Laozi Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Oh, I am quite jaded and cynical. To tell the truth I haven't really enjoyed a computer game since BG2. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a lie. Either that or you've lied in other posts where you said you enjoyed KOTOR. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It seems Hades_One's opinions seem to ebb and flow with whatever arguement hes making at the time.......... My Raven " People laugh when I say that I think a jellyfish is one of the most beautiful things in the world. What they don't understand is, I mean a jellyfish with long, blond hair.
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Actually the only part of BG2 I didn't like was the use of the Twisted Rune. They should have played more of a part in the game if they were to be used. Of course that is just a very very very very small part of the game. Throne of Bhaal on the other hand was when things started to go down hill. That had to be the worse expansion I have ever played. Fallout 1 I have no complaints on. Best game ever made, hands down.
bodrock Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 I liked parts of KotOR, but as a whole it left me in a meh feeling. I am not talking about parts of a game, but the whole thing. I enjoyed the whole experience of BG2. I can't say the same with KotOR 1. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Although I can look back and say I enjoyed KOTOR 1 as a whole, I had no prior experience with BioWare and honestly expected the game to be crap -- this was due to the recent SW movies, of course, not to mention the SW software history! But as I've said before, KOTOR made me a fan again....
Qxiili Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Fallout 1 I have no complaints on. Best game ever made, hands down. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmmm, that might be the first time I have ever heard someone say that about Fallout 1...
GhostofAnakin Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Fallout 1 I have no complaints on. Best game ever made, hands down. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmmm, that might be the first time I have ever heard someone say that about Fallout 1... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You obviously haven't been reading many of Hades' posts then. :D "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Ludozee Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 @Qxiili Fallout will always have a special place in my heart. It was my first RPG ever, and it was love at first sight. That was (and still is) one of the most brilliant games I
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Thing is for a a game published back in 1997 its pretty damn sad that they have yet made a game better.
Qxiili Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Thing is for a a game published back in 1997 its pretty damn sad that they have yet made a game better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> A very opinionated fellow, arent you?
GhostofAnakin Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Thing is for a a game published back in 1997 its pretty damn sad that they have yet made a game better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I still say FO2 was better. "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Volourn Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "Oh, I am quite jaded and cynical. To tell the truth I haven't really enjoyed a computer game since BG2. " Get your story striaght and maybe I'll believe you. You said you liked SOU. You liked HOTU. You gave the OC 75% and KOTOR almost 90%. You logged somewhere around 400 hours for MW. Geez.. Hades... I know it's that time of the month for you; but still. <_< "Thing is for a a game published back in 1997 its pretty damn sad that they have yet made a game better." FO2, BG1, and BG2 are all better than FO1. NWN: TEP is also better. Next. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Ludozee Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 I still say FO2 was better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No way! FO one had a much better story and atmosphere. FO 2 was good but very plain. It didn't have the creepy "feel" FO had.
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 There are two things that stop Fallout 2 being better than Fallout 1: New Reno and Broken Hills. @Q-man: Well, name one CRPG that has a beter rules system for a computer game, more open ended yet well balanced for its story, or a better interface for its engine design? @Volourn: Whatever man, I told you how I reviewed those games and you choose to ignore it. That's your perogative but I am not going into that old argument again. Also there is a difference in liking something and enjoying something, but again that is probably lost on you as well so I am not going to bother explaining it.
GhostofAnakin Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 I still say FO2 was better. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> No way! FO one had a much better story and atmosphere. FO 2 was good but very plain. It didn't have the creepy "feel" FO had. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> FO1 had a timer. I hate timers. I know some people like them, but for me I feel rushed. I like to be able to explore everything and go at my own pace. Even though the timer wasn't too bad, it was till at the back of my mind that I had such and such time to complete something. "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
GhostofAnakin Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 There are two things that stop Fallout 2 being better than Fallout 1: New Reno and Broken Hills. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What was wrong with New Reno? Some of the best sidequests in the game were found there. Some of the best replayability options were found there. "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Ludozee Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 FO1 had a timer. I hate timers. I know some people like them, but for me I feel rushed. I like to be able to explore everything and go at my own pace. Even though the timer wasn't too bad, it was till at the back of my mind that I had such and such time to complete something. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> IMO, that timer enhanced the atmosphere of the game, and made you aware of the urge of your quest.
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 It was too much in such a condense place. Also it was rather silly to have so many prostitutes and drug dealers in such a small space.
Volourn Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "FO one had a much better story" You do realize their story is exactly the same so how can one be better than the other? "Well, name one CRPG that has a beter rules system for a computer game" NWN and TOEE are two. ", more open ended yet well balanced for its story" Huh? This doesn't even make sense. FO's 'story" was merely ok. "or a better interface for its engine design?" NWN has a better interface. Maybe even the IE games as well. And, Madden too. And, New Reno was one of the two places that made FO2 as good as it was - tied with BG2 as best game. Period. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
GhostofAnakin Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Also it was rather silly to have so many prostitutes and drug dealers in such a small space. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You've never been to Las Vegas have you? "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 You do realize their story is exactly the same so how can one be better than the other? It is better because it was first. A rehash is always inferior to the original. NWN and TOEE are two. BWAAAHAAAAHAAAAAA! What a freaking joke. Huh? This doesn't even make sense. FO's 'story" was merely ok. Again it is beyond you so I will not explain. I have tried to explain things to you before but I have learned that is just a waste of time. NWN has a better interface. Maybe even the IE games as well. And, Madden too. Again I have to laugh at you.
Ludozee Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "FO one had a much better story" You do realize their story is exactly the same so how can one be better than the other? In FO, because of that timer, you were constantly aware of your mainquest. Throughout whole the game you were in one way or another working on getting that waterchip. FO 2 on the other hand, started somewhat the same, but offered you to much freedom to soon in the game, and after a couple of hours, you were (or at least I was) doing your own thing and not busy with the main story at all.
GhostofAnakin Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 In FO, because of that timer, you were constantly aware of your mainquest. Throughout whole the game you were in one way or another working on getting that waterchip. FO 2 on the other hand, started somewhat the same, but offered you to much freedom to soon in the game, and after a couple of hours, you were (or at least I was) doing your own thing and not busy with the main story at all. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Isn't the freedom that FO2 gives you exactly what Hades is always moaning about doesn't exist in games like KOTOR? He always says that a cRPG should allow you the choice to do whatever you want, whenever you want, but that timer sort of negates that choice. Yet he expects KOTOR to be open ended to the point where you don't have to follow the main story and just do your own thing. Con....tra....dic....tion. "Console exclusive is such a harsh word." - Darque"Console exclusive is two words Darque." - Nartwak (in response to Darque's observation)
Ludozee Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 Isn't the freedom that FO2 gives you exactly what Hades is always moaning about doesn't exist in games like KOTOR? He always says that a cRPG should allow you the choice to do whatever you want, whenever you want, but that timer sort of negates that choice. Yet he expects KOTOR to be open ended to the point where you don't have to follow the main story and just do your own thing. Con....tra....dic....tion. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's not that I don't like freedom, it's just that in FO 2 you get that freedom to soon. I like a little guidance in the beginning, just to make myself a little familiar with the feel of the game. IMO, KotOR did that perfectly.
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 The difference that the timer in FO 1 represented the amount of time before the bad guys find your home and eliminate it or take it over. bad guys shouldn't be static and waiting for the hero to show up. They have their own plans, their own goals, and their own needs and the story and setting needs to reflect that. Fallout 1 has come the closest to show that. I would like to see this sort of feature explored in other games as well.
Volourn Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "The difference that the timer in FO 1 represented the amount of time before the bad guys find your home and eliminate it or take it over" Whose to say my PC gave a dman about the Vault? Why should my game ebfore if the Vault weakling can't babysit themslves? Screw them. That's the biggest weakness of the waterchip mess. Not that FO2 was any better in that regard. Like I said, the story is exactly the same. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Judge Hades Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 That is why FO 1 is better than FO 2 because FO 2 is just a rehash of the original and that makes it inferior. "
Recommended Posts