What did you NOT like about FO 1 & 2?

quietfanatic said:
I have noticed that the graphics are only repellant to shallow, stupid people, so I don't feel particularly sorry for them missing out on the wonders of Fallout 1 and 2.
Click to expand...

Err... I won't say I haven't been tempted to say much the same, but quite honestly old boy let's avoid pointless generalization and mudslinging shall we? :( It's not terribly constructive. I'm a big fan of the FO graphics and will continue to support them, but people aren't "stupid" because they like other things. Hell, it's their money, right?

I liked the fact that F2 was sprawling despite the fact that it was disjointed and didn't fit the background in too many places.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there were a few noticeable failures in that area. :? There were some definite things that should have been done to make each location feel less... remote and distinct from each other. You shouldn't feel like you're entering into another world every time you enter a new location (San Fran, FAR too different), you should see a continuation on a basic theme. The progression from Klamath to Den to Modoc to Vault City, that tends to make sense. But San Fran was... too distinct. A city THAT major, and it doesn't have major plotlines and ties to most of the other places on the map? I doubt it!

With that said, I am even today replaying FO2 for probably the twelfth time. :D :D :D

On a side note, I so dearly, dearly love the SAD. The feel is extremely reminiscent of the Glow, one of my favorite FO locations because it so perfectly captured the Post-Apoc setting.
 
It is definitely a post for the other topic, but I got to say this side note completely explains why I love this game so much.

Besides that, it`s strange to me how we all manage to like this hypothetic PostApoc scenario on our screens and coldchill `bout this happening for real.One of contradictions in this funny world we livin` in :wink:

And, because it`s my first post here, Hi to everyone and keep up the best Fallout site to pipl who did it :D
 
FAllout 1: no real dislikes to be honest, probaply that the game was to small, still no _real_ dislikes.

Fallout 2: well the numerous bugs arent great.. but well that stuff happens, didnt kill me (though the car bug in SF was annoying) in Fallout 2 I would have liked to see the Brotherhood bigger and better. I loved their power in fallout 1, it made me all fuzzy inside being within the brotherhood outpost, imho they should have made 20 missions and 15 levels within the brotherhood. Anywayz to little Brotherhood of Steel in Fallout 2,
 
Levels? Missions? Hmm... I don't know why, but I have a feeling that neither FO1 or FO2 are games based on levels/missions. Maybe it's just me, who knows?
 
I think Ronin was referring to 20 quests and 15 floor levels, all involving the BOS. I could be wrong, but that's a possible interpretation. 8)
 
FO: To easy to win once youve beat it at least once before.

FO2: Tribals. Theyre just way overboard. They should have numerous LARGE scale citys, rather than leaving it to game logic.
 
FO1: too short

FO2: too many deja vu feelings while playing

One thing that I hate about both games is the amount of walking/running you need to do to solve lots of quests. Not on the worldmap, but in the towns and various locations. Like when you need to get that dude's spleen in San Fran. Friggin' boring.
The waypoint system in Arcanum is a true blessing (when it doesn't fail to work, of course).
 
Really nice topic.

FO: I don't know, it's pretty damn perfect. :) Maybe the followers could've been a bit more useful. Also it's a bit short/too few side quests in some areas.

FO2: Ok, I have a bunch here. It somewhat lacks the right atmosphere due to overused reference-humour and some areas being a bit out-of-place. This goes for some weapons and parts of the story as well (see GECK, Aliens?). I want more rusty pre-war stuff. And the bugs did piss me off sometimes of course. Don't get me wrong though, FO2 is still one of the best games out there.

And for both games, the SPECIAL system is wonderful, but needs polishing (ie the trash/unbalanced skills mentioned earlier).
 
Calabi-Yau said:
FO2: Ok, I have a bunch here. It somewhat lacks the right atmosphere due to overused reference-humour and some areas being a bit out-of-place.
Click to expand...
Indeed :roll:

FO1: to short, the overseer is getting on my nerves...
 
Hmm. I haven't posted here in a while, and my last one was kinda off topic.

FO1: Way too short. Useless companions (with the exception of Dogmeat; he phucking pwn3d). The story line was more than a little trite, even if the ending was awesome. The enemy AI was absolutely deplorable and had no problem unloading on you round after round with a minigun even though his/her friends were standing between you and a machine gun sandwich. FUCKING IAN AND HIS FUCKING SMG!!!11

FO2: Most of the areas felt useless. I mean, what's the point in going to New Reno? It wasn't like a bonus location with sw33t l3\/\/+ or anything. The thieving children in the Den were an annoyance. Too many real world weapons (it's Fallout, not Counterasshump). "Descendant of the Vault Dweller" background was just a bad choice. Inconsistent dialogue choices (at times, your character can be a genius who knows everything, but at other times your only options make you sound like a naive child).

Both: Bad graphics, even for the time the games came out. Fallout 2 wasn't really a separate game; more like an expansion to Fallout 1 with only a few improvements. The music was forgettable at best, painful at worst. The end of the game was less about tactics in combat and more about having the bigger gun/better perks. The "more than one solution to a problem" choice was poorly implemented.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
Inconsistent dialogue choices (at times, your character can be a genius who knows everything, but at other times your only options make you sound like a naive child).
Click to expand...

Yep, that's my opinion too, but I can't stop thinking that FO2 was very quickly released and the producers worked a lot on the dialogues, I mean, based on different situations, character types etc.
 
Devilsadvocate said:
Bad graphics
Click to expand...

Really? Name me one game where there are so much and so nice death animations.

On the other hand, there were too few sprites for NPC's. The fact that Bishop and a drunkard were represented onscreen by the same model... well...
 
FO1: Almost impossible to complete with any character who wasn't designed to be a fighter/shooter or whatever. I could never manage to finish it diplomatically. Also incredibly poor NPC AI.

FO2: A little too much humour, which sometimes ruined the atmosphere a bit. Similar AI problems, but improved nonetheless.

And I'm personally of the opinion that although both games could have done with a bit of variety in the graphics department.
 
FO1: *%&*E#&#! Ian just blew Dogmeat away! In other words, the NPC AI. Ian would just sit there, even if the enemy was way out of effective range. Oh, and shoot me. Dogmeat was cool... but he kept getting shot by Ian. Lack of NPC options, this was fixed to some extent in Fallout 2.

Way too many crappy perks. Some character builds useless. Central storyline a little sparse. I like some "fast and loose" stories but Fallout was just over the line. Some locations and NPCs too lifeless. Way too easy to make tons of money with steal. Odd bug where Razor from the Blades won't talk to me because I did something to the Gun Runners... before I even met them.

FO2: I haven't played in ages and the CD has disappeared into a giant pile of games. But one thing comes to mind: TRIALS! :evil:
 
who says you have to keep the cd in to play? e.g. no-cd crack (and yes, i do have the original cd)
 
No-cd crack? My copy runs without the cd in the drive anyway. Unless you have a weird (european) version.
 
yes mine is european, patch 1.02 official (do you need the cd for the unofficial patches?)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top