Fallout 2: CONTROVERSIAL!!

Not just pointing out flaws, but rather attacking games that are integral to a series seems to hint at a level of purism that is very laughable. Integral meaning that a lot of the things we consider part of the Fallout universe as we know it are in FO2. It's kind of like people who hate on Half-Life 2.
 
Yes, FO2 was easier.
Click to expand...

No, it wans't. Fallout is easy-peasy because from the start you already get a gun, everyone has pityful HP (except fuckin' Kane) and Super Mutants have ridiculously low HP for super-human juggernaults. Taking groups of human foes is easier than in FO2. Fighting the Master could've been Super-Hard with the twin gatling lasers, but it wans't because whorever designed armor stats made sure lasers were completely useless weapons in both games. And Power Armor is TOO GODLY (except against Plasma), which was corrected in FO2, where PA was awesome, but even APA wans't invicible. The Turbo Plasma Rifle was ridiculously overpowered because it had increased damage AND fire rate - The strange thing is that Fallout 2 could've fixed that by taking out the damage increase, but it took out the fire rate increase instead. Also, Gizmo's guards are aparently retarded and won't do a thing if you barge on the man's office and then unload all your bullets into Gizmo and his bodyguard.
 
Nodder said:
Not just pointing out flaws, but rather attacking games that are integral to a series seems to hint at a level of purism that is very laughable. Integral meaning that a lot of the things we consider part of the Fallout universe as we know it are in FO2. It's kind of like people who hate on Half-Life 2.
Click to expand...

Still... a flaw can be not just a blatant bug or inconsistency, but also some very intended structure by the original devs...the biggest one of all: the ludicrous amount of easter eggs in comparisson to the first game (and please don't stress: that was because the first game was shorter...Duh...i'm talking proportionally), some of which were horrible and context-killing(talking plant, anyone?)...besides, if something was planned, made and executed by the original devs, don't that make it "cannon", so what "purism" are you talking about?... we are here because we love the fallouts, but that doesn't mean we cannot discuss and point out it's flaws, or talk about what we would prefer or change about it, to consider it absolutely perfect and holy (FO2 for instance) and avoid any talk or criticism to it's flaws, for fear of being "very laughable" and the like...well...wouldn't that be true fanatism and purism?... and one last thing: where better to discuss this things than here at NMA, where there are many modders and people with the dark powers and arcane knowlege to make it happen? :)
 
Forced cultural references in Fallout 2

Was anyone else ever bugged by this? It wasn't evident as much in Fallout 1, which I personally think is the most darkest and bleakest game of the series, but when there were references, it was fun.

Fallout 2 overdid it. Encountering the Bridge was nice, but King Arthur's knights was just...eh. There are a lot more examples, but I was just wondering what the rest of you thought. Were there too many cultural references in F2?
 
Alot of people noticed that, and its one of the sticking points against Fallout 2, it felt contrived after a while. For being a bleak game dealing with the potencial death of your whole tribe, it wasnt really that bleak. Hell it didnt even make me feal there was urgent need to get to vault 13. Unlike Fallouts "You have 150 days to find the waterchip or you lose the game like the little bitch that you are."
 
^^^^ What he said.

Also: in retrospect, some of the cultural references and Easter eggs are responsible for the Mothership Zeta DLC we got from Bethesda.

I'm still waiting for it to be anounced that Bethesda will yet make an extra DLC in which, with the help of the Tin Man and Doctor Who, you have to fight Godzilla. :roll:
 
I made another thread about the cultural references in F2 (which for some reason has disappeared, suspiciously after an admin accused me of having no brains), but I agree, some of the references were just TOO blatant.

Fallout 2 overall is still an awesome game, but like the OP said, some parts just didn't feel...right.
 
Stuff that I don't like in Fo2:

1. Some Super-people with 80-200HP.
2. Tonnes of high tech gear in San Fran stores.
3. Tonnes of Modern RL weapons.
4. New Reno - the town wasn't bombed, but somehow it's infrastructure and economy evaporated and only the casinos were left.
I think that it was a great chance to explore the influence of the war on a society that was untouched by the bombs. Which got wasted.
5. Tonnes of blatant pop culture references.
6. San Fran and Hubologists.
7. Arroyo.
8. Lack of time limit. What about the Enclave? What about starvation?
9. Poorly done Enclave when compared to the Master.
 
Sorrow said:
Stuff that I don't like in Fo2:

1. Some Super-people with 80-200HP.
Click to expand...

How is that a problem? Typically, they wear powered armour, so the increased HP is also reflecting their increased resiliency due to the armor.
 
Powered armour doesn't increase resiliency by increasing HP - it increases resiliency by increasing AC, DT and DR, which is completely sufficient.

Higher HP is a result of super-high experience level/rule breaking.

And how is that a problem?

Lot's of super high level guys that got their levels without going on an epic world-saving quest, that also have super-armour AND instant-kill weapons AND numerical superiority are a problem.

The problem is that there shouldn't be a lot of high level characters - PC accumulates his levels by solving problems of the whole world. Ordinary grunts don't.

The Chosen One is a central character of the game - heroic attributes (assuming that he is a combat character) that give him an advantage against everyone except "bosses" are proper for his role as his role is to prevail against numerically superior enemies.

Ordinary mooks shouldn't have heroic attributes - they already have powerful weapons and armour and numerical superiority.
Level 3-4 would be completely sufficient to make them dangerous opponents without turning them into ridiculous super-characters.
 
Sorrow said:
Stuff that I don't like in Fo2:

8. Lack of time limit. What about the Enclave? What about starvation?
Click to expand...

I disagree, the lack of a time limit made the game far more explorable and open ended. In Fallout 1, I never feel like I'm getting to explore the entire game and unlock every quest because I have a little ticker over my head.
 
Sorrow said:
Powered armour doesn't increase resiliency by increasing HP - it increases resiliency by increasing AC, DT and DR, which is completely sufficient.

Higher HP is a result of super-high experience level/rule breaking.

And how is that a problem?

Lot's of super high level guys that got their levels without going on an epic world-saving quest, that also have super-armour AND instant-kill weapons AND numerical superiority are a problem.

The problem is that there shouldn't be a lot of high level characters - PC accumulates his levels by solving problems of the whole world. Ordinary grunts don't.

The Chosen One is a central character of the game - heroic attributes (assuming that he is a combat character) that give him an advantage against everyone except "bosses" are proper for his role as his role is to prevail against numerically superior enemies.

Ordinary mooks shouldn't have heroic attributes - they already have powerful weapons and armour and numerical superiority.
Level 3-4 would be completely sufficient to make them dangerous opponents without turning them into ridiculous super-characters.
Click to expand...

So basically, they can't be highly trained prime humans because you say so.

Neglecting, of course, that by the time you reach Navarro, the only way for the enemy to pose any kind of challenge is to have inflated HP values.

I'm amused by your inability to think outside the box and in game developers' terms.
 
Sorrow said:
Fallout 2: A Post-Nuclear Quest-Unlocking Game
Click to expand...

Um ok your point?

I'd rather have fun exploring the entire game than feel restricted and just keep playing the main quest over and over again.

And Mikael dude, you are a pretty bitter guy...
 
BarackSays said:
Sorrow said:
Fallout 2: A Post-Nuclear Quest-Unlocking Game
Click to expand...

Um ok your point?

I'd rather have fun exploring the entire game than feel restricted and just keep playing the main quest over and over again.

And Mikael dude, you are a pretty bitter guy...
Click to expand...

That's the exact same philosophy behind the idea that your character shouldn't die at the end of FO3 because then you don't get the opportunity to explore the entire map, do all the quests and get a maxed out character in one same playthrough...

It's just dumb.

If you ever roleplay, don't ask the GM for more dungeons so you can max out your character once his scenario is over because he will probably kill you.
 
MrBumble said:
BarackSays said:
Sorrow said:
Fallout 2: A Post-Nuclear Quest-Unlocking Game
Click to expand...

Um ok your point?

I'd rather have fun exploring the entire game than feel restricted and just keep playing the main quest over and over again.

And Mikael dude, you are a pretty bitter guy...
Click to expand...

That's the exact same philosophy behind the idea that your character shouldn't die at the end of FO3 because then you don't get the opportunity to explore the entire map, do all the quests and get a maxed out character in one same playthrough...

It's just dumb.

If you ever roleplay, don't ask the GM for more dungeons so you can max out your character once his scenario is over because he will probably kill you.
Click to expand...

Well then I can see what you mean.

Thankfully, I don't roleplay :D
 
That's wierd. This is a forum for a Post-Nuclear Roleplaying game.

Restrictions make for great RPGs for a few reasons: one has to put effort in developing a unique character and skillset, and has to make choices during the game as to what one chooses to see and do. It also adds replayability, because you "can't see everything in one go" as another poster writes.

One of the dumb things about Fallout 3 is that every character ends up playing exactly the same, maxxing out every skill and doing everything for everyone. By comparison, even the classic Fallout diplosniper plays differently depending on your approach to the various choices the game presents you with.

/sidesteps back on topic

Fallout 2 is a big, open game and there are a lot of quests to be unlocked. The quest structure is indeed closer to Fallout 3 than Fallout 1: 'player walks into town with unique problems that have nothing to do with main quest, solves them because solving unique problems is cool, and because let's be honest I need XP.'

The difference is that the quests in Fallout 2 intertwine into a larger back story, and impact the game's ending. Different character "builds" (lol your terms confuse me lolol) approach each quest differently, and your actions matter across the game world. For example, I threatened to blackmail the preacher in Vault City, later delivered his briefcase to Bishop in New Reno. There was a note in the briefcase that exposed me as untrustworthy, and I had to fight my way out of Bishop's casino, killing dozens of innocent patrons in the epic crossfire...now that's good quest design.
 
I meant tabletop RPG games.
Click to expand...

It makes no difference, you missed his point. All RPGS have roleplaying, by definition. In all forms of roleplaying games, restricted scenarios are good. Otherwise, the game only rewards you for how much time you put into it, and your decisions are immaterial (see WoW and Fallout 3).

Also, *weird

:D
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top