Remember FALLOUT!

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Its nice of you to think that.

[Surreptishus]

Pfft, forget the old fallouts - they had lame graphics. Fallout 3 will be the best of the series, I know it!

[Kelverin]

"Tried the PC version????? If not you are missing out. The best baseball game ever made even better. Goood Stuff."

 

No. How are the controls? I'm not a big fan of sports games on PC for some reason. If the controls are reasonably good, I might check it out for PC as well.

 

Also, what makes it improved comapred to the console (PS2) version? It must be really good to be better.

Good stuff. :cool:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I use to feel the same way, the computer in the past was not as smooth/fluid as the console. That has all changed; I even got Madden for the first time on PC since 2001. (Great game by the way)The controls are excellent and if you have a decent computer, it will run as smooth as a glass and look better than on an "old" system such as the PS2. The reason it is better is the mods you can download to support the game - Up to date Rosters, beautifully rendered stadiums, new uniforms, custom music, I have been playing this game since it came out and have not gotten bored because of all the mods you can download to enhance and even change your game experience.

 

As for Fallout, I always get excited about starting it, but lose interest and never finish it. Next time Next time...........

Here is the controller I use.

Edited September 18, 2006 by Kelverin

[metadigital]

I'm not playing a lot of games at the moment, and I have Fallout, Half-Life 2(:Episode One), Hearts of Iron II:Doomsday, and Space Rangers 2 installed ... as well as about half-a-dozen other games waiting to be installed ... best I can do is play a bit of HL2.1. Fallout is an intersting story hampered by the interface and combat, SR2 is an okay space-sim hampered by StarForce, HoI2 does not lend itself to "a quick game", and I am not motivated to install anything else.

 

Guess I just need NwN2! )

 

*spies Deus Ex* ...

[6 Foot Invisible Rabbit]

Pfft, forget the old fallouts - they had lame graphics. Fallout 3 will be the best of the series, I know it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, and I'll have turtle doves fly out of my [ears].

Edited September 18, 2006 by metadigital

[Pop]

Hmm, I must have been about 9 or 10 when Fallout came out. See, unlike some of yous, I had stolen the demo CD from a PC Gamer magazine (ah, the delinquency of youth), had installed it because I didn't know what it was, and was hooked on the combat. Being 10, I thought it was wild and awesome that you could shoot somebody in the balls. So I begged my parents for it, and I got it for Christmas. Started at 8 AM, played till about 10 that night. I almost beat it, but got whacked by the Lieu. Nowadays it takes me a little under 4 hours to beat the game to my satisfaction

 

Fallout 2 was definitely different. I screwed up the first couple of times I played through, until I realized that I could get away with killing the merchants in the Den. It was harder, less focused. Still, I loved the whole MKULTRA-esque Vault conspiracy, but was put off a bit by the introduction of "tribals". New Reno was hot **** in a champagne glass, as was Marcus, because obviously being a kid I wanted a mutant "on my team" since the first game .

 

I could definitely see how people were less impressed with F2. For a long time, I thought 2 was better than 1, but in my advanced age (10 years on these games!) I realize how at fault I was. Fallout 1 was absolute magic in action.

[Darth Drabek]

I can't say anything about FO1, because I haven't played it. Going backwards through the "great" RPGs from KOTOR as I was, I thought I'd play the sequel first because the dated graphics wouldn't be quite as much of a shock. You know, because they wouldn't be quite as dated.

 

For reference, I played FO2 about two years ago, while waiting for KOTOR 2 to come out.

[Invoker]

I remember when I picked up Fallout 1. Was a strange sensation, wandering around and doing stuff you never did in the other games (shooting people in the back just because you COULD DO IT.)

 

Then I had no idea it was all time based. You couldn't wander around doing whatever you wish because you had a vault to save. Took me a while to figure it all out but I enjoyed every minute of it.

 

Then came Fallout 2. Compared to F1 it was HUGE. "There'th no end to the pothibilithieth!"

 

I had also picked up Ps:T and started playing that. Didn't take long before I got completely hooked on Ps:T.

 

But these don't beat playing X.Com on a 386 system

 

Ah, the good days...

[greylord]

Hmm, for those who say the graphics are bad...well...I'd rather have a good gameplay rather than graphics ANYDAY OF THE WEEK.

 

Personal opinion. Each their own. Some people think graphics are the be all and end all of a game, other's graphics. I appreciate good graphics, but I'd rather have an enjoyable game rather than graphical feats. In fact it seems many games that concentrate on graphics aren't all that great...many times. On the otherhand, some I suppose don't enjoy a game without good graphcis (pity that, since they won't be able to truly enjoy a good game for another 20 to 30 years probably, since in twenty years the graphics of today will look practicallys toneage).

 

On fallout itself, ironic I just reinstalled it yesterday on a Win98 machine (I can't seem to get it to run on the XP machine, but haven't tried that hard, just installed on the 98 machine instead).

 

Personally I thought PS:T was a better game, and of all the BI games personally BG2 is my favorite (though I know some think BG is better). FO is okay, and enjoyable, but it's not as high on my list as other people put it on theirs.

[Jorian Drake]

Pfft, forget the old fallouts - they had lame graphics. Fallout 3 will be the best of the series, I know it!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Graphs will be good, that for sure, but I also hope for a good story. They have atleast many of the ex-creators helping them anyway, so i hope really badly it will be OK.

[alanschu]

Personal opinion.  Each their own.  Some people think graphics are the be all and end all of a game, other's graphics.  I appreciate good graphics, but I'd rather have an enjoyable game rather than graphical feats.  In fact it seems many games that concentrate on graphics aren't all that great...many times.  On the otherhand, some I suppose don't enjoy a game without good graphcis (pity that, since they won't be able to truly enjoy a good game for another 20 to 30 years probably, since in twenty years the graphics of today will look practicallys toneage).

 

That's crap. The best graphics at the time are always the best graphics at the time. People that are graphics mongers love the high end graphics of today. They probably won't later, but to say something that they won't like games for 20-30 years because those graphics then will make today's graphics look bad is just silly.

 

It's not just graphics, but also interface issues and other things like that. After experiencing good games with good graphics, it can be hard to go back to good games with poor graphics. Especially if you haven't played it before.

[Dark_Raven]

I remember when I picked up Fallout 1. Was a strange sensation, wandering around and doing stuff you never did in the other games (shooting people in the back just because you COULD DO IT.)

 

 

 

Ah, the good days...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That and snipping them from afar.

[alanschu]

I remember when I picked up Fallout 1. Was a strange sensation, wandering around and doing stuff you never did in the other games (shooting people in the back just because you COULD DO IT.)

 

 

 

Ah, the good days...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That and snipping them from afar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I always felt that Line of Sight was too artificial in the game, with guns having poor ranges.

[Dark_Raven]

A bit flawed. I've got critical misses and I'm standing point blank range from them?

[greylord]

Personal opinion.  Each their own.  Some people think graphics are the be all and end all of a game, other's graphics.  I appreciate good graphics, but I'd rather have an enjoyable game rather than graphical feats.  In fact it seems many games that concentrate on graphics aren't all that great...many times.  On the otherhand, some I suppose don't enjoy a game without good graphcis (pity that, since they won't be able to truly enjoy a good game for another 20 to 30 years probably, since in twenty years the graphics of today will look practicallys toneage).

 

That's crap. The best graphics at the time are always the best graphics at the time. People that are graphics mongers love the high end graphics of today. They probably won't later, but to say something that they won't like games for 20-30 years because those graphics then will make today's graphics look bad is just silly.

 

It's not just graphics, but also interface issues and other things like that. After experiencing good games with good graphics, it can be hard to go back to good games with poor graphics. Especially if you haven't played it before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yeah right. I enjoy a game with good graphics IF (and many times that's a BIG if) the game has good gameplay. If it doesn't...well. And if it does, that doesn't diminish how much I liked games prior to that. However, ironically, if some graphics whore said that they loved a F/O several years ago, but now says it stinks and the graphics are terrible...I suppose they really DIDN'T enjoy now did they. In that light, since they can't enjoy those games now...did they really enjoy those games then???

 

Or truly speaking, did they just think they enjoyed it, but now in reflection with better graphics, whenever playing an older game with worse graphics and they are a "kick in the groin" to quote, or "graphics are rotten" or "graphics are terrible" or any number of other responses about graphics...and hence can't enjoy the game because of said graphics...obviously they truly didn't enjoy it...and to enjoy is something that normally continues with time. The graphics didn't change, nor did the ability of the game, the fads of the newest and bestest did. And if someone enjoys it just because of a fad because of how the graphics look...are they really enjoying it???

 

Of course you should realize that I'm probably the minority in the US that goes more for the Oriental ideas of gameplay and flavor over graphics and impressive computer muscle car specs (preferring gas mileage and compactibility instead for a parallel). However, that doesn't mean I don't think graphics are a good thing, but I think those who base their enjoyment upon them, are limiting themselves.

 

Just look at the PS3, I'm certain it's going to probably have a LOT more RPGs, turnbased games, strategy games, and other such games than the Xbox. However that doesn't mean that it's a power wimp.

 

It's quite powerful, but they realize that gameplay is king, and that older games gameplay don't disappear , and hence have a greater backwards compatibility with Older games, even to the PS1...than American Consoles such as Xbox360 (which is slowly learning that some people LIKE to play older games and it's not all bling bling).

[alanschu]

ironically, if some graphics whore said that they loved a F/O several years ago, but now says it stinks and the graphics are terrible...I suppose they really DIDN'T enjoy now did they. In that light, since they can't enjoy those games now...did they really enjoy those games then???

 

We're not talking about graphics whores that loved Fallout several years ago, but rather people that never played Fallout several years ago, and are just picking it up for the first time. That seems to be the situation that those claiming to have issues with the graphics are.

 

Or truly speaking, did they just think they enjoyed it

 

Neither, because they didn't play it.

 

Anyone that has played Fallout before, and is willing to go back and play it again, probably liked the game when they first played it. Otherwise they probably wouldn't bother playing it again.

[greylord]

ironically, if some graphics whore said that they loved a F/O several years ago, but now says it stinks and the graphics are terrible...I suppose they really DIDN'T enjoy now did they. In that light, since they can't enjoy those games now...did they really enjoy those games then???

 

We're not talking about graphics whores that loved Fallout several years ago, but rather people that never played Fallout several years ago, and are just picking it up for the first time. That seems to be the situation that those claiming to have issues with the graphics are.

 

Or truly speaking, did they just think they enjoyed it

 

Neither, because they didn't play it.

 

Anyone that has played Fallout before, and is willing to go back and play it again, probably liked the game when they first played it. Otherwise they probably wouldn't bother playing it again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And what about me?

 

I was one of those that didn't play F/O when it first came out. Games like BGDA, Freelancer, and other games blew F/O graphics away...

 

The difference was that I enjoy gameplay, and if it has nice graphics, that's nice, but if it doesn't...it's more about the gameplay than graphics. Heck, Pacman is still a great game these many years, so is tetris. Graphically they might not be up to par, but gaming is about the experience...not the bling bling.

 

And of course, as I stated above in my prior post...it IS in my opinion afterall.

 

Hence, since it's my opinion, I'm right about my opinion regardless of what the facts are.

 

[alanschu]

And what about me?

 

Then you're an exception.

 

THe mere fact that games don't come out with the graphics of Fallout demonstrates that the market prefers higher quality graphics.

 

Otherwise, companies WOULD make games where they put all the focus on the gameplay. Believe it or not, but the game development companies allocate their resources based on what the demographic wants.

 

 

I enjoy gameplay as well, but better graphics can enhance gameplay. I am a fan of having 360 degree freedom of movement, rather than being limited to a hexagonal grid. I like games (including turn based ones) that aren't rather slow if there is multiple characters doing actions. Fighting the Regulators in Bonetown wasn't exactly an exhilrating experience, either back in the 90s or now. It's cool to start off. You know, a big fight between the Blades and the Regulators, with you in the middle. What's not to like? Until you realize you're have to wait for minutes at a time before you can actually continue playing the game again. Until then, you see people running around, one at a time, shooting their guns. If you're lucky, you might actually see the target that they hit...assuming they are close enough.

 

And I love Fallout. Played through it a dozen times, most recently being a year or two ago. The thing I love about it is the setting.

 

If you're really that much of a fan of the actual gameplay mechanics, you might want to give Silent Storm a try. The gameplay seems like it was inspired by Fallout.

[Slowtrain]

I think a game needs to be judged on its graphics relative to when it was made. I still play XCOM and MOO and System Shock and Daggerfall and Fallout, and even though yes, by today's standards the graphics of all those game are horrible, I don't think of them by today's standards. I think of them by the standards that existed at the time they were made.

 

All those games, with the exception of Daggerfall which was well-behind the graphics curve even then, were considered good-looking games at the time. System SHock especially was the Oblivion of its day and wouldn't really run well on anything at the time.

 

If you are a kid coming to them for the first time, then yeah, you're going to think they are pretty awful, but when I was a kid and played them they looked great, and that is still how I judge them.

 

Fallout isn't supposed to look lie DUngeon Siege 2, and to judge it against such a standard is pretty absurd. Inevitable, perhaps, but still absurd.

 

edit: removed some caps cause they looked yucky.

Edited September 19, 2006 by CrashGirl

[alanschu]

I think the issue is that most people that have a hard time going back to play a game like MOO or Fallout that didn't play them originally, are the ones that have the issues for the graphics.

 

Since it was brought up, the only people that think NHL '94 is the best NHL hockey game EA has ever made are those that played those styles of games.

 

They can champion the "gameplay" as much as they want, but it's still essentially the same. Players mash on burst of speed to lay out big hits, they go up the wing, try for the centering pass to a one-timer.

 

Scores were as ridiculous then as they are now.

[Llyranor]

I can appreciate good graphics, particularly in the artistic or animation sense. That doesn't mean that a game that has those qualities but lacks fun is fun, or a game that lacks them but is fun isn't. Same with good music. Give me a stellar soundtrack and I'll be all over it, but that doesn't mean I'd care if a game didn't have any music if it were able to stand on its own.

[Volourn]

"all the BI games personally BG2 is my favorite (though I know some think BG is better)"

 

From you post, I'm sure you mean BIS in which case, you are wrong. BIS no more made BG series than Atari made TOEE, or NWN. BIO made BG series. BIS, on behalf of their parent company, only published it. That's not dissing BIS, btw, as they did a very good job publishing it. Just a pet peeve of mine when people try to give BSI credit for BIO's work. It's just as bad when people try to give BIo credit for PST, or IWD which werne';t made by BIO and are just using an engine made by BIO.

 

 

Graphics Topic: Alanshu wins at 95.678% correct. Good job, Alanshu! :cool:

[Pop]

I can appreciate good graphics, particularly in the artistic or animation sense. That doesn't mean that a game that has those qualities but lacks fun is fun, or a game that lacks them but is fun isn't. Same with good music. Give me a stellar soundtrack and I'll be all over it, but that doesn't mean I'd care if a game didn't have any music if it were able to stand on its own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aye, and from an artistic standpoint Fallout is pretty impressive, not in its engine but in its design. I really think they made the retro-future idea work when it could have fallen flat on its face.

[greylord]

I think the issue is that most people that have a hard time going back to play a game like MOO or Fallout that didn't play them originally, are the ones that have the issues for the graphics.

 

Since it was brought up, the only people that think NHL '94 is the best NHL hockey game EA has ever made are those that played those styles of games.

 

They can champion the "gameplay" as much as they want, but it's still essentially the same.  Players mash on burst of speed to lay out big hits, they go up the wing, try for the centering pass to a one-timer.

 

Scores were as ridiculous then as they are now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

And I'd counter argue and say that the actual GAME ENTHUSAISTS (and yes, you could call us nerds) which are probably a minority, can STILL see the good graphics of the games.

 

Now, Once again in my opoinion. Take an older game like the original Diablo (now almost 12 years of age) and compared to many games, I think it STILL looks good, and has good gameplay for it's specific genre of Hack and slash. Eye is in the beauty of the beholder, but Titan Quest and Sacred, though elements of them were well created...just didn't have the quality of work and heart put into their drawings (discussing others in the genre today). In fact, Titan quest didn't really strike me as pretty at all, or even graphically appeasing except for the lighting. Perhaps it's becuase I actually still enjoy playing the original Diablo, and can't stand Titan Quest, or most of these other action RPGs. Overall they stink and are not my preferred form of play. Normally can't stand action RPGs when one gets down to it, at least what some try to pass off as action RPGs today. BUT, I did like and still like to play Diablo. I enjoy Diablo ii as well. I also enjoyed the BGDA series. But, it's more about the gameplay than the graphics. If it has good gameplay, it will always be enjoyable to me. ALOT of the oldergames I never played (I was one of those that didn't have a computer OR console in my youth, and got into them quite by accident...probably why I'm an editor instead of something dealing heavily in programming today and such).

 

Most of the older games that I've played now I try because I find them at really cheap prices somewhere and give it a shot. I've found many enjoyable games that way. I think a lot of it is that to me, ultimately I care more about whether a game is fun, than not. Graphics are nice, but bling bling is more of a Western thing, and though it's nice and I can get excited by it...bling bling doesn't determine enjoyment for me.

 

IN MY OPINION what you stated above appliles heavily to teens and MAYBE the less gamer involved college students (those who play to brag they are gamers, but don't get into ALL games), but to the overall gamer (and you do have some really hard teens and college students in exeption to the others) who has been around for a while, what really matters is whether it is fun or not. If it has good graphics and is fun, that's great. If it doesn't have graphics at all, but is fun, well, hey, just like most games, it'll be fun many years down the road. Unless you play it to death (and even then some will still be fun, but repetition can get boring I admit), games that you enjoy should remain games that you enjoy/would enjoy.

 

Once again, those in my opinion that let graphics get in the way of determining whether they can or cannot enjoy a game are not really those who are in it for enjoyment, or gaming, and aren't really gamers at all. They're in it for the eyecandy, they faddish element, and the bling bling.

 

Maybe not a bad thing, at least then they probably aren't the computer nerd like I have become!!!

 

[greylord]

I can appreciate good graphics, particularly in the artistic or animation sense. That doesn't mean that a game that has those qualities but lacks fun is fun, or a game that lacks them but is fun isn't. Same with good music. Give me a stellar soundtrack and I'll be all over it, but that doesn't mean I'd care if a game didn't have any music if it were able to stand on its own.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Your comment reminds me of Force Commander. Couldn't play the game past the first level it was so bad...but STILL love the soundtrack to that game!!!