I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2

Discussion in 'Fallout 3 Discussion' started by Profit, Dec 3, 2008.

  1. Profit

    Profit First time out of the vault

    36
    Nov 10, 2008
    There, I've said it. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, but there you go.

    I think that in terms of setting, gameplay and simple enjoyment I prefer Fallout 3 to Fallout 2.

    IMPORTANT: I don't really want to put forth the reasoning behind my thoughts as an argument. I just figured everyone would assume I'm an XBox troll-drone (trone? Droll?) if I didn't try poorly to explain.

    Of course, it's not better in every sense. Fallout 2 had the best dialogue of any game, without the occasional poor quality of Bethesda's efforts or the sparse dialogue unrelated to specific quests with most early NPCs in the original. Similarly, Fallout 2 had excellent mission design, without F3's patronizing fear of bad consequences (unless you do the Oasis quest as a monster everyone's hunky-dory with you), or F1's occasionally poor structure (The Glow? Yes, it's a month away from you. Oh, forgot to bring a rope nobody mentioned that you'd need? Well, get fucked, there's no other possible way into a big hole in the ground).

    Don't get my criticisms of F1 wrong -- as far as I'm concerned it's the best game in the series.

    But F2 was worse than F3.

    People say that combat in F3 is easy. I'm not sure, but I remember that by the mid-late game in F2 on Hard I was practically tripping over 2mm ammo to eyeshot everything I could see with the dangerously broken Gauss rifle that made energy weapons irrelevant. Early game wasn't much better, even if you didn't exploit prior knowledge of the game to grab power armour + a bozar- then again, that's player freedom, so no criticisms there.

    Secondly, the setting. I dislike Little Lamplight as much as the next guy (though you must appreciate that everyone who graduates from LL will end up in the besieged shithole of Big Town that everybody hates- oh, and selling those irritating children into slavery) but sometimes F2 felt like a whirlwind of verisimilitude-breaking places, between Arroyo and its magic shaman, the Temple, built perhaps by Wood Elves, New Reno, martial-arts duels in the middle-of-Town by people with Bruce Lee names and the Shi and no the Hubologists aren't fucking funny San Francisco, up to the Shiny Happy Tolerant Anti-Slavery NCR. And most of the towns that don't break my SoD, like Redding, the Den, etc, I just found to be very lacking in inspiration.

    I mean, say what you will about Megaton, but a ramshackle collection of attempted refugees to a Vault and an Apocalypse cult building a town out of airplanes parts is a little new, and is certainly visually kind of cool.

    Is the story dumb in F3? Oh boy is the Main Quest terrible. Do I think it was worse in F2? No, but it was just as bad. The Enclave were, frankly, pretty dumb villains, complete with 'Now that you cannot kill me, I will tell you my plan' President Richardson with the bad VA, giant-mutant-secret-agent-cyborg-Dragon Frank Horrigan, and 'Destroy 99% of Humanity for little discernable reason' Doomsday plot. And others on this board have given their reasons for despising the 'Vault Experiment' plot. I'm personally ambivalent about it, but I think F3 handles it in a better way than 2: You don't get to see the cause laid out, only the symptoms.

    I think Fallout 3's experiments in juxtaposition are, aside from being rare for any mainstream game, better than Fallout 2's. Oasis is, I feel, executed poorly, but is a good concept (And funnily enough Van Buren would put Harold in a similar place if not at all a similar situation), and Tranquility Lane, along with Betty's increasingly demented quests, rubbed me the right way the whole time. Andale as well. I think Bethesda must really hate suburbia.

    I enjoyed Fallout 2. Fallout 2 is a good game. But, personally, I feel Fallout 3 is better. It's the best game ever made by Bethesda and the best non-Eastern European RPG in years.

    Having said all this, there is only one thing left:

    VAMPIRE THE MASQUERADE: BLOODLINES UBER ALLES!
     
  2. M-26-7

    M-26-7 Still Mildly Glowing

    246
    Jul 20, 2008
    Interesting arguement. I agree that I don't think anyone will agree with you. I will say though that your comparison was less than extensive, which is kind of what it needs to be when comparing two games or making such a bold statement. I'd also be curious to know which you played first, though don't take that as a slight against you and your arguement.
     
  3. Profit

    Profit First time out of the vault

    36
    Nov 10, 2008
    I played Fallouts 1 & 2... About a year ago I think? Thinking of starting F2 up again to see if my recollections are accurate. F1 just isn't quite big enough to justify yet another playthrough (Stupid-runs just aren't for me, and I've played it 2 or 3 times already).
     
  4. k9wazere

    k9wazere It Wandered In From the Wastes

    134
    Nov 20, 2008
    I keep hearing about V:TM. There's two games, right. Redemption and Bloodlines.

    What does NMA think about them? Worth picking up?
     
  5. Profit

    Profit First time out of the vault

    36
    Nov 10, 2008
    Never played Redemption. Bloodlines has the best voice-acting and best music of any game I've ever played, and is the most perfect adaptation of the old World of Darkness that I can imagine. The story is cinematic, imaginative, dark, with a few truly unexpected plot twists. And unlike most RPGs, towards the end it actually gets pretty fucking hard.

    I loved it. It's small (not many side-quests) but not particularly short, and has decent replay value (play a Malkavian the second time through. Trust me.)

    Just make sure to get the fan-patches. Otherwise it's buggy as shit.

    EDIT: The best thing I can say about Bloodlines is that it's probably the most endearing game I've ever played. Characters like Jack, Lacroix, Venus, or Gary, in the hands of less-than-stellar writers (eg, Bethesda, who really should have that 'writing' thing figured it out better by now, but I'm an eternal optimist) , could have been annoying as all hell. Instead, I loved every single one to bits.
     
  6. Eyenixon

    Eyenixon Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 11, 2008
    Redemption is an embarrassment to the original Whitewolf Vampire The Masquerade campaign, funny considering that unlike Bloodlines it included party members and retained a somewhat more accurate atmosphere than Bloodlines, Redemption can be called watered down - a simple hack and slash click-fest.

    @Profit: I don't think that's bad at all, I can understand why you'd prefer Fallout 3 over 2, even though I don't share even a shade of the same opinion.
     
  7. Ausir

    Ausir Venerable Relic of the Wastes

    Apr 20, 2003
    Even some veterans like Saint Proverbius prefer Fallout 3 over 2.
     
  8. Ausdoerrt

    Ausdoerrt I should set a custom tit

    Oct 28, 2008
    Bloodlines is supposed to be good, if you're not afraid of bugs, that is =))

    I personally prefer Troika's Temple of Elemental Evil, especially after the Circle of Eight patched it up better than any modding community patched any other game in my knowledge.
     
  9. BloodyPuppy

    BloodyPuppy Look, Ma! Two Heads!

    359
    Nov 18, 2008
    Personally, I think that the beginning of Fallout 2 sucks, before you make your way down south. Vault City is the only interesting place, and the game just gets off to a rocky start, what with that god damn annoying temple and Klammath was just boring. Got a lot better once I made it to NCR and New Reno, but the beginning was just not fun.
     
  10. Pretentious

    Pretentious First time out of the vault

    51
    Feb 3, 2008
    I enjoyed Fallout 2 much more than Fallout 1.

    I enjoyed Fallout 1 much more than Tactics.

    I enjoyed Tactics much more than Fallout 3.

    I dont really think Fallout 2 breaks verisimilitude half as much as most people here seem to claim. My favorite areas in Fallout 2 were actually New Reno, San Francisco, and NCR despite how unlike Fallout they supposedly are. I also think the main story of Fallout 2 is quite good, maybe it wasnt "Fallout" or whatever, but I found it great and believable except for a few holes every now and then. I really thought Fallout 3 had a main story who's believability is rivaled by most fairy tales.


    Oh yeah, and I found the Hubologists funny, and most of the random pop culture references.
     
  11. ravenshrike

    ravenshrike First time out of the vault

    16
    Nov 11, 2008
    Snarky refutation of OP's points in bold color.


    All in all, he failed completely to show how F3's setting or gameplay were BETTER than F2's. Different certainly, but in no way/shape/or form better.
     
  12. Roflcore

    Roflcore Mildly Dipped

    579
    Nov 2, 2008
    Fallout 2 has far less MMO like Quests (somebody tells you to go to place x and kill/(find) number y of the z-enemy), so I prefer Fallout 2 over 3 anytime. With some good quests F3 might have been fun, but freeroam grinding is not my sort of thing. Then again: I never played an mmorpg and maybe never will, but they are popular. Proberbly the same reason why F3 is popular.
     
  13. Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude

    Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Jul 9, 2004
    Make sure you fully patch it with killap's fixes.

    Oh, and if you haven't tried it yet; play through as unarmed or melee. Killing with the power fist or super sledge is much more satisfying (and difficult when going up against ranged opponents/deathclaws) than insta-gibbing everything with the gauss rifle or bozar.
     
  14. Corvin

    Corvin It Wandered In From the Wastes

    137
    Nov 17, 2008
    I really didn't like the metafiction or bugs of 2. I still had fun with it though.
     
  15. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    I agree with some points and disagree with other ones, at least you went some way to trying to explain your view rather than joining the shipload of trolls that shoud random bull and then get banned.

    One point I agree in particular is about Arroyo. I mean, c'mon, it was founded by the Vault Dweller, who had LOADS of experience after that life quest in FO1, and the end result is a hut village with shamans, tribals and a temple of trials? I mean, it is claimed he was joined by other vault dwellers, and that is the end result? Are you sure it wasn't just some idiot that started that village?

    Who the hell created the Temple of Trials? Why don't the villagers live in it? Its to all intents and purposes a vault, and if the villagers had the architectural and engineering know how to build such a stone structure, why do they live in huts?

    I love aswell how ''Primitive Village'' is called ''Primitive'', despite the fact they are actually more developed than Arroyo, who WAS founded by a vault dweller. They are not wholly dependent on agriculture alone, having fishery as a secondary means of existence. If anything its Arroyo that is primitive.

    I also agree with Pretentious that some of the towns some people find most out of place were the ones I enjoyed the most. How boring would fallout 2 have been with only little shack/slummy towns like Den, Klamath and Broken Hills have been?
     
  16. ravenshrike

    ravenshrike First time out of the vault

    16
    Nov 11, 2008
    Spear fishery is not very advanced. Combined with their xenophobia ad lack of ability to create a makeshift rope I'd say they're not very advanced.
     
  17. TyloniusFunk

    TyloniusFunk It Wandered In From the Wastes

    130
    Nov 19, 2008
    I almost completely agree. Fallout 2 is a better game though, it is basically Fallout 1 with a campier tone (Road Warrior vs. Thunderdome). Fallout 3 is very good at what it does, but being an RPG isn't one of them. The stats system is flimsy at best; the world feels static and intentional, even today the originals feel more living. Fallout 3 is good to tromp around for a weekend or so, but I've already uninstalled it. For some reason there's no compulsion to see if I can kill another 10 mirelurk for a mininuke.
     
  18. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    Ha, thats a good point, but I think that was something that was overlooked. How the hell can you create makeshift tents and clothing and not know how to make rope?

    Anyway, I meant more developed in relation to Arroyo, not that it was a developed village. Arroyo is actually more primitive and under developed despite being founded by the Vault Dweller, which I find ironic, if not unbelievable.
     
  19. Deadman87

    Deadman87 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    182
    Nov 7, 2008
    This sentence can so easily be said about *anything*.

    But the reason I'm guessing why not many will agree with you, is that most here liked FO 1 and 2, and when beeing presented with "FO3", are outraged that their favourite game (and the future of the series) has been made into a First Person magical +1 perception hats dumb NPC Shooter game.

    Redemption was a good game, but I would much rather recommend Bloodlines. A true gem lost in the shadow of HL2. Patch it up with the unofficial patch first though ;).

    If they had scavenged needle and thread, they would only need skin to put that shit together.

    I don't know about you, but I sure as hell wouldn't be able to make a good rope out of sand and rotten tree or whatever they had in that village.

    It's probably a lot harder than you think :wink:
     
  20. Chancellor Kremlin

    Chancellor Kremlin Mildly Dipped

    527
    Nov 17, 2008
    You can make decent 'rope' by tearing off the 'skin' of certain types of trees. Well, not rope, but it serves the same purposes. Plus, like I said, I think that was more of an 'overlooked' quest, where rope fits in nicely with what they need, not that they can't actually produce rope.

    Maybe it like ''we can produce more rope in another week or so'', ''but feel free to help us find some before that if you want to'' kind of thing.