Just finished Fallout 1, it was amazing, but...

T

tmann400

First time out of the vault
Fallout 1, was very enjoyable and fun. I really enjoy old school RPG's. The atmosphere was amazing, the haunting music, character building, strategic combat, dialogue was good. ETC.

I got into the Fallout series by (and given how hostile you guys seem to be towards F3 you're probably NOT going to like me now) playing Fallout 3 first. I loved Fallout 3, I have hundreds of hours into it. The atmosphere and exploration was superb IMO. That dark moody feel really set the tone for me. The DLC's were great, with Point Lookout being my favorite. And probably Mothership Zeta being my least favorite, it was still good, just not as good as The Pitt, Point Lookout, Broken Steel and Operation Anchorage.

In terms of quests, yes, the main quest was rather short, but the side quests more than made up for it with me. Quests like "Tenpenny Tower" "Those!", The Oasis quest, "Blood Ties" was very solid as well, Reilly's Rangers I also thoroughly enjoyed too. Not to mention "The Replicated Man" was very interesting, suspenseful and rewarding. The only quest I haven't done yet, is "Trouble on The Homefront". Anyway, my apologies to make my first post so long, let me get to my point.

After I completed Fallout 3 and had a less thrilling experience with NV, I decided to try out the originals, given how many good things I'd heard about them, and dated graphics never really bother me, so I gave Fallout 2 a shot first.......Ehh, I don't know...I just couldn't get into it AT ALL. I tried to play it for 3 or 4 hours and I wasn't into it. The atmosphere didn't grab my attention, The dialogue was decent but nothing awe inspiring. I just wasn't enjoying it like I hoped to.

Then, though, I said to myself "Wait, I forgot about Fallout 1" I fired it up, as soon as the main menu screen came up I got that thrill and immersed feeling I got when I first played Fallout 3. I anxiously built up my character, trying to feel out the best traits to pick, which skills to tag exactly, and that's when I began one of the more enveloping and thrilling experiences I've ever had.

This is different then Fallout 2 I said to myself......It was "darker" literally but even more so figuratively. The Vault Overseer's briefing pulled me in, with great voice work and he convinced me that I was THE only hope. I went on my journey, and as soon as I exited the vault and began, I noticed this had a MUCH different feel then Fallout 2, and I liked it. It felt more like a destroyed, unforgiving, threatening and CONVINCING wasteland.

I instantly noticed that the dialogue was superior as well, that's just my opinion, but the whole tone of the game had a more serious and convincing and immersing feel about it. And so did the characters. There was humor, but not too much.

Anyway, my apologies for rambling. I'll speed things up, all in all Fallout 1 was an experience I'll never forget, and let's just say the ending (and I'm not afraid to admit this) really affected me as a person, especially when (MINOR SPOILER ALERT) you see "The Vault Dweller" walking back into the unforgiving wastes with a worn down and exasperated appearance, it was just as much satisfying as it was emotional for me.

To get to my main point here. I'm still trying to figure out exactly why Fallout 2 just didn't suck me in like the original and F3. I know why to an extent, but I don't know....It just didn't have that "Fallout" feel if you know what I mean, and I had the same problem with FNV, just not as bad. Don't get me wrong, F2 and NV are very good games but to me they're slightly inferior to the original and F3, I know that's controversial (especially around these parts) but that's just from my personal experience and opinion.

I enjoyed NV, but nowhere near as much as F1 and F3, and I've yet to REALLY get started in F2. So, I was going to ask you guys any suggestions as to how I should go about F2? Should I keep playing? Does the game "pick up"? Does anyone get what I'm saying and/or did anyone have the same problem/experience? Either way I know this was long but I really wanted to explain myself well. Thanks fellow Fallout fans, and I hope to hear your view on my opinion and post.
 
When it comes to Fallout 2, there are tons of things that made it great and stupid.

On one side, we had the stereotypical bad-guys, the Enclave, but at the same time, we got to see the human side of them, particularly with the NPC's at Navarro. *The chef was awesome*

This was relatively OK, but there are points in the plot that felt relatively needless and idiotic. Especially when it came to that stupid tanker. The NPC's on it were great, but the ship itself became a retarded plot device.

Another big issue was the overwhelming amount of bullshit involving comedy. I get it, some people are squishy and don't like to get overloaded with depressing themes, but FUCK, if you want rainbows and sunshine go look for a copy of My Little Pony......

New Reno had way too much dialogue that was comedic in nature, too many pop-culture references, and the references also made their way into other places. That especially pissed me off as some sort of derp tradition with Old World Blues in FNV.

F1 had the foreboding theme of impending doom, and that you were the only one standing between the Master and his dream of mutant unity and supremacy. At times you sympathized with him, at times you were revolted by the hypocrisy of his actions, and along your investigation you met compelling NPC's. The Brotherhood was handled excellently, something Black Isle could have done with the Enclave, which is impartial observers of great ambition/power. Eden in Fallout 3 took that role to perfection. The Enclave watched the Capital Wasteland eagerly, and when the moment came, they struck with vengeance. Of course then we have the issue of where did they get the numbers to launch such a comprehensive invasion of the wastes, and there was also the issue of recruiting the LW. You were "born" in a vault, why wouldn't Eden take you in? Regardless of the players background, Eden never knew you were born in the Jefferson memorial, and even then it was a sterile environment, boasted by the fact your parents were both scientists maintaining the highest cleanliness possible in their lab work. It didn't make sense for the FEV to kill you when you drank it, unless you had radiation introduced to you after your birth and growth.

Lot's of plot holes, but faction mismanagement and identity crisis, along with an overbearing amount of comedy and pop-culture references ruined a lot of the appeal F2 gave.
 
A rule that Tim Cain had with Fallout 1 was: you can insert references and jokes, but they have to "not look like jokes" to someone unfamiliar with them.

I.E. "Slayer" perk referenced Buffy The Vampire Slayer, but it just stood on its own as well.

Many such decisions were thrown out the door with Fallout 2, and Tim Cain left the project early.

The end result is a game with much larger world and one that truly takes the gameplay engine to the limit, but to me, it was no longer Fallout.

_______________

On another note, I always find it both amusing and sad that people start off with Fallout 3, and praise it for everything that it directly ripped off Fallout 1 - and very poorly.
 
shihonage said:
I.E. "Slayer" perk referenced Buffy The Vampire Slayer, but it just stood on its own as well.
Click to expand...

Ironically, the art makes it look like a Conan reference instead.
 
Hey, guys thanks for the replies and for not flaming me *wipes sweat off forehead* haha. I really appreciate your inputs on it. It's very evident IMO that the same people were not involved with F2, or at least not many. It was just lacking something IMO that made me go "This is a Fallout game". I don't know. I really do want to push forward and get into it though. I just love the Fallout franchise.
 
Hold on a second...

FO3 being called a good game...and FO2 being complained about...on NMA?

When did I step through through the looking glass and jump down a rabbit hole?

Anyway, on topic.

I too found FO1 to be a much better game than FO2. Sure the world was smaller, but there was just so much content. You had more talking heads, you saw more of the effect of the nuclear war on the major cities (necropolis, boneyard), and the overall atmosphere of the game was relatively bleaker and more haunting than in FO2.

And you can actually join the bad guys (sort of), a choice that was not present in FO2. Hell, it even came with a nice cinematic.
 
Not a surprise that people liking FO3 also enjoyed FO1, seeing both games have a similar mood and tone (only those horrible plastic human models and their babyfaces ruined Fo3 for me)- while Fallout 1 being the best game in the series.

Come to think of it, it goes to show when people regard even Fallout 3 as more "right" in terms of mood than shitty fallout 2. :D
 
Enormously unpopular opinion incoming:

Fallout 2 > New Vegas > Tactics > Fallout

To me, Fallout 2 trumps the original in literally every way. Significantly longer with way more content, more replayability, better gameplay, and a lot of the little annoyances that Fallout had are ironed out (Loot All button, pushing NPCs, proper NPC trading/outfitting). Some absolutely hate the rampant pop culture references, but I think it adds character.

New Vegas is the real Fallout 3. It's about as close to a direct sequel to Fallout 2 as an FPS/RPG can be (which explains why you didn't particularly like either). Besides using Gamebryo which is a complete joke of an engine, there really isn't anything I can find fault with besides the weak DLCs (except for Old World Blues, which is legendary).

Tactics is probably as polarizing here as Fallout 3. It's a surprisingly good Fallout-flavored tactical RPG, but it's not a true sequel. It goes downhill near the end in the last few missions, but you'll get 20+ hours of fun out of it before that happens.

Fallout is a great game and I've replayed it many times; but there's really not that much that you can change up in each playthrough. You can do pretty much everything there is in a single (short) run through. All of the above games do 'Fallout' better than Fallout in my opinion.
 
tmann400 said:
I gave Fallout 2 a shot first.......Ehh, I don't know...I just couldn't get into it AT ALL. I tried to play it for 3 or 4 hours and I wasn't into it. The atmosphere didn't grab my attention, The dialogue was decent but nothing awe inspiring.
Click to expand...

Where did you play to? The game is richer than F1, but not necessarily better (F1 has a greater sense of desperation). The comedy element was taken a bit too far IMO (talking plant, talking Deathclaw WTF), but there are many excellent moments in the game. I recommend playing it to the end, and then playing it again with a different character build.
 
I see that the problem a lot of people have with FO2 is the comedic nature of it. Jesus Christ people, "It sucks because it's funny, and that doesn't fit my narrow-minded image of what Fallout should be".
 
Surf Solar said:
Not a surprise that people liking FO3 also enjoyed FO1, seeing both games have a similar mood and tone (only those horrible plastic human models and their babyfaces ruined Fo3 for me)- while Fallout 1 being the best game in the series.
Click to expand...
And of course the bad dialogues, shitty visuals (animations etc.) and bad to mediocre quest designs made Fallout 3 not a good game for me.

F2 sure had its issues but its at no point "worse" then F3. Definitely not. If alone because the writing in F2 was much better then in F3.
 
SealyStar said:
I see that the problem a lot of people have with FO2 is the comedic nature of it. Jesus Christ people, "It sucks because it's funny, and that doesn't fit my narrow-minded image of what Fallout should be".
Click to expand...

It depends on a person's mindset. If you're just into gameplay mechanics, it goes far above and beyond Fallout 1's potential.

However, if you're into cohesive, immersive universes, it just doesn't hold up. And it starts excruciatingly, horribly boring, and goes that way for a long time.

Stanislao Moulinsky said:
Surf Solar said:
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
All of the above games do 'Fallout' better than Fallout in my opinion.
Click to expand...

This doesnt sound a bit paradox to you? :?
Click to expand...

Depends. If he's talking of the RPG elements he's right. The first game was relatively limited in that regards.
Click to expand...

If the first game established the vision of what Fallout is, calling it the "least Fallout" game of the series is highly dubious. Especially considering that all the other games have worse writing and none of them have a cohesive world that can hold suspension of disbelief.

This includes FO:NV. Don't get me started on that one.

So, the person wanted a different game from Fallout, and the more the series went askew, and coincidentally, closer to their idea of a better game, the more they called it a Fallout game.

Putting Fallout: Tactics, a combat strategy game, in that list was really telling of the twisted logic involved here. One could then say that Jagged Alliance 2 was more Fallout than Fallout.

I could take Hexen and say that Stonekeep was more Hexen than Hexen. Why? Because it had better developed RPG elements, while Hexen was merely "a step in the right direction", with superficial inventory and 3 classes.

This is complete nonsense, of course - an attempt to tie the idea of the franchise to something it is not.
 
shihonage said:
If the first game established the vision of what Fallout is, calling it the "least Fallout" game of the series is highly dubious. Especially considering that all the other games have worse writing and none of them have a cohesive world that can hold suspension of disbelief.

This includes FO:NV. Don't get me started on that one.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was the "least Fallout" I said that in my opinion the other games do it better ('it' being the setting/gameplay/story etc). The same could be said about Half Life 2 vs Half Life, which (again IMO) does an excellent job of capturing the spirit of the original, and just being a better game in every way.

I've never really had a problem suspending disbelief, be it in literature, film or gaming; so I can't comment on that, but Fallout's writing isn't exactly top-tier material. It's better than 3 for sure, but it's no less ridiculous than anything else in the series.


shihonage said:
So, the person wanted a different game from Fallout, and the more the series went askew, and coincidentally, closer to their idea of a better game, the more they called it a Fallout game.

Putting Fallout: Tactics, a combat strategy game, in that list was really telling of the twisted logic involved here. One could then say that Jagged Alliance 2 was more Fallout than Fallout.

I could take Hexen and say that Stonekeep was more Hexen than Hexen. Why? Because it had better developed RPG elements, while Hexen was merely "a step in the right direction", with superficial inventory and 3 classes.

This is complete nonsense, of course - an attempt to tie the idea of the franchise to something it is not.
Click to expand...

FoT took the setting and worked with it (well, besides the stupid fucking robots), and combined it with outstanding gameplay. If you took a Fallout fan who had never heard of the game and dropped them into Tactics; they'd quickly pick up on it being a Fallout game. That doesn't really work with your other examples.

Franchises evolve. Some iterate the exact same thing over and over, just with better graphics (see: Every EA Sports title ever/JRPGs/Halo/Cowadooty), and some are kind of all over the place (Mario/Sonic/Fallout). I know there's a lot of you out there who wouldn't mind if Fallout was one of the former, but besides 3 and PoS; the franchise is rock solid with some awesome forays into different genres.
 
Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
I've never really had a problem suspending disbelief, be it in literature, film or gaming; so I can't comment on that, but Fallout's writing isn't exactly top-tier material. It's better than 3 for sure, but it's no less ridiculous than anything else in the series.
Click to expand...

The thing about the writing in both games is that it varies in quality because it was done by multiple people with wildly varying levels of skill. The best writing in Fo1 outclasses most of the writing in Fo2 and vice versa.
 
The way I look at it is, and one of you guys mentioned it "suspending disbelief". Some people appreciate, or enjoy, things different then the next person when it comes to a game. Some people get immersed into a game for different reasons then others.


For me, things like atmosphere, deep emotion, dialogue and/or voice acting. And, most of all, seriousness, as funny as that sounds. If a game is in a very serious and depressing setting, I want the characters and atmosphere to reflect as much. That's not to say I don't love comedy in a serious game for relief, I do, very much so. It's just, I don't know. The comedy in Fallout 2 isn't so much what's bothering me, it's the atmosphere and setting so to speak more so that is making me go "This doesn't feel right".


I know a lot of you guys hated F3, but love the originals. I guess I'm a rarity given the fact I loved Fallout 3, and loved the original. I'd go so far as to say I'm blessed for those reasons. Although I have met my fare share of people who grew up with the originals, and liked F3 as well, one of those people being my brother. My brother loved the original Fallout when it came out. He told me that it's in his top 5 greatest games of all time, and he said he also liked F2, just not as much as the first. My brother HATED, Oblivion when it came out, he was a Daggerfall and Morrowind fan. And he told me "Bethesda will ruin F3, it will suck" we picked it up, out of curiosity and when he first started playing it, he said "Ehh", low and behold 1 week later my brother had already dumped 40+ hours into it, and said he was addicted.

Everyone is different I guess. You have your F3 and NV fans, who don't like the originals, and vice versa. I just love Fallout as a franchise, period. And while F3 WAS different, I still loved the game. And since I've played the hell out of the 1st, my opinion hasn't changed either, and I've already put around 3 hours into F3 again today. And while the writing and voice acting isn't perfect, there is some situations where it shines. I mean this is just my opinion fellas...And, I know a lot of you don't like F3, but I'm telling you if you sit down and give the game the time of day, and the DLC, a lot of you, maybe not all, by a lot of you will start to appreciate it and like it more. It grew on me the more I played it. I could be wrong, if you guys actually went into playing it without a bad mindset about it, your opinion would change. I'm probably wrong, but I'm just trying to be positive.

BTW, thanks for those links, my friend. It's very much appreciated.
 
And, I know a lot of you don't like F3, but I'm telling you if you sit down and give the game the time of day, and the DLC, a lot of you, maybe not all, by a lot of you will start to appreciate it and like it more. It grew on me the more I played it. I could be wrong, if you guys actually went into playing it without a bad mindset about it, your opinion would change. I'm probably wrong, but I'm just trying to be positive.
Click to expand...

Oy vey, not this again.

One can play Diablo, get quests, kill shit, then they play Fallout, get quests, kill shit, and say "I loved both of these Fallout games".

It doesn't mean anything. When your perception of the game is so shallow, you will not notice the differences between that game and a deeper game.

Did you notice how restricted movement around the world in Fallout 3 was? Did you notice how NOTHING in the world made sense? Did you notice that SPECIAL was meaningless, and combat was an abysmal, broken chore? What about multiple solutions to quests?

Statements like the ones you make, are akin to comparing checkers and chess by flicking the figures into other figures. They will fall off the board just the same, but the comparison is meaningless.

Fallout 3 is garbage created by mentally and creatively bankrupt. Everything about it that didn't suck, was aped, poorly, from Fallout 1.

If you do not see just how much shallower it is on both literary and gameplay levels, world cohesiveness and reactivity - that is the issue entirely of your own, to be addressed in your personal development.

Do not piss on my shoes and tell me it's raining.

259.jpg

260.jpg

262.jpg


Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude said:
Franchises evolve. Some iterate the exact same thing over and over, just with better graphics (see: Every EA Sports title ever/JRPGs/Halo/Cowadooty), and some are kind of all over the place (Mario/Sonic/Fallout). I know there's a lot of you out there who wouldn't mind if Fallout was one of the former, but besides 3 and PoS; the franchise is rock solid with some awesome forays into different genres.
Click to expand...

I snipped the rest of your post since you're repeating yourself, and in response to that part I would've had to paste my previous reply again, and that's just an endless loop.

In response to this part... where did you get the idea that everyone wanted the same thing with different graphics?

Fallout was a game that did most things right. It had a cohesive world, solid dialogue, workable combat system, multiple solutions to quests, a convincing illusion of sandboxy nonlinearity, and stats that actually made a difference.

All that a fan would want from continuation of the series would be those same things, IMPROVED.

Better story. More cohesive world (doesn't matter which). Deeper combat. Bendier sandbox. More balanced impact of stats on gameworld. More solutions to quests.

INSTEAD, what we got was:

Fallout 2: Better sandbox. Worse world design.
Fallout: Tactics: Better combat. Worse world design. Worse dialogue. Worse non-linearity.
Fallout 3: Worse world design. Worse combat. Worse dialogue. Worse non-linearity.
Fallout NV: Worse world design. Worse combat. Worse dialogue.

The series has not "evolved" anywhere. The true sequel to Fallout has not yet been made.

535.jpg

556.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top