How Long Has It Been Since You Last Played...

[SnapSlav]

Well that's just the thing, if you can't explain why it is that you "felt" it doesn't deserve to be a Fallout game, then maybe you have no cause to claim that it doesn't, and that in fact it absolutely does. I'm certain that's the case. It wasn't just a good squad-based tactical RPG, it was a good Fallout game. The bulk of the content had no issues with breaking canon in the slightest, the story was compelling (perhaps not to the same degree as 1 or 2, but they didn't dwarf it, that's for certain), the settings felt believable and matched the atmosphere of the original Fallout games, and it was just the right amount of cathartic payoff and enjoyable challenge. About the only thing I had issue with was the notion that a breed of Deathclaws developed the ability to mimic human speech on their own, without experimentation from military scientists using FEV. Overall, the game was Fallout through and through.

The major complaints most fans had at the time of its release was that it 1) WASN'T FO3, and 2) wasn't a pure RPG (the critical analysis of inconsistencies and canon came much, much later). Well FOT was heaps more RPG than FONV (at least in the sense of being in-line with the first 2 games' model), and FONV is equally as guilty of "not being FO3", and yet it's considered by many to be the best of the series, and the only acceptable modern Fallout game by most others. If your criteria for complaint are that the game was a spin-off that wasn't as traditionally RPG as the originals, then you'd have to disregard a great game just to attempt to criticize a good one.

 

[BigBoss]

I never said I didn't know how to explain that it shouldn't be considered a Fallout game.

However, if you want a good explanation, look for some of Roshambos posts. I am sure you will find more than a good reason.

 

[zegh8578]

Just now.
I was telling myself I wasn't gonna touch it again before the RP was done - or at least updated, but w muh bonny suddenly playing it, I felt compelled to give it another go, if only out of solidarity
My character has just arrived at the Enclave, something that tends to be kind of a personal anticlimax. I am too aware I only have a few more tasks to do, before xp or levels or anything else stops mattering :I :/

 

[killap]

Just now.
I was telling myself I wasn't gonna touch it again before the RP was done - or at least updated, but w muh bonny suddenly playing it, I felt compelled to give it another go, if only out of solidarity

Is this at least with the the 2.2 open beta?

 

[Matthews]

Been some weeks, perhaps even a month by now. I try to hold on until the RP 2.2 is released as finished.

 

[Tagaziel]

Well that's just the thing, if you can't explain why it is that you "felt" it doesn't deserve to be a Fallout game, then maybe you have no cause to claim that it doesn't, and that in fact it absolutely does. I'm certain that's the case. It wasn't just a good squad-based tactical RPG, it was a good Fallout game. The bulk of the content had no issues with breaking canon in the slightest, the story was compelling (perhaps not to the same degree as 1 or 2, but they didn't dwarf it, that's for certain), the settings felt believable and matched the atmosphere of the original Fallout games, and it was just the right amount of cathartic payoff and enjoyable challenge. About the only thing I had issue with was the notion that a breed of Deathclaws developed the ability to mimic human speech on their own, without experimentation from military scientists using FEV. Overall, the game was Fallout through and through.

While your point about the story is valid (it's quite well done), the execution is where it fails. Tactics is peppered with really juvenile toilet humor, inane sex jokes and very, very poor handling of more mature themes.

The major complaints most fans had at the time of its release was that it 1) WASN'T FO3, and 2) wasn't a pure RPG (the critical analysis of inconsistencies and canon came much, much later). Well FOT was heaps more RPG than FONV (at least in the sense of being in-line with the first 2 games' model), and FONV is equally as guilty of "not being FO3", and yet it's considered by many to be the best of the series, and the only acceptable modern Fallout game by most others. If your criteria for complaint are that the game was a spin-off that wasn't as traditionally RPG as the originals, then you'd have to disregard a great game just to attempt to criticize a good one.

Tactics never had ambitions of being an RPG. It's a tactical game. It's been repeatedly stated by everyone.

It's kind of curious that you're considering FNV being equally guilty of not being Fo3, when FNV is a direct sequel to Fo2, improving on the world's reactivity, significantly revamping the reputation system, including more choices and consequences, distinct endings and generally following on from Fallout 2.

 

[zegh8578]

Just now.
I was telling myself I wasn't gonna touch it again before the RP was done - or at least updated, but w muh bonny suddenly playing it, I felt compelled to give it another go, if only out of solidarity

Is this at least with the the 2.2 open beta?

I don't think so, I was baffled to see people had a submarine in their game, while I don't. But I have decided to wait patiently!

 

[BigBoss]

Well that's just the thing, if you can't explain why it is that you "felt" it doesn't deserve to be a Fallout game, then maybe you have no cause to claim that it doesn't, and that in fact it absolutely does. I'm certain that's the case. It wasn't just a good squad-based tactical RPG, it was a good Fallout game. The bulk of the content had no issues with breaking canon in the slightest, the story was compelling (perhaps not to the same degree as 1 or 2, but they didn't dwarf it, that's for certain), the settings felt believable and matched the atmosphere of the original Fallout games, and it was just the right amount of cathartic payoff and enjoyable challenge. About the only thing I had issue with was the notion that a breed of Deathclaws developed the ability to mimic human speech on their own, without experimentation from military scientists using FEV. Overall, the game was Fallout through and through.

The major complaints most fans had at the time of its release was that it 1) WASN'T FO3, and 2) wasn't a pure RPG (the critical analysis of inconsistencies and canon came much, much later). Well FOT was heaps more RPG than FONV (at least in the sense of being in-line with the first 2 games' model), and FONV is equally as guilty of "not being FO3", and yet it's considered by many to be the best of the series, and the only acceptable modern Fallout game by most others. If your criteria for complaint are that the game was a spin-off that wasn't as traditionally RPG as the originals, then you'd have to disregard a great game just to attempt to criticize a good one.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=362

 

[SnapSlav]

While your point about the story is valid (it's quite well done), the execution is where it fails. Tactics is peppered with really juvenile toilet humor, inane sex jokes and very, very poor handling of more mature themes.

Was it? I think I might have not noticed any of that because I'd payed FOBOS prior to FOT, so when you slough through such childish antics and infantile material like that, just about anything that follows it up seems quite mature. I've been dying to play FOT again, so maybe after a couple years of a buffer, I'll be able to see more of its immaturity? We shall have to see... =)

Tactics never had ambitions of being an RPG. It's a tactical game. It's been repeatedly stated by everyone.

I never said that it did have such ambition. I was simply stating that, at the time of its release, "not a real RPG" was one of the major gripes most fans had with it. I wasn't stating it was a valid complaint, I was simply stating it was a major complaint. The fact THAT it wasn't a valid complaint was my point.

It's kind of curious that you're considering FNV being equally guilty of not being Fo3, when FNV is a direct sequel to Fo2, improving on the world's reactivity, significantly revamping the reputation system, including more choices and consequences, distinct endings and generally following on from Fallout 2.

Again, I was illustrating why the FOT complaint was invalid by "pointing out the guilts of FONV". After months (or was it years?) of consideration and discussion and contemplation, the fanbase had some good reasons to be critical of FOT, and a bunch of those arguments are plenty valid. As I mentioned already, I wasn't fond of the idea that Deathclaws would naturally develop the method to mimic human speech on their own (let alone possess the intelligence to make use of it) without the intervention of groups like the Enclave and "plothole glue" like FEV- AND decades earlier. There were good reasons to lambast FOT after some good discussion, but the initial complaints weren't any of those. Pointing out that FONV, a GOOD game, which CAN be considered FO3 due to it having actual ties to the sequential originals and following them up, yet "by definition" not being FO3, was an illustration of how shallow those criticisms were. Whether or not a game is any good and/or you should like it ought to be due to its substance: quality of content, not technicalities.

I never said I didn't know how to explain that it shouldn't be considered a Fallout game.

What about this: "However, when I played it, I couldn't enjoy it as a Fallout game or a tactical rpg game. I don't know why..." From the post DIRECTLY preceding mine? Is that taken out of context? If so, please explain. But if you don't know why you dislike it as a Fallout game, then you don't know why it doesn't deserve to to be one, and by extension, don't know how to explain it. But by all means, explain it. I don't need someone ELSE to explain why, it's pointing out that you don't have reasons. If someone else's reasons become your own, then aren't you just letting yourself be influenced by your peers without any personal resolutions of your own?

 

[Real_Kilkun]

A few hours ago, started a Super-Fallout marathon today and cut through the precursors to Fallout, Wasteland and FoD (the miserable asshole of a game that is.), and I just finished Fallout 1 and am taking a break before starting Fallout 2 again.

 

[alec]

It's been years. Three, I reckon. This is due to the fact that my gaming rig died at a certain point and I never really bought a new one. I can do pretty much all I really need to do on my old nineties laptop. It can't run any games other than Diablo or Age of Empires 2. Well, there must be other games I could play on it, but none of my favourites anyway.

I hope that when I do get to replay FO and FO 2 and Arcanum and Planescape Torment, it'll feel as if they are games I never played before.

 

[SnapSlav]

I can do pretty much all I really need to do on my old nineties laptop. It can't run any games other than Diablo or Age of Empires 2. Well, there must be other games I could play on it, but none of my favourites anyway.

Um.......... My parents still have a desktop PC that they got in 2000, which I've dubbed the "paperweight" as far back as 2004. For all practical intents and purposes, it COULDN'T be of any use past 2009, and it finally gave up the ghost about a year ago and is, quite literally, JUST a paperweight.
So, I have to ask, HOW IS IT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE that you have a laptop- a LAPTOP -from the 90s, older than that paperweight, and the bastard still works??? @_@

 

[BigBoss]

What about this: "However, when I played it, I couldn't enjoy it as a Fallout game or a tactical rpg game. I don't know why..." From the post DIRECTLY preceding mine? Is that taken out of context? If so, please explain. But if you don't know why you dislike it as a Fallout game, then you don't know why it doesn't deserve to to be one, and by extension, don't know how to explain it. But by all means, explain it. I don't need someone ELSE to explain why, it's pointing out that you don't have reasons. If someone else's reasons become your own, then aren't you just letting yourself be influenced by your peers without any personal resolutions of your own?

The Fallout story first of all didn't fit in with the Fallout universe. Take the beginning of the game for example, it shows them driving vehicles like gasoline is abundant, flying over mountains in huge blimps, etc. etc. How the hell does THAT feel like the Fallout universe?

Second, that fact that it lacks most basic RPG elements that the Fallout world requires, for example open-world exploration, consequences and repercussions for nearly every quest, and most notable, the fact of being able to CHOOSE where you go and what you do, not just straightforward missions in which you have to obtain or kill something.

Are those enough reasons for you? If not, I shall supply more. Till' then I will await your rant about why everything I said is incorrect or wrong.

EDIT: To sum it all up, the entire way they designed that "world" was wrong.

 

[mobucks]

I played Albert (the shitty pre-made char) in F1 about 2 weeks ago. Then a week later I got a virus and said what the hell and reformatted.

Albert turned out to be an extremely playable character. I'll miss that game.

 

[BigBoss]

Why don't you buy it on CD like I did. That way you don't have to worry about losing the game if you need to reboot.

 

[SnapSlav]

The Fallout story first of all didn't fit in with the Fallout universe. Take the beginning of the game for example, it shows them driving vehicles like gasoline is abundant, flying over mountains in huge blimps, etc. etc. How the hell does THAT feel like the Fallout universe?

Second, that fact that it lacks most basic RPG elements that the Fallout world requires, for example open-world exploration, consequences and repercussions for nearly every quest, and most notable, the fact of being able to CHOOSE where you go and what you do, not just straightforward missions in which you have to obtain or kill something.

Are those enough reasons for you? If not, I shall supply more. Till' then I will await your rant about why everything I said is incorrect or wrong.

EDIT: To sum it all up, the entire way they designed that "world" was wrong.

You're just grasping at straws, it seems, when you try to say it doesn't deserve to be labeled "a Fallout game", because FOT had all the things you claimed it lacked.

You could explore the utter shit out of the Wasteland, it just didn't progress the story until you completed the next mission. How was that any different from the story not progressing until you completed related quests in the previous titles? Your performance and choices in your missions DID have repercussions and consequences. How does deciding the fate of the inhabitants of the Midwest, which you can tangibly see and experience as you play the game, not count for seeing your choices mattering? So what it wasn't an RPG? A Fallout game could be a FPS and be great, if it was done well. The genre itself doesn't make it bad by definition. FOT was a great game, and being a squad-based tactical RPG wasn't a point against it. Yeah you could drive around in vehicles, but what about the Highwayman from FO2? Did you forget that utter showstopper of iconic gaming history? Why are blimps "anti-Fallout universe" when fictional technologically advanced Vertibirds are a-okay?

Did those vehicles and blimps and linear missions at any time eclipse or deny a devastated and cataclysmic world where survival was the order of the day? No, that theme was kept intact. So how does ANY of that "not belong" in Fallout? They belong just fine.

 

[killap]

I hope that when I do get to replay FO and FO 2 and Arcanum and Planescape Torment, it'll feel as if they are games I never played before.

It's about time I played Arcanum again myself. And I actually still need to complete Planescape Torment.

When you do get around to F2, I'd be curious what you think of the RP, if you choose to play with it of course. I'm always curious what the older NMAers think.

 

[Makta]

Take the beginning of the game for example, it shows them driving vehicles like gasoline is abundant

Most/All cars uses energy in Fallout if i'm not mistaken?

Flying over mountains in huge blimps, etc. etc. How the hell does THAT feel like the Fallout universe?

Would it be better if they had some huger "normal" aircraft? Quite a lof of post apocalyptic movies have blimps or simillar crap.
Not saying i'm a fan of the idea but you get my point

Second, that fact that it lacks most basic RPG elements that the Fallout world requires, for example open-world exploration,

Besides F3/NV there isn't much besides the marked locations to discover.. Same in F1-2 AND tactics.

consequences and repercussions for nearly every quest,

There are consequences to ever quest in FOT unless i forgott something.

and most notable, the fact of being able to CHOOSE where you go and what you do, not just straightforward missions in which you have to obtain or kill something.

You are so wrong!.. No i'm just joking Can't dissagree with this.

Are those enough reasons for you? If not, I shall supply more. Till' then I will await your rant about why everything I said is incorrect or wrong.

Everything you said besides 1 part is wrong!!oneoneeleven

 

[mobucks]

I meant I'll miss Albert's save game. I have the CDs. Multiple copies actually.

 

[BigBoss]

Take the beginning of the game for example, it shows them driving vehicles like gasoline is abundant

Most/All cars uses energy in Fallout if i'm not mistaken?

Flying over mountains in huge blimps, etc. etc. How the hell does THAT feel like the Fallout universe?

Would it be better if they had some huger "normal" aircraft? Quite a lof of post apocalyptic movies have blimps or simillar crap.
Not saying i'm a fan of the idea but you get my point

Second, that fact that it lacks most basic RPG elements that the Fallout world requires, for example open-world exploration,

Besides F3/NV there isn't much besides the marked locations to discover.. Same in F1-2 AND tactics.

consequences and repercussions for nearly every quest,

There are consequences to ever quest in FOT unless i forgott something.

and most notable, the fact of being able to CHOOSE where you go and what you do, not just straightforward missions in which you have to obtain or kill something.

You are so wrong!.. No i'm just joking Can't dissagree with this.

Are those enough reasons for you? If not, I shall supply more. Till' then I will await your rant about why everything I said is incorrect or wrong.

Everything you said besides 1 part is wrong!!oneoneeleven

Most all cars were destroyed, and the ones left, even if they did run on energy cells there is no doubt it took a very large abundance of them to get somewhere. I thought energy cells weren't exactly easy to make or obtain?

2nd, I don't know if it is a cultural difference between the US and Sweden, but I have never once seen a post apocalyptic movie where they use any aircraft. And I have seen a few.

3rd, Fallout 1-2 you could go anywhere from the start, do anything you felt like. While there weren't alot of major locations yes that is true however the fact of the matter is there was nearly countless things to do in the few locations they provided, not counting random encounters.

Next, how were those serious consequences? There weren't every many things that affected things like, "otc. of personality", "overall outcome", "cause and effect", etc. etc.