Yeah, gog.com is great, they've been releasing classics able to run on current OSs for many years now. But as Wes R mentioned, there's a Fallout Collection you can get that contains Fallout, Fallout2, and Fallout Tactics (meh), all compatible with Windows Vista/7. Snagged my copy from Best Buy for 7.99 a few years ago.
The first two games are the only fallouts i can really stomach. I hate non turn based RPGs. Sadly younger gamers can't get into the older RPGs because of that for some reason, turn based scares them off. You see it on Amazon all the time in reviews.
The creator of fallout is using his new company to make a turn based RPG game again at least.
I remember when I first played Fallout, a demo was included on the demo disk that came with PC Gamer magazine. At first I hated it, but once I got the hang of it, I was hooked. I must have played through the demo at least 40 times. The gameplay is anything but horrible, it's turn based combat. Well balanced turn based combat. Deciding how to spend your precious action points every turn (which a lot of times would mean the difference between life and death) was one of the most rewarding aspects of the game. But I suppose it isn't for everyone, most gamers now adays just like to run and gun. The combat in Fallout 3 was pretty mindless, and VATS was for the most part reduced to "freeze game, target head".
I don't think Fallout 3 was a bad game, I just love 1 and 2 way more. To be fair, I'm sure nostalgia plays a part in that.
Turn-based is my preferred approach to a lot of gaming, too. I particularly like turn-based wargames like Steel Panthers.
Most turn-based games take the conventions of board games, hide much of the die-rolling and THAC0 calculating and whatnot, and give you a graphical representation. So, for a generation that grew up with table-top/board games and then transitioned to computers, turn-based gaming is wonderful.
For the younger set, though, it's a throwback. I get that. Like, why bother with turns at all? Turns existed originally to provide structure to a fight and allow for a way to resolve how the fight ends in a fair manner (rather than "I hit you!" "Nuh uh! You missed!"). When a computer can do that on the fly, what's the point of a "turn" then? Most of the time, I appreciate it because it lets me really consider my options instead of simply twitching. However, I recognize that, as more of the stat-crunching goes on "behind the scenes", there's really no reason for that level of abstraction.
This is why I don't mind RPGs like Mass Efect 1 (haven't played the others). I think the trend is to move towards an ever more abstraction-free experience, to where, if you can figure out how to do it yourself, you can do it in the game, rather than tying ability to stats for your avatar. In this sense, RPGs will eventually cease to be based on "Levels & Loot" and be more about actually adopting a role and playing it out in a game world that realistically responds to you.
I mean, let's face it. It doesn't make a ton of sense to abstract your ability to point your avatar's gun towards someone and click your mouse button, does it? Why would your avatar "miss" at 5m under those circumstances, right? Just because you haven't "increased your small weapons proficiency above 50%?"
The new fallout games to me are horrid and the way they turned the final fantasy franchise into action RPG doesn't help either. In japan turn based is doing great but they rarely get brought over here.
I have noticed it's a massive generation gap between people who like turn based and non turn based RPGs. It's why non turn based are starting to look like gears of war and halo. Us older folks need a company to bring over turn based games or someone to develop them. It's why i am spending more on old systems than new ones.
BTW while you're there, and if you have the cash, pick up Crusader: No Remorse and Crusader: No Regret if you haven't played them. I got them off eBay about a year ago because my cousin lost mine. Anyway the games still hold up really well for being a late 90s game. They even have cheesy FMV!
Well, I am 20, for what it's worth (whether that confirms or debunks your theory. ). I tried the older games, and I just couldn't get into them. I think Bethesda improved on the older Fallout titles in every way, but that's just my opinion.
I played both of the first games after Fallout 3. I wasn't into RPGs until I played the KOTOR games. Anyway I think they are still in the zone of playable games. Some games, like Dark Forces, just look so antiquated that it's hard to see them how you did the first time. I turned Dark Forces on a few years back and was thinking "How did I ever see those blocky shapes as Stormtroopers?"