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

[SnapSlav]

Also seeing how people disslike F3/NV due to the FPS part. I guess you are the same guys that are/would be hating on Resident Evil 4 because it's not the same as the old ones even tho it's a great game but a change in gameplay.

That -------^

I criticize the shit out of FO3, but as is the way with the internet, people seem to forget what criticizing is all about. I love following Jim Sterling on The Escapist because he regularly mentions that criticism is something you do when you want to help, that pointing out ONE bad thing doesn't blanket the entirety, and it's critical fans who are the best fans, and the blindly faithful fans who won't hear a single bad word about their treasured IP are the bad fans. I DO on some levels hate FO3, but I will never deny it as a good game. I prefer to call it a "great game, sub-par Fallout game", and that summation has worked for me, and the majority of thinking, breathing people I've encountered.

I genuinely can't come to grasp what people are complaining about when it comes to FO2, however. I feel the same way that its setting and "feel" are very different from FO1, but you could argue that's simply a result of the timeline. Just like I couldn't get over FO3's setting of a post-apocalyptic DC........... 200 years later, it made perfect sense for much of civilization to start getting back on its feet by the time FO2 took place. It made the world feel less gritty and ominous, something I feel that NONE of the games have topped FO1 in, but the game itself was still absolute, solid gold. Excellent writing, wonderful characters, fantastic gameplay- yadda yaddda, you know, the whole shebang.

I hate that the engine used in FONV holds it back in many ways, but I still love the game. Even though it can't do this or that, and the voice acting is UNFATHOMABLY IRRITATING, I think it's one of the best Fallout games of all time. That still doesn't make its graphics or animations "good" by any generous measure, yet it's still a great game.

I guess too many people just don't understand what critical thinking is. Saying a movie had problems doesn't mean it was a bad movie. The Dark Knight Rises is a perfect example. Commenting on a game's crippling faults doesn't make it a terrible game. FO2/NV being ideal examples of said comment. If all you're going to do is focus on one single thing, be it a good thing or a bad thing, then you're blind to what you're actually observing. THAT'S an invalid opinion, not because someone thought FOT could rank above FO1.

Also people CANNOT substitute themselves in "another's shoes", no matter how much they may try. We'll never know what it was like to live without indoor plumbing, just like kids nowadays will never understand what it was like to live without the internet. Those of us who grew up on the Fallout originals will NEVER understand what it's like to be introduced to the series via the modern titles, and vice versa.

In summation, tmann400, if you've still not played FO2 considerably (this being a months-old topic), I strongly suggest you dedicate some serious time to it. Yeah, it just won't "feel" the same as FO1, but trust me, it will suck you in and give you a ride for your life, once you give it your time! =)

 

[G-Flex]

I genuinely can't come to grasp what people are complaining about when it comes to FO2, however. I feel the same way that its setting and "feel" are very different from FO1, but you could argue that's simply a result of the timeline.

I used to think this, and it's a large factor, but it's also very clear to me that the design philosophy itself is clearly different between the two games. Not only is the tone itself different, but there's also a much larger focus on jokes, pop culture references, and Things The Devs Thought Would Be Cool, rather than a coherent, believable universe. Even during the climax of the game, the Vice President of the Enclave is nothing more than an extended Dan Quayle joke, and the Hubologists are a direct parody of a real organization. The former killed the mood for me, and the latter could have been handled a lot better and more subtly, rather than shoehorning in direct parodies of real-life celebrities. Fallout 2 has a lot of things going for it, but world-building isn't one of them.

 

[SorgFall]

It is in the game.

That's...horrible.

 

[shihonage]

It is in the game.

That's...horrible.

Indeed it is. The game is full of awful stuff like that. And this fact cannot escape any critically-adept mind.

 

[pipboy-x11]

It is in the game.

That's...horrible.

The side quests - like "Blood Ties" - are nor less horrible by themselves. Arefu residents give you a quest: get rid of the vampire threat. I've taken the most direct route, rationalizing that "dead vampires don't bite" and simply entered the nest and killed everyone. The result? Everyone in Arefu is hostile.

WTF?

I've tried to replay FO3 recently just out of curiosity and could stand it for 10 minutes, no more (even taking into the account that I've downloaded a save game just to skip that unbearable crap from the character's childhood and stuff). Those dialogs seem to be written by retarded teens - "Yes, I'll happily blow up Megaton" vs "Megaton is under my protection!" with nothing in between ... sheesh.

And people say that THIS is better than FO2? Ok, we can argue as much as we want about FO1 vs FO2 (I loved the second one... It's slow paced, doesn't require you to finish your quests in a limited time, gives you a huge opportunity to explore). But FO3 > FO2... No. That can't be for real.

 

[Lexx]

Well, if you like shootery games and hate reading, you can kind of say this.

 

[SnapSlav]

I'm not so sure about that. Even for fans of shooters (such as myself), anyone with standards, experience in the genre, or just plain critical observational skills would recognize that the shooting mechanics of FO3 "suck major honky", to use the technical term. New Vegas is a HUGE step up in that regard, but then the RPG elements get in the way there, too. Suddenly total HP is more important than your accuracy or shooting skills. Hybrids such as these suffer in that they don't have the best qualities of any given genre. Throwing that in just means you're trying to bait more players with empty flare, rather than guarantee loyal fans by making a solid, truly amazing title.

Fallout Tactics was perfect for what it represented, because it was the ideal tactical RPG. Combat was fluid, and none of it felt as though it clearly didn't belong. All the core role playing mechanics like dialog was clearly missing, but that's because they had little place in a tactical RPG. Had they thrown them in, it would've felt like a weak attempt to pander to the fans, rather than sticking to what works best for your game.

Bethesda stuck to what they knew when they made Fallout 3. It just so happens that for that very specific genre, practically EVERYBODY does it better than Bethesda, and as such, neither being the best at what they do, nor the truly inspired creators of the very franchise they snagged, the end product had serious deficiencies. I can't help but agree, there's arguable DEBATE over which is better between 1 or 2... but NOT between 3 or the rest.

 

[SorgFall]

I'm not so sure about that. Even for fans of shooters (such as myself), anyone with standards, experience in the genre, or just plain critical observational skills would recognize that the shooting mechanics of FO3 "suck major honky", to use the technical term. New Vegas is a HUGE step up in that regard, but then the RPG elements get in the way there, too. Suddenly total HP is more important than your accuracy or shooting skills. Hybrids such as these suffer in that they don't have the best qualities of any given genre. Throwing that in just means you're trying to bait more players with empty flare, rather than guarantee loyal fans by making a solid, truly amazing title.

Fallout Tactics was perfect for what it represented, because it was the ideal tactical RPG. Combat was fluid, and none of it felt as though it clearly didn't belong. All the core role playing mechanics like dialog was clearly missing, but that's because they had little place in a tactical RPG. Had they thrown them in, it would've felt like a weak attempt to pander to the fans, rather than sticking to what works best for your game.

Bethesda stuck to what they knew when they made Fallout 3. It just so happens that for that very specific genre, practically EVERYBODY does it better than Bethesda, and as such, neither being the best at what they do, nor the truly inspired creators of the very franchise they snagged, the end product had serious deficiencies. I can't help but agree, there's arguable DEBATE over which is better between 1 or 2... but NOT between 3 or the rest.

And they are making Fallout 4 as I hear...while the old story ends finally with New Vegas.
As I hear they have also noted that F4 will be more like F3 than NV...

 

[Gurkog]

And they are making Fallout 4 as I hear...while the old story ends finally with New Vegas.
As I hear they have also noted that F4 will be more like F3 than NV...

I probably will not be buying the Fallout 4 made by Bethesda... unless they at least put in some effort to improve combat, stats and skills. I think of BGS's FO3 as 'Falloutworld' the theme park. The problem with it was that rides looked nice from a distance but were boring and generic when experienced.

 

[Khuzor]

What I did like about Fallout 2 was introduction of diverse cultures, like the SF Asians and Tribals ( Thou I mean the good tribals, the ones that are tribal but don't suddenly forget about guns and Meds. Arroyo was stupid. )

What I hated about Fallout 2... I guess the handicap Evil characters got over the good ones - isn't the appeal of evil routs is the fact there easier and more beneficial?

What I liked about Fallout 3..... uh... well... moving on

What I hated about fallout 3 Shit brown FPS with a retarded Black and White morality system.

 

[SnapSlav]

What I hated about Fallout 2... I guess the handicap Evil characters got over the good ones - isn't the appeal of evil routs is the fact there easier and more beneficial?

But being evil WAS beneficial. It wasn't handicapped in the slightest. You made BANK by playing an evil SOB, very early on, so you could afford to be decked out almost immediately. Now, for veterans of the game, this is no longer a point in its favor, because you know the game well enough that you find yourself tripping over supplies and coins, and running out of storage space to hold all of your hoarded wares. But for rewcomers, the rewards for being "evil" are ABSOLUTELY "worth it" over the detriments.

 

[Makta]

What I hated about Fallout 2... I guess the handicap Evil characters got over the good ones - isn't the appeal of evil routs is the fact there easier and more beneficial?

But being evil WAS beneficial. It wasn't handicapped in the slightest. You made BANK by playing an evil SOB, very early on, so you could afford to be decked out almost immediately. Now, for veterans of the game, this is no longer a point in its favor, because you know the game well enough that you find yourself tripping over supplies and coins, and running out of storage space to hold all of your hoarded wares. But for rewcomers, the rewards for being "evil" are ABSOLUTELY "worth it" over the detriments.

I wish i would have had that feeling when i was new to the game. Every time i did something evil i feelt like i got slapped for doing so and the good way was better. Ofc this wassn't the case 100% of the time but i was swimming in stuff early on without being evil more than 1 quest i think

Edit: This is obviously a problem in every Fallout game.

 

[zegh8578]

FO2 is my favorite Fallout installment, but only because it's the one I started playing. I simply have yet to really learn to know FO1.
I also do have a weak spot for Fallout Tactics, although I lament the unfortunate combination of a humongous map (in terms of travel time especially) - which potential is not used, and too few missions. The "story" (meh) hurries too quickly.
Also, the fact that it - for some stupid reason - hard freezes my computer randomly, so I simply can't play it anymore :'(

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".

The first time I played Diablo was when a hyperactive neighbor of mine saw me playing FO2, and assured me I would love Diablo.
15 minutes later I was uninstalling Diablo.

 

[Khuzor]

But being evil WAS beneficial. It wasn't handicapped in the slightest. You made BANK by playing an evil SOB, very early on, so you could afford to be decked out almost immediately. Now, for veterans of the game, this is no longer a point in its favor, because you know the game well enough that you find yourself tripping over supplies and coins, and running out of storage space to hold all of your hoarded wares. But for rewcomers, the rewards for being "evil" are ABSOLUTELY "worth it" over the detriments.

The benefits were purely monetary, and cash lost it's return value sooner than later, being openly evil barred you from every companion that was worth a fuck on top of locking you out of certain quests entirely.

 

[SnapSlav]

Wouldn't that BE the only benefit, though? If we were to say that "evil" is something that exists, and is a decision that someone could consciously make, why would they make it? Joy is a reason, but that's something translated to the player, not the character. Money is about all else there is; some form of tangible gain over others. And in that respect, it works; you get paid LOTS to be a slaver, and earlier on the "evil" job outpay their "good" competition. Of course, this is all if you're some kind of socially-retarded, openly despicable character. If that's the case, then why complain that your noticeably vile actions are noticed? That's. the. point!

On the other hand, especially if you check out Per's guide, being "evil" isn't so cut-and-dry as killing everyone "nice" and accepting all the nefarious quests. Sometimes it makes more sense that you're playing the character who manipulates others and acts subtly yet genuinely selfishly, but careful and deliberately. Either way, only a select few NPCs will ABSOLUTELY not join you (I had no problems keeping Vic, Marcus, and Skynet around, but I opted not to). And the benefits you get early on are OBSCENELY huge, so if you're playing judiciously, it really pays off, which is really the point of "being evil".

The only instances where "being good" seems to be disproportionately a wiser investment are those few times where the nicest of responses (such as refusing payment from Marcus) get you more than had you asked for any. But these seemed to be there solely so playing a goody goody actually had some kind of tangible reward, otherwise players would have ignored it.

But hey, what do I really know about this? I only ever played an "evil" character once, and at my core, I really CAN'T make the "bad" choices in any RPG I play... I naturally gravitate towards the "good" ones.

 

[person]

You know, now that I think about it, when I kill everything I DO get the most things.

But it also makes me sad.

 

[FOvet]

I think it's mostly the next gen fallout games that outright punish you for being evil. With FO2, it was common sense things that happened. You could still be evil and manage to get all kinds of quests.

In NV and moreso in 3, being evil could shut down a LOT of quests, simply because your snide remarks pissed people off. Granted, that could be viewed as realistic, but lets be honest here; the people wanting your help would still NEED help no matter how much of an asshat you chose to be, and as long as you would do the job, they'd hire you. If they were desperate enough, that is.

I always feel though, that RPGs tend to punish those that want to play evil characters. I usually do both a good and evil run in the games that allow it, and I've seen this time and time again. I've seen it with Fable 2 and 3, with Fallout 2, 3, and NV, and other RPGs I've played. They tned to try to slap you and say "be good, Player!"

 

[Ohaimerk]

In NV and moreso in 3, being evil could shut down a LOT of quests, simply because your snide remarks pissed people off. Granted, that could be viewed as realistic, but lets be honest here; the people wanting your help would still NEED help no matter how much of an asshat you chose to be, and as long as you would do the job, they'd hire you. If they were desperate enough, that is.

One thing both games completely missed was allowing you to be boss while being evil. Like the new reno quest to find the casino cheat where you make the duder dig up his winnings then blow him up with his own bomb, or assassinating mr wright by giving his kid a loaded gun. New games, you gotta either kill good people or be a sarcastic selfish asshole to be evil.

 

[TK]

I tend to have real problems playing an evil character; I just feel bad, soft heart I suppose.

I remember playing the Fallout demo and waiting eagerly for the full game to come out. Fallout is my favorite game, I played it almost as compulsively as I played Golden axe back on the spectrum. Fallout 2 was great but it just lacked... something.

FO3 was good but it didn't feel ruined enough for me and quite frankly the zombie like ghouls just scared the hell out of me.

New Vegas just felt like being back in the wasteland again and it had that original fallout quality to it, although the ending was a little dis satisfactory.

I never really got in to tactics at all.

Fairly shallow opinions there but I haven't played FO or FO2 for quite a while.