EPT
Which Fallout is the "best" ? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
TSBspartacus
England1046 Posts
| ||
|
mcimba42
192 Posts
On June 14 2012 02:42 TSBspartacus wrote: Wow that poll shocks me. I thought 3 was SO good, I played it for days. However Vegas I played on the hardcore mode on my first run through, and I guess that may have ruined it for me. Not sure, but I found 3 had a much better story arc and was a lot more fun for me, with the whole destroyed DC and cool forts. I was expecting similar in Vegas and it turned out to be personally a bit of a let down. Apparently there is a war going on in Vegas: I didn't see much of it tbh. Whereas in Fallout 3 there was the BoS and the Enclave duking it out and the expansion packs were epic too. Fuck, I'm going to reinstall 3 and play it on max graphics now that I can, can't wait! Thanks for reminding me you went into a fallout game expecting something other than fallout and were left disappointed when what you got was indeed fallout that's your problem mate | ||
|
sevia
United States954 Posts
As for the poll, I enjoyed FO3 more, mostly because of the expansions. Point Lookout and especially The Pitt were fantastic. | ||
|
procyonlotor
Italy473 Posts
The follower system was terrific, a far cry from the frivolities of Bioware and others, where follower influence is measured numerically right in front of you, and quests trickle down at given thresholds. Instead a follower might mention in passing that she never actually owned a proper dress, then one day, you might find a dress - not a quest item - just a piece of clothing on a body, or taken from an attacker. If you just happened to remember your follower, you had a neat little moment. What a pleasant surprise it is to see those people respond that way to you. Finally, followers aren't leashed to you via the interface, and they don't come back to life either. If they die, that's it. Reload. Sometimes you might have to make some very immediate choices about who you leave behind and who you try to get out of there safely. I, who played a non-combat character, sometimes found myself in a position where it was important to escape immediately because I couldn't win through force, and just then I couldn't save certain people. It's not the artificial choice of, say, Mass Effect, which might be easily sidestepped if the developers had so decided, but a choice arising naturally from the fabric of the game itself, which is in part modified by the choices you make. That is tremendous depth. Another element is the number and positioning of relevant events and places. Fallout 3's wasteland is actually a wasteland, larger but also emptier. New Vegas is interspersed with locales which are not cluttered but occupy a golden mean of distance between one or the other, so that you're not traveling much without finding something interesting, a la Skyrim, except more refined because there is less space. But ultimately, all of this is effective because Obsidian are good storytellers. The dialog in New Vegas is the industry standard, and few games (Vampire: Bloodlines, LA Noire, Max Payne) can match it. The characters which populate the world are interesting and distinct, from Caesar, a wry, cynical warlord who somehow leads with idealism, to Mr. House, eternally patient, supremely intelligent and calculatingly ruthless. Everybody has a stake in New Vegas, even a band of raiders living on outskirts, and everybody has something to say. Sometimes you like what you hear and sometimes you don't, but regardless of your reaction, it's always something worth hearing. Finally, I'd like to end this impromptu review with some practical advice: beware the battle cattle, but don't fear the battle cattle. | ||
|
ZlyKiss
Poland697 Posts
Bethesda creation and New Vegas i really wanted to immerse in those games but it was a hollow experience in the end. | ||
|
Klaas
Slovenia86 Posts
| ||
|
CaM27
Belgium392 Posts
| ||
|
TSBspartacus
England1046 Posts
| ||
|
Spidinko
Slovakia1174 Posts
| ||
|
qotsager
Germany585 Posts
fallout 3 is awesome. even though it does look like oblivion without trees and tons of waste spread all over the country, the setting and mood are something i've yet to find in other games. new vegas was kind of a letdown to me. i was really looking forward to it, but never got into it. i played it, but at some point the bugs are just overwhelmingly annoying. and it didn't feel really post-apocalyptic, the engine was outdated and the story, in my opinion, rather mediocre. if you happen to play fallout 3 first, get at least the expansion broken steel, because it provides a "better" ending and allows you to level up to 30. | ||
|
mcimba42
192 Posts
On June 14 2012 03:05 procyonlotor wrote: New Vegas is actually one of the best games made since the year 2000. It completely nailed the freeform style while providing a tighter plot structure you could pursue, if you so desired. The freedom allowed you meant you could solve problems in a variety of ways, and the emphasis on Speech and Stealth meant you could play the game without firing a shot. You could lie, cheat and talk your way through the entire game. If you chose to ally with nobody but yourself the ending you achieved was a masterful kick in the teeth of every single faction you interacted with. The execution of all the meaningful choices you made was right there for you to see, delivered in a way few games have ever achieved. And this is only part of it. The follower system was terrific, a far cry from the frivolities of Bioware and others, where follower influence is measured numerically right in front of you, and quests trickle down at given thresholds. Instead a follower might mention in passing that she never actually owned a proper dress, then one day, you might find a dress - not a quest item - just a piece of clothing on a body, or taken from an attacker. If you just happened to remember your follower, you had a neat little moment. What a pleasant surprise it is to see those people respond that way to you. Finally, followers aren't leashed to you via the interface, and they don't come back to life either. If they die, that's it. Reload. Sometimes you might have to make some very immediate choices about who you leave behind and who you try to get out of there safely. I, who played a non-combat character, sometimes found myself in a position where it was important to escape immediately because I couldn't win through force, and just then I couldn't save certain people. It's not the artificial choice of, say, Mass Effect, which might be easily sidestepped if the developers had so decided, but a choice arising naturally from the fabric of the game itself, which is in part modified by the choices you make. That is tremendous depth. Another element is the number and positioning of relevant events and places. Fallout 3's wasteland is actually a wasteland, larger but also emptier. New Vegas is interspersed with locales which are not cluttered but occupy a golden mean of distance between one or the other, so that you're not traveling much without finding something interesting, a la Skyrim, except more refined because there is less space. But ultimately, all of this is effective because Obsidian are good storytellers. The dialog in New Vegas is the industry standard, and few games (Vampire: Bloodlines, LA Noire, Max Payne) can match it. The characters which populate the world are interesting and distinct, from Caesar, a wry, cynical warlord who somehow leads with idealism, to Mr. House, eternally patient, supremely intelligent and calculatingly ruthless. Everybody has a stake in New Vegas, even a band of raiders living on outskirts, and everybody has something to say. Sometimes you like what you hear and sometimes you don't, but regardless of your reaction, it's always something worth hearing. Finally, I'd like to end this impromptu review with some practical advice: beware the battle cattle, but don't fear the battle cattle. dafuq are you talking about man fallout 3 had da mutants and an intact atomic bomb right in the middle of the very first town we all know fallout is about the mutants and the radioactive bombs seriously new vegas, "new california republic", are you even trying edit: and i didn't even had to do the retarded shitposting myself, if only i had seen the post above mine before User was warned for this post | ||
|
Telmata
Germany5 Posts
and for me Fallout 2 is the best of all. but if i have to choose between Vegas and 3: Vegas | ||
|
altered
Switzerland646 Posts
The older fallout games are good but if you played skyrim and search for something similar i would play FO3 or NV. I played FO3 then NV and liked them so much that they made me play FO1 and 2 then skyrim and oblivion. IMO skyrim and oblivion are much closer to FO3/NV than the older fallout games. In the end its hard to tell you to only play one of those two games, its like you ask me wheter you should fuck natalie portman or scarlett johansson when you could have both. | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
When I played Fallout 3 the overwhelming sense that I got was it was a huge game world, with very little in it. Sure there was megaton, with maybe four to five quests. Then there was the hotel that had two to three quests associated. But everything in between was just a wasteland, with some cool looking theatres or playgrounds in between, and a lot of that style pretty much follows through with the rest of the map. The overwhelming majority of the game is just trudging through identical "dungeons" (aka abandoned subway tunnels below ground or unending trash cans for loot above ground with random destroyed concrete here and there), just like Oblivion. There is no innovation, or interesting quest (except for, if you gather X scrap metal, bring it back for money, which is really lame). Not to mention the ending was written for 10 year olds (don't want to spoil it, but I'm sure all of you remember the "anti-communist" countermeasure the BoS used). The dialogue is just overwhelmingly simple, sometimes embarrassingly so. All your responses are usually between 4-10 words in length (if even that long). There is no meaningful interaction with other characters, and beyond that there is no meaningful consequence to any of your actions (just like all Bethesda games). Out of everything you do there are maybe 3 endings that are practically identical in every way (reminding me of Mass Effect 3, but at least they did the rest of the game well). Not to mention the one moment where you can use someone who is immune to the effects of radiation, he says "no, I can't interfere with your destiny". If that isn't terrible writing I don't know what is (it was near the end if you want to know). Everything about Bethesda angers me. Their idea of exciting combat is gratuitous violence where faces explode if you shoot them with a rifle (guess who that appeals to...). At least in Fallout 1&2 they were slightly more realistic death animations, but here every limb explodes if you shoot it. Not to mention "crippling" limbs doesn't actually cripple them in anyway, its just means subsequent shots do more damage. Unlike Fallout 1&2 where you could actually knock people unconscious from head shots, have them faint due to pain if you shot out one of their eyes, or shot them in the groin, or disabled them by shooting their arms/legs. Obsidian actually tried to make dialogue that was intelligent, that gave you meaningful choices, that impacted the story line and your relationships. In the end there is a lot more quality - in that there are more quests available, and there are a number of unique endings you can take that depend heavily on your actions. And as a final point, I agree that its nice to have the feeling of walking in bombed out ruins, but honestly its much more interesting and engaging to actually interact with different factions, and observe how humanity learns to survive & thrive in the wasteland; visual appeal only gets you so far. I love one of the reviews above me...talking to House makes for such a fascinating villain, I love how he makes fun of the Brotherhood of Steel  . The dialogue is just great, just like how it was with Black Isle's F 1&2Edit: Final final point, I highly recommend Fallout 1 & 2. They aren't that old that the graphics will turn you off; the story and the interesting environments will pull you in more than running through stale look-alike dungeon #32 in F3 | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
To the guy above: I'm guessing you have played fallout 3/ New vegas with the "bloody mess" perk which causes all those unrealistic limb explosions. | ||
|
NotJumperer
United States1371 Posts
| ||
|
mcimba42
192 Posts
On June 14 2012 04:06 Psychobabas wrote: Dont listen to the nostalgia-people saying that F2 is the best. I've played all, including all addons for Fallout 3 and New Vegas, and I would say that Fallout 3 is the best for a beginner. To the guy above: I'm guessing you have played fallout 3/ New vegas with the "bloody mess" perk which causes all those unrealistic limb explosions. i guess it'd be best for a beginner because even though it shits all over the fallout "lore" and is just generally pants on head retarded, a beginner wouldn't really notice any of that | ||
|
qotsager
Germany585 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17792 Posts
You're this courier, delivering a poker chip. You get ambushed, told it's nothing personal, shot in the head and poker chip stolen from you. After waking up you decide to recover the chip. It's probably the most ridiculous plot ever conceived and anyone calling this an RPG should have his head checked. Why the hell, as a courier, would you go after people you don't know anything about who shot you? What do you have to gain? F3 and NV are a disgrace. F1 and 2 are where it's at, with FO1 being much better in my opinion (especially that you can beat F2 in like 15-20 minutes if you know what you're doing). | ||
|
fishbowl
United States1575 Posts
| ||
| ||
