Fallout 2 & 3 side by side comparison
- Thread starter BurningInFlames
- Start date
big brother said:
I completly, whole-heartedly disagree. Even though Fallout 2 has lots of silly moments, it had much better characters, humour dialogues and combat.
And what's more important, F2's world made *sense*. There were farmers, farms, cattle, economical relations between settlements, people making weapons and ammo....these basic things aren't present in F3 almost at all. Say what you want about F2 (and most of it will probably be true), but please - don't try to tell me that it's not much better than the rushed, half-assed game with pathetic dialouges, storyline and world that Fallout 3 is.
Following your logic one can say that Pokemon for Gameboy and Fallout are very like the same, because you get a world to explore.
Ausir said:
That is definitely true. I managed to hit almost every area in Fallout 2 just by following the main quest, but I missed the vast majority in Fallout 3.
When I play, I try to act in realistic way. That is, if I think the fate of the world is hanging in the balance, I'm not going to go explore for a week. So once I found dad, it was a bit of a whirlwind. You feel too compelled to go from point A to point B to point C etc. They needed to give you a reason to hit more areas.
What they could have done, was to have no clues in Megaton. 3Dog could help, but he should be hard to get to. Clues leading to him could be in locations on the edge of the map.
I guess since my village was dying I should have been compelled to hurry a bit more in Fallout 2 but I never felt too rushed. Maybe it was because Hakunin was so annoying.
big brother
First time out of the vault
My posts were as a reply to the orginal poster and the map was never part of his equation. Neither was the humour. I will agree that the Map design made Fallout 2 look like the main storyline was muh longer because it took you to every places (or close to)
As for the humour, I will say that they have a different kind of humour. Bethsada made an incredible amount of little jokes but most of the are in the landscape instead of in dialog. Fallout 2 was more "in your face" type of humour while Bethsada was more subtle, which doesn't fit the company...
I found Robots on toilets and when I moved them there was (s)crap metal in the toilet. I found a guy chained to a wall by a foot, his body fuly extended. And when I checked towards where is arm was pointing, I found a lockpick book. The wastelander strapped with explosives, the wastelanders with the Survival guide book, dead or alive depending if you lied or did the missions...I found a lot of those "small stories" that weren't really explained by Bethsada but made the game very funny to me. Now the dialog itself... hurg...
About the world making more sense, I see what you mean with the farmers and such. Some of the things weren't explained in Fallout 3. As for economical relations, the caravans are the ones doing it and they have a route much like Fallout 2. But come on, the liscence was bought in 2004 and the game released in 2008. That's 4 years of developpement. It's not because you don't like what they did with the game that it is half-assed.
And please, don't tell me what not to tell you. Although it's true, I won't try to sell you on Fallout 3 more than Fallout 2, preference is personal, I stand by my comments. Both games are more similar than people say.
Oh and Herr Mike: The big difference is what you did with the game. In Fallout 2 there are 4 times a dream would remind you to hurry up and save your village but that didn't stop any of us from doing tons of side missions. Fallout 3 started as you had to find out where your Dad went, which was much less of a "holy shit I got to do it fast" type of feeling. The "fate of the world" doesn't come in the picture before the Enclave took the monument.
In the end, the fact that I could finish the game twice without seeing all of the map (once good and once evil) made the Fallout 3 map look much bigger to me. On my third playthrough I found Agatha's house which lead me to a vault and that place with Deathclaws. I totally missed Canterburry Commons the first two times (which was one of funniest thing I've seen) which lead to having the caravan route map.
Again, I stand by my comments. If you look past the surface we are talking about two very similar game at heart. A linear main storyline which doesn't offer much fun with a multitude of side quest that gives most of the fun of the game and a big world to explore. BOTH had their fair amount of bugs! Yes, one had better dialog, one had better graphics. One was funnier, one had a more down to earth approach (like Fallout 1). But in the end, it's two games I've played and finished multiple times and I KNOW I'll finish them both again before Fallout 4 comes out.
As for the humour, I will say that they have a different kind of humour. Bethsada made an incredible amount of little jokes but most of the are in the landscape instead of in dialog. Fallout 2 was more "in your face" type of humour while Bethsada was more subtle, which doesn't fit the company...
I found Robots on toilets and when I moved them there was (s)crap metal in the toilet. I found a guy chained to a wall by a foot, his body fuly extended. And when I checked towards where is arm was pointing, I found a lockpick book. The wastelander strapped with explosives, the wastelanders with the Survival guide book, dead or alive depending if you lied or did the missions...I found a lot of those "small stories" that weren't really explained by Bethsada but made the game very funny to me. Now the dialog itself... hurg...
About the world making more sense, I see what you mean with the farmers and such. Some of the things weren't explained in Fallout 3. As for economical relations, the caravans are the ones doing it and they have a route much like Fallout 2. But come on, the liscence was bought in 2004 and the game released in 2008. That's 4 years of developpement. It's not because you don't like what they did with the game that it is half-assed.
And please, don't tell me what not to tell you. Although it's true, I won't try to sell you on Fallout 3 more than Fallout 2, preference is personal, I stand by my comments. Both games are more similar than people say.
Oh and Herr Mike: The big difference is what you did with the game. In Fallout 2 there are 4 times a dream would remind you to hurry up and save your village but that didn't stop any of us from doing tons of side missions. Fallout 3 started as you had to find out where your Dad went, which was much less of a "holy shit I got to do it fast" type of feeling. The "fate of the world" doesn't come in the picture before the Enclave took the monument.
In the end, the fact that I could finish the game twice without seeing all of the map (once good and once evil) made the Fallout 3 map look much bigger to me. On my third playthrough I found Agatha's house which lead me to a vault and that place with Deathclaws. I totally missed Canterburry Commons the first two times (which was one of funniest thing I've seen) which lead to having the caravan route map.
Again, I stand by my comments. If you look past the surface we are talking about two very similar game at heart. A linear main storyline which doesn't offer much fun with a multitude of side quest that gives most of the fun of the game and a big world to explore. BOTH had their fair amount of bugs! Yes, one had better dialog, one had better graphics. One was funnier, one had a more down to earth approach (like Fallout 1). But in the end, it's two games I've played and finished multiple times and I KNOW I'll finish them both again before Fallout 4 comes out.
T
TorontoReign
Guest
Herr Mike said:
Heh. I wouldn't use Gilmour Girls in any discussion that involves complex dialog. Just sayin'.
From what I have seen of Gilmour Girls it makes me want to vomit. I dislike most Television though so whatever its worth (not much).
Well, if you say that F3's humour is not "in your face", then I have to disagree. Girls dressed in pink clothes charging at you with swords? Exploding heads after every shot? Portable nukes, shitting robots? The chick with Nuca-Cola collection (the worst example of nerdish humour I've seen so far, I think)?
Not the subtle, discreet humour it is, now is it? Though there were moments that made me smile, it's not the same.
And for the record - F3 doesn't explain anything at all. Most of factions, quests and events don't make sense. People are eating 200 year old food. They are walking around the town doing nothing and suddenly they have money they spent on goods that are produced by God knows who. Where is the famed Radiant AI? I know the npcs in previous Fallout's also stood around doing nothing, but goddamnit, this is a completly diffrent engine AND there's a 10 years space between the games, you'd figure they would improve this. Besides, most of the world in F1\2 was described via text, unlike in F3.
Traders? Yeah, about 5 people with a single guard and a cow per each. I bet they can keep at least a couple of towns well-supplied. I don't remember precisly, but I don't recall them selling food (and cheers for their AI - stubmling right into the final showdown with BoS and Enclave is a GREAT idea). The size of towns...well, I'm going to skip that one.
Problem is, you will usually find yourself crawling through dungeon-like buildings filled with enemies devoid of character, only to find a broken down Assault Rifle and some ammo. Sometimes a humourous scene, at best (like the ones you mentioned).
I'm not intent on beating my point of view into your head, but I don't feel that people are criticizing the game enough - the amount of sloppiness and lazyness present in the game, as well as complete lack of respect for the work of original devs is absurd and the game does not earned the A+ reviews it scores.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but some discussion won't hurt, right?
Not the subtle, discreet humour it is, now is it? Though there were moments that made me smile, it's not the same.
And for the record - F3 doesn't explain anything at all. Most of factions, quests and events don't make sense. People are eating 200 year old food. They are walking around the town doing nothing and suddenly they have money they spent on goods that are produced by God knows who. Where is the famed Radiant AI? I know the npcs in previous Fallout's also stood around doing nothing, but goddamnit, this is a completly diffrent engine AND there's a 10 years space between the games, you'd figure they would improve this. Besides, most of the world in F1\2 was described via text, unlike in F3.
Traders? Yeah, about 5 people with a single guard and a cow per each. I bet they can keep at least a couple of towns well-supplied. I don't remember precisly, but I don't recall them selling food (and cheers for their AI - stubmling right into the final showdown with BoS and Enclave is a GREAT idea). The size of towns...well, I'm going to skip that one.
Problem is, you will usually find yourself crawling through dungeon-like buildings filled with enemies devoid of character, only to find a broken down Assault Rifle and some ammo. Sometimes a humourous scene, at best (like the ones you mentioned).
I'm not intent on beating my point of view into your head, but I don't feel that people are criticizing the game enough - the amount of sloppiness and lazyness present in the game, as well as complete lack of respect for the work of original devs is absurd and the game does not earned the A+ reviews it scores.
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, but some discussion won't hurt, right?
Fallout 3 contains "toilet-humor" as how I call it.Ravager69 said:
None of the games make sense.
Heck, does any game make sense? Mention a game and I can take it apart quite easily. Why the heck is Arroyo a village of mongoloid dirt farmers with down syndrome? Where is the water in Fallout 2? Real world guns?!? Talk about shitting on the original vision!
Let it go, man! Fallout 3 is a great game. It has to have a functioning economy for you? How is that even possible? They've built entire games around simulating economies and even they don't work that well! What RPG has a believable economy?
I'm not a big gamer, so maybe the standards are much higher than I perceive, but I would like to know the games that you guys play which make Fallout 3 seem so pathetic. Are there better post apocalyptic RPG's? Don't say the other Fallout games, because I've played those and I don't agree that Fallout 3 is an abomination compared to them. No use trying to convince me otherwise.
Heck, does any game make sense? Mention a game and I can take it apart quite easily. Why the heck is Arroyo a village of mongoloid dirt farmers with down syndrome? Where is the water in Fallout 2? Real world guns?!? Talk about shitting on the original vision!
Let it go, man! Fallout 3 is a great game. It has to have a functioning economy for you? How is that even possible? They've built entire games around simulating economies and even they don't work that well! What RPG has a believable economy?
I'm not a big gamer, so maybe the standards are much higher than I perceive, but I would like to know the games that you guys play which make Fallout 3 seem so pathetic. Are there better post apocalyptic RPG's? Don't say the other Fallout games, because I've played those and I don't agree that Fallout 3 is an abomination compared to them. No use trying to convince me otherwise.
Rev. Layle
A Smooth-Skin
My problem with fallout 3 isn't the setting, the game play, or even the unrealistic version fo a post-apoc world after 200 years. I'm actually OK with all that, it's just a game.
It's that main quest.... especially everything from Rivet City onward - it's just makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit (and out of my mouth a LOT). The game was entertaining to play, I just wish I did everything else *but* the main story line.
It's that main quest.... especially everything from Rivet City onward - it's just makes me throw up in my mouth a little bit (and out of my mouth a LOT). The game was entertaining to play, I just wish I did everything else *but* the main story line.
Herr Mike said:
In Planescape Torment you can shape reality with thoughts and travel trough dimensions with a fork, that doesnt make a lot of sense but its presented in a believable way. In F3 you have a communities with population of no more then five people, it doesnt need to make sense if it is presented in a right way, but that same community doesnt have food supply, protection or any explanation why they live there in that small number or how they survived for all those years.
Herr Mike said:
Fallout 1 and 2
Herr Mike said:
The most important thing for me in a RPG is story and dialogs. And F3 fails in that department in comparison to most RPGs i played like Baldurs Gate, Arcanum, Anachronox, Deus Ex, Planescape Torment, Bloodlines, System Shock 2, Mask of the Betrayer (and those games also have far superior voice acting).
Planescape Torment has no farms! Ergo, it sucks.
The other Fallout games do not have a realistic economy! How do you figure they do? Because you can work on a caravan? Everything has a set value. No one buys anything but your character. No one uses anything but your character. If you use up all the 5mm ammo but one case, it still has the same price as if there were a million cases of 5mm ammo.
I've played System Shock 2 and Planescape Torment of those games you listed. I hated them both because neither had a realistic economy and both lacked farmland.
The other Fallout games do not have a realistic economy! How do you figure they do? Because you can work on a caravan? Everything has a set value. No one buys anything but your character. No one uses anything but your character. If you use up all the 5mm ammo but one case, it still has the same price as if there were a million cases of 5mm ammo.
I've played System Shock 2 and Planescape Torment of those games you listed. I hated them both because neither had a realistic economy and both lacked farmland.
Herr Mike said:
Now hold on a moment - P:T is a game set in D&D realm, where you can CONJURE UP LIGHTING from your fingers. Your character is immortal, there are 20 meter high chicks with blades instead of face, gods walk among mortals....you are looking for realism here?
Herr Mike said:
WHAT? The thing with ammo is bullshit - 24 cases of 10mm ammo is worth less than 48 and that's a fact, I've played F2 lately. And yes, the fact that there are caravans composed of more than 2 perople make the game more *plausbile*, we aren't talking about simulating real-life. Fallout 1 and 2 at least *indicates* that people are growing their food and need caravans from other towns. There are *relations* between settlements (Vault City - New Reno - NCR power struggle for example). Fallout 3 has *nothing* of this, it feels like a 10 year old designed the world.
Herr Mike said:
These aren't games were real world-like economics even fit - why, you expect farms on a space station or in the middle of a blasted fantasy town? Come on dude, this is not about simulating real life as I said before, it's about making your world plausible, so the player won't facepalm himself every 10 seconds, due to the nonsene he's been fed by the devs.
Rev. Layle
A Smooth-Skin
I'm pretty sure "Planescape Torment has no farms! Ergo, it sucks." was definitely sarcasm.
Either way, you got yer feathers ruffled there a bit Ravager
Either way, you got yer feathers ruffled there a bit Ravager
Rev. Layle said:I'm pretty sure "Planescape Torment has no farms! Ergo, it sucks." was definitely sarcasm.
Either way, you got yer feathers ruffled there a bit Ravager
You know, I noticed the sarcasm, but I wanted to show him that his point is kinda half-assed and doesn't really adress the issue from the right direction. Nor was it funny, either.
big brother
First time out of the vault
Rivet city makes their food. The science lab has lots of sort of vegetebales.
Arefu, Canterburry Commons and other small settlements had brahims hence, food and milk (although you only find empty nilk bottles).
Some people kill Mirelurks for food. Some eat Molerats. Hell, one guys in a metro tunnel was making receipies to increase Molerats taste and effectieness. Caravans do trade between the cities.
There are iguana bits and Squirrels on a stick which aren't explained but neither were they in Fallout.
And then there is Andale which is explained.
Does it really makes sense not to see a farm? Not really. Even though California has a far better climate for gardening than the east coast, it still doesn't make sense.
Would it REALLY make the game better because they'd be farms? Oh please. When I hear this it just feels like some people just need something to complain about. Every games has it's problems. I've worked on one videogame once, not even close to the scope Fallout has and it was a pain in the ass.
I'm happy with this game and I honestly think the next one will be even better. But seriously, if you are down to arguig about how much the game sucks because it doesn't have farms... it's time to find another hobby...
Arefu, Canterburry Commons and other small settlements had brahims hence, food and milk (although you only find empty nilk bottles).
Some people kill Mirelurks for food. Some eat Molerats. Hell, one guys in a metro tunnel was making receipies to increase Molerats taste and effectieness. Caravans do trade between the cities.
There are iguana bits and Squirrels on a stick which aren't explained but neither were they in Fallout.
And then there is Andale which is explained.
Does it really makes sense not to see a farm? Not really. Even though California has a far better climate for gardening than the east coast, it still doesn't make sense.
Would it REALLY make the game better because they'd be farms? Oh please. When I hear this it just feels like some people just need something to complain about. Every games has it's problems. I've worked on one videogame once, not even close to the scope Fallout has and it was a pain in the ass.
I'm happy with this game and I honestly think the next one will be even better. But seriously, if you are down to arguig about how much the game sucks because it doesn't have farms... it's time to find another hobby...
Herr Mike said:
Games are an illusion that is created as you play. What sort of illusion or how the game builds it vary from game to game. In a game based on 50s SCIENCE! I'm not looking for a completely realistic, but I do want one that doesn't break it's own rules. Fallout 3 fails this test as in alot of parts it goes with what is cool. What is worse it breaks the rules that Fallout 1 so instead of feeling it's just not a great game there is the letdown of the series.
Now Fallout 2 also failed this test in parts. For example New Reno is more 1920s & San Fran is.... hmmm. A western as Asian culture might see them?
Fallout 3 as a single game is not an abomination it simply doesn't fit well with how some see the Fallout world. It's been said before & probably will be said again.... if you removed the 3 from Bethsoft's Fallout 3 then alot of this backlash would not exist.
Oh yeah. It's the attempt that so many developers to be realistic that is causing the FPS genre to be so forgettable. Didn't "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within" teach them anything?