Fallout 2 & 3 side by side comparison
- Thread starter BurningInFlames
- Start date
BurningInFlames
First time out of the vault
Thanks for all the feedback...
I left out one other major point (too tired to have clear thoughts last night).
Perks:
FO2 had perks that were balanced...if you chose a perk that would usually mean that it had both a positive and negative effect. In order to become powerful you would have to choose wisely because the negative effects can be very bad for your game play.
In FO3, I felt like 90% of the perks had only a positive effect...and what is the deal with having a perk that actually allows you to increase any of your (useless) SPECIAL stats? Wasn't it more fulfilling when you had to get surgeries to improve your perception?
Thanks for pointing out that FO1 was originally intended to have the same intro song, I was not aware of this...maybe it was an over analysis on my part.
Also as far as ghoul involvement, it just seems like their role is much more significant in FO2. Also the ghouls in FO3 just seemed like humans with different textures and with tracheotomies.
I left out one other major point (too tired to have clear thoughts last night).
Perks:
FO2 had perks that were balanced...if you chose a perk that would usually mean that it had both a positive and negative effect. In order to become powerful you would have to choose wisely because the negative effects can be very bad for your game play.
In FO3, I felt like 90% of the perks had only a positive effect...and what is the deal with having a perk that actually allows you to increase any of your (useless) SPECIAL stats? Wasn't it more fulfilling when you had to get surgeries to improve your perception?
Thanks for pointing out that FO1 was originally intended to have the same intro song, I was not aware of this...maybe it was an over analysis on my part.
Also as far as ghoul involvement, it just seems like their role is much more significant in FO2. Also the ghouls in FO3 just seemed like humans with different textures and with tracheotomies.
I believe you are mistaking perks and traits. Perks have only a positive effect, but all traits have a positive and negative effect, except for Bloody Mess.BurningInFlames said:
FO3 did not have traits at all, which is equally as bad.
I agree about the ghouls. Ghouls were integral in FO2, even if they were disliked by some. In FO3, they could have been non-existent and the game would have played out the same.BurningInFlames said:
One thing that I don't think I've seen mentioned at all is intersettlement relationships. In FO and FO2, how you acted in one settlement/town/city would directly affect how another would receive you. For instance, the relationship between Vault City and Gecko, or NCR and The Squat, or New Reno and everywhere else. You kill the Mordino family in New Reno, suddenly the Jet supply dries up everywhere in the wasteland. There's nothing even remotely similar to that in FO3. The closest thing would be Paradise Falls and their enslaving people from Big Town.
coliphorbs
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
I don't know if that warrants being called an inter-town relationship, Ausir. You have some random whack who wants to blow a city up with no real explanation given, and there's no counter-action you can take on behalf of Megaton. Well, yeah, you can kill the Tenpenny honcho - but who in Megaton will care?
It's a random "Wow! Nukes!" quest to make good first impressions of the game, without a real story behind it.
It's a random "Wow! Nukes!" quest to make good first impressions of the game, without a real story behind it.
To OP: Very nice post. A couple of things I want to add:
IMO the FO3 intro "war" speech loses because it has too much pathos and too little substance.
The idea of taking the character through the tutorial and creation from childhood is certainly not "original" and not new, they had that in Fable, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a few other games. They might have taken it a bit further, but it's certainly not thei invention.
IMO the FO3 intro "war" speech loses because it has too much pathos and too little substance.
The idea of taking the character through the tutorial and creation from childhood is certainly not "original" and not new, they had that in Fable, and I'm pretty sure I've seen a few other games. They might have taken it a bit further, but it's certainly not thei invention.
TheRatKing
Vault Dweller
Temple of Trials sucks, but it takes me 10 minutes tops, killing every radscorpian (hit and run tactics 
). Arroyo in general after that is not bad. The vault is practically the same every time, and I hated it. It is longer, and worse that Temple of Trials + Arroyo.
). Arroyo in general after that is not bad. The vault is practically the same every time, and I hated it. It is longer, and worse that Temple of Trials + Arroyo.
Yes, but it gets ruined by the fact that everything in the game looks like the bombs droped the last week.Ausir said:
I like the retrofuturism in Fallout 3. But I think they really exagerated it with all the 50s references in Fallout 3. I mean ... has really almost EVERY npcs to look like he could be directly out of the 50s ?
Darkangel-XI
First time out of the vault
I think that Fallout 3 would make a lot more sense if it didn't take place so long after the war. The old wooden houses, large amount of stuff everywhere and 50s style hair and clothing all make it seem like it was only 20-50 years after the war.
Ausir said:
Definitly not. If I remember corretly you like to robot. The robot with milk glass. See my point?
Also the cake in the vault does not fit at all. Leni Riefenstahl statues.. You can go on for a long time about this. Sure, F2 does the same, but saying that FO3 is closer to the theme is just as wrong.
/e what I dislike about the initially post: You say "cities" when you write about Fo3, yet Fo3 has none.
Chancellor Kremlin
Mildly Dipped
BurningInFlames said:
Interesting you should mention that. I recently watched the FO3 intro and I was appaled by it. I couldn't even believe it was the same guy, he missed the mark really really badly.
I don't like how the broke the formula either by changing the background music to the speech (Vats of Goo) to the suposedly 'powerful' music they chose instead.
The original music was grim and depressing and militaristic even, the one in FO3 sounds like something from a cheezy movie. And the speech itself is a bit too long, cheezy and forced even.
I mean, ''It is here you were born. It is here you will die. Because in Vault One o One, no one ever enters. And NO ONE, ever leaves!''
What the fuck? I can even sense the guy speaking it knows how corny it is in relation to the superior stuff he read for the previous games. And the crescendo in the music aswell is just pathetic.
This was written by a 14 year old. It must have!
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Not having played FO3 I can't comment on the rest of your post but there's one thing about the graphics, FO2's graphics haven't aged. That's the benefit of 2d graphics, they don't age as fast as 3d if at all. Sure the technology has changed and at modern resolutions the game doesn't look so good. But if you was to emulate the technology the game was intended for then playing the Fallouts, Baldur's Gates, Torment, and other 2d games would still look as good as when they were released. Try that with a 3d game from the same era or even just a couple of years ago and you just can't get around the fact that people tend to have square heads etc.BurningInFlames said:
The problem is that you SHOULDN'T have to imagine that the game is set in another time period, just like you shouldn't have to imagine a better story line. When I play a game I want to get into a believable world that someone has created. I don't want to have to create my own game in my head!