EPTWhich Fallout is the "best" ? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Ruin
United States271 Posts
| ||
|
Obscura.304
150 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Don't get me wrong, FO1 is also an amazing game, but it's a bit short. Quality over quantity. FO1 > FO2, by miles. | ||
|
NuclearJudas
6546 Posts
| ||
|
Brow23
Germany105 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:23 Obscura.304 wrote: Quality over quantity. FO1 > FO2, by miles. I would disagree, I think in terms of an open world RPG quantity can in some cases mean just as much as length. The sheer length and extent of the game world in FO2 really pulls you in and creates a surpremely engaging and engrossing gaming experience. I also like the pacing much more. In FO1 you can get some really awesome equipment pretty early on, and there are so many guns and prewar shit to sell you can pretty much buy anything you want from about halfway through the game. BUT! I won't disagree with you that FO1 is a truely amazing game. Any list of the best PC games of all time that doesn't list 1 & 2 in the top 15 is seriously just invalid. | ||
|
mcimba42
192 Posts
between 3 and nv, i thought nv felt more like fallout and fo3 felt more like oblivion with guns. if you're interested in the fallout setting, go for nv, if you want exploration and loot go with fo3. since you decided to play it because of skyrim and don't really have any experience with the fallout world i'd recommend 3 seriously guys, i like fo2 as much as any of you, and i prefer nv over 3, but don't just recommend the game you prefer, think about people's situations and shit | ||
|
Gak2
Canada418 Posts
I like the followers in NV, and the fact that you didn't have to go through a confusing subway system to get anywhere. Sniping was also a lot better. | ||
|
Mufaa
219 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:42 mcimba42 wrote: ignore the old timers in this thread, fo 1 and 2 were the shit back in the day but they haven't aged well, unless you usually play these older slow paced crpgs already you'll have a hard time enjoying the original fallout games I hesitate to apply the term crpg to modern hybrids and action-rpgs anyway. Practically speaking, the term CRPG is appropriately descriptive of the older Black Isle-style isometric RPGs, and some of their modern indie successors. On June 14 2012 01:42 mcimba42 wrote: seriously guys, i like fo2 as much as any of you, and i prefer nv over 3, but don't just recommend the game you prefer, think about people's situations and shit What "situation"? I should recommend a worse game instead of trying to get someone to put in the time to get involved in a genre that, without real mainstream support is on the verge of dying? On topic, FO1=FO2>NV>F3 FO1 and FO2 are Black Isle games. NV is an Obsidian game. FO3 is a Bethesda game. The traditional tendencies of each of these development houses are perfectly embodied in these 3 titles: - FO1/2 are the pinnacle of the classic mid-90s CRPG. - NV brings the story-writing experience of the ex-Black Isle crew at Obsidian, but makes concessions to include the gameplay mechanics of the original FO3, and, as with every other Obsidian release, feels a bit unpolished, and is riddled with minor bugs. - FO3 is, just like it's TES counterparts, an exploration game branded as an RPG in order to sell more copies. | ||
|
gingerfluffmuff
Austria4570 Posts
Edit: Beware of the Golden Geckos, the are uber at the beginning! | ||
|
Jinsho
United Kingdom3101 Posts
Fallout 3 has you playing a clueless survivor of the nuclear war, having grown up inside a secure vault that has been closed for two hundred years. You escape and step into this postapocalyptic world, not knowing what is going on and what your role is, and the game does a pretty good job at showing and telling you everything you might possibly need or want to know. It's a freeform game that holds you by the hand and gently introduces you to the Fallout universe if you want it to, but the moment you step awayfrom the main quest it's got a huge and hand-made world to explore for you too. Fallout New Vegas has you playing a noname, clean sheet courier who gets drawn into something huge by following a personal vendetta. The majority of the game has you explore rather than follow a story thread, and thus familiarity with the general background and factions is almost required! This is more of a freeform game, where the main quest is a bit more abstract and just there, rather than helping you understand what is going on. So I would actually, even though I think Fallout New Vegas is a very enjoyable game, recommend Fallout 3 to the OP, since he's (EDIT: seemingly) completely new to Fallout and I think he would probably best enjoy it from the Vault Dweller's perspective. By the way, there is no fantasy in Fallout anywhere. It's straight 50's post-apocalyptic science-fiction. | ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:42 mcimba42 wrote: ignore the old timers in this thread, fo 1 and 2 were the shit back in the day but they haven't aged well, unless you usually play these older slow paced crpgs already you'll have a hard time enjoying the original fallout games between 3 and nv, i thought nv felt more like fallout and fo3 felt more like oblivion with guns. if you're interested in the fallout setting, go for nv, if you want exploration and loot go with fo3. since you decided to play it because of skyrim and don't really have any experience with the fallout world i'd recommend 3 seriously guys, i like fo2 as much as any of you, and i prefer nv over 3, but don't just recommend the game you prefer, think about people's situations and shit What??? Let me get this straight. We shouldn't reccommend that people play two of the greatest PC RPGs EVER made--two games that redefined what RPG meant--because why? Because shit like WoW makes them look "slow"? Really? I get that not everyone is going to like turn based RPGs, but that's no reason not to reccommend the game. Not everyone can appreciate a masterfully crafted RPG, but that's no reason to throw these games into the closet and forget about them. They are amazing games from an amazing design team. And PS, don't call me an old timer because I was playing PC games in the 90s. I'm not the old timer, it's everyone else that is an uneducated PG gaming newbie. It's not their fault that they don't know what a good RPG is, it's the fault of Blizzard for ruining the genre. But that's why we have to educate them  | ||
|
kamkerx
United States264 Posts
| ||
|
mcimba42
192 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:52 TheYango wrote: What "situation"? I should recommend a worse game instead of trying to get someone to put in the time to get involved in a genre that, without real mainstream support is on the verge of dying? the fellow played skyrim and liked the exploration and the running around and all of those shenanigans so shouldn't you recommend what he asked for? maybe the reason why the genre is dying is that the average guy of 2012 does not actually want to play a slow paced isometric rpg with turn based combat and very little voiced dialogue when he can just run around a pretty landscape hitting shit with a bit stick and collecting his gloriously 3d rendered loot i'd be pretty annoyed if i asked for something specific and instead of helping, everyone just tried to convince me that i should try something else entirely edit: what the fuck does blizzard have to do with ruining the rpg genre | ||
|
Sanctimonius
United Kingdom861 Posts
| ||
|
Obscura.304
150 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:39 TheToast wrote: I would disagree, I think in terms of an open world RPG quantity can in some cases mean just as much as length. The sheer length and extent of the game world in FO2 really pulls you in and creates a surpremely engaging and engrossing gaming experience. I also like the pacing much more. In FO1 you can get some really awesome equipment pretty early on, and there are so many guns and prewar shit to sell you can pretty much buy anything you want from about halfway through the game. Agreed that the economy is a bit broken, but being able to get good gear early isn't too much of a detriment; and besides, on a first playthrough, it's probably unlikely that you'll get the power armor or hardened power armor early (not many first time players will do The Glow before Necropolis). BUT! I won't disagree with you that FO1 is a truely amazing game. Any list of the best PC games of all time that doesn't list 1 & 2 in the top 15 is seriously just invalid. I actually wouldn't put FO2 in my top 15, probably. I feel that the setting was ruined in the second game; the first game had some comic relief, sure, but it didn't have the "everything is a joke!" attitude of the second. Also, the second doesn't feel coherent; every major area has some sort of disparate "theme", many of which feel out-of-place in Fallout. Finally, I really dislike what FO2 did to the lore; changing the story of why the vaults were made was a *big* mistake, and changed the feel from "everyone does what they can to survive" to "fight the evil conspiracy!", which wasn't a change I liked. That's not to say that FO2 doesn't do a lot of things well, and some things even better than FO1, (in terms of allowing character expression, FO2 is probably better, and making CHA actually do something other than starting Speech score was a change that obviously needed to be made), but to me at least, the world just isn't as well crafted, and so the game doesn't suck me in as much. FO1 and FO2 are Black Isle games. The team that developed FO1 actually left Interplay before they named the RPG division Black Isle. In terms of the people who worked on it, FO1 is more related to Arcanum and Temple of Elemental Evil than it is to Fallout 2/Planescape: Torment. | ||
|
greggy
United Kingdom1483 Posts
On June 14 2012 01:57 TheToast wrote: What??? Let me get this straight. We shouldn't reccommend that people play two of the greatest PC RPGs EVER made--two games that redefined what RPG meant--because why? Because shit like WoW makes them look "slow"? Really? I get that not everyone is going to like turn based RPGs, but that's no reason not to reccommend the game. Not everyone can appreciate a masterfully crafted RPG, but that's no reason to throw these games into the closet and forget about them. They are amazing games from an amazing design team. And PS, don't call me an old timer because I was playing PC games in the 90s. I'm not the old timer, it's everyone else that is an uneducated PG gaming newbie. It's not their fault that they don't know what a good RPG is, it's the fault of Blizzard for ruining the genre. But that's why we have to educate them OP explicitly said he didn't want to play 1 or 2 and yet you bang on about them on and on. You yourself say that it's not for everyone, so why do you keep bringing them up when you're asked not to? I think both 3 and new vegas have their advantages - I got bored of NV quite quickly though. 3 also has the advantage of being much cheaper so I'd suggest that first and then you can get NV if you enjoy it. | ||
|
abyss
Czech Republic139 Posts
| ||
|
TheToast
United States4808 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:14 Obscura.304 wrote: Agreed that the economy is a bit broken, but being able to get good gear early isn't too much of a detriment; and besides, on a first playthrough, it's probably unlikely that you'll get the power armor or hardened power armor early (not many first time players will do The Glow before Necropolis). I actually wouldn't put FO2 in my top 15, probably. I feel that the setting was ruined in the second game; the first game had some comic relief, sure, but it didn't have the "everything is a joke!" attitude of the second. Also, the second doesn't feel coherent; every major area has some sort of disparate "theme", many of which feel out-of-place in Fallout. Finally, I really dislike what FO2 did to the lore; changing the story of why the vaults were made was a *big* mistake, and changed the feel from "everyone does what they can to survive" to "fight the evil conspiracy!", which wasn't a change I liked. That's not to say that FO2 doesn't do a lot of things well, and some things even better than FO1, (in terms of allowing character expression, FO2 is probably better, and making CHA actually do something other than starting Speech score was a change that obviously needed to be made), but to me at least, the world just isn't as well crafted, and so the game doesn't suck me in as much. Yeah, I can understand where you're coming from, there definetly was a shift in the overall theme of the game between the two. I can definetly understand why you would prefer FO1 over FO2, but the sheer scale of FO2 edges it out IMO. Still though, everyone should play at least one of the two games, they're both very good. On June 14 2012 02:18 greggy wrote: OP explicitly said he didn't want to play 1 or 2 and yet you bang on about them on and on. You yourself say that it's not for everyone, so why do you keep bringing them up when you're asked not to? Obviously he's not well informed on the first two games, which is why I am trying to explain why they are so fantastic and worth playing. Not trying to inform him would be doing him a disservice. It's like if someone asked what was the best of two products, and giving them advice without mentioning that there is a fantastic third option. That's not giving them very good advice, now is it? | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
From the options i gathered it would seem to me that: - Fallout 3 is more dungeon based, better introduction to the world and a strong main quest + more of the "nuclear apocalypse" theme - Fallout NV is more "world-ish" with less dungeons, has some tendencies to be a little "wild west" like, the main quest is less important and the gameplay itself is better This makes me things il try NV.. since im a wiki freak anyway and i enjoy searching random parts of the story/things i did not understand ( I probably know all the plot + many important sidequests and characters of Oblivion and Morrowind simply cuz i got sucked up reading the wiki on certain things that were related to Oblivion/Morrowind. ) + i am a big fan of the gameplay in any game and the first thing i will do is likely switch to max difficulty and after 10 levels download a 2x enemy damage/hp mod . Also, to respond to all the Fallout 1/2 guys. First thing, sorry for the misleading tittle.. secondly, on the subject of playing Fallout 2: - I have played other "old schools" games including a bit of XCOM, 2 of the Sacred games, KOTOR ( tho i don't think this qualifies as that old, for me it is ) and Heroes from 1 to 3. While i enjoy there gameplay and in some cases story, not to add the fact that games such as Heroes 3 sucked up days of my times ( god that game is way better than the heroes 2day ! )... as i was saying while i did all of these, some of those game are kind of a "pain" for the first few hours and some of them such as XCOM never even managed to "capture" me simply because things such as graphics and sound are so old + the gameplay is so different from 2days games, its an interesting experience and in case of tittles such as Heroes and BW that i used to play when i was a kid and knew shit about games its a good "nostalgia" kick" BUT BUT BUT, its simply a pain in the ass and i really need to be in the right "mod" and dedicate myself to actually play a very old game, that said you have convinced me that Fallout 2, tho i hate the theme and all, might be a good game to visit for the pure reason of "cultivating" myself and i might try to put the hours to "get into it" and than play trough it some time... so i guess i should thank you for that and hope its not only nostalgia that makes you praise the game, since it certainly wasn't in case of some other old games that i played due to people being so pumped about them. Thanks everyone for the suggestions and opinions and fell free to add to them as it seems this resulted in an argument of F1 vs F2. | ||
| ||
