I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2
- Thread starter Profit
- Start date
DOF_power said:
Yes, today it seems the term RPG can be slaped on almost everything ... in the case of Doom even as Doom RPG for Mobile Phones
TARDIS was in FO1, not FO2.
What's wrong with Mad Max references?
What alien wannabes?
And the holy hand grenade is less ridiculous than the Fatman - at least the HHG was never meant to be canon.
Alien blasters are in all Fallout games, including Fallout 3.
Locations in Fallout and Fallout 2 were symbolic representations of the actual towns, they were not meant to be taken as the entirety of a given place, unlike Fallout 3.
Huh?
DOF_power said:
Found them to be pretty funny. And hey, they are easter eggs, take them or leave them.
Oh, Beth's self-reference in FO3 was fine I guess, huh?
More than what? More than FO1? Yes. More than FO3? No (refer to Grizzly's extensive comparison post)
I sense a very biased opinion here. Besides, combat in FO3 wasn't exactly the charm either.
Average storyline, perhaps. But broken ending? Exactly how? (not to compare to FO3 ending...)
And whales, too =) Easter eggs, easter eggs....
It's conceptual representation. Besides, places like Vault city or LA or NCR look pretty darn fortified to me. Some other places are very far away to be in any real danger, or have little of value. And those do get attacked by raiders. The agriculture and other means of self-sustainance are much more fleshed out than in FO3. People living off 200 y.o. left-over canned food? Oh, please.
Exactly, WHAT? The spreadsheet is a major part of any RPG game, I'm sorry to hear that you failed to comprehend it, maybe you should just keep playing Halo, it has no spreadsheet at all!
Ausir said:
Mea Culpa on TARDIS. But it's still crap.
The fact that alien blasters are in all Fallout games doesn't make then less ridiculous.
And why is it that the symbolic B* excuse works for every 2D game but not for 3D ?!
Biased B* that's why.
Washington D.C. is a lot bigger in reality, Liberty City is a very "symbolic"/condensed New York being nowhere near an 18 million people metropolis, STALKER's zone is also very condensed/"symbolic" compared to the real area. And so on and so forth.
Because to TRULY render a city with millions of inhabitants each with their own personality, AI, jobs, habits and so forth you need a supercomputer.
Video games have at best have about 1000+ NPCs and are very very very limited whether they're 2D or 3D.
Get it thru your thick skulls fanboys the fact that a game is 3D doesn't mean it's not condensed/"symbolic" like the good all 2D games.
Ausdoerrt said:
1] It isn't OK, but it's reduced enough not to be that annoying.
2] More than both 1 and 3. And sometimes they're more annoying.
3] Vanilla F3 combat isn't a charm but it way better then the TB system and as a Bethesda game it can be easily modded. I play it with mods BTW.
4] How the hell does the FEV distinguish friends from foes to leave your people/allies alone but kill almost all the other Enclave enemies civilians/staff ?!
I can understand that that you and soldiers have armors/helmets but I didn't knew a virus could take sides.
And why didn't BIS designed the game to allow you to avoid fighting Horrigan ?!
5] I only repeated what one of the designers of F2 said.
6] Ditto for 3D games.
And how about them 200 year noodles ?!
Or that 200 years plus car ?!
Or them 200 year + GECKs and waterchips ?!
7] The spreadsheet is NOT a major part of any RPG.
RPG means immersion in a role in a fantasy world, choices and their consequences, influence over the world/quest/sidequest.
DOF_power said:
Because if you go the FEV release route, the doctor inoculates the villagers and the people from Vault 13 with the antidote (as he does to you).
DOF_power said:
1:you call an OFFICE reduced ? wow. Some standards.
2:the easter eggs were bit excessive, but they never really bothered me THAT much.
3:preference, not a fact. There is no evidence that TB combat is "bad" and realtime "good". No reason not to include it, as a optional choice. And i found the combat in f3 to be too easy and lacking the need to plan your attack/s. Just go for the head in VATS.
4:they were vaccined, if you played the game AND read what people said in the game, you wouldn't be asking this.
5: nothing to say..
6:noodles were NOT food, they were useless junk. You couldn't eat them. Car was possible, as who knows where it was found from. You also had to find some parts to get it running.
The geck and waterchips were not in the random house. They were in vaults,partially sheltered from the elements. Vault 13 was maintained vault, so what would have destroyed the GECK ?
7:spreadsheet is what determines the character's physical and mental condition, and Fallout was RPG that used it. Spreadsheet will determine in its own, if it is added,how the game world's recidents react to you.
If you don't like the concept, then play RPGs that don't have that feature. it is a design choice, and many RPGs have that feature.
cratchety ol joe
Mildly Dipped
DOF_power said:
by 'spreadsheet' I presume you refer to the character sheet?
and by "not a big part" of RPG's well...
Holly pooper scooper batman, I guess I can screw up and throw out all my D&D character sheets and my GURPS sheets, heck I may as well toss the rule books away too, clearly I need NONE of these to help govern how things work in a role play.
If your honest opinion is that 'immersion' is 100% of an RPG and a character sheet (spreadsheet?) is worth nought, well I think I say this for many here, YOUR IN THE WRONG PLACE!
DOF_power said:
1) I just think there's nothing wrong with self references in games. But claiming that for one game it's fine and for another it's not is just ridiculous. In FO2 there is one place with self-reference in my memory that is not a special encounter/easter eggs.
2) IMO not more annoying that Beth's dungeon crawls. And notice, a large part of so-called "fetch" quests were side quests, unlike the mandatory FO3 dungeon-crawls.
3) Well, it's just your preference against TB. I have my preference for TB. Mods do not count for anything when we're comparing games, otherwise Troika's TOEE would be a AAA title by now =) It's not what the company made. Besides, FO3 battles all play out exactly the same and get boring quickly, especially since strategy changes little depending on type of weapon of character stats.
4) You need to learn to read in-game dialogue. The doctor at the Enclave oil rig gives you a shot that temporarily gives you resistance to the virus. If you don't get the shot, you die just like everyone else. And IIRC you do not really have to launch the virus into the ventilation system.
The fight with Horrigan is kind of lame, but at least you do not have to take him on personally, you can have the remaining soldiers or the turrets make quick work of him.
5) Quote please?
6) I wasn't the one who said that total immersion is what's most important in games, Bethesda did. Thus, according to their ideology, what we see is what is really there, or they failed at making "immersion" happen. FO1/2 designers did not have graphical immersion as a goal, and thus cannot be held to the same standards. It has nothing to do with the games' graphics or perspective, but with the companies' statements and actual results.
200 y.o. foods are only edible in FO3
The car was a piece of junk until you found working details. That model also has very little electronics, so it had a chance to survive if properly handled and repaired (which it was). This was discussed before. In any case, it is more plausible than cars that yield mini-nuclear explosions when you sneeze on them.
The technologies remain well-preserved in FO1/2 only in special (most often sealed) installations that were intended to survive that long. I'm pretty sure they did not put as much effort into offices and supermarkets as they did into vaults and military bases
7) It's a major part of any CRPG for sure. Also, as Brother None noted, PnP RPGs have to be governed by certain rules, of which the most popular form is... you guessed it, rulebooks and stat sheets. It's an abstraction to represent what kind of character you are playing, which makes role immersion possible. By your logic Half-Life is a better RPG that Baldur's Gate, because it has better graphics and makes you feel like you are really Gordon Freeman.
TheRatKing
Vault Dweller
3d can be symbolic and condensed, but it is a lot more off putting than 2d. In Fallout1/2, when you go to the next section of a city (step on the green grid), you are actually traveling to the next interesting part of the city. The city/town is actually as big as the green circle representing it on the world map. In Fallout 3, you see the whole city, and can explore every inch of it. Therefore, it is a lot weirder to find 2 house settlements in Fallout 3 because you can literally look all around, and not see people, while in Fallout 2, you can assume your character is just not exploring those portions of the city because they aren't important.
Also, even if the 3d town is a condensed and symbolic representation of a larger city/town, they should at least include some of the inner workings of the city, like Fallout 1/2 did. There has already been a thread about this.
http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=46925&highlight=socioeconomic.
Essentially, in Fallout 1/2, the actual world had some form of believability, regardless of the condensed state. In Fallout 3, you have no believability, and we are meant to assume, even though we see every nook and cranny of a town with only one Brahmin and zero farms, that the town has a believable source of food and plenty of agriculture to survive (Megaton).
Look at The Witcher or Gothic or Two Worlds and you can see that it's possible to make big towns in 3D filled with many people. Still smaller than in real life due to gameplay and hardware limitations but certainly far more impressive than Fallout 3's pathetic 'towns'. There is no real technical reason why Fallout 3 has such shitty details as other Bethesda creations Morrowind and Oblivion had more populated towns.
DOF_power, having received his second strike for repeatedly ignoring instructions not to double and triple post, hereby gets a third strike for repeatedly ignoring instructions not to double and triple post. It is a harsh internets.
In my opinion, Fallout 3 = superior to Fallout 2 in quite a few areas.
1.) The combat is easier, that's a fact. However, it's my opinion that the combat is better than BOTH Fallouts. If you wanted to compare Fallout 1 and 2's battle system to a Bethesda game, Morrowind is the best match. All 3 games feature a combat system that is all based on percents, which means you could spend a good five minutes trying to kill the weakest enemy because you somehow only hit it 3 out of 20 tries while your chance of hitting is 33%, without aiming. When people say Fallout 1 and 2 are harder games and Fallout 3 is designed closer to dumber gamers, I shake my head and ask "why?" Fallout 2 has about as much strategy, if not LESS, than Fallout 3. You picked a heck, you saw if you could hit it, the computer did the rest. Sounds a lot like VATS, if you ask me. Fallout 3's combat only makes it easier to kill things because you didn't have to use VATS to cripple things or hit major weak spots, you could aim on your own.
Given, the combat is TOO easy. However, I'm forced to say it's better because its less annoying then seeing "You missed" on a commandline over and over and over....
2.) The enviroment varies a lot more than Fallout 2. Too many places looked and felt the same in Fallout 2. Fallout 3 had fewer "major" settlements to go to, given, but they all looked and acted different. I will admit all the settlements in Fallout 3 felt like they needed more, but at least they felt varied in comparison to Fallout 2's cities outside of Vault City and the like. I like how Fallout 3 explores one area more fully than Fallout 2 did by spreading out from North California to about midway through it. Fallout 3 actually including ruined landmarks felt loads better than Fallout 2's generic city look. Also, the major settlements weren't just taking over ruined buildings and setting up walls around them. They were various in origin and feel.
3.) I liked the fact that Fallout 3 did not include certain steps in the main plot that feel... well, redundant. A major part of Fallout 2 was asking about for a settlement-creation kit that probably would be use if anyone found it. Fallout 3 did have too many spoon-fed locations in the main quest, but it didn't at least have several different ask-around dry parts in the plot... This led the main quest to be a bit more rushed-feeling, but at least it wasn't infested with an overuse of "kill all in the area!" Each part did seem to include this sort of gameplay, but it didn't do it like five times before something new actually happened. I would've liked seeing the Enclave having more of an effect on settlements though.
4.) Fallout 3 had a lot more variety in explorable "dungeons" than Fallout 2. Fallout 2 had a lot more generic-looking caverns than Fallout 3, all of which were just there for creatures to live in. Fallout 3 at least has the appearance that the caves had different uses before their Yao Guai population or other enemies popped in.
So yeah, Fallout 3 feels a lot better of a game than Fallout 2. Fallout 2's combat was more annoying than strategic and exploration was only fun when there was someone to talk to. In comparison, Fallout 3 has less to do with defined NPCs and has a combat system that is too annoying. Bethesda has a lot to learn in adding to this series, I believe, but they have made a good start. If I were going to compare Fallout 3 to a previous Fallout game, it's like Bethesda's Fallout 1. It's an experiment as well as an addition to the series. They tried there hand at the game and hopefully they learn from it. I feel they HAVE learned since Oblivion too, condensing less than they did in that game afterall.
1.) The combat is easier, that's a fact. However, it's my opinion that the combat is better than BOTH Fallouts. If you wanted to compare Fallout 1 and 2's battle system to a Bethesda game, Morrowind is the best match. All 3 games feature a combat system that is all based on percents, which means you could spend a good five minutes trying to kill the weakest enemy because you somehow only hit it 3 out of 20 tries while your chance of hitting is 33%, without aiming. When people say Fallout 1 and 2 are harder games and Fallout 3 is designed closer to dumber gamers, I shake my head and ask "why?" Fallout 2 has about as much strategy, if not LESS, than Fallout 3. You picked a heck, you saw if you could hit it, the computer did the rest. Sounds a lot like VATS, if you ask me. Fallout 3's combat only makes it easier to kill things because you didn't have to use VATS to cripple things or hit major weak spots, you could aim on your own.
Given, the combat is TOO easy. However, I'm forced to say it's better because its less annoying then seeing "You missed" on a commandline over and over and over....
2.) The enviroment varies a lot more than Fallout 2. Too many places looked and felt the same in Fallout 2. Fallout 3 had fewer "major" settlements to go to, given, but they all looked and acted different. I will admit all the settlements in Fallout 3 felt like they needed more, but at least they felt varied in comparison to Fallout 2's cities outside of Vault City and the like. I like how Fallout 3 explores one area more fully than Fallout 2 did by spreading out from North California to about midway through it. Fallout 3 actually including ruined landmarks felt loads better than Fallout 2's generic city look. Also, the major settlements weren't just taking over ruined buildings and setting up walls around them. They were various in origin and feel.
3.) I liked the fact that Fallout 3 did not include certain steps in the main plot that feel... well, redundant. A major part of Fallout 2 was asking about for a settlement-creation kit that probably would be use if anyone found it. Fallout 3 did have too many spoon-fed locations in the main quest, but it didn't at least have several different ask-around dry parts in the plot... This led the main quest to be a bit more rushed-feeling, but at least it wasn't infested with an overuse of "kill all in the area!" Each part did seem to include this sort of gameplay, but it didn't do it like five times before something new actually happened. I would've liked seeing the Enclave having more of an effect on settlements though.
4.) Fallout 3 had a lot more variety in explorable "dungeons" than Fallout 2. Fallout 2 had a lot more generic-looking caverns than Fallout 3, all of which were just there for creatures to live in. Fallout 3 at least has the appearance that the caves had different uses before their Yao Guai population or other enemies popped in.
So yeah, Fallout 3 feels a lot better of a game than Fallout 2. Fallout 2's combat was more annoying than strategic and exploration was only fun when there was someone to talk to. In comparison, Fallout 3 has less to do with defined NPCs and has a combat system that is too annoying. Bethesda has a lot to learn in adding to this series, I believe, but they have made a good start. If I were going to compare Fallout 3 to a previous Fallout game, it's like Bethesda's Fallout 1. It's an experiment as well as an addition to the series. They tried there hand at the game and hopefully they learn from it. I feel they HAVE learned since Oblivion too, condensing less than they did in that game afterall.
YAAFMnemetoad said:
Since when has Fallout ever been about the combat? One of the best parts of the first games was that the combat was almost completely ancillary. In FO3, it's so incredibly pervasive, it's disgusting. The FO3 combat system would have to be a LOT better to justify this.nemetoad said:
All Fallout 2 towns looked the same? What Fallout 2 did you play? Granted, there were few random encounter backgrounds, but the towns were all completely different. They weren't even designed with similar architecture.nemetoad said:
So...You thought it felt better to walk to Megaton, ask around for your father. Do some miniquests for NPCs to be "rewarded" with learning you just missed him and where he's going next. Repeat this 3-4 times, then meet up with him, he dies, 30 minues later you beat the game. It probably just didn't feel as redundant to you because the whole main quest takes considerably less time to complete than the previous (read: superior) games.nemetoad said:
eh...a cave is a cave. They look the same in FO as they look in FO2 as they look in FO3. Hell, they look the same as they do in pretty much any other game. I don't quite understand what you're getting at with this crap.nemetoad said:
Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
Because seeing that your character sucks at aiming AND you don't do anything to change surely is worse than combat being Super-easy!