[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Feb-19-01 AT 05:27AM (GMT)[p]>number one i think fallout 3
>has to have a really
>good storyline wich both fallouts
>did have. You have
>to take a good look
>at fallout 2. The
>reason i think fallout 2
>was as good as the
>origanal was that there was
>more to do. fallout
>2 had a massive map
>with different quests to do
>in every town. fallout
>3 needs to have a
>map double the size of
>fallout 2's map.
Agreed. Along a more personal note, I noticed the second one seemed to have a lack of the dark feel of the first one. I suppose it was the fact it was the sequel, and you've played another game before, but then again, no. I've gone back through and played the first Fallout (again, even), and it still has a much darker, and a survival aspect in it than the sequel. I think it might have been the shitload of easter eggs.
>i also think you should be
>able to choose if your
>character was going to be
>good or evil. I
>think for those sick and
>twisted individuals you should be
>able to go evil and
>kill everyone that gets in
>your way (including certain vault
>overseers).
If you are talking about choosing a good line or a bad line, I disagree with that AD&D-esque classing entirely, and I loathe that concept.
However, and a big point, is how Fallout 1 had good/evil. You could do evil missions and such, but admittedly not that many. Now, I don't like being held in a rigid 'you are good' or 'you are evil' template, so to speak. I would like to be able to make the decision as the occasion arises. Perhaps I don't care for Vault City, and I want to wipe them from the map, but I would do good deeds for another city. Now, word would get out about the decimation, but that's a consequence you have to deal with.
I agree there should be an option to play an 'evil' character (or as Wasteland GURPSers call them, survivalists - I only care about my survival). But not as in 'you are good' or 'you are evil', but in a way of deciding on a situational basis on what would profit you the most.
From what I hear, Arcanum may feature that as well.
> Also i think there
>should be a cool multiplayer
>mode. if any of
>you have played diablo 2
>yet i think they have
>it down good for an
>rpg. you join a
>game through ip addresses or
>through battle net and you
>join a party and you
>all go off killing stuff
>and completing quests.
Two flaws here. Diablo 2 is a slashfest. It's not an RPG, period. It lacks what makes a game an RPG. There are stat systems and swords in fighting games. However, not all RPGs have stat systems.
A better example would have been perhaps Baldur's Gate 2, possibly, though I've rarely seen a multiplayer game that didn't suffer in some aspect due to it.
The second flaw, if it could be considered such, is the connection of a slashfest game when talking about Fallout. 'All go off killing stuff and completing quests' isn't what makes up Fallout. There's been a lot of arguments over the years about this, and unfortunately it all points to the strong storyline of a single-player game that Fallout has had. It also requires decisions based upon the player. With a multiplayer group like that, there has to be a leader. Look at Baldur's Gate 1&2. One person would be making the speech decisions, and everyone else is there to act as cannon fodder and really stand there with their heads up between their legs or endlessly chatter out what should be said, sold, etc. Usually dissolves into a fit of bickering and such. And then with a group, when one or more have to leave....where does that leave the game? In limbo? You'd have to get everyone together again, start over or go to one of the save games if possible, etc. Played like that with Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, and it's not too fun. It feels more like Diablo sessions than the single-player of Baldur's Gate 2.
Nah, I'd rather have them focus on the quality of the game aned stick to the basis of the game first before adding anything else. If you've noticed, they had a hell of a time getting Fallout 2 out, and it still isn't fully stable - probably because they tried to put TOO MUCH extra crap in there. I'd rather have them do something like the first one. Strong and in it's place.
>One more thing fallut 3 should
>have. i think their
>should be different classes of
>characters to start off with.
> for excample human men
>(the best character i think)
> should start off witha
> bonus towards small arms,
>melee, unarmed, and demolitions.
>human women should have a
>bonus of barter, speech (sex
>appeal pays off) and also
>steal and lockpick. Mutants
>should have a bonus to
>large guns, energy weapons and
>unarmed definatly. Robots should
>have a bonus towards science,
>docter, first aid and maybe
>small arms (i'd imagine that
>robots probably have a good
>shot becuase they could hold
>the gun perfectly still and
>wouldnt be affected by a
>recoil.)
I disagree with this. Instead of a Vault Dweller, you're a...Vault Robot? Want to know what happens when you put too much into something, it becomes like Daggerfall. Great play, but the story and plot is rather weak and pathetic. End result: a game that's fun to play for a while, but essentially is crap.
Take the amount of dialog options available for a human in Fallout and then multiply that amount by the number of races. That's how much more work they would have to probably do. Not to mention reactions and the such.
1. The story would have to be different for each one. Or have a Nox or Arena-ish intro into the main storyline, which I didn't like. It seemed like the beginning was nothing more than something to introduce your character into the main story. Nothing truly unique about any of them. If the story was unique for each one, again, think of the dialog options and then apply it for story. Ouch. I don't think you can put a robot or a mutant into the place of the Vault Dweller or the Chosen One, right?
2. The reactions would be completely different. Notice in 9/10s of both Fallout and Fallout 2, you didn't see any mutants/ghouls? What about robots? You'd be immediately an outcast and feared as something the people haven't seen in their lives. And where in Fallout 1 or 2 was there a place with mutants, humans, robots, and ghouls all living happily with each other? Different starting positions just brings it back to the Nox/Arena scenario. Not in any of the villages that were struggling to survive. Also notice in Fallout 2 a good deal of prejudice and fear of other races. Gecko, Broken Hills, Vault City. Even in the Hub, you could see some, if you talked to Harold, I believe his name is. It would be highly unlikely to find one single place where they all coexist together. Even then, it would have to be possibly a large city with divisions, and then starting in a big city gives you access to more trade possibilities and other flaws in game mechanics with starting in a huge city I'm not going to go into, though to say it's unlikely in the wasteland.
3. It sets up a 'template' to work against. The main feature about the character system in Fallout (SPECIAL system) is the ability to be what you want. You choose a race, it's just throwing you into a rather detestful AD&D situation with classes. Who's going to want to be a mutant scientist, even though they are smart? If you don't include the bonuses, then the difference could just well be a superficiality.
So that leaves either a Nox/Arena-esque 'intro city' for each, or perhaps the dialog options and superficial reactions you get in Daggerfall. "Good day (insert race here), would you like a room?"
All in all, far too much work to do and still hope to keep a tight story and setting for each one.
Again, I'd rather have them focus on one, strong story and character to work with, and with options to make a few survivalist or 'evil' choices.
[font color=orange]
--------------------------------------------
Dennis Leary stole my song! That...asshole!
--------------------------------------------
"Robert, your time has come!"
"OOOH! Thank you, Master!"
"Don't mention it."
*Robert explodes in a shower of sparks*
--------------------------------------------
It's me, Jack Brown! The wind-up ass-hole!
--------------------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/jonaac/2.jpg
I'm more a fan of 'external generation', like in Wasteland. I agree, of course, that you can't change the system completely, it wouldn't be Fallout anymore.