Izual
Pipe rifle & chopsticks
Actually that makes sense for CH1. Let's send the ugly guy no one likes 
Bad things of fo1,2?
- Thread starter woo1108
- Start date
Oh god, so many of these options are so tempting, but one thing is giggling for 5 minutes over a useless character, another is to try to complete the game with it 
My Int1 character got as far as to NCR before I lost interest, and by then he had barely completed a quest...
My Int1 character got as far as to NCR before I lost interest, and by then he had barely completed a quest...
dogy_kane
First time out of the vault
Wt Bad about Fallout 1 & 2
1: Graphics
(I'm not saying it is the most important aspect but who doesn't want better graph?)
2: NPCs dont have voice except few talking heads
(Make me feel less realistic since most characters can only 'type in' what they say)
3: Companions always shoot you when you are standing on his firing line
(I don't dare to give Marcus a minigun, otherwise I will be the first one to die, like if my companions have no intelligence at all, non realistic)
4: Can't rotate camera
(which makes certain things difficult to see from your view even it is just in front of your character)
5: Map is too hugely covered
(how come you can walk across California in 2 weeks under a post nuclear circumstance?)
6: Not enough details for each location
(there were like, what? 30 people in entire LA/Boneyard? and most of them are non interactive at all)
7: both Fallout 1 and 2 are too linear
(How many people successfully sided with Master or Enclave? sorry to say this, but honestly, 1 & 2 are as linear as Fallout 3
8: No radios
1: Graphics
(I'm not saying it is the most important aspect but who doesn't want better graph?)
2: NPCs dont have voice except few talking heads
(Make me feel less realistic since most characters can only 'type in' what they say)
3: Companions always shoot you when you are standing on his firing line
(I don't dare to give Marcus a minigun, otherwise I will be the first one to die, like if my companions have no intelligence at all, non realistic)
4: Can't rotate camera
(which makes certain things difficult to see from your view even it is just in front of your character)
5: Map is too hugely covered
(how come you can walk across California in 2 weeks under a post nuclear circumstance?)
6: Not enough details for each location
(there were like, what? 30 people in entire LA/Boneyard? and most of them are non interactive at all)
7: both Fallout 1 and 2 are too linear
(How many people successfully sided with Master or Enclave? sorry to say this, but honestly, 1 & 2 are as linear as Fallout 3
8: No radios
Do you even know when these games were released? Pre-rendered graphics at sub-HD resolution were standard in the late 1990s, especially in RPGs. How can you judge an old game by current standards? That's ridiculous.dogy_kane said:
dogy_kane said:
So? Do you avoid reading books because they make you feel "less realistic"?
dogy_kane said:
Wild guess, but can't you try.....NOT standing in someone's line of fire?
dogy_kane said:
Again, you're trying to judge an old game by current standards. Static cameras were a standard thing back then.
dogy_kane said:
How do you know that you can't?
dogy_kane said:
That wasn't the entire LA area. You only get to visit a few chosen locations, not the entire city.
dogy_kane said:
I don't think linear means what you think it means.
??? That's too retarded to even address.dogy_kane said:
Continuum
Vault Fossil
Visual standards of original Fallout are pretty high, I think...fedaykin said:
vs.
I believe that Einstein said something like: "Two things are limitless. One is the universe, the other human stupidity. And I'm not so sure about the universe."
In this case, dogy_kane, you compared a game, that came out DECADES ago, to the latest generation games which not always are better just because they are made later. Graphics may be "enhanced", but check out the screenies Continuum posted and say again which game got better graphics.
(Hint: the one with proper shadowing)
In this case, dogy_kane, you compared a game, that came out DECADES ago, to the latest generation games which not always are better just because they are made later. Graphics may be "enhanced", but check out the screenies Continuum posted and say again which game got better graphics.
(Hint: the one with proper shadowing)
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Fallout 1's standards are all much, much higher than Fallout 3's standards except in the categories of "Awesome shit" and "kick ass setpieces."
BigBoss
Your Local Scrub
Well, you may not believe it but back then Fallout had great graphics.
Nah. Fallout always had mediocre graphics. Not the worst in the world, but definitive not the best of that time.
Izual
Pipe rifle & chopsticks
What? Fallout 1/2 are beautiful games, even by nowadays' standards.
dogy_kane said:
eh... what a ridiculous
2. better than using same actor for many npcs like fo3 or oblivion.
3. because there's no magic bullet to avoid you.
5. better than fast travel of fo3 or NV which spent few hour to across wasteland. but NPC says "It take some day to across"
6.I don't think there's enough detail in fo3. in fo 1,2, NV there's lots of description about how they living(food, shelter, trade, problem) but in fo3 there's little description about food and other things.
7. fo1 and 2 is linear? there's lots of different choices in fo1,2 which makes different ending.
It's a troll post. Disregard it.
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
Izual said:
It still grossly disappoitns me that 'retro' means NES/SNES and not Infinity Engine or the Fallout Engine or anything of the sort. Nope.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Izual said:
I would gladly pay full price for a nother game that looks the same as gorgeous Fallout set pieces today. Looks much more coherent than many of the AAA crap games coming out today.
Makta
The DICKtator
Continuum said:Visual standards of original Fallout are pretty high, I think...fedaykin said:
vs.
Keep in mind that i haven't played the first one in a long time.. But the first picture is a.. picture while the F3 is an ingame SS with low quality?
Edit: I don't know why you guys think F1 and F2 where great looking in graphics? I thought they where meh when i started when it came to quality. Sure the graphic engine fit the game but i would never say that they where awesome looking besides that
Izual
Pipe rifle & chopsticks
Just tell me again this is "meh"? :p
Continuum
Vault Fossil
Nope, it's a in-game screenshot (you can see in end-game slides). But OK. In-game screenshot from Fallout vs. another in-game screenshot of Fallout 3 (I think, this one is promotional so must have high quality settings on).Makta said:But the first picture is a.. picture while the F3 is an ingame SS with low quality?
Wintermind
Vault Senior Citizen
But we're not talking about new games were talking about a very specific set of games. Comparing graphics can be compartively meaningless due to the amount of time between games, different camera perspectives, 2D vs. 3D can be all used as arguments to dissuade a comparison of graphics but "there are other better looking games" isn't.
That's what I want to discuss about. I want to discuss about the point that should fix or need to change for good.Oppen said:
Rotate camera is good point to discuss since fo1,2's view is quite inconvinience. but graphic is bad point to dicuss because graphic is always improves. nobody won't produce sequel of fallout which has worse or same graphic of 1,2 either fps or isometric.