Bad things of fo1,2?

W

woo1108

Vault Senior Citizen
I think these two are awesome game but there would be bad point
doesn't it? :lol: there's no perfect things in the world!

For me
1. can't rotate screen is problem
2. hard to see or take items on the ground
3. Some skills are useless( doctor, outdoorsman etc)
Although those 3 were not that big problem to enjoying the game :lol:
How about you?
 
Outdoorsman is not useless. I used it to avoid enemies and find special encounters. My biggest complaint used to be bugs but the Restoration patch fixed all that.
 
TorontRayne said:
Outdoorsman is not useless. I used it to avoid enemies and find special encounters. My biggest complaint used to be bugs but the Restoration patch fixed all that.
Click to expand...
Yeah it isn't bad skill but as a tag skill, I don't think it would be useful
 
-Some problems with the UI, especially in FO1 (things like having to loot every item one by one)
-If you insult someone almost always, as far as I remember, it would lead to combat, which would almost always lead to the whole town turning against you
-Skills were obviously unbalanced
-While fun, the main character being retarded if he had an INT below 4 made no sense. They should have just made him/her a bit stupid, not full-on brain damaged
 
Bad things? FO1/2?

Almost zilch.

About the only thing I EVER had issue with (besides the game-breaking glitches, of course) was that FO2 was so clearly rushed. It really showed. Keep in mind, this was a time where games were VERY distinct from one another, and you could tell the difference between most engines- even in sequential titles. Tacking on a number to the side of a game almost guaranteed that it would look and function quite differently from its predecessor, yet FO2 had the exact same engine, same graphics, and all of its improvements were subtle, not overt. The "new" animations and unit renders really stood out, because of that. Compared to the difference between FOT and FO2, and you'd see what I mean; FOT was clearly running on a VERY different, shiny and newer engine.

Everything else was golden. I may not have liked the "feel" of the setting in FO2 as much as FO1, but I didn't DISlike it. I loved the shit out of FO1, and even if FO2 was bigger in nearly every aspect, I wouldn't look upon FO1 negatively as "small". And the attention to detail..... Good God, WHY don't they make games like these today? T_T
 
My problem is how encounters worked. A JA2 style "place your men on the edge of the map before combat" system would have made combat a lot better IMO.
 
Combat mechanics are kind of meh, UI problems, unbalanced skills.

All I can think of at the moment.
 
Aside from most of what's already been mentioned (SPECIAL was in dire need of a rebalancing, inventory system/UI and combat were fairly clunky), F2 was kind of phoned in at the end), these are what immediately spring to mind:

*"Tell Me About" was an interesting feature that could've been far better integrated in the first game, and I really missed it in the second.

*The difficulty curve really needed adjusting, especially in Fallout 2. You went from "Dear God, please don't let them have pistols" at the beginning to "KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!" by the late midgame.

*Notoriously crash-prone. Could've done without that, even if it is something of a hallmark of the series by this point.
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
-While fun, the main character being retarded if he had an INT below 4 made no sense. They should have just made him/her a bit stupid, not full-on brain damaged
Click to expand...

I agree that an INT3 character should be simply dumb, not retarded - but for an INT1 he should indeed be brain damaged - after all, we're talking INT1... as in, an absolute lack of all possible intelligence. I'm playing one such save currently, and I'm sometimes a bit annoyed at how intelligent he actually sounds sometimes - he is even capable of forming complete sentences!

Op: Doctor is an awesome skill. 50xp for each time you use it, plus it fixes crippled limbs!
 
I don't remember if this happens in FO2 or 1, but I found kind of dumb that in Arcanum if you got drunk and your INT dropped to below 4 people started acting like you were a retard instead of just drunk.
 
zegh8578 said:
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
-While fun, the main character being retarded if he had an INT below 4 made no sense. They should have just made him/her a bit stupid, not full-on brain damaged
Click to expand...

I agree that an INT3 character should be simply dumb, not retarded - but for an INT1 he should indeed be brain damaged - after all, we're talking INT1... as in, an absolute lack of all possible intelligence
Click to expand...

A retarded main character would make sense in FO3-NV (ironically the two games that don't have this feature) because the Courier and the Lone Wanderer start their quest on their own, but in FO1-2? "We need to save V13/Arroyo, let's call the retarded/brain-damaged guy." It just doesn't make sense in context.
 
In Fallout 1, not so much, although The Overseer sending you off on a McGuffin quest to get rid of you makes for an interesting, if non-canon, line of speculation, especially with Talius at The Follower's library providing proof that you aren't the first person sent on this quest.

In Fallout 2, though, it fits. It might smack of illogical mysticism, but hey, that's tribal culture for you. You're the Chosen One, capital c, capital o. If the spirits didn't want you in the role, you wouldn't have been born to it, and if you weren't suited for it they wouldn't have let you survive the Temple of Trials, right?
 
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
zegh8578 said:
Stanislao Moulinsky said:
-While fun, the main character being retarded if he had an INT below 4 made no sense. They should have just made him/her a bit stupid, not full-on brain damaged
Click to expand...

I agree that an INT3 character should be simply dumb, not retarded - but for an INT1 he should indeed be brain damaged - after all, we're talking INT1... as in, an absolute lack of all possible intelligence
Click to expand...

A retarded main character would make sense in FO3-NV (ironically the two games that don't have this feature) because the Courier and the Lone Wanderer start their quest on their own, but in FO1-2? "We need to save V13/Arroyo, let's call the retarded/brain-damaged guy." It just doesn't make sense in context.
Click to expand...

But how hilarious it is... :D
Actually, that thought had me giggling out loud, even as I was creating the character (and in the RP Kaga says the same thing) my god, they must be desperate!
It's role play after all, like, you could also pump charisma to the max, intelligence to just 4, strength low as hell, perk "sex appeal" and be "mister sexy man" out to save his village - it makes just as much sense as sending out the village-idiot, really :D
 
Yamu said:
In Fallout 1, not so much, although The Overseer sending you off on a McGuffin quest to get rid of you makes for an interesting, if non-canon, line of speculation, especially with Talius at The Follower's library providing proof that you aren't the first person sent on this quest.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting idea, if it wasn't that the Overseer really needs the MacGuffin. :P
 
Maybe he sent out a bevy of far more capable undesirables, too, and getting to throw you out with them was just the cherry on top?

(Hey, we're already in non-canon land anyway. Maybe he had an entire crate of water chips under his chair that he used to make tracks for his Hot Wheels cars and the "busted chip" was a two-for-one Orwellian masterstroke to instill fear in the governed and provide a means to cull the citizens of the vault that he felt were the greatest threat to the status quo. :wink: )
 
Hot damn Yamu where does this stuff come from?! Tracks for micro-machines? Really!? :clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Critical hits.
I almost smashed my computer when I was in Vault 15 in FO2. I had pretty much the same level of equipment and skill that my foes had, but being outnumbered, I had to come up with strategies to use against my foes. Oh, but nuts to tactical advantage, some dude hits you critically with a pistol and you're down. That is frustrating.
 
Surf Solar said:
Walpknut said:
Critical hits are a staple of almost every RPG.
Click to expand...

ut Fallout 1/2 are notorious for screwing you over with unreliable critical hits.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it is good point of fo1,2 not bad point since I can kill enemy with awesome effect of critical. of course it will feel bad when my character die horribly by enemy's critical attack. but it doesn't make game shitty but dramatically and challenge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top