I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2

[UncannyGarlic]

I'd say that Fallout 2 is both the better game and the better sequel. Fallout 2 basically improves on Fallout in every area except setting and plot with some mistakes with overpowered, non-special encounter weapons. They both such when it comes to canon, Fallout 2 more because of all of the cool and funny stuff (New Reno, Hubologists, etc.) and the Enclave are too evil (the idea that they are cleaning up the wastes is good, the problem is that they did stuff like kill off Vault 13 which goes in the face of that). Fallout 3 really doesn't have any area that works in the Fallout setting and really seems to be more of a general step down from what Fallout 2 was as it lacks any fitting settlements (though Fallout 2's breaches of the forth wall might make it worse for some folks), though they are both terrible in this regard so it's a pretty pointless argument.

As for general game, I'd say that Fallout 2 is has more satisfying combat for the combat it has than Fallout 3 does, though I admit that I don't get the appeal of TES-like games (need to play Daggerfall and Ultima Underworld one of these days). Fallout 3 has a mish-mash of RPG elements getting in the way of FPS combat and the RPG elements are poorly designed and allow for the player to max out every skill, thus breaking the system. I will give Fallout 3 that it likely has better shooting combat than Bloodlines and that it's not the worst FPS ever. As for quests, quest design, plot flow, and pacing, all of those go to Fallout 2.

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

What does NMA think about them? Worth picking up?

Haven't played Redemption but Bloodlines is worth picking up for everything but the combat, which I found to be dreadful (especially guns). The character interactions (more particularly the voice-acting and animations) are second to none and should still be the standard which games are held up to (they are for me at least). I never played it unpatched but from what I've read, it had some killer bugs so patches are a must.

 

[DOF_power]

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!

Valid points, but there are some that need mentioning.
Fallout 2 suffered from a lack of direction, it seems like it didn't knew if it was a Fallout game or a GTA game. For most part it felt like GTA with a Fallout wallpaper on.

The original spirit of the Fallout series was supposed to be an Omega Man game in feeling, as if the player was one of the last survivors on Earth.

But then Fallout 2 simply destroyed all this with the big cities New Reno, Vault City, NCR, San Francisco, it's silly/stupid random encounters and self-reference.

Fallout 3 is much much closer to Fallout 1 then F2 ever was, to the point that sometimes it's as if it should be called Fallout 1.5 .
Washington DC is essentially the Hub but invaded by super-mutants, mercenaries, feral ghouls and also by the Enclave.
The communities are smaller and more isolated just like in Fallout 1, tough more farms and much more domestic animals would be needed to add credibility. Either that or the people/kids really love dogmeat besides human corpses.

Fallout 2 was the destroyer of the initial Fallout spirit/concept, while F3 is back to basics/reboot from a TES like perspective, and disappoints those who wanted a Fallout 2.5 .

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

But then Fallout 2 simply destroyed all this with the big cities New Reno, Vault City, NCR, San Francisco, it's silly/stupid random encounters and self-reference.

I think big cities are plausible nearly 200 years after a major war. I don't see the problem there. New Reno is the farthest im willing to go in terms of realism, and maybe San Fran with its chinese inhabitants.

As for the random encounters, they are clearly non-cannon.

 

[DOF_power]

I think big cities are plausible nearly 200 years after a major war. I don't see the problem there. New Reno is the farthest im willing to go in terms of realism, and maybe San Fran with its chinese inhabitants.

As for the random encounters, they are clearly non-cannon.

It's not the plausibility that's the issue, if somehow humans could have survived a nuclear war (witch we wouldn't) in witch the nuclear winter never happened and neither the post-radiation "green invasion", it's spirit of empty-ness, isolation, break-down, last of the survivors witch Fallout was build upon that almost completely disappeared in F2.

 

[Profit]

I like the criticism that the stat system in Fallout 3 is shoddy. Yes, it certainly is. But then again, SPECIAL was always a rather poor system.

 

[ashley52]

Profit...With all due respect.

You have been drinking too much toilet water...

This is ridiculous in the way of Phantom Menace being better than Empire Strikes Back.

I cant begin to argue with you. Because Im too preoccupied with the radioactive levels after you walked into this forum.

I hate you for saying what you said.

It hurts so much...

I dont care if everything is subjective.. if I dont explain myself... if the f*cking sky is blue... even if the world explodes... YOU ARE WRONG. Wrong in a literal sense, in a philosophical sense, in a statistical sense, in a metaphorical sense, in a subjective sense, in a physiological sense, in an epidemilogical sense, in a medical sense, in an intellectual sense, in a physical sense, in a psychological sense, in a coma induced sense, in an altered state of sense... in every sense.

There Ive said it.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

It's not the plausibility that's the issue, if somehow humans could have survived a nuclear war (witch we wouldn't) in witch the nuclear winter never happened and neither the post-radiation "green invasion", it's spirit of empty-ness, isolation, break-down, last of the survivors witch Fallout was build upon that almost completely disappeared in F2.

Well that is debatable, we have no hard evidence humanity would be entirely wipped out in a nuclear war. We have theories and we all know how vulnerable theories are to practical experimentation, and so far we have had very little practical experimentation in that area.

Profit...With all due respect.

YOU ARE WRONG. Wrong in a literal sense, in a philosophical sense, in a statistical sense, in a metaphorical sense, in a subjective sense, in a physiological sense, in an epidemilogical sense, in a medical sense, in an intellectual sense, in a physical sense, in a psychological sense, in a coma induced sense, in an altered state of sense... in every sense.

lol Im not even drunk and I find that funny.

I like the criticism that the stat system in Fallout 3 is shoddy. Yes, it certainly is. But then again, SPECIAL was always a rather poor system.

REALLY? What, in particular, was wrong with it? Do you think Fallout 3's system was better?

 

[Patton89]

Really, fallout 3 is awful sequel.
You just cant logically compare it to Fallout 2 and say that fallout 3 is better sequel.
Lets see.
SPECIAL system is gimped in fallout 3.
Perks are unbalanced, traits gone in fallout 3
Storyline and Plot has more holes than swiss cheese.
Dialogue is short, idiotic and simplistic compared to Fallout and Fallout 2.
No new factions, shows the lack of creativity bethesda has.

Yes, clearly Fallout 2 is a bad sequel compared to fallout 3, as it has nothing incommon with the original one.

 

[k9wazere]

Perks in FO3 were plain...boring.

90% of them were +skill perks; the ones that nobody bothered with in FO1/2.

Of the few that weren't +skill perks, most of them were copied straight from FO1/2, and the others were bland.

Let's hear it for "more health from stimpacks". Give a big hand to "extra ammo in crates." "More dialog with kids". Beth, with these perks, you are really spoiling us.

Inspired.

 

[cratchety ol joe]

I'd like to state I disagree with OP.
IMHO FO2 much > FO3
for fear I'm using up too many precious words that could be better used elsewhere:

please utilise these pictures

 

[Ravager69]

Fallout 2 had *atmosphere*. I still remember how fun it was to join the slavers and to suffer the consequences of it (Cassidy wouldn't join you for example, people wouldn't trust you etc.). Could you do something like that in FO3?

Playing a low level character with melee weapons and crappy firearms was *cool*. That's what post-apo should be about, not laerorzs and power armors, it always annoyed me. People remembering Fallout put Power Armors in every goddamn postapocalyptic title, making it a Star Wars wannabe, instead of beign true to the setting.

Writing...well, there isn't much to compare. Simply FO2>FO3.

NPCs....I would gladly nuke the whole Capital Wasteland to oblivion (pun intended). People were so fucking annoying, surely not worth saving or helping (remember the nuca cola fan?). I had zero motivation to play a good character and considering how I dislike playing evil characters in RPGs, it says much about how long I played the damn game.

And so on, and so on...honestly, I cannot think one thing I liked more in FO3 than in FO2.

 

[dmakatra]

I have to defend the attacks against FO2's setting here. Sure, there were problems, Arroyo, The Enclave and San Fransisco already mentioned. But the plot concerning Reno-NCR-VC is possibly the most intriguing game-plot I've indulged in ever. To me, the story revolved around these three cities rather then the GECK or The Enclave. All the minor towns (Gecko, Redding, Broken Hills) in the area were all part of this story arc. It was a fantastic and engaging story of power struggles, moral gray shades and frustration.

The fact that none of these three cities were 'perfect' or 'good' made the plot so interesting and so different from everything else. Vault City was an elitistic xenophobic oligarchy, NCR was a corrupt tolitarian state (my thoughts went to the former Soviet Union or China) and New Reno was... well... New Reno.

As for the size of the cities. I found it plausable and it didn't hurt the feeling of a nuked-out wasteland, especially since its a nuked-out wasteland that has been rebuilding itself for the past 200 years. Not like in FO3 when you still can find skeletons, electricity and leaking steam pipes like if the bombs went off two days ago.

Besides, I've always seen the towns in FO1/2 as much larger, but due to the techninical limitations the player could only enter the interesting areas. I seem to remember a holodisc somewhere in FO2 I think where the towns were described as having tens of thousands of inhabitants.

 

[eddoctorwho]

But then Fallout 2 simply destroyed all this with the big cities New Reno, Vault City, NCR, San Francisco, it's silly/stupid random encounters and self-reference.

I think big cities are plausible nearly 200 years after a major war.

Even after the near-total destruction of the Roman Empire and much of human knowledge in late antiquity, there were plenty of large cities 200 years later.

 

[Chancellor Kremlin]

I have to defend the attacks against FO2's setting here. Sure, there were problems, Arroyo, The Enclave and San Fransisco already mentioned. But the plot concerning Reno-NCR-VC is possibly the most intriguing game-plot I've indulged in ever. To me, the story revolved around these three cities rather then the GECK or The Enclave. All the minor towns (Gecko, Redding, Broken Hills) in the area were all part of this story arc. It was a fantastic and engaging story of power struggles, moral gray shades and frustration.

Yes, it makes the players quest seem puny in comparisson with what was going on in the larger picture. And puny the player's quest was, he was only out there to save HIS little and insignificant village when there was so much more going on in the wastes.

The NCR-New Reno-Vault City quests and backstory really set the atmosphere and plot for a future game; re-unification, power struggles, electricity generation, etc. Beth squandered that opportunity so beautifully. In some ways this gives me hope as the west coast can perhaps still be ''saved''.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Even after the near-total destruction of the Roman Empire and much of human knowledge in late antiquity, there were plenty of large cities 200 years later.

The fall of Roman Empire was a gradual process with nothing even approximating the loss of life caused by a nuclear war, especially one as it was seen by 50's era doomsayers.

 

[DOF_power]

But then Fallout 2 simply destroyed all this with the big cities New Reno, Vault City, NCR, San Francisco, it's silly/stupid random encounters and self-reference.

I think big cities are plausible nearly 200 years after a major war.

Even after the near-total destruction of the Roman Empire and much of human knowledge in late antiquity, there were plenty of large cities 200 years later.

Except there was no near-total destruction of the Roman empire. It's survived in the east for 1000 more years, and even for a while it reconquered some parts of the former western empire.
The fall of the western roman empire's legacy took more then 200 years since the assassination of the western child emperor.

All of witch is pointless, because nuclear weapons where unheard of back then.

But the point was that initially this wasn't what Fallout was about. BIS were gonna eliminate the F2 non-sense themselves and return to a much more Fallout 1 atmosphere.

The NCR-New Reno-Vault City quests and backstory really set the atmosphere and plot for a future game; re-unification, power struggles, electricity generation, etc.

Nobody is denying that, but it just went too way too far from F1.

 

[Eyenixon]

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.

Why the hell does everyone always undercut Modoc and the Slags? Really, the place was like Shady Sands 2.0, featured eerie music, interesting characters and presented the same scared and threatened agricultural community that Shady Sands did in the original.

I love Modoc.

 

[Alphadrop]

Aaaah Modoc. Fallout 3 really needs a quest to blow up a crapper.

 

[BloodyPuppy]

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.

Why the hell does everyone always undercut Modoc and the Slags? Really, the place was like Shady Sands 2.0, featured eerie music, interesting characters and presented the same scared and threatened agricultural community that Shady Sands did in the original.

I love Modoc.

Hmmm, well Modoc was good, but that was more the exception to the rule.

 

[Profit]

Hmm... I think I did like Modoc, come to think of it. Arefu is actually pretty derivative of Modoc, really. But I like cannibals more than molemen.

As for the NCR-New Reno-VC storyline, aside from the fact that it felt totally unfinished (and probably was- another big problem with F2 that F3 doesn't have) and involved two cities I didn't want to have anything to do with, there just weren't enough options for playing politics that felt so tantalizingly close. If that quest had been a much bigger time and game investment (ie, larger, with more importance and options) I'd probably drop F3 like a hot rock (since as it is in my head's rankings, the two are pretty close). But in F2 I can't pretend that my character became an Enclave protege and later President of the U.S.A. after his insertion of Eden's modified FEV, so nyah.