, low carrying capacity is annoying, weapons have minimum strength requirements and if you take more you might regret it depending on how you play.
6+ perception should allow to start the second combat round.
For each 2 points of endurance you gain an extra hitpoint at each level up, it's the stat for surviving getting hit in combat. I'd start with 6 for double regeneration rate.
Charisma is quite useless in the game, intelligence is checked for getting dialogue options and speech skill for success at convincing.
Intelligence is important for dialogue checks and how many skill points you get at level up.
Agility is the most important stat, with more action points you can do more in combat.
With high luck you can get beneficial extra encounters when travelling, luck also affects the chance to score a critical.
For a first playthrough I recommend taking the gifted (and maybe another) trait and the following stats:
Strength: 6
Perception: 6-7
Endurance: 6
Charisma: 2
Intelligence: 9
Agility: 9
Luck: 8-9
I'd tag small guns (for early combat) and energy weapons (for the last parts of the game) and one of lockpick/doctor/speech.
Big guns are heavy and ammo is heavy, rare and expensive, unarmed and melee skill are quite high even without tagging and there are hardly any weapons to throw.
If you're injured using first aid or doctor heals hitpoints much faster than resting, even if your skill is only 15-20 (which means 15-20 percent success chance). Eating fruit or using stimpacks is an even faster way to heal.

Lulz. That's funny...

How so? Using an objective standard FO1 and FO3 had similar scoring reviews for their time with FO3 having a slight edge. (FO1: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/fallout?q=fallout FO3: http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/pc/fallout3?q=fallout)
However these are the scores when compared to their contemporaries. If FO1 were released alongside 3, it is obvious that it would have reviewed worse.
FO3 also sold much better than FO1. Therefore, it is clear that both the masses and game critics prefer FO3 to FO1. So you fall into the fringe who prefer FO1.
Therefore you must have extraordinary acumen to recognize the superiority of FO1. Would you mind sharing what is better about FO1?
The lack of story?
-The story and writing of FO3 isn't great, but at least it is there. In FO1 NPC's hardly have anything to say to the PC and they don't react to your actions.
-All the characters are extremely 1 dimensional.
-Neither of these games can hold a candle to PT, or even BG2 or KOTOR.
Poor combat?
-The combat in FO1 is overly tedious and involves few tactics other than deciding whether to use AP's to shoot, move, or access inventory.
-Lack of party control is frustrating and makes combat much less tactical than BG2 or KOTOR.
Graphics?
Interface?
Voice acting?
Longevity?
Or is it pure nostalgia?

Do I give a shit what reviewers say? No, I do not.
I doubt that but, again, I don't care what the reviewers say.
So? Having something sell well does not mean it's a good product.
And your point is?
Look. I get that you don't like Fallout -you don't have to plaster that around any more- but to say that Fallout 3 was a much better game is laughable. If you want a in-depth review I posted one awhile back and it has a fairly good, if not complete, list of failings in Fallout 3. In other words, was Fallout a perfect game, no. Was it better than Fallout 3, hell yeah.

If you actually doubt that, than your rampant fanboyism will make logical debate impossible.
I never said I don't like Fallout. I've beat it twice now. I also said that I thought Fallout was a better game for its time. I just don't think it deserves the oft-awarded title of 'greatest rpg of all time'. It does nothing better than BG2 or PT. The only reason people like it more is a personal preference for the setting or nostalgia. Another possible reason could be the simplicity of it, but this is why I have no desire to play the game again.
How can you say it is 'laughable' when I have the majority of gamers and critics on my side?

Because I think it's laughable and, by the way in case you did not pick up on this yet, I don;t give a shit if everyone disagrees - the entire world could declare Fallout 3 the best game ever made and I would still think that it was, at best, a poor game. Yeah, you might like it, hell I'll admit a few million people probably love it, but I don't and that's why I find your placement of Fallout 3 above Fallout so comical.

'FO3 is the better game by a long shot' is your opinion, not a factual statement.
If you go through life thinking your opinion is fact and trying to correct people who disagree with your views i think your in for a bumpy ride.
Making comparative lists, citing sales figures, third party reviews and making statements like 'i have the majority of gamers and critics on my side' to try and disprove the opinion of another is a waste of time.
You can't tell people which game is better than which, you have your opinion and they have theres. Respect that.

False. I find this relativistic view of art nauseating because no one actually believes it. Some art is BETTER than other art. This is how people can major in fine arts or music and still get a mark on their assignments. This is how people can make a living critiquing art. You don't always have to like what is better, but you should realize it's superiority. For example Beethoven's 9th symphony is qualitatively 'better' than the music I listen to, but I still prefer my music. Me taking a picture of my shit in black and white is worse art than Van Gogh's Starry Night. Considering video games, Perfect Dark is my FAVOURITE FPS of all time, but I know it is not the BEST of all time. Since then many games have done everything better than Perfect Dark.
FO3 is a better game than FO1. If both games were to come out at the same time, there would be absolutely no question of which is better. People are blinded by nostalgia.
I really don't care if people prefer FO1. There's nothing wrong with that. What's wrong is saying that it is a better game than FO3.

Your not being serious are you?
'You don't have to like what is better, but you should realize it's superiority' Seriously?
Ok, say take Van Gogh's Sunflowers..and compare to Banksy's Tesco-Pledge Your Allegiance. If the latter gets an emotional response out of me but Van Gogh's painting i merely shrug at and move on, i have to program my brain to think Van Gogh is the superior painting because..what... lots of people consider him a great artist?
It seems your not happy unless you quantify in black and white terms what is 'good' and 'bad'. Art, music and pretty much everything else is not like that. Beethoven's 9th is superior to this or that because society says it? Because a thousand critics says it is?
Why should the guy who is not moved by that piece consider it better than stuff they like?
As for FO games, you keep comparing two different genres (both rpg but different styles) and games that were made ten years apart. Graphics and sound apart there are people that prefer the gameplay, still, after all this time of FO1 to FO3.
So if someone prefers FO1 they are allowed to like it but not say its better than 3?
What else is it wrong for them to say?

Actually, no, he's correct - art is extremely subjective. When I say that " game X is better than game Y," what I mean is that "It is my belief that game X is better than game Y."
That's not correct.
Nope, not really.
No, they, both professors and critics, are paid to give their opinion about the art - their subjective judgment.
Why?
So?
I disagree.
Again, I disagree.
Obviously you do as you keep harping on it.
Sorry, but I believe that Fallout is better than Fallout 3.

You're right, sorry. I should have said intelligent people don't believe it.
Sorry children, but you're wrong. I hate to ruin your 'everyone and everything is special' world, but it's not true. You should give that education thing a try. The reason you don't appreciate good art is because you are ignorant in the relative fields or lack maturity.
Though given your familiarity with video games, it is clear that you are being blinded by nostalgia (your own or perhaps that of others) when you state that FO1 is a better game than FO3.