Arcanum vs Fallout

I was unaware, thank you for pointing that out. How do I change the Forum without deleting this thread?
 
Last edited:
Despite its flaws... isn't Arcanum the next evolution of Fallout's gameplay ~just skinned for a different fiction?
 
UniversalWolf said:
Oh yeah, I forgot that everything in Fallout works the way it's supposed to.
Click to expand...
Nope, but it was less frequent and severe and therefore less infuriating when things didn't work in Fallout. Arcanum, to me seems broken from the very base.

Also I dislike any use of vainilla Elves, Orcs and Dwarves no matter what of the other generic setting you place them in. A friend mislead me telling me it was a full on steampunk game, and next thign I knew I was going on a quest to find out the secrets of a ring forged by dwarves while trying to find a magical gemstone for a wizard. And they also threw in a Star Wars reference without irony for a location in a city. I admit I might be just a tad biased in this last paragraph.
 
Last edited:
Fallout for the gameplay (combat flows better, more different *useful* weapons, more effective approaches to progressing, better balanced).

Arcanum for the world and setting. Also, crafting is a big plus.

More or less tied on the (main) story - Fallout is more coherent but also more cheesy. Both rely heavily on RPG tropes, heavy use of McGuffin is tedious. Never liked the McGuffin bait-and-switch near end-game for both (you spend most of the game looking for The One Thing, then find out it's not that important).
 
Nah, Fallout's story is only cheesy if you look at it from the point of Fallout 2 (which I know many of you do). But if you look at it from Fallout 1, it superior to Fallout 2 and Arcanum. Almost like the crack dealer is superior to the crack head. If that makes any sense... despite the fact that fallout 1 was the best of the series, yet people praise Fallout 2 mainly just because it was a bigger game. Who gives a fuck?
 
BigBoss said:
Nah, Fallout's story is only cheesy if you look at it from the point of Fallout 2 (which I know many of you do). But if you look at it from Fallout 1, it superior to Fallout 2 and Arcanum. Almost like the crack dealer is superior to the crack head. If that makes any sense... despite the fact that fallout 1 was the best of the series, yet people praise Fallout 2 mainly just because it was a bigger game. Who gives a fuck?
Click to expand...

It's also more polished, less linear, has more varied gameplay, and a more intuitive interface. All at the cost of being more of a "themepark RPG". *Shrug* I like both equally, but for different things. I did get more mileage out of FO2 than FO1, that's for sure.

Also note that I'm talking about the *main story* (or main quest, if you will) as opposed to the overall world/setting or the side-stories. Both use similar tropes and virtually the same main quest structure.
 
For RP(including character making) I think Fallout can't match with Arcanum.
RP of Arcanum is really great.

but for main quest, I think Fallout 1 is better for me.
because there are some linear points at Acanum.
 
I really wish Arcanum's combat and character systems weren't broken. It always felt way too difficult to play a gunslinger just because the bullets were so damned expensive. The difficulty in getting that build up and running compared to pure melee or a mage is just way too high.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
BigBoss said:
Nah, Fallout's story is only cheesy if you look at it from the point of Fallout 2 (which I know many of you do). But if you look at it from Fallout 1, it superior to Fallout 2 and Arcanum. Almost like the crack dealer is superior to the crack head. If that makes any sense... despite the fact that fallout 1 was the best of the series, yet people praise Fallout 2 mainly just because it was a bigger game. Who gives a fuck?
Click to expand...

It's also more polished, less linear, has more varied gameplay, and a more intuitive interface. All at the cost of being more of a "themepark RPG". *Shrug* I like both equally, but for different things. I did get more mileage out of FO2 than FO1, that's for sure.

Also note that I'm talking about the *main story* (or main quest, if you will) as opposed to the overall world/setting or the side-stories. Both use similar tropes and virtually the same main quest structure.
Click to expand...
I'd agree with all of those points, with the notable exception of "more polished". FO2 looks and feels noticeably rushed... because it was. The menagerie of bugs inherent within the game were a massive clue-in that the game didn't get the time it deserved FOR said polish. It was refined and improved over FO1 in many (if not most) ways, granted, but they didn't have the time for what most would consider "polish" for a video game. Streamlining, consistency in graphics and presentation, absence of bugs. It's got all the things you mentioned, and then some, but just not polish. =/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top