Not to stray too far off topic, but in regards to XCOM, I'd have to echo Darkcorp.
You might not like a lot of the changes done to the new XCOM, and I totally agree, its been somewhat 'dumbed down' (hate how easy it is to exploit alien aggro for example), but at its fundamental core - is it still a turn-based tactical game? Yes. Its in the same genre.
FO1/FO2 fans have it worse, because FO3 and FONV are a completely different genre. At least imo.
Oppen, you just ruined my dreams. I wanted to -join- the Enclave... so this means, in no FO game, am I allowed to join the Enclave?! Awwww, man! Was totally planning on doing this - thanks for heads up - gonna redesign my FO2 character concept.
I feel like of all FO games (excluding 2, haven't played it), only NV has good companions. I've got Cassidy now, and her quotes just crack me up. (Sneaking; "Ssssshhhh.........................were hunting shit heads). Vulgar and to the point - yep, fiends and legion slaver scum do fit that description.
About that, you could actually be just a spy for the Master. They [BOS in FO1]are aware of the supermutants problem, IIRC, and they didn't stop to think that maybe you just sent supermutants (resistant to radiation) to pick up something from The Glow, and that you can be a children of the cathedral. They should be making sure of your intentions, not only of your resourcefulness.
Exactly. The whole building reputation process to join BoS in FO3, at least for me, did feel more ongoing and believable. Suspicion is less likely because you're not even asking to join - they're recognizing you on their own initiative.
That's why I explicitly said "at the ending level", lad. That's the only thing compared in my post.
And, yeah, Fallout 2 is the one I played the most, it's my favorite; one of the killer features for me are those choices, and the fact they have all (or maybe almost all, I might be overlooking something) consequences showed both in game and in the ending slides. You can check quite a few posts of mine both in RP for FO 2 and in FIXT for FO 1 threads, to make sure I've played those.
As a matter of fact, what I pointed out is basically why it is OK that you have no choice about siding pro or against the main antagonist in FO 2 but it's not right in FO 3. Enclave is not directly harming your dad. If he wouldn't get in the way of their plans, they wouldn't give half a s*it about him. And your dad makes his choice of overloading the system, not the Enclave. Arroyo tribe? Enclave is directly experimenting on them, with lethal viruses, so I can see why is not an option to side with them
Omg... all this talk of FO2 is only making me more excited about FO2. I felt instantly drawn to it. Must just be personal preference; but for some reason, that game just sounds awesome. Maybe its because I like the Enclave and NCR so much, and they're -both- in it.
Quick question - I've got a steam version of FO2. I hear FO2 is really buggy. Will steam's version have most of those bugs worked out? Or do I need to install a custom mod somewhere to work out the kinks? Maybe I've misheard, but I hear a lot about FO2 being super buggy/glitchy.
Mutant of Fo1 is still a human! not non-human. They want unity becasue they are human. not like idiotic Enclave of Fo2,3 but Enclave of Fo2 are not just legion of monster, they can speak to you, they have imotions. Think about meaning of "war never changes
If I had played FO1 -before- playing FO3, I would have shot Fawkes without talking to him. FO1 made me really hate super mutants. Maybe I'm just bad
Nope, Fo1 is very easy game. for combat, NV and 3 is far harder than 1. and 1's puzzle isn't that challengable
Maybe I suck at FO1 then. Most of it was easy, but the fights at the end at the mutant base were hard for me.
In FO3/NV, I always take END 1, AGI 1, and wear cloth only to make the world feel deadlier and make the game harder - and I still feel like its too easy.
wrong point dude. Fo1 isn't empty. there's nothing to do in wasteland. you should go human community to find something to do and informations you need. even Fo1 there's planty of buildings like cathedral, hub and factory of bone yard.
I didn't mean in terms of total content - I was speaking on the fact that most of the squares on the map are empty. Wheras in FO3/FONV, you can't travel very far without running into 'something'. Personally prefer the empty squares though, since on a travel map, wasn't a big deal anyway, and added realism to the wastelands.
But as a RPG, nothing changed: Quest RPG to Quest RPG. But for fo3, it's dungeon RPG not quest RPG. quests are just spice for Dungeon crawling.
Actually Fo3 and NV is RPG with a FPS touch like Alpha protocol is RPG with TPS touch.
Interesting point, though for some (myself included), changing the combat also changes the feel of the RPG elements; combat mechanics and quest RPG is not 100 % separable.
I'd actually put FO3 as a 50/50 'hybrid' of RPG/FPS; which is a bit painful because there are both better FPS's, and better RPGs, out there. But, just being a hybrid, and combining the genres, is cool.
And yeah, totally digging FO2 right now. And you've mentioned Arcanum enough times to make me want to give it a go. And wasteland, since FO1's plot was apparently based on it.
Too many games, not enough time :/
Also, regarding the very OP of this thread, but slightly off topic; why do a lot of people who hate FO3 seem to not hate FONV so much? I understand bringing back the original writers/FONV had more possible endings/meaningful consequences, more well written, etc. But both FO3 and FONV are in that different genre of introducing FPS.
[/quote]
