|
I don't understand how FO2 had bad flow at all? If you had no prior knowledge and followed the clue trail from settlement to settlement, you'd start by travelling east from Arroyo, hitting Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City & Gecko, then be pointed south toward NCR and then west and finally north, completing the circle. The way to NCR could vary depending what leads you follow and Reno in the middle is sort of side big side track.
Sure if you know what was what, you could head straight to NCR from Klamath, over the wastes trying to survive random encounters with aliens and mutants as a low level tribal, grab your +2 LCK bonus and talk yourself to 10k experience and take a comfy caravan ride for 2k $back to Redding...but that would require some damn deep pre-knowledge. Or even straight to San Fran, then to Navarro and go talk your way to end the game, but where's the fun in that.
FO1 was great game, but I felt it was too short.
|
my main problem with FO1 was that the preset of the story was so weak that i couldnt care to follow the mainquest at all. you have to get the waterchip for your vault but its neither explained why only you are sent, nor why you dont get any help or cant get back into the vault without the chip. there was just no reason to actually find the waterchip at all. for all i cared the people in the vault could die, because they are clearly assholes.
i personally find it hard to enjoy a story when i dont see any reason why this story is happening in the first place.
|
Because the vault's water chip is broken. The vault needs it for water recycling, pretty important thing to have functioning.
I liked that you had a limited amount of time to get it, also it just felt more real. The game isn't about some grand adventure, but you can make one if you want. The freedom that shaped the Fallout series started with that.
|
On June 23 2015 18:48 Andre wrote:
Because the vault's water chip is broken. The vault needs it for water recycling, pretty important thing to have functioning.
yeah thanks i got that already :D
no what i meant is that the game didnt connect you with the vault at all. it didnt show you how you lived your life there or why you should care for the people in the vault. its a random place in a strange world. the first place you visit (shanty town?) is infinetly more interesting than your vault and i cared for the people and problems at this other place much more than for my own home which seems silly when i am on a deadly voyage to help them.
fo3 did a good job with this, i understood why i travel through the wastelands and why i choose the route the quests wanted me to go. fo1 not so much.
|
Wow I was not expecting this much commotion. Reading through all the comments, many people seem extremely bitter.
First of all, concerning all the fo1/fo2 purists, how could anyone expect them to make a drastic turn-around and return to this style of game? Bethesda's development history is clear as day. Expecting a 'true sequel' was just unrealistic at this point.
Secondly, apparently some people hate the VATS system. Personally I think the VATS system was great in fo3. It was something completely different from all the standard shooter games. Seeing your enemies get blown apart in slow motion really fit the style of the whole game. It looks like they have drastically improved gunplay (call of duty style hitmarkers though... ugh..) and kept the iconic VATS system. Looks great to me.
After the E3 demo I was really excited, because it looks fucking amazing. The one concern I have is the voiced protagonist. The sole reason I couldnt get into Mass effect was because of shepherds horrible voice and that stupid dialogue wheel. Im just waiting to see how it will turn out exactly, but I hope it will be better than what they have shown us so far.
|
However, the new Shadowrun games as well as Xcom prove that turn based combat indeed is a genre that is alive and kicking.
|
On June 23 2015 19:55 Catch]22 wrote:
However, the new Shadowrun games as well as Xcom prove that turn based combat indeed is a genre that is alive and kicking.
But not at the budget level of FO4.
|
On June 23 2015 18:07 daemir wrote:
I don't understand how FO2 had bad flow at all? If you had no prior knowledge and followed the clue trail from settlement to settlement, you'd start by travelling east from Arroyo, hitting Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City & Gecko, then be pointed south toward NCR and then west and finally north, completing the circle. The way to NCR could vary depending what leads you follow and Reno in the middle is sort of side big side track.
Sure if you know what was what, you could head straight to NCR from Klamath, over the wastes trying to survive random encounters with aliens and mutants as a low level tribal, grab your +2 LCK bonus and talk yourself to 10k experience and take a comfy caravan ride for 2k $back to Redding...but that would require some damn deep pre-knowledge. Or even straight to San Fran, then to Navarro and go talk your way to end the game, but where's the fun in that.
FO1 was great game, but I felt it was too short.
1) It makes no sense that the tribals have literally no knowledge of technology, literally none. Just because the Vault Dweller was tired of what technology did to people (aka Vault 13) doesn't mean that the Vault Dweller doesn't know that there are some uses to technology, and to totally shit on it would be ridiculous.
2) The fact that you are chasing a mythical 'geck' is just ridiculous. That's the whole main focus for like half the damn game. There's real no clear villain, nothing. It's just you running around solving issues for locals for the most part, half of which make no sense.
3) Even when the Enclave does show it, half of the shit doesn't make any sense at all until you encounter the BoS and then they finally explain everything.
Quote from the rpgcodex forums, a community of predominantly cRPG players (by cRPG I mean like Ultima, Wasteland 1, Planescape Torment, blah blah blah, old farts basically).
Fallout 2 is a "mix of everything" game. It's a game designed by a bunch of 13-year olds following the unbeatable "won't it be cool if the game had...." principle. It has huge gangsters with tommy guns running casinos, it has yakuza with samurai swords, it has a king-fu fighting town, it has scientologists with celebrities, it has tribals, aliens, drug dealers, talking deathclaws, and even real GHOSTS. The game's a joke.
The idea that somehow Fallout 2 was even remotely well paced is a fucking joke. That the writing was any good is also a huge joke.
|
I agree, I don't think fallout 1 was as amazing as people say either, at least in terms of story, Nostalgia is a powerful thing indeed.
|
On June 23 2015 20:44 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 18:07 daemir wrote:
I don't understand how FO2 had bad flow at all? If you had no prior knowledge and followed the clue trail from settlement to settlement, you'd start by travelling east from Arroyo, hitting Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City & Gecko, then be pointed south toward NCR and then west and finally north, completing the circle. The way to NCR could vary depending what leads you follow and Reno in the middle is sort of side big side track.
Sure if you know what was what, you could head straight to NCR from Klamath, over the wastes trying to survive random encounters with aliens and mutants as a low level tribal, grab your +2 LCK bonus and talk yourself to 10k experience and take a comfy caravan ride for 2k $back to Redding...but that would require some damn deep pre-knowledge. Or even straight to San Fran, then to Navarro and go talk your way to end the game, but where's the fun in that.
FO1 was great game, but I felt it was too short. 1) It makes no sense that the tribals have literally no knowledge of technology, literally none. Just because the Vault Dweller was tired of what technology did to people (aka Vault 13) doesn't mean that the Vault Dweller doesn't know that there are some uses to technology, and to totally shit on it would be ridiculous. 2) The fact that you are chasing a mythical 'geck' is just ridiculous. That's the whole main focus for like half the damn game. There's real no clear villain, nothing. It's just you running around solving issues for locals for the most part, half of which make no sense. 3) Even when the Enclave does show it, half of the shit doesn't make any sense at all until you encounter the BoS and then they finally explain everything. Quote from the rpgcodex forums, a community of predominantly cRPG players (by cRPG I mean like Ultima, Wasteland 1, Planescape Torment, blah blah blah, old farts basically). Show nested quote +Fallout 2 is a "mix of everything" game. It's a game designed by a bunch of 13-year olds following the unbeatable "won't it be cool if the game had...." principle. It has huge gangsters with tommy guns running casinos, it has yakuza with samurai swords, it has a king-fu fighting town, it has scientologists with celebrities, it has tribals, aliens, drug dealers, talking deathclaws, and even real GHOSTS. The game's a joke. The idea that somehow Fallout 2 was even remotely well paced is a fucking joke. That the writing was any good is also a huge joke.
Still better than everything Bethesda ever did story wise.
EDIT: Oh btw, second point is funny. Murican wants his Saddam? :/
|
On June 23 2015 20:44 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 18:07 daemir wrote:
I don't understand how FO2 had bad flow at all? If you had no prior knowledge and followed the clue trail from settlement to settlement, you'd start by travelling east from Arroyo, hitting Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City & Gecko, then be pointed south toward NCR and then west and finally north, completing the circle. The way to NCR could vary depending what leads you follow and Reno in the middle is sort of side big side track.
Sure if you know what was what, you could head straight to NCR from Klamath, over the wastes trying to survive random encounters with aliens and mutants as a low level tribal, grab your +2 LCK bonus and talk yourself to 10k experience and take a comfy caravan ride for 2k $back to Redding...but that would require some damn deep pre-knowledge. Or even straight to San Fran, then to Navarro and go talk your way to end the game, but where's the fun in that.
FO1 was great game, but I felt it was too short. 1) It makes no sense that the tribals have literally no knowledge of technology, literally none. Just because the Vault Dweller was tired of what technology did to people (aka Vault 13) doesn't mean that the Vault Dweller doesn't know that there are some uses to technology, and to totally shit on it would be ridiculous. 2) The fact that you are chasing a mythical 'geck' is just ridiculous. That's the whole main focus for like half the damn game. There's real no clear villain, nothing. It's just you running around solving issues for locals for the most part, half of which make no sense. 3) Even when the Enclave does show it, half of the shit doesn't make any sense at all until you encounter the BoS and then they finally explain everything. Quote from the rpgcodex forums, a community of predominantly cRPG players (by cRPG I mean like Ultima, Wasteland 1, Planescape Torment, blah blah blah, old farts basically). Show nested quote +Fallout 2 is a "mix of everything" game. It's a game designed by a bunch of 13-year olds following the unbeatable "won't it be cool if the game had...." principle. It has huge gangsters with tommy guns running casinos, it has yakuza with samurai swords, it has a king-fu fighting town, it has scientologists with celebrities, it has tribals, aliens, drug dealers, talking deathclaws, and even real GHOSTS. The game's a joke. The idea that somehow Fallout 2 was even remotely well paced is a fucking joke. That the writing was any good is also a huge joke.
There's tribes living in some jungle today that are still using sticks, stones and bows. The Wanderer didn't walk around with a caravan of heavy machinery you'd need to maintain tech in a place where he ended up, in a simple tribe living in the middle of fucking nowhere. Not like he drove there on a harvester to help the tribe's irrigation needs. Most like he tossed his guns in the sea or down a canyon or something when he got there.
I don't get how chasing after the G.E.C.K till the first random encounter cutscene where you witness the villain butcher some simple folk with miniguns is ridiculous? Not to mention how it connects with the opening cinematic of the game, where said minigun wearing power armor dudes slaughter a vault. I don't know, back then it clicked to me pretty naturally. And since when is your character not knowing the machinations of the big bad evil dude right from the get go a bad thing? Does everyone's favorite commander on the Citadel know what the Reapers are about as soon as the ME1 begins?
And at the end of the day, it's still, after all these years, better story telling than what Bethesda has been capable off. Conversations, people, story lines, these all are so undeveloped, drowned in the beautiful worlds they make. They can build worlds, they suck at filling those worlds with anything. Beth games have always required massive mod overhauls to make them good games. And I'm saying that as I'm playing Skyrim with one of those overhaul mods >_>
|
On June 23 2015 20:44 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 18:07 daemir wrote:
I don't understand how FO2 had bad flow at all? If you had no prior knowledge and followed the clue trail from settlement to settlement, you'd start by travelling east from Arroyo, hitting Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City & Gecko, then be pointed south toward NCR and then west and finally north, completing the circle. The way to NCR could vary depending what leads you follow and Reno in the middle is sort of side big side track.
Sure if you know what was what, you could head straight to NCR from Klamath, over the wastes trying to survive random encounters with aliens and mutants as a low level tribal, grab your +2 LCK bonus and talk yourself to 10k experience and take a comfy caravan ride for 2k $back to Redding...but that would require some damn deep pre-knowledge. Or even straight to San Fran, then to Navarro and go talk your way to end the game, but where's the fun in that.
FO1 was great game, but I felt it was too short. 1) It makes no sense that the tribals have literally no knowledge of technology, literally none. Just because the Vault Dweller was tired of what technology did to people (aka Vault 13) doesn't mean that the Vault Dweller doesn't know that there are some uses to technology, and to totally shit on it would be ridiculous. 2) The fact that you are chasing a mythical 'geck' is just ridiculous. That's the whole main focus for like half the damn game. There's real no clear villain, nothing. It's just you running around solving issues for locals for the most part, half of which make no sense. 3) Even when the Enclave does show it, half of the shit doesn't make any sense at all until you encounter the BoS and then they finally explain everything. Quote from the rpgcodex forums, a community of predominantly cRPG players (by cRPG I mean like Ultima, Wasteland 1, Planescape Torment, blah blah blah, old farts basically). Show nested quote +Fallout 2 is a "mix of everything" game. It's a game designed by a bunch of 13-year olds following the unbeatable "won't it be cool if the game had...." principle. It has huge gangsters with tommy guns running casinos, it has yakuza with samurai swords, it has a king-fu fighting town, it has scientologists with celebrities, it has tribals, aliens, drug dealers, talking deathclaws, and even real GHOSTS. The game's a joke. The idea that somehow Fallout 2 was even remotely well paced is a fucking joke. That the writing was any good is also a huge joke.
I played all those games. And i find those comments ridiculous. You might not like the taste of F2, but that doesnt make it bad game. You are minority. Most people who played F2 loved it.
|
The same could be said for people who dislike Fallout 3. Most people love that game.
|
You mean most people that aren't exactly into RPG's and never actually played F1 and F2 love(d) that game?
|
On June 23 2015 22:05 Plansix wrote:
The same could be said for people who dislike Fallout 3. Most people love that game.
I don't have the numbers but I know F3 is heavily criticized and mostly not received well in RPG community.
|
I've played and enjoyed F1 and F2. I liked F3 too. And I have plenty of friends who love RPGs of all types that enjoyed F3. The game sold well over 5 million copies and people enjoyed that game. Just because you didn't doesn't make all of those people idiots or people with poor taste.
On June 23 2015 22:58 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 22:05 Plansix wrote:
The same could be said for people who dislike Fallout 3. Most people love that game. I don't have the numbers but I know F3 is heavily criticized and mostly not received well in RPG community.
"RPG community" - is that 4.7 million people? Because that is the sales of F3 in 2008.
|
I've played and enjoyed F1 and F2. I didn't exactly liked F3, i found it ok. And i have plenty of friends who love RPG's of all types that hated F3.
EDIT: Fallout 3 wasn't the worst nighthmare, it was just above medicore game plagued with technical difficulties (the crashes man, the crashes) and had very empty and not exactly consistent with Fallout lore world.
|
On June 23 2015 23:02 Narw wrote:
I've played and enjoyed F1 and F2. I didn't exactly liked F3, i found it ok. And i have plenty of friends who love RPG's of all types that hated F3.
Personal taste is a neat thing and also but irrational by its nature. People like different foods for completely irrational reason. Some people like solving math problems, others fixing cars. All are totally valid. People liking F3 a lot doesn't invalidate your enjoyment of F1 and F2 or vice versa.
|
On June 23 2015 22:58 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2015 22:05 Plansix wrote:
The same could be said for people who dislike Fallout 3. Most people love that game. I don't have the numbers but I know F3 is heavily criticized and mostly not received well in RPG community.
maybe because it had fps elements ? Warcraft 3 was heavily criticized for its rpg elements. Thats what happens if a game goes really heavily into another genre. People that fear change will be really vocal about them.
F3 was a good game with some flaws, just like F1 and 2. And Fallout 4 will probably be just like it. And like every game some will enjoy it.
Unless it follows the pattern. 1st game godlike, 2nd meh, 3rd really good again. 4th the final failure. For me this series got the first 3 right so far.
|
On June 23 2015 23:15 FeyFey wrote:
maybe because it had fps elements ? Warcraft 3 was heavily criticized for its rpg elements. Thats what happens if a game goes really heavily into another genre. People that fear change will be really vocal about them.
Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are extremely highly regarded in the RPG community. Aversion to first person shooter gameplay is a really poor argument here.
On June 23 2015 19:28 solidbebe wrote:
Secondly, apparently some people hate the VATS system. Personally I think the VATS system was great in fo3. It was something completely different from all the standard shooter games. Seeing your enemies get blown apart in slow motion really fit the style of the whole game. It looks like they have drastically improved gunplay (call of duty style hitmarkers though... ugh..) and kept the iconic VATS system. Looks great to me.
Bullet-time from the Max Payne series does a better job of preserving all 3 elements of shooter gameplay that I enumerated a few pages ago than VATS undermines (doesn't break the fast pace of combat, scales well to player skill due to how the meter mechanics work, plays off action movie tropes to make the mechanic feel cinematic), while also allowing for those cinematic kill-shots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
