Fallout 2

[TwinkieGorilla]

Cynic = Realistic.

 

 

[Purkake]

Isn't that always the case anyway? No one is born a cynic.

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Wrong. Fallout 3 > Fallout 1 in every possible way.

 

Reported to moderators for hopelessly bad taste.

Seems I'm no good at imitating Volo. I'll stop now.

[Oner]

Wrong. Fallout 3 > Fallout 1 in every possible way.

 

Reported to moderators for hopelessly bad taste.

Seems I'm no good at imitating Volo. I'll stop now.

Use 'Lie.' or 'Not true.' instead of wrong and you'll be perfect.

[Slowtrain]

Five things that shows how Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 and 2:

 

1. It is graphically superior in every way, and allows greater immersion in its visual representation.

 

 

Good graphics are never a bad thing, but they rarely make a bad game good. I freely admit that I appear to be a lot more tolerant of non cutting-edge graphics than most people. Probably because I grew up with them.

 

2. A far more open world with greater amount of quests to do within the game..

 

While its true that there is more to do, I don't know if looting soda machines really qualifies as an engrossing gaming activity. Maybe if I could blow them open with a rocket launcher, it might help. FO3 could use more destructability in the environments, if they really want immersion.

 

3. It is highly and easily moddable, given its powerful tools system made public by Bethesda..

 

Quite true. Although I would prefer the vanilla game as shipped not need so much fixing. Still FO3 is far superior to Oblivion in this regard.

 

4. Far less pop culture "jokes" breaking immersion...

 

IMO, both Fallout 2 and 3 fail brutally in this regard. In both cases the developers seem to have fixated on the stupidest comedic aspects of the game world. Probably Fallout 2 is the worst offender, though.

 

5. Overall game length is nearly 2 to 3 times longer than that of Fallout 1 and 2 combined.

 

there's more meaningless stuff to do, but is there more quality stuff to do?

 

I recognize Beth believes in quantity over quality, but I'm not sure I do.

 

 

Five things that shows how Fallout 1 and 2 are better than Fallout 1.

1. Tandi..

 

Come on. Almost all the joinable npcs in both Fallout 1 and 2 are better than Fallout 3. Maybe Katja is the only exception, simply because she doesn't have much personality.

 

Hmmm. Actually all the npcs across the board are better in FO1/2 are better. It's not even close.

 

2. Greater strategic combat due to turn base style...

 

Yeah, maybe. I don't really think of the combat in FO1/2 as a strength compared to say Jagged Alliance 2 and XCOM.

 

3. Smarter follower AI in Fallout 2, but not 1. Definitely not 1. DAMN YOU IAN!...

 

I guess so. I'm not sold on follower AI in any of the games.

 

 

4. The writing.!...

 

Well, yeah. A bunch of monkeys jumping up and down on a typewriter are going to write better than Bethesda on their best day.

 

5. The voice acting was also superior. You can't beat Richard Dean Anderson and Michael Dorn. Not even with Liam Neison and Malcom McDowell.

 

 

I guess so. VA doesn't do much for me one way other. I think Wes Johnson in MW, Oblivion, and DO3 is the best overall. I like Malcolm McDowell so he's a plus. Dorn was terrible. Its pretty much a wash.

[Killian Kalthorne]

Obviously you haven't played Fallout 3 with MMM, Fook2, FWE, and WMK in the game, TG, because they make the game far more interesting to play than any mod for Fallout 1 or 2. They definitely change the intensity and difficulty of the game.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[TwinkieGorilla]

Well, yeah. A bunch of monkeys jumping up and down on a typewriter are going to write better than Bethesda on their best day.

 

Lulz! Greatest monkey/typewriter line I've seen yet!

 

 

@Killian: Of course I haven't! The writing is so goddamn horrible and the game so generally vapid and insulting I never finished the vanilla, gave the damn thing away and will never install it on any computer I ever own ever again! And I'll add that you obviously have no clue as to what Killap has done, because your phrase comes across as a major insult if you have.

Edited January 15, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla

[Killian Kalthorne]

Of course I don't. I live in the now, not in the last century, TG. Those who hold on to the past live only in stagnation.

 

As for the writing, its a video game. Not Charles Dickens.

[RPGmasterBoo]

This discussion will outlast the universe.

[Killian Kalthorne]

True, because the naysayers seem to forget one thing. The only thing that matters in a game is if the game is fun to play. Everything else is secondary and I found Fallout 3 fun to play. Nothing else matters.

[RPGmasterBoo]

True, because the naysayers seem to forget one thing. The only thing that matters in a game is if the game is fun to play. Everything else is secondary and I found Fallout 3 fun to play. Nothing else matters.

 

Edited January 15, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

True, because the naysayers seem to forget one thing. The only thing that matters in a game is if the game is fun to play. Everything else is secondary and I found Fallout 3 fun to play. Nothing else matters.

I guess you missed the part where FO3 burned down the naysayers villages and murdered their parents. They're vengeance will never cease.

[bhlaab]

True, because the naysayers seem to forget one thing. The only thing that matters in a game is if the game is fun to play. Everything else is secondary and I found Fallout 3 fun to play. Nothing else matters.

 

It's you, you're the one holding everything back.

[Killian Kalthorne]

It's you, you're the one holding everything back.

 

Oh, really. Explain that one to me. If I see a game I like to play, I play it. If there are mods I want to mess with I install them. If there is a game that I don't want to play I ignore it. If there are mods that I don't care for I don't bother installing them. If a developer makes a sequel to game and I don't like how they designed I don't play it or whinge on and on about it and move on to a different game. How am I holding anything back?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Killian Kalthorne

[TwinkieGorilla]

Of course I don't. I live in the now, not in the last century, TG. Those who hold on to the past live only in stagnation.

 

Interesting...

 

As for the writing, its a video game. Not Charles Dickens.

 

Why would you reference Charles Dickens if you "live in the now", Killian? Why wouldn't Ismail Kadare be a better choice? Why would you give Charles Dickens credit? Why do I have to read "Hard Times" in class this semester? Should I tell my professor that because she is not "living in the now" and only "now" is important she is "liv(ing) only in stagnation"? Is something which was great once no longer great because time has passed? Or am I to presume that as with one piece of art the same standards should not be upheld? I think you are far too old to be using the reasoning of a child, Killian. Aren't there better ways to debate your side of the argument?

[Killian Kalthorne]

The point is that Fallout 3 and its predecessors are just video games, not works of art, great pieces of literature, or anything of that nature., They are just video games, mindless entertainment and nothing more. You guys whinge on and on like Fallout 1 and 2 were the "The Great Gatsby" or something.

[TwinkieGorilla]

The point is that Fallout 3 and its predecessors are just video games, not works of art, great pieces of literature, or anything of that nature., They are just video games, mindless entertainment and nothing more. You guys whinge on and on like Fallout 1 and 2 were the "The Great Gatsby" or something.

 

And my point is that if something was great once it does not stop being great.

 

EDIT: also, why would I be going on about F. Scott Fitzgerald at a videogame message board? Fallout is actually one of a variety of topics which kinda, sorta makes sense to be talking about here. What with this being a video-game message board belonging to a company making a game in the Fallout series. Furthermore, why should you care how much I enjoy Fallout? How patronizing can you get?

Edited January 16, 2010 by TwinkieGorilla

[Killian Kalthorne]

How patronizing can you get?

 

I have yet begun to patronize!

 

I am just bidding time til all my downloads are finished. Testing out some different mods for Dragon Age.

[Gorgon]

Inspired by this thread, and by the fact that it's probably the only thing that will run on my crappy new laptop, I decided to steam FO2.

 

Are mele characters worth playing ?

[Purkake]

Go Jinxed, Luck 10 and hand-to-hand. Hilarity will ensue.

[entrerix]

Of course I don't. I live in the now, not in the last century, TG. Those who hold on to the past live only in stagnation.

 

Interesting...

 

As for the writing, its a video game. Not Charles Dickens.

 

Why would you reference Charles Dickens if you "live in the now", Killian? Why wouldn't Ismail Kadare be a better choice? Why would you give Charles Dickens credit? Why do I have to read "Hard Times" in class this semester? Should I tell my professor that because she is not "living in the now" and only "now" is important she is "liv(ing) only in stagnation"? Is something which was great once no longer great because time has passed? Or am I to presume that as with one piece of art the same standards should not be upheld?

 

 

ohhh damn. mega burned by turning his own words against him...

 

well argued good sir.

 

Fallout 3 IS fun, but in a lowest common denominator sort of way... i like my fun to bring with it a deeper satisfaction (ala fallout)

 

it's the difference between a good movie thats fun, like terminator 2, to a lowest common denominator movie thats "fun", like terminator 3. the quality of the first is inarguably superior despite ADVANCED NEW GRAPHICS found in the second. why? one word: quality.

 

im not saying terminator 2 is schindlers list. its a goddamn arnold flick. but it has what i crave, good quality action sci-fi. and terminator 3 is an amusing diversion (or crushing dissapointment if you're a "TRUE" fan)

 

jeez, now that i think about it, the terminator comparison is really very apt for whats happened with fallout...

[Killian Kalthorne]

Only thing that matters is the fun factor. Everything else is irrelevant.

[RPGmasterBoo]

I'll just butt in with the constatation that while the "fun factor" is an important quality in a game, it can't be the sole quality in this day and age - at least not for a big budget game like F3.

 

If it were, you'd be hard pressed to argue that anything made after Pac-Man was substantially better than it, and thus you'd negate the whole idea of progress (21st century of gaming?) you seem to be so keen on.

Edited January 16, 2010 by RPGmasterBoo

[Purkake]

What about Red Faction: Guerrilla? Sure the story sucked, but breaking things in spectacular ways made it the most fun game ever.

 

As I said in some other thread before, expect different things from different games. Not every game needs to have a PST-level story to be good, in fact, everyone trying to insert what they think is the best thing since Dostoevsky, is part of the reason why video game stories are a joke these days.

 

Unfortunately every game needs gameplay, which is usually the part that makes it fun, otherwise you could just watch a movie. Developers should concentrate on their strengths and not try to do it all because they think the market demands it. If you can't make a good complex story, make a good simple one. Being unique and innovative will get you more points than trying to be smart and failing.

Edited January 16, 2010 by Purkake

[Oner]

Why would you reference Charles Dickens if you "live in the now", Killian? Why wouldn't Ismail Kadare be a better choice? Why would you give Charles Dickens credit? Why do I have to read "Hard Times" in class this semester? Should I tell my professor that because she is not "living in the now" and only "now" is important she is "liv(ing) only in stagnation"? Is something which was great once no longer great because time has passed? Or am I to presume that as with one piece of art the same standards should not be upheld? I think you are far too old to be using the reasoning of a child, Killian. Aren't there better ways to debate your side of the argument?

DO IT! And have someone record her reaction! Then upload it! Share the link!

 

 

Only thing that matters is the fun factor. Everything else is irrelevant.

When I want to have the endless and mindless shooting kind of fun, I load up Painkiller or UT. When I want fun that even vaguely fits into the intellectual territory I load up the Fallouts. Not counting the third.

Guess when I want scenery porn, then I can load it.

 

 

The point is that Fallout 3 and its predecessors are just video games, not works of art, great pieces of literature, or anything of that nature., They are just video games, mindless entertainment and nothing more. You guys whinge on and on like Fallout 1 and 2 were the "The Great Gatsby" or something.

And Charles Dickens' books were just books. Probably with butt ugly covers. Good thing books existed for centuries and aren't limited by some arbitrary prejudice of the ignorant, self-important masses or we couldn't call them art.

 

Not every game needs to have a PST-level story to be good, in fact, everyone trying to insert what they think is the best thing since Dostoevsky, is part of the reason why video game stories are a joke these days.

Well, I'm at this forum for a reason (hint: begins with S and ends with tory, but don't tell anyone).

 

Unfortunately every game needs gameplay, which is usually the part that makes it fun, otherwise you could just watch a movie. Developers should concentrate on their strengths and not try to do it all because they think the market demands it.

Torment had gameplay?! Why didn't anyone tell me that?! Edited January 16, 2010 by Oner