Ok, so i got a quick question for you I would imagine a lot of people here played Fallout 3 and Fallout:New Vegas, to my shame.. i did not, i never liked the gameplay in 3 and didn't even try Vegas. Adding to that the fact that i hate the post apocalypse team and the mix of SF and fantasy... However after spending so many hours in skyrim i kind of started to enjoy the "theme" of this kind of open world single player, no main quest line, no main companion...etc type games. Being bored as of late i think about playing 1 of the 2 fallouts, new vegas or 3 ( not the old 2d 1 and 2 in case you are wondering :p ) Since there seem to be no real mechanic or graphic difference between the 2 i would like to ask people option on which one they liked the best and why they did.
Poll: Do you recommend fallout 3 or new vegas to a "new player" ?
New Vegas (133)
57%
3 (100)
43%
233 total votes
Your vote: Do you recommend fallout 3 or new vegas to a "new player" ?
EDIT: Lol, didn't notice this is still on the front page of this forum, i would like to clarify in this in the main post as many people didn't seem to read my answer :
Sorry for not posting til now but i wasn't able to TT 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.
Thank you everyone for the suggestions, i installed NV and a few mods about right now, will get to it soon And fell free to debate F1 vs F2 if you still wish to do so in this thread :p
I'd say Vegas is the best. It improves upon those aspects that I found Fallout 3 to be weakest in. The faction system is pretty good, and the follower system is much better than in Fallout 3 as well.
Also, hardcore mode is awesome. If you don't know what it is, it basically makes the game much more realistic. Ammo has weight and you need food, water and sleep to survive.
Fallout three feels much more "apocalypse-y" than Vegas. And Fallout is all about surviving in the aftermath of the apocalypse (it is called Fallout after all). Vegas to me feels like a really big expansion for Fallout3, rather than it's own game. Plus seeing the capitol building and washington monuments in crumbled ruin is just way more awe inspiring and heavy-hitting than still-standing casinos and a perfectly intact Hoover dam.
You should play Fallout 2 though. Yes, the graphics and 2D gameplay will be obsolete, but the characters, story, choices and environment are so immersive and interesting, on a level I've never seen in videogames before or after it came out. Plus, you can become a pornstar in a videogame, and who wouldn't want to, really?
I played 3 first and played it quite a lot, I just found Vegas to be more of the same so I got bored at it really fast and just rushed through the main story in about 10 hours and uninstalled it. Biggest plus FO3 Had compared to NV to me was the Washington ruins, I just found FO3 world more interesting.
Overall New Vegas felt more like a big DLC/expansion than an actual full fledged sequel to me.
I know most people seem to prefer NV though but I'd suggest FO3. Accidentally voted New Vegas though. -_-
On June 14 2012 00:11 Rob28 wrote: Fallout three feels much more "apocalypse-y" than Vegas. And Fallout is all about surviving in the aftermath of the apocalypse (it is called Fallout after all). Vegas to me feels like a really big expansion for Fallout3, rather than it's own game. Plus seeing the capitol building and washington monuments in crumbled ruin is just way more awe inspiring and heavy-hitting than still-standing casinos and a perfectly intact Hoover dam.
You should play Fallout 2 though. Yes, the graphics and 2D gameplay will be obsolete, but the characters, story, choices and environment are so immersive and interesting, on a level I've never seen in videogames before or after it came out. Plus, you can become a pornstar in a videogame, and who wouldn't want to, really?
I have Fallout 1 and 2 lying around somewhere, but I have never managed to play them really. They are so filled with bugs that I could barely manage 10 minutes of playtime before the game crashed T_T
On June 14 2012 00:11 Rob28 wrote: Fallout three feels much more "apocalypse-y" than Vegas. And Fallout is all about surviving in the aftermath of the apocalypse (it is called Fallout after all). Vegas to me feels like a really big expansion for Fallout3, rather than it's own game. Plus seeing the capitol building and washington monuments in crumbled ruin is just way more awe inspiring and heavy-hitting than still-standing casinos and a perfectly intact Hoover dam.
You should play Fallout 2 though. Yes, the graphics and 2D gameplay will be obsolete, but the characters, story, choices and environment are so immersive and interesting, on a level I've never seen in videogames before or after it came out. Plus, you can become a pornstar in a videogame, and who wouldn't want to, really?
I have Fallout 1 and 2 lying around somewhere, but I have never managed to play them really. They are so filled with bugs that I could barely manage 10 minutes of playtime before the game crashed T_T
I guess it has something to do with Windows 7.
If you properly patch/mod Fallout 2 it runs flawlessly on 7 64 bit, speaking from personal experience.
As for the OP, I've only played 2+3, and 2 completely blows 3 out of the water. (3 was still fun, though)
Jesus fallout new vegas was terrible compared to fallout 3. The quests were more open ended but would glich each other out if done at certain times. More interesting places to explore in f3 etc and a story I actually cared about. F1 and 2 were great too dont get me wrong but different types of games ofc.
If your having trouble playing them you can get them of good old games for quite cheap and they work well.
If the choice is between Fallout 3 and New Vegas then NV is definitely the better of the two. Fallout 3 is in my opinion horrible, mostly because it's hardly even similar to the first 2 Fallouts. Honestly, if you thought BW and SC2 are really different from eachother... that quickly pales in comparison to the schism between FO2 -> FO3.
To answer your question somewhat more concisely:
- Fallout 2 is (probably) the best Fallout.
- Fallout: New Vegas is an overall great, enjoyable game and definitely a worthy successor to the series. I highly recommend it.
- Don't play Fallout 3. Ever. Well, maybe if you haven't played any other Fallout-game (possibly excepting Fallout: Piece of Shit) and if you really liked Oblivion, in that case, knock yourself out. Literally. (just kidding -- sort of)
That said, I haven't played New Vegas, only regular Fallout 3. I did briefly see a pal of mine play New Vegas though, and it seems to have a lot better ambience than vanilla, so based on only that, I'd say go for New Vegas.
On June 14 2012 00:11 Rob28 wrote: Fallout three feels much more "apocalypse-y" than Vegas. And Fallout is all about surviving in the aftermath of the apocalypse (it is called Fallout after all). Vegas to me feels like a really big expansion for Fallout3, rather than it's own game. Plus seeing the capitol building and washington monuments in crumbled ruin is just way more awe inspiring and heavy-hitting than still-standing casinos and a perfectly intact Hoover dam.
You should play Fallout 2 though. Yes, the graphics and 2D gameplay will be obsolete, but the characters, story, choices and environment are so immersive and interesting, on a level I've never seen in videogames before or after it came out. Plus, you can become a pornstar in a videogame, and who wouldn't want to, really?
I have Fallout 1 and 2 lying around somewhere, but I have never managed to play them really. They are so filled with bugs that I could barely manage 10 minutes of playtime before the game crashed T_T
I guess it has something to do with Windows 7.
If you properly patch/mod Fallout 2 it runs flawlessly on 7 64 bit, speaking from personal experience.
As for the OP, I've only played 2+3, and 2 completely blows 3 out of the water. (3 was still fun, though)
Google "Fallout 2 restoration project". You'll find it hosted on No Mutants Allowed and probably on Killap's personal site. It fixes pretty much any problems in running FO2 on newer systems, and also adds a bunch of content that was cut from the game. If you just want the bugfixes without the cut content, he's released a separate patch for that too
EDIT: Meant to quote the guy that you were quoting, but whatever~~ :p
On June 14 2012 00:11 Rob28 wrote: Fallout three feels much more "apocalypse-y" than Vegas. And Fallout is all about surviving in the aftermath of the apocalypse (it is called Fallout after all). Vegas to me feels like a really big expansion for Fallout3, rather than it's own game. Plus seeing the capitol building and washington monuments in crumbled ruin is just way more awe inspiring and heavy-hitting than still-standing casinos and a perfectly intact Hoover dam.
You should play Fallout 2 though. Yes, the graphics and 2D gameplay will be obsolete, but the characters, story, choices and environment are so immersive and interesting, on a level I've never seen in videogames before or after it came out. Plus, you can become a pornstar in a videogame, and who wouldn't want to, really?
I have Fallout 1 and 2 lying around somewhere, but I have never managed to play them really. They are so filled with bugs that I could barely manage 10 minutes of playtime before the game crashed T_T
I guess it has something to do with Windows 7.
If you properly patch/mod Fallout 2 it runs flawlessly on 7 64 bit, speaking from personal experience.
As for the OP, I've only played 2+3, and 2 completely blows 3 out of the water. (3 was still fun, though)
Google "Fallout 2 restoration project". You'll find it hosted on No Mutants Allowed and probably on Killap's personal site. It fixes pretty much any problems in running FO2 on newer systems, and also adds a bunch of content that was cut from the game. If you just want the bugfixes without the cut content, he's released a separate patch for that too
EDIT: Meant to quote the guy that you were quoting, but whatever~~ :p
Thanks ^_^ I'll try it one day. I have heard so much about 1 & 2 being better than Bethesda's games, so I should probably try them.
Fallout 1 is by far the best. I'll never understand the love for Fallout 2; its mood is no where near as consistent as the first game's. It feels like the "theme park version" of Fallout.
Between FO3 and FONV, NV is much better. I thought FO3 was pretty bad, but enjoyed NV.
the best Fallout was 1 but since its for you to play again and its between FO3 and NV. I'll have to say NV i took things from what would have been in the orginal FO3 (code named Van Braun by interplay) Like the NC and the brotherhood being at war and the Hooverdam
Are you fucking shitting me? Is this a serious thread? XD
Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. Go play it now!!!! Don't get me wrong, FO1 is also an amazing game, but it's a bit short. FO2 is super long with tons of sidequests that can play out in literally dozens of different ways. It's so flippin' good.
See, this is why I started my blog series. Too many youngin's who've missed out on some amazingly masterful games. I will save you!!
Out of those options I like fallout 3 the best. Never really could get into new vegas. I'd reccommend fallout 3 just because I had alot more fun playing that.
I played Fallout 3 alot more than NV. In NV I stopped after the big story twist, I don't know why. I didn't like this Vegas Setting that much - but if you didn't played Fallout at all I would recommend NV.
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.
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.
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
I enjoyed new vegas a lot more than 3. it was actually a struggle for me to finish 3 because it was really annoying. 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.
I'd echo the play 1 & 2, but since you are basing this off of skyrim those probably aren't your cup of tea. New Vegas *feels* smaller but it has a shitload of content and really isn't as much of an expansion as people feel. I liked 3 a lot more personally because it wasn't as open of a world. Thats not to say that 3 isn't open to exploring, but 3 had open suburbs, downtown areas to explore with skyscrapers to check out and really felt like a post apocalyptic world. NV was more of a wild wild west type world which wasn't as attractive to me. If you like skyrim you'll like either though.
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.
The two games have fundamental differences in storytelling that OP needs to be aware of.
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.
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
you need to play fallout 3 and download fallout wanderers edition from fallout nexus it makes the game so much sicker. but new vegas is to not nitty gritty and dirty
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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?
Sorry for not posting til now but i wasn't able to TT 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.
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
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
I found it really hard to enjoy FO1 or 2 after playing through 3 and NV first. I can normally pick up and play older games without too much trouble, but the interface and gameplay just didn't click when I tried the older Fallouts. The dialogue and story elements were great of course, but everything else, from the combat to roaming the map, was just really hard to get used to.
As for the poll, I enjoyed FO3 more, mostly because of the expansions. Point Lookout and especially The Pitt were fantastic.
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.
New Vegas is better of the two, it's a lot like fallout 3 but it improves some things, especially the quests and the stats aren't meaningless anymore and there's no level scaling. I swore I'll never play a game with level scaling after Skyrim, I mean how can I have more trouble with a bandit at level 30 than I did at level 3, that's just idiotic.
Perhaps because I played F3 first that's why Vegas was disappointing to me. I guess I could go back and play it through again, especially if I mod it a bit and play DLC too. I just remember loving everything about F3 though, was such a great game for me, I did come there from oblivion tbh.
i'm actually surprised by how many people prefer new vegas over 3. i started playing the fallout series with 3, tried 2 once but never really got into it, probably because i was already used to fallout 3 by then. welp.
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.
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.
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
I voted for NV because i liked the sidequests and weapons better in NV. Different ammo types and mods made the game more enjoyable for me also the factions/moral system felt more interesting in NV. FO3 is awesome too though the ruins and sewers have a very impressive atmosphere that fits the fallout setting a bit better than the mojave desert but thats just my taste. 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.
Oh man...Bethesda haven't changed their gaming philosophy in decades. I went back to play Terminator: Future Shock on Dosbox just for fun, and I see an environment that's practically identical to Oblivion and to some extent Skyrim and Morrowind. Its just a big open world, lots of places to go, but not that much to do. In other words Bethesda is pure quantity over quality.
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&2
Edit: 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
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.
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
Let's take a look at NV plotline: 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).
For me it was all about locals and environments, and I find FO 2 and 3 did those best. Sure FO 1 had a few interesting places like Junktown or Necropolis, but they don't hold a candle to places like New Reno or Vault City (FO2), or the DC ruins, that cannibal town whose name I forget, and Rivet City (FO 3). NV had Vegas, sure, but it was more "this place has really turned into a shithole" rather than "holy crap, you maniacs, you blew it up, damn you all to hell!". The towns in NV didn't really wow me.. most places were just camps anyway. As was said before, it's more like a western than a nuclear wasteland straight out of the 50's (and that's the way I likes me Fallout).
If you had played Fallouts 1 or 2 I would certainly suggest New Vegas as the story ties in with those games for some extent. Fallout 3 to me after those games felt quite isolated in its location from past games. Not taking 1 and 2 into account i would say its a lot closer. Fallout 3 feels more apocalyptic but you spend a huge amount of time in subways. In this case New Vegas would still win for me but only just (just make to to get the mod that lets you play past the ending!
On June 14 2012 04:42 qotsager wrote: how does fallout 3 not fit the fallout lore? fallout new vegas maybe.
masterful bait status: success
let me tell you how the meetings for the development of fo3 went, you can trust me on this because i have a cousin who works at bethesda and he told me all about it
bethesdaman enters the office to decide on the story of fo3, my cousin is in there working because he comes from a family of hard working and honest men, unlike bethesdaman who is a douchebag
so bethesdaman is all like "hey guys we're gonna make this fallout game and all, so let's decide on the story, right? alright, so we need the generic grunt enemies that are, like, everywhere, and the player has to kill a ton of them, so they have to be cool and shit. so i was looking at some fallout stuff for the first time last night and i thought that the super mutant guys would fit pretty well"
at this point my cousin, who is very smart and also a honest and hard working man told him "but bethesdaman, the super mutants came from the mariposa military base in the west coast, and when the vault dweller destroyed the base, no more mutants could be created, and they are also sterile, so the once unstoppable mutants are now a very small group that's left over from the era of fo1. they are nowhere near enough to pose any sort of threat"
but bethesdaman, while doing some poorly performed pelvic thrusts, just said "balls to that, mutants look rad as hell, can't have fallout without the mutants. let's just make some random vault in the middle of fuck all, and let's say that it has been churning out mutants for a few years, presumably from it's cheap, uncreative asshole."
"now that that's dealth with", said bethesdaman, "we need the really bad guys that show up later in the game and are like the most evil and shit. hey, fallout 2 had a really rude dude called the enclave, right?"
"it was a whole faction, bethesdaman" said my cousin, who was a honest and hard working man
"even better, let's straight up copy+paste that guy from fo2. not just the faction, copy their whole motivation, their goal, and their plan. make them show up with exactly the same mission they had in fo2. no one will ever complain about the game not being faithful to its roots! right, so now we need the good guys. like, the saviors of the wasteland and all. these brotherhood of steel fellows look like they were just made for the job, eh?"
my cousin, who was working very hard and also very honestly tried to explain: "but bethesdaman, the brotherhood of steel isn't even "good". they are a group of close minded, xenophobic fanatics who believe that no one but them should have access to technology. they are not saviors of the wasteland at all"
but bethesdaman just laughed it off and said "dafuq are you talking about man, they are like paladins of justice or some shit, they're the good guys. i also heard somewhere that fallout is known for its dark humor, so let's get some obnoxiously autistic chick and blow up her face with an atomic bomb. quality humor right there, ain't that right?"
"yes bethesdaman you are da police pls remove your scrotum from my face
"Game with an indepth beloved story line and lore? Fuck it all! We need some flashy cutscene clips for the promos, so we'll just build a game around those and shit all over the thing people loved!"
Fallout 3 > New Vegas...I liked the style better in fallout three, felt more...post apocalypse than New Vegas did. Plus I live in the DC area and it's very accurate, so it was kinda cool to go to places I know and see them all bombed out and crumbled. :p
My main issue with the Bethesda Fallouts was that their rendition of the world wasn't grimdark and depressing enough. Fallout 1 and 2 had prostitutes, organized crime, police states, slavery, racism, drug abuse, Scientology, child murder and what's worse. The world is supposed to be about a broken US full of selfish assholes stepping all over everyone else. I didn't get that feeling at all from the Bethesda games.
The Bethesda games honestly felt like their standard fantasy fare with a new post-apocalyptic skin.
On June 14 2012 00:09 MentalGNT wrote: I'd say Vegas is the best. It improves upon those aspects that I found Fallout 3 to be weakest in. The faction system is pretty good, and the follower system is much better than in Fallout 3 as well.
Also, hardcore mode is awesome. If you don't know what it is, it basically makes the game much more realistic. Ammo has weight and you need food, water and sleep to survive.
I'm surprised there was such a positive reception to hardcore mode. There's so much more food and water in the game than you could possibly ever use, there's never any danger of starvation, and iirc you could go hours of real time without sleep. Ammo weight was simply an annoyance more than anything. You could still carry more ammo than you could ever need, just not for the guns you'll never use.
Personally I didn't like either that much, but New Vegas was at least slightly better. VATS with Grim Reapers Sprint no longer destroys armies while invulnerable, so that's nice. Also there's more than the meager handful of quests in 3, and less useless perks (though maybe that's because they cut perks to only every other level). I don't know, the nicest things I can say about either game are pretty lukewarm.
On June 14 2012 06:22 beef42 wrote: My main issue with the Bethesda Fallouts was that their rendition of the world wasn't grimdark and depressing enough. Fallout 1 and 2 had prostitutes, organized crime, police states, slavery, racism, drug abuse, Scientology, child murder and what's worse. The world is supposed to be about a broken US full of selfish assholes stepping all over everyone else. I didn't get that feeling at all from the Bethesda games.
The Bethesda games honestly felt like their standard fantasy fare with a new post-apocalyptic skin.
this post is severely confusing on various levels
first, there was only one fallout game developed by bethesda.
second, the original fallout games were goofy as fuck. people complain about fo2 not being serious enough all the time, and even 1 had stuff like herbert and harry. also, protitution, organized crime, slavery, racism and drug abuse are all present in both fo3 and nv. i have no idea how you didn't get that feeling from the "bethesda games"
On June 14 2012 06:09 Torenhire wrote: Fallout 3 > New Vegas...I liked the style better in fallout three, felt more...post apocalypse than New Vegas did. Plus I live in the DC area and it's very accurate, so it was kinda cool to go to places I know and see them all bombed out and crumbled. :p
I feel like the only people who can enjoy Fallout 3's atmosphere are people who know nothing about Fallout's lore. And I mean absolutely fucking nothing.
It's been like 250 years since the bombs dropped. People on the West Coast have railroads and are already starting farms and beginning to enter a new industrial period. Why in the actual fuck does the East Coast look like it was nuked 5 days ago in Fallout 3?
On June 14 2012 06:09 Torenhire wrote: Fallout 3 > New Vegas...I liked the style better in fallout three, felt more...post apocalypse than New Vegas did. Plus I live in the DC area and it's very accurate, so it was kinda cool to go to places I know and see them all bombed out and crumbled. :p
I feel like the only people who can enjoy Fallout 3's atmosphere are people who know nothing about Fallout's lore. And I mean absolutely fucking nothing.
It's been like 250 years since the bombs dropped. People on the West Coast have railroads and are already starting farms and beginning to enter a new industrial period. Why in the actual fuck does the East Coast look like it was nuked 5 days ago in Fallout 3?
because fallout is about da nukes man
never mind the fact that fo2 had a city with gardens and lush vegetation and very few actual mutants, fallout is all about da wasteland and da mutants and da green tinted filter
Fallout 3 tries way too hard. It's basically like, "weee, look at me, I'm all gollygee dooda optimistic while being so FUCKING EDGY." Aside from that, it's funny how FO3 is set in the east coast to avoid any plot issues with FO1 and 2, and yet the BOS and Enclave somehow have massive armies and many fortified establishments after just a few decades. I almost forgot to mention the legions of super mutants that somehow still exist.
New Vegas did a really good job at exploring politics and human nature. The writing is also much better than Fallout 3's. Imo, writing has never been Bethesda's strong suit.
On June 14 2012 00:11 Rob28 wrote: Fallout three feels much more "apocalypse-y" than Vegas. And Fallout is all about surviving in the aftermath of the apocalypse (it is called Fallout after all). Vegas to me feels like a really big expansion for Fallout3, rather than it's own game. Plus seeing the capitol building and washington monuments in crumbled ruin is just way more awe inspiring and heavy-hitting than still-standing casinos and a perfectly intact Hoover dam.
You should play Fallout 2 though. Yes, the graphics and 2D gameplay will be obsolete, but the characters, story, choices and environment are so immersive and interesting, on a level I've never seen in videogames before or after it came out. Plus, you can become a pornstar in a videogame, and who wouldn't want to, really?
I have Fallout 1 and 2 lying around somewhere, but I have never managed to play them really. They are so filled with bugs that I could barely manage 10 minutes of playtime before the game crashed T_T
I guess it has something to do with Windows 7.
Try installing the DOS modes in DOSBox. Generally games from that era actually work better than many many games that came after simply because there is a DOS option. At least that has been my experience. The games are still quite good even if they haven't aged incredibly well.
On June 14 2012 09:18 djWHEAT wrote: The answer is "Wastelands"
I tried to get into that game so many times. Never could. I can get into some pretty old games, but that one is too much for me. Though I am sure your reply to this (assuming you would grace me with one) would be to suck it up. Much like when I try to get people into something like Planescape Torment. 'Too old what do you mean it is too old? It rocks!'
It's funny how your limit on old games usually at what similar games you managed to play as a child, like i tried playing xcom games and fuck that i just don't have the patience to get used to that interface and i can't even see what the hell is going on anything similar to civ2. homm2 fallout1 and such i can still play even if they are new games to me but it seems stuff older than that just confuse me. I'm 24 btw!
Anyway about the f3 vs NV i agree with the statements other people made about F3 being much less of an actual game and more about exploring stuff and sucking up the atmosphere while suffering from terrible dialogue. NV is more of a complete game but it lacks the exciting post apocalyptic feel of f3. I'd say F3 with one of the popular huge mods would be best way to go! that way you get gameplay and atmosphere.
On June 14 2012 06:09 Torenhire wrote: Fallout 3 > New Vegas...I liked the style better in fallout three, felt more...post apocalypse than New Vegas did. Plus I live in the DC area and it's very accurate, so it was kinda cool to go to places I know and see them all bombed out and crumbled. :p
I feel like the only people who can enjoy Fallout 3's atmosphere are people who know nothing about Fallout's lore. And I mean absolutely fucking nothing.
It's been like 250 years since the bombs dropped. People on the West Coast have railroads and are already starting farms and beginning to enter a new industrial period. Why in the actual fuck does the East Coast look like it was nuked 5 days ago in Fallout 3?
This seriously made me laugh out loud, and that's not easy to do. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes what Bethesda did to such an amazing series...
RIP rpg genre. One day I will avenge your murder at the hands of WoW....
For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
It's a shame what the sequel is doing to the books' this time around ;_;
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
It's a shame what the sequel is doing to the books' this time around ;_;
Can't say I liked the second book. First one was very good though. Still have to get my hands on this metro universe short stories collection.
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
It's a shame what the sequel is doing to the books' this time around ;_;
Can't say I liked the second book. First one was very good though. Still have to get my hands on this metro universe short stories collection.
No as in, what the second game is doing to the first book.
They're completely ignoring the second book, which is good, but nonetheless.
On June 14 2012 00:59 Obscura.304 wrote: Fallout 1 is by far the best. I'll never understand the love for Fallout 2; its mood is no where near as consistent as the first game's. It feels like the "theme park version" of Fallout.
Between FO3 and FONV, NV is much better. I thought FO3 was pretty bad, but enjoyed NV.
I second that notion.
My best mate and I continue to disagree on this hahaha. But in all games (incl. 3 and NV) pickpocket is imba.
I liked 3 for the gore, mainly. It's just fun to blast mutants to pieces. Didn't play NV much, I must admit, but it's at least equal to 3 so...
To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
On June 14 2012 10:42 sam!zdat wrote: New Vegas is far better than F3, as it is the same game with slightly better writing.
Bethesda is still only good at making shiny, though. They usually forget to include a game.
The two main differences between New Vegas and Fo3 is that in New Vegas the setting has completley changed ( more back to the style of the original fallout) which is great if you like it, but the whole deserty wild west cowboy theme was not in my tastes. The patriotic old school 50's american feel (don't know how else to describe it) in fallout 3 is what really made me like it.
The second huge difference is that in New Vegas there is no exploring, sure there is a cave right here you can go in, and there is a little town you can 'explore'. But most buildings are locked and there are no ruins to explore except for the vaults, which are cool, but the exploring part just really let me down. It makes some sense though ofcourse because New Vegas isn't in complete ruins like Fo3 is, still I didn't like it.
edit* To the OP, if you want to play fallout for the exploration part, then your choice has gotta be fallout 3, if you are expecting exploration and get New Vegas you will be sorely dissapointed.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
no man this is the internet gotta be an obnoxious little moron and show everyone how old school we are by not reading the op and just talking about how much better fallout 1 is
fo3 took the quality over quantity approach whereas NV went with quantity over quality. I found the quests and writing in fo3 to be better and overall just more engaging, but there was just a ton more stuff to do in NV. Both are fun, but I prefer fo3. Also, the dark humor the series had been known to sprinkle in was very prevalent in fo3 (especially if you read a lot of the computer logs) but I never really experienced that with NV.
On June 14 2012 10:16 Manit0u wrote: For all people interested in true post-apocalyptic FPS experience, I would like to guide you towards this title, which is actually good (unlike F3 and NV).
Way better done. And it has some really interesting mechanics, like using bullets for currency, which means every single one of them counts and you're constantly low on them.
Stalker > Metro 2033. Like, hugely. Metro's outside sections and ending were really cool though.
And everyone in here needs to go check out Cryostasis: Sleep of Reason immediately.
So surprised when I saw the poll, Fallout 1 is obviously the best fallout, no question. As for the new ones, since NV is just a standalone expansion to Fallout 3, I'd say go with both?
Fallout 3 has a more interesting world. The mechanics of New Vegas are cool. Like making your own ammo and all the different ways to beat the game. I voted for Fallout 3 overall. The stories you uncover in the wasteland and the towns and people you find are amazing. I beat Fallout 1 but had to start the game over five times because I kept getting stuck at the end. I tried to play Fallout 2, but it didn't seem very fun or interesting, so I never got very far. I played Fallout 3 first, and I imagine a lot of people just say whatever one they played first is the best.
My 2 cents on the 1 vs 2 debate: F1 - Best mood and story. F2 - Bigger and more fun.
Back OT. Wall of text incoming, extremely mild spoilers ahead.
- I really prefer the "old-westernish" stile of NV than the grey ruins and dark tunnels of F3, and that's personal. Not that NV lacks Old world relics to explore (nor F3 wastelands to roam), but to me the contrast between the Nevada wastelands and the ruins you find enhance the almost mystical feeling of ancient technology. F3 subway is a pain to navigate.
- NV story leaves you WAY more choice and it's overall more solid. F3 "evil plan" is a monodirectional F2 half copycat.
-F3 PC: vault kid looking for his daddy Vs NV PC: badass Postman-like courier shot in the head and buried alive out for answers... and revenge.
- In NV there is no clearly Good Vs Evil factions, all have their motivations (probably the Legion ones are too "ideologically stretched", but people like those exists so...). In F3 on the other hand...
- NV has respect for the predecessors: NCR, the Remnants, the Followers, Marcus, Cass, the real BoS. In F3 all we got is an old friend... ruined. + Show Spoiler +
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjKAwVblV6I
This just sealed the deal for me.
- One of the most important thing, the DLCs. NV has the best DLCs I ever played (except for Lonesome Road, which was decent anyway), Dead Money and Honest Hearts to me are pure art. Old world blues is a lot of fun except for the school part, but not as moody. Now look at F3 DLCs: a very badly wasted chance at something great, a quite nice swampy sandbox, and ALIENZ! WIT LAZORS! Come ooooon.
. First get and install when needed NVedit, NV script extender, NV 4gb enabler and NVModManager. . Play in windowed with the Fallout fullscreen launcher to get rid of micro stutter. Then I would suggest: . NV bounties 1 and 2 (two nice long voiced chain quest) . A world of pain (a lot of new areas and tough enemies, quite op loot tho, I suggest not using the "M" guns) . Neveda skies (Sky HD retexture and awesome weather effects) . Project Nevada (this is an absolute must have overhaul, easily and fully customizable through the game menu) . WMX (A lot of new weapons and weapon mods combinations) . NMC texture pack (HD ambient both natural and man made texture replacer) . EVE . Type3 body and armor replacer (the non-nude version of BEWARE OF THE GIRL). Remember to also get all the inter-mod compatibility patches. Easy install with NVMM and then use NVedit to create a merged mod patch to avoid most conflicts.
There are much more, but these are sort of a must. If you choose F3 also make sure to take a look at the great modding comunity in the same site, it really enhance the game greatly.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Man, when you make a thread with this title and immediately count out FO1/2... that makes me :'(
FO1 and FO2 are easily some of the best games that I've ever played, but to answer your question, FO3 and NV feel like they're pretty much the same game and the same experience can be achieved regardless of which one you choose to play.
On June 14 2012 23:22 TheToast wrote: Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
NWN was only really redeemed by the mods/editor. The default campaign was pretty trashy.
"Best CRPG ever made" is going to be a 3-way tie between BG2, PST, FO1/2, depending on who you ask, with a cult following for Arcanum on the side.
On June 14 2012 23:22 TheToast wrote: Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
NWN was only really redeemed by the mods/editor. The default campaign was pretty trashy.
"Best CRPG ever made" is going to be a 3-way tie between BG2, PST, FO1/2, depending on who you ask, with a cult following for Arcanum on the side.
i'm pretty sure most people would agree that while pst is well above any of those in terms of the story, it's nowhere near as good in terms of actually being an rpg
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Point was that fallout 1 and 2 weren't in the OP's question. If you come in here, answer the OP's question, then also suggest he should try Fo 1 and 2 -even though he specifically said he didn't want to- because they are really good, that's fine. Or if you come in here and say, well I don't know about 3 or NV but you should reconsider trying 1 and 2. OK, but the whole thread is basically filled with people saying he should go play 1 and 2. I guess the title is partly at fault, it gave all the fallout 1 and 2 fans hope only to be dissapointed.
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Point was that fallout 1 and 2 weren't in the OP's question. If you come in here, answer the OP's question, then also suggest he should try Fo 1 and 2 -even though he specifically said he didn't want to- because they are really good, that's fine. Or if you come in here and say, well I don't know about 3 or NV but you should reconsider trying 1 and 2. OK, but the whole thread is basically filled with people saying he should go play 1 and 2. I guess the title is partly at fault, it gave all the fallout 1 and 2 fans hope only to be dissapointed.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this forum was open to being used by people as their own personal game reccommendation thread. If we can't discuss the whole series, then this is just a stupid poll thread that should be closed.
Also, if someone asks for advice between two and only two options, yet there exists a fantastic third option, not telling them about the third option is stupid. That's like someone asking between two AMD processors saying their not interested in Intel, despite intel processors currently being better in every regard including value. Why would you not try to convince them to buy Intel? And it's not like he's the only one reading this thread, I'm sure others are going to come here looking for info on the series and they too deserve to get the full spread of options.
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Point was that fallout 1 and 2 weren't in the OP's question. If you come in here, answer the OP's question, then also suggest he should try Fo 1 and 2 -even though he specifically said he didn't want to- because they are really good, that's fine. Or if you come in here and say, well I don't know about 3 or NV but you should reconsider trying 1 and 2. OK, but the whole thread is basically filled with people saying he should go play 1 and 2. I guess the title is partly at fault, it gave all the fallout 1 and 2 fans hope only to be dissapointed.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this forum was open to being used by people as their own personal game reccommendation thread. If we can't discuss the whole series, then this is just a stupid poll thread that should be closed.
Also, if someone asks for advice between two and only two options, yet there exists a fantastic third option, not telling them about the third option is stupid. That's like someone asking between two AMD processors saying their not interested in Intel, despite intel processors currently being better in every regard including value. Why would you not try to convince them to buy Intel? And it's not like he's the only one reading this thread, I'm sure others are going to come here looking for info on the series and they too deserve to get the full spread of options.
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Point was that fallout 1 and 2 weren't in the OP's question. If you come in here, answer the OP's question, then also suggest he should try Fo 1 and 2 -even though he specifically said he didn't want to- because they are really good, that's fine. Or if you come in here and say, well I don't know about 3 or NV but you should reconsider trying 1 and 2. OK, but the whole thread is basically filled with people saying he should go play 1 and 2. I guess the title is partly at fault, it gave all the fallout 1 and 2 fans hope only to be dissapointed.
dat backseat moderating.
I agree with the burnt toast above though.
EDIT: But really, the title is "Which Fallout is the best", I know OP specified in his post but come on
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Point was that fallout 1 and 2 weren't in the OP's question. If you come in here, answer the OP's question, then also suggest he should try Fo 1 and 2 -even though he specifically said he didn't want to- because they are really good, that's fine. Or if you come in here and say, well I don't know about 3 or NV but you should reconsider trying 1 and 2. OK, but the whole thread is basically filled with people saying he should go play 1 and 2. I guess the title is partly at fault, it gave all the fallout 1 and 2 fans hope only to be dissapointed.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize that this forum was open to being used by people as their own personal game reccommendation thread. If we can't discuss the whole series, then this is just a stupid poll thread that should be closed.
yea fuck these recommendation threads should just recommend boku no pico imo
On June 14 2012 01:17 TheToast wrote: Fallout 2 is not only the best of the Fallout series, it's arguable THE BEST PC RPG EVER MADE. \
It's not arguable.
Weeeeellllll yeah it is. There are a lot of other amazing RPGs from the same time period that are equally amazing: the Baldur's gate games are pretty great, as is Neverwinter Nights. Personally I might have to edge FO2 over those two, but one could easily make the argument that they are the better RPG, but it's pretty close.
On June 14 2012 13:39 Angra wrote: To all the people saying Fallout 1/2 are the best, I don't think you understand the question he's asking. He's not asking which is the best Fallout of all time, he's asking which is better of the two he listed. Like 50% of this thread is people coming in and being like "LOL R U STUPID?? FALLOUT 2 DA BEST!!!" which is all fine if you think that, but seriously, THIS many people don't really need to derail the thread about it.
It's like someone creating a thread asking which of the modern 3D Final Fantasy games are the best, and half the thread is littered with "FF4/5/6 IS THE BEST EVER ARE YOU KIDDING WHY EVEN ASK ABOUT THESE WORSE GAMES"
On topic, I didn't finish Fallout 3 but played quite a lot, and did play all of NV, and I enjoyed NV quite a bit more. They're both very similar but NV just improved upon what made Fallout 3 good to begin with.
Translation: "I never played FO1 or FO2 and therefore have no idea what I'm talking about, so I'll just write BS about being off topic"
Honestly, any real RPG fan would tell you 1 and 2 are better. I get it if someone's a bigger FPS fan why they might like 3 better, but really the original Fallout series are two of the finest video games ever made.
Point was that fallout 1 and 2 weren't in the OP's question. If you come in here, answer the OP's question, then also suggest he should try Fo 1 and 2 -even though he specifically said he didn't want to- because they are really good, that's fine. Or if you come in here and say, well I don't know about 3 or NV but you should reconsider trying 1 and 2. OK, but the whole thread is basically filled with people saying he should go play 1 and 2. I guess the title is partly at fault, it gave all the fallout 1 and 2 fans hope only to be dissapointed.
dat backseat moderating.
I agree with the burnt toast above though.
EDIT: But really, the title is "Which Fallout is the best", I know OP specified in his post but come on
I wasn't backseat moderating, I was just saying I didn't agree with how many people were recommending fo1 and 2 when the OP didn't even ask for that, Toast's last post convinced me though.
On June 14 2012 17:53 Tobberoth wrote: So surprised when I saw the poll, Fallout 1 is obviously the best fallout, no question. As for the new ones, since NV is just a standalone expansion to Fallout 3, I'd say go with both?
New Vegas is much, much less of an expansion to Fallout 3 than Fallout 2 is to 1.
This thread poll is a tragedy, FO 2 is the best of the series for numerous reasons despite all the bugs. You can even be a pornstar for fucks sake and a boxing champion among other great things. You FO3 generation kids don't know what you are missing.
On June 15 2012 01:22 bubblegumbo wrote: This thread poll is a tragedy, FO 2 is the best of the series for numerous reasons despite all the bugs. You can even be a pornstar for fucks sake and a boxing champion among other great things. You FO3 generation kids don't know what you are missing.
complains about fo3 kids not knowing the real fallout, praises fo2 for the golden globes and other silly shenanigans
that's the reason why most people prefer fo1 over 2, you know
Hey guys, I'm writing a fanfic to try and tie together the FO1, 2, and NV storylines. Check out some details below:
Intro:
Six years is an odd number. Long enough to forget the pain of war, but not long enough to learn to live in peace.
The Mojave was good for the NCR. It brought in water, power, and more than a little greed. With Caesar gone, they're talking about taking all of Arizona now.
The Mojave was good for me, too. Taught me a lot. How to play Caravan, for instance, and why I shouldn't. Also taught me how to walk, talk, and shoot my way out of trouble.
Sometimes, though, I get into a little bit too much trouble.
On June 22 2012 01:22 sam!zdat wrote: But "epic" is just code for besthesda style random dungeons and mobs. F3 has no coherency
Nah, I think he meant that F3's villain was much more apocalyptic than NV's was. That has always been a hallmark of Fallout--the master wanted to mutate everyone; Enclave wanted to kill all mutants; F3 wanted to poison the entire water supply... the Legion wants to have a nice parade in downtown New Vegas. Wait, what?
Though I agree, NV was overall a much better game, and having random dungeons in F3 really did detract from the coherency.
It doesn't use a good font-type like it should. It takes longer to read than necessary. I understand that they wanted to emulate an 80s/90s terminal font type, but especially these are quite clearly readable. You can't leave out the point on the i for instance and have varying widths. That especially applies to a game, which uses a lot of fictional language.
NPCs join you for loot, but then don't do any looting. Might happen in other levels, though.
There seems to be more about hit percentages than is shown, because they don't match a posteriori. Maybe deductions are applied afterwards, I don't know. I didn't read the manual thoroughly yet.
Reliance on pseudo-random-number-generators (PRNGs) is so-so.
Lots of dialogue loops hurt the atmosphere.
Lots of unnecessary break-ups of the dialogues cost you time.
Mouse cursor is sometimes imprecise.
If you make a game, think of it in 20 years. In what resolution would it then run?
Quest items can only be sold or traded one at a time.
So in fact it's a bit unordered. Nevertheless it's great.
New Vegas is of course better than FO3, they fixed alot of bad things about FO3. But I personally don't liked the Vegas scenario, so for me FO3 was the better game.
And FO1 and FO2 are clearly was worse than both. Videogames are not like Movies - newer Games are most of the time better than older games - just because of improved Technology.
On July 08 2012 00:21 Goetzinho ftw wrote: New Vegas is of course better than FO3, they fixed alot of bad things about FO3. But I personally don't liked the Vegas scenario, so for me FO3 was the better game.
And FO1 and FO2 are clearly was worse than both. Videogames are not like Movies - newer Games are most of the time better than older games - just because of improved Technology.
What in the hell?
Fallout 1+2 are better than 3 in almost every imaginable way, from storyline, gameplay, and mechanics, not to mention lore consistency and atmosphere. Not only is Fallout 3 completely unrealistic (how is the Brotherhood of Steel there, why the fuck are Mutants on the East coast, etc.) from a storyline standpoint, it also has just doesn't have an atmosphere that makes any sense at all. D.C. looks like it just got nuked, when in reality it has been hundreds of years. Grass should be growing, most of the old buildings should be gone (due to decay),
Newer games are not better than older games most of the time; in reality, most older games are better especially when comparing them to more recent games due to the fact that most games today are released in an incomplete matter.
On June 22 2012 11:08 Shady Sands wrote: Nah, I think he meant that F3's villain was much more apocalyptic than NV's was. That has always been a hallmark of Fallout--the master wanted to mutate everyone; Enclave wanted to kill all mutants; F3 wanted to poison the entire water supply... the Legion wants to have a nice parade in downtown New Vegas. Wait, what?
Yes, the Enclave in F3 wanted to poison he entire water supply... in one small area... that already had irradiated water.
k
Compared to the F3 Enclave, Caesar's Legion was both more ambitious and less cartoonish.
On July 08 2012 00:21 Goetzinho ftw wrote: And FO1 and FO2 are clearly was worse than both. Videogames are not like Movies - newer Games are most of the time better than older games - just because of improved Technology.
Wait, your only argument is "FO1 and FO2 are worse because they're old"--on a site that was solely dedicated to competitive BW for the better part of a decade?
On June 22 2012 11:08 Shady Sands wrote: Nah, I think he meant that F3's villain was much more apocalyptic than NV's was. That has always been a hallmark of Fallout--the master wanted to mutate everyone; Enclave wanted to kill all mutants; F3 wanted to poison the entire water supply... the Legion wants to have a nice parade in downtown New Vegas. Wait, what?
Yes, the Enclave in F3 wanted to poison he entire water supply... in one small area... that already had irradiated water.
k
Compared to the F3 Enclave, Caesar's Legion was both more ambitious and less cartoonish.
The enclave were way more than poisoning the water. They had a goal of wiping out all mutant life whatsoever. Basically ethnic cleansing. And you get to choose at the end
If i wanted to post a proper answer, i'd say Fallout1.
But all in all, i preferred Fallout3 personally. New Vegas is cool better on some aspects, but i definitely enjoyed the setting and story of Fallout 3 more.
Both Fallout 3 and New Vegas are strong video games, especially in terms of atmosphere and depth. You won't regret playing either one of them. Personally i preferred New Vegas because the setting was more interesting for me.
I agree with the folks in here who say Fallout 1 is the best. It doesn't have nearly as much stuff in it as the other games (old and new), but it's still humungous and maintains a consistent mood throughout.
Fallout 2 was massive, but it leaned farther towards the "quirky" side. It felt like the designers had tongues firmly in cheek throughout the whole dev process, which I didn't particularly like.
3 and New Vegas... well, I played them for a bit. I think I'm just too old to understand/appreciate newer games, so I don't feel like I contribute anything meaningful to a discussion about them
I really like the world of Fallout 3 better than Vegas, but what NV upgraded gameplay wise I think NV is the better game. I just wish the strip wasn't so underwhelming. I'm about to go try hardcore mode, I need to take a break from Skyrim
On June 22 2012 11:08 Shady Sands wrote: Nah, I think he meant that F3's villain was much more apocalyptic than NV's was. That has always been a hallmark of Fallout--the master wanted to mutate everyone; Enclave wanted to kill all mutants; F3 wanted to poison the entire water supply... the Legion wants to have a nice parade in downtown New Vegas. Wait, what?
Yes, the Enclave in F3 wanted to poison he entire water supply... in one small area... that already had irradiated water.
k
Compared to the F3 Enclave, Caesar's Legion was both more ambitious and less cartoonish.
The enclave were way more than poisoning the water. They had a goal of wiping out all mutant life whatsoever. Basically ethnic cleansing. And you get to choose at the end
Well, not really. President Eden wanted to wipe out all mutants, Colonel Autumn wanted to restore the purifier to working condition.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9418/shadysandsconfidential.png)
![[image loading]](http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/6496/hankredstone.png)
![[image loading]](http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/8035/evelyninkay.png)
![[image loading]](http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2623/charlesinkay.png)
![[image loading]](http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/6250/luciavaleria.png)
![[image loading]](http://img62.imageshack.us/img62/158/drewcorvus.png)
![[image loading]](http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/2254/tommclafferty.png)
![[image loading]](http://willooi.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/21.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://zockertown.de/s9y/uploads/games/Auftakt.png)
