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

BigBoss said:
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?
Click to expand...

It didn't take many energy cells in Fallout 2 to travel from Oregon to San Fran.


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.
Click to expand...

But a lot of the things to do were pretty boring. Why the hell would I want to open an orphanage? Even the few morally correct people that I RP as have always gagged at the thought.

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.
Click to expand...

Uh, despite that following a certain path completely disallows you the ability to have a roving Deathclaw Mutie combo squad? That's some pretty good C&C.
 
BigBoss, your problem is that your don't understand how pointless your "criticisms" are. You're basically just expressing discontent about DIFFERENCES, not actual problems. FOBOS was "different", is that a reason to hate the game? NO! The rest of the game and everything about it was reason to hate the game, but the simple fact that it was "different" had no bearing on its quality. If you can't follow the logic, then maybe you think that my use of FOBOS is a really bad example of proving how futile it is to highlight differences as a mark of quality because FOBOS was indeed a really shitty game. But that's precisely the point. It wasn't shitty just because it was "different", it was shitty because what it did, it did badly.

When you actually have a point, you're just plain mistaken. I said that the consequences of your actions were TANGIBLE in FOT, and that you'd experience them as you played the game. Kilkun elaborated on that somewhat with his description of being able to conscript Super Mutants and Deathclaws into your squad, depending on your decisions, but there was more than that. The gear you had access to, the rewards you received, just about everything the game provided, was entirely a result of your actions, ultimately culminating the the type of ending you got; everything had a consequence to it. Just arbitrarily waving them aside and claiming that the consequences weren't important enough FOR YOU doesn't negate that the game had true consequences for player action. Yeah, if you returned to the settlement you "liberated" early on, they wouldn't have shown any changes, but you didn't see that in the originals, either. I remember how blown away I was when The Squat had a map change to reflect your actions in FO2, because that was something you just didn't see before.

mobucks said:
I meant I'll miss Albert's save game. I have the CDs. Multiple copies actually.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think I can share the sentiment about my earliest characters. Like Albert (and the other pre-made characters), I'm positive my first just had glaringly poor design and played really badly, but that might have been nice to revisit all the same. I remember a topic that was started in the forums of my then-favorite MMO, "WTB that fresh noob smell". Once you get good at a game, it gets increasingly difficulty to recreate that same experience of "first time" wonderment coupled with horrible inexperienced decisions. You can still own the game, but if you can't access that exact moment of your fondest recollections, then that's all you've got left: those memories.
 
SnapSlav said:
BigBoss said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...

Vertibirds are "a-okay" because the Enclave literally sat on the last known oil supply in the world.

So where the hell did the Brotherhood get the technology, resources, and fuel to build and power those blimps and vehicles if most of the resources were dried up before the war even started, and the rest of the majority were blown to oblivion during the war?

And, to some people it may be a great game. And I am sure it can be called that. However, I can't call it a great fallout game.

The story was extremely linear and one way in the Fallout Tactics, even if it had multiple endings. And sure the main storyline in the Fallout 1-2 games won't progress until you do the quests, but you can go anywhere, and do any quest you want and not touch the main quest. Hell, you could play the entire Fallout 1 game without even touching the main quest (with the new patch). Yes, you won't play through the main story line, but you could just say fuck the vault, I am going to go out and be my own person, do what I want. You can't say "fuck the Brotherhood, I am going to go out and be my own person and do what I want" in tactics. You were on a set of linear straightforward missions for the Brotherhood since the first mission. You never really actually got a choice to choose what you wanted to do in a very major way until the end of the game.

Plus, the Fallout series was based on being a RPG. So yes, being an rpg is basically what makes the major components of Fallout, Fallout. We are talking about Fallout right? And tactics does claim the Fallout title, or did I miss that?

I am sure it can be a great tactical game. But I for one do not think of it as a great Fallout game.

SnapSlav said:
BigBoss, your problem is that your don't understand how pointless your "criticisms" are. You're basically just expressing discontent about DIFFERENCES, not actual problems. FOBOS was "different", is that a reason to hate the game? NO! The rest of the game and everything about it was reason to hate the game, but the simple fact that it was "different" had no bearing on its quality. If you can't follow the logic, then maybe you think that my use of FOBOS is a really bad example of proving how futile it is to highlight differences as a mark of quality because FOBOS was indeed a really shitty game. But that's precisely the point. It wasn't shitty just because it was "different", it was shitty because what it did, it did badly.
Click to expand...

This is a matter of opinion, not fact. And I, probably more than most, agree with that point.

It is in "my" opinion that Tactics isn't true to Fallout canon. It is in "your" opinion that it is.

These are opinions. A belief of someone backed up by minor facts, but yet can be a claimed fact itself.

Bethesda tried to be "different" and make a new styled Fallout game. I respected them for making a good game, but I still couldn't call it a "fallout" game. The fact is is that they went to far, were to "different".

While difference and change is good, and spices things up in a series, too much difference and change can wreck the series all together. For example, the transition of Black Isles Fallout 2 to Bethesdas Fallout 3.

Don't get me wrong, I play Fallout 3. I look at it as a good game. But I also look at it as non-canon, a spin-off, something different set in the same world, but not exactly canon and to be taken seriously. Just to be played for the game, and the game alone.

While I don't even like the gameplay in Tactics, I still do not say it is a horrible game. I acknowledge the fact that they made a good game. But I also acknowledge that "opinion" (not fact), that it should not be considered canon, it should be considered a spin-off, something totally different in the same universe. Not to be taken seriously and added in to the original Fallout world. It should just be played for the game, and the game alone.

BUT, this is my OPINION, and while opinions count, they are, just as I stated, opinions. Not be be bickered or fought over.

But then again men has fought and killed over opinions since time immemorial.
 
Fallout: Tactics is a spin-off. It is a different kind of game than the main games. That is, it's closer to a T-RPG than a CRPG. There is absolutely no problem with that; Tactics was never meant to be a CRPG. The only things you can blame the game for are how he is bad as a T-RPG, and fortunately it is a good one! I like Fallout: Tactics very much, and the only thing wrong with it is the overall silly background.

As for why the BOS did have technology and power... http://www.falloutwiki.com/BOS#Background
 
Apologies, but would you mind not derailing the thread any further? It has gone quite far from its original topic at the moment.
 
That's the way forum topics go, Matthews. When a statement or question or comment relevant to the topic shifts the focus of the topic, it's still "on-topic". But I, for one, did try to make a small effort to redirect it back to the original discussion. mobucks' Albert tale is a sentiment I think many of us share, and it's close to the heart of having not played "the" game in a long time.

Anyway...[spoiler:d9fe228186]
BigBoss said:
I can't call it a great fallout game. ... But I for one do not think of it as a great Fallout game.
...
This is a matter of opinion, not fact. ... These are opinions. A belief of someone backed up by minor facts, but yet can be a claimed fact itself. ... OPINION ... opinions. ... opinions
Click to expand...
Not only are you talking to the wrong person about opinions, you also have the wrong idea about what an opinion IS. It is NOT "a belief of someone backed up by minor facts", because anything backed up by fact has a basis in certainty. It's still possible to be mistaken, but it's a factual matter. Something that cannot change solely based on your interpretation of it. An opinion, however, is a relative, personal thing, and a matter of taste. Opinions have ZERO bearing on facts, and facts have ZERO influence over opinions.
* For example, the statement "FOT had a good story" regards a matter of fact. With enough evidence and the proper argument, it can be a confirmed fact, and likewise with a presentation of the lack thereof (or outright contradictions) it can be debunked and proven false. But the bottom line is addressing it would follow a strict logical criteria; "What defines 'good story'? Let's establish a baseline of 'good story'." It wouldn't be a wishy washy argument that you'd abandon at the first sign of impending defeat with the statement "It's just my opinion".
* On the other hand, the statement "I liked FOT's story" regards an opinion. You would say this strictly as a matter of taste, because you can't explain it otherwise.

Do you recognize the difference?

You've repeatedly stated that FOT just isn't a Fallout game to YOU, and that's absolutely a matter of your opinion- not because I say so, but because you concede that it is so. However your interpretation of that matter doesn't change the fact that it, in fact, is. If you wanted to say whether it was or wasn't a GOOD one, you could argue that, and it could be taken as a confirmed fact, but you don't even allow that, because you want to fall back on the safety net of "it's just my opinion". If you don't have the convictions to see the argument through, then just don't get involved in the discussion to begin with.[/spoiler:d9fe228186]Now let's the done with that.
 
Of course, all opinions have a basis of some minor certainty backed up by sources gathered from the person who has the opinion however those basis of certainties usually aren't proven facts, or enough to prove a statement. Thats why I its called an opinion.

Merriam Websters version:
a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

Dictionary.com version:
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

New Websters (2008) Dictionary Version:
A view or judgment formed about something, usually based on a mixture of passed knowledge and beliefs.
 
killap said:
I'm in the same boat as Pixote, perhaps worse. But that's what 8 years of modding it will do. Someday though, I'll get a full play through in again.

But, my situation shouldn't stop you all from play-testing the latest RP! ;)
Click to expand...

At the same time, you and sduibek are the reason those both games still feel new AND right for the rest of us.

I assume i last played it in 2012, and modded it a little (essentially changing random encounters to see different groups fight each other).

On an other hands, i spent countless hours on Fonline last year, and i still haven't finished next gen fallout. So, when i'll finished them, i will probably replay the old ones again. (those new games make me miss the old ones even more)
 
Last edited:
Fallout 1 about a month ago on my laptop. Right now I'm more into some bugfixing and modding of Fallout New Vegas.
 
Fallout 1, January 2013, I think, a full playthrough with FIXT. Fallout 2, somewhere between Q2 2013 and Q3 2013, left when I had to get the SOB, a dumb, unlucky playthrough with RP.
 
Fallout 1 - May, 2013
Fallout 2 - January, 2014... a few days ago.

Fallout 3/New Vegas (Tale of Two Wastelands Mod) - October, 2013

Rarely does a year go by that I don't play Fallout 2
 
I finished Fallout 2 over the weekend. Took my time with this playthrough only spending a couple of hours a week on the game. Got a really strange inconsistent ending with Vault City and NCR.
 
Von Drunky said:
Got a really strange inconsistent ending with Vault City and NCR.
Click to expand...
Inconsistent how? Was it vanilla? Vanilla with Killap's patch? Maybe it was a bug, and more important, maybe it wasn't fixed in unofficial patches, in which case you would be doing the world (well, maybe I'm exaggerating a big) a favor by giving us more details.
 
Few days ago played both F1 and F2. Fallout 1 with Fallout Fixt and Fallout 2 with Restoration Project. It has been very long time, since I played vanilla games.
 
I played FO2 several months back with RP. That playthrough ended quite...tragically.
It was a "special playthrough" because it was the first time I went through the game with a female character, and playing the full RP.

Sadly, around time when I got to Navarro, my harddrive died on my. Needless to say, I don't have much inspiration nor time to play that again any time soon.
 
I downloaded them off GOG and loaded them up a few times and walked around a bit in the past few months but haven't really played them. It's probably somewhere between 1 and 2 years since I did a full playthrough. But I'm planning on playing all the Fallout games (even that non-canon one that we don't talk about) later this year so I'll be playing them then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top