|
On June 25 2015 11:58 Narw wrote:
I find this Fallout 2 "bashing" a bit funny while everything in that game is BETTER( well, apart of graphics) than in Fallout 3 which got relased 10 years later with vastly supperior budget. You guys sure do know how to bring the heat to the discussion! (it helps tho to remain a bit in touch with reality).
1) No, plotline wise it's not consistent. Fallout 3's plot is bad, but it is at least consistently bad. There's literally no consistency or decent pacing with Fallout 2, anyone who says otherwise is a straight up liar and has no idea about the development of Fallout 2 or doesn't know how to actually read critically above the high school level.
2) Gameplay wise, it's actually way worse than Fallout 3. Fallout 3 may have been somewhat 'difficult' in the beginning in that your character is relatively weak compared to most things, however it's not like you are so weak you can't beat tough enemies without a little creativity. In Fallout 2, the tutorial itself is nearly impossible for certain characters without metagaming/outside knowledge (talking about the beginning of the game where a character without decent unarmed skills heavily struggles at the tutorial). Either Fallout 2 is WAY too easy, or Fallout 2 is WAY too hard (and by hard, I mean it is absurdly difficult for readily no reason).
3) The amount of bugs that littered Fallout 2 pretty much rivals the amount of bugs that were in Fallout 3. Fallout 3's were just more noticeable because you're in a 3D world.
4) Although Fallout 3 is a heavily combat based game, Fallout 2 is pretty much the same. Except, Fallout 2's turn based combat system is absolutely atrocious; it has not aged well, and anyone who thinks it has is pretty much lying through their teeth to just bash Bethesda for no reason. If you remove VATs, Fallout 3's combat isn't actually so bad, it's quite enjoyable in its own right and quite fun, though it could stand improvements. Fallout 2's combat was just a fucking pain in the ass, especially for almost the first 1/4 of the game where you're busy either beating shit with your fist or spearing geckos, and then missing shit forever because of your piss poor small guns skills.
5) The only reason why I am being so critical of Fallout 2 is because people are bashing Bethesda's Fallout series for really no reason at all. Anyone can make any game look bad if they focus solely on the negatives, and I can make Fallout 2 look extremely bad because of the numerous amount of negatives that are present in that game.
|
The only reason why I am being so critical of Fallout 2 is because people are bashing Bethesda's Fallout series for really no reason at all. Anyone can make any game look bad if they focus solely on the negatives, and I can make Fallout 2 look extremely bad because of the numerous amount of negatives that are present in that game.
Lets start from the end. There is no Bethesda Fallout series, New Vegas is from Obsidian. If you talk about Fallout 4 it was not bashed for being Bethesda game, Fallout 4 was bashed for it's horrible trailer that fails at everything it tried, whatever it was and actually managed to kill the hype that tons of people (including me) had for this game. The crucial thing about this about F2 that "you can make it look bad". Thats the thing, F2 can look bad if you try to make it look bad. Fallout 3 dosn't need any help in that department, it screams of medicority thru whole expieriance, but if you really do try to make it look bad, oh boy, that will be some ugly ass bitch.
1. It's just a plot. It have its highs and downs, as opposed to being cringe worthy thru whole game. I think i will stay with F2 model
2. I don't understand how Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2 gameplay wise. I really do not. But that might come from different understanding of word gameplay. You are in big open world with many places and you are doing your meaningless quest while helping others solve their meaningless problems, Sounds like standard RPG for me for it's time. In Fallout 3 you basicly do same, but world is so empty and so badly designed and since it ignores so much of actual Fallout lore it just feels worse? For me gameplay is actually how i feel being in the wasteland, for you it seems way more technical. I never had problems with difficulty in that game, so it seems weird for me, but well anyone who got thru Fallout 1 should knew how to create character.
3. Bugs (at least most of em) in F2 got fixed in patches, Fallout 3 will crash at you anytime it wants, for w/e reason it wants. I don't know if bugs got fixed by official patch or by community patch, but im assuming they are fixed one way or another. Stalemate!
4.Uhm, yeah, sounds like personal preference, but ok.
|
I agree on not seeing how Fallout 3 had better gameplay than 2. Sure Fallout 2 is either incredibly hard or incredibly easy depending on what type of character you choose and which choices you make. But Fallout 3 basically broke itself straight away for me. Yes you can say -VATS but how easy would Fallout 2 be for an op character if they didn't use VATS?
It doesn't help that I like to play high AGI thiefs in my games. I had to restart because I could clear a room of any enemies in one go by pressing a couple of buttons. Second play through when I intentionally gimped my character was still to easy. At least in Fallout 2 my first play through was tense.
|
On June 25 2015 15:41 Narw wrote:Show nested quote +The only reason why I am being so critical of Fallout 2 is because people are bashing Bethesda's Fallout series for really no reason at all. Anyone can make any game look bad if they focus solely on the negatives, and I can make Fallout 2 look extremely bad because of the numerous amount of negatives that are present in that game. Lets start from the end. There is no Bethesda Fallout series, New Vegas is from Obsidian. If you talk about Fallout 4 it was not bashed for being Bethesda game, Fallout 4 was bashed for it's horrible trailer that fails at everything it tried, whatever it was and actually managed to kill the hype that tons of people (including me) had for this game. The crucial thing about this about F2 that "you can make it look bad". Thats the thing, F2 can look bad if you try to make it look bad. Fallout 3 dosn't need any help in that department, it screams of medicority thru whole expieriance, but if you really do try to make it look bad, oh boy, that will be some ugly ass bitch. 1. It's just a plot. It have its highs and downs, as opposed to being cringe worthy thru whole game. I think i will stay with F2 model2. I don't understand how Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 2 gameplay wise. I really do not. But that might come different understanding of word gameplay. You are in big open world with many places and you are doing your meaningless quest while helping others solve their meaningless problems, Sounds like standard RPG for me for it's time. In Fallout 3 you basicly do same, but world is so empty and so badly designed and since it ignores so much of actual Fallout lore it just feels worse? 3. Bugs (at least most of em) in F2 got fixed in patches, Fallout 3 will crash at you anytime it wants, for w/e reason it wants. I don't know if bugs got fixed by official patch or by community patch, but im assuming they are fixed one way or another. Stalemate! 4.Uhm, yeah, sounds like personal preference, but ok.
See, this is why I know you didn't play Fallout 2. If you seriously think that Fallout 2's world had any coherency or seriousness to its plot, you obviously didn't play it in very much detail. The game had fucking talking Death Claws, Ghosts, a fucking town run by Samurai sword wielding dudes, the ability to become a pornstar, the ability to be a boxer, etc. etc.
GECK was a horrible plot device, and if you can't understand why, you obviously have no clue what a plot device is. It's a terrible one, anyone who can judge writing objectively at a semi-high level will tell you that. Not to mention the pacing of the story is just absolute shit, there's mass confusion throughout the whole plotline until the Brotherhood of Steel show up (which isn't until WAY later), and then the last 1/4 of the game just takes an absolute shit all over the plotline and again makes no sense again.
Fallout 2 was a heavily combat based game. It sucked. Even for a turn based game during its time period, the combat sucked. Fallout 3 wasn't a great real time combat game, but it certainly did not suck when in compare it to some of its other peers. If a game for almost the first 20% has shit combat and can't get you hooked in, most people will end up quitting and calling it a shit game. For me to have to slug through hours just to get to the good stuff is absolutely ridiculous. You can't call a game a 'masterpiece' when it has absolute shit combat for the first few hours of the game, especially when the main focus of the game is combat.
Nearly all of Fallout 3's bugs were actually fixed in patches. A few had to be cleaned up by the community, but the vast majority of CTDs, game breaking bugs, etc. were fixed by Bethesda fairly quickly.
Neither game was great, both games are what I would classify fairly good to good. The fact that anyone even tries to make Fallout 2 to be some godlike master piece is ridiculous, especially when nearly every single true cRPG player who has played Wasteland 1, Fallout 1, the Ultima Series, Planescape, BG, etc. can tell you that Fallout 2 blows chunks in comparison to those games. You're like one of those guys that think Arcanum was a great game or some shit, but at least those guys weren't irrational or illogical, they had some logic to their arguments. Yours is just a whirlwind of "I HATE FUCKING BETHESDA SO I'M GONNA AUTOMATICALLY SHIT ALL OVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO."
And people wonder why game developers hardly ever communicate with their communities anymore. Bethesda is one of the few AAA companies left that try to listen to their community, try to fix their past mistakes, and yet here we are with a bunch of people on this forum comparing them to EA somehow.
On June 25 2015 15:52 CuddlyCuteKitten wrote:
I agree on not seeing how Fallout 3 had better gameplay than 2. Sure Fallout 2 is either incredibly hard or incredibly easy depending on what type of character you choose and which choices you make. But Fallout 3 basically broke itself straight away for me. Yes you can say -VATS but how easy would Fallout 2 be for an op character if they didn't use VATS?
It doesn't help that I like to play high AGI thiefs in my games. I had to restart because I could clear a room of any enemies in one go by pressing a couple of buttons. Second play through when I intentionally gimped my character was still to easy. At least in Fallout 2 my first play through was tense.
If you mean 'tense' as in praying that you didn't get randomly crit headshotted ok. I guess that's tense. To most other sensible people (and I grew up playing hard ass games), getting randomly critted for your entire bar and forcing to reload is really unfair.
|
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill.
|
On June 25 2015 16:05 Narw wrote:
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill.
Because all that nonsense makes literally no sense in the Fallout 'lore' / 'universe' if you are accepting Fallout 1 as canon. In fact, half of that nonsense destroyed the game for alot of people that were sound of mind enough to slog through the fucking unacceptable first 1/4 of the game that was just basically unplayable since you had to kite geckos with a god damn spear for most of it. I didn't even mention that the actual plot itself is basically just as garbage as Fallout 3's plot was, as Fallout 2 *gasp* uses the GECK as some mythical miracle saving device, just as Fallout 3 does. Instead of chasing for the Geck though, you're just chasing your dad and the Geck in Fallout 3. Chea!
Chill? I'm just upset that people are hating on one of the few larger companies that does things relatively right. Just because they didn't make a game that you like doesn't mean you should irrationally hate it. Objectively Fallout 3 was not a terrible game in the slightest, it certainly by no means was any worse than Fallout 2. The only thing you can compare between the two is really their plots, and both plots essentially sucked ass anyways. Fun Factor/Atmosphere/Music/etc. are opinion based, so we really won't get into those. That being said, if we're gonna talk about things like ease of use (such as the UI), easing the player into the game (tutorial), scaling of difficulty in the game, gameplay pace, etc., Fallout 3 takes an absolute dump on Fallout 2's chest from an objective standpoint. Fallout 2's UI was absolute shit even for its own time, the balance was just wildly off, and the overall pacing was just stupid as hell (hey, I have a spear, I can't kill shit, yay I have a gun but then suddenly these dudes with energy weapons show up and my guns are now useless, oh I have power armor now PEW PEW EVERYTHING DIES).
|
Now imagine people can tell exactly the same, but not about side stories or parts of combat, but about their whole expieriance thru Fallout 3? Does it sounds so weird that one can be angry about Bethesda implementation of the Fallout franchise? That instead of parts it ALL feels out of place.
Edit to your edit: No, UI is abysmally bad in Fallout 3, Fallout NV and F1 and F2.
|
On June 25 2015 16:16 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 16:05 Narw wrote:
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill. Because all that nonsense makes literally no sense in the Fallout 'lore' / 'universe' if you are accepting Fallout 1 as canon. In fact, half of that nonsense destroyed the game for alot of people that were sound of mind enough to slog through the fucking unacceptable first 1/4 of the game that was just basically unplayable since you had to kite geckos with a god damn spear for most of it. I didn't even mention that the actual plot itself is basically just as garbage as Fallout 3's plot was, as Fallout 2 *gasp* uses the GECK as some mythical miracle saving device, just as Fallout 3 does. Instead of chasing for the Geck though, you're just chasing your dad and the Geck in Fallout 3. Chea! Chill? I'm just upset that people are hating on one of the few larger companies that does things relatively right. Just because they didn't make a game that you like doesn't mean you should irrationally hate it. Objectively Fallout 3 was not a terrible game in the slightest, it certainly by no means was any worse than Fallout 2. The only thing you can compare between the two is really their plots, and both plots essentially sucked ass anyways. Fun Factor/Atmosphere/Music/etc. are opinion based, so we really won't get into those. That being said, if we're gonna talk about things like ease of use (such as the UI), easing the player into the game (tutorial), scaling of difficulty in the game, gameplay pace, etc., Fallout 3 takes an absolute dump on Fallout 2's chest from an objective standpoint. Fallout 2's UI was absolute shit even for its own time, the balance was just wildly off, and the overall pacing was just stupid as hell (hey, I have a spear, I can't kill shit, yay I have a gun but then suddenly these dudes with energy weapons show up and my guns are now useless, oh I have power armor now PEW PEW EVERYTHING DIES).
What in the fuck, this is massively untrue. If you took a tag point in melee, it was easy to kill anything as a melee at the start. There is also never a point in time when you have a gun and it's now suddenly useless because an enemy has an energy gun, wtf? No shit the game gets easy when you get the end game armour which you shouldn't get playing it first time through or so until near the end of the game anyway. How the fuck did you have to kite geckos with spears and shit, nothing made you do this early in fallout unless you wanted to and if you had a tag point in melee they werent ever a problem unless you built a shitty character? If you would like me to make a video of doing so, let me know, maybe you were just bad at the game/too young to use brain? :>
I hate Bethesda because instead of developing their own post apoc series, they went the easy way, took a well loved series for the easy purchases and then failed on understanding what made fallout. Fuck, beth think black humour is blowing someone up. Call it Post Apocalyptic Wasteland and i wouldn't give a shit.
|
I've never played a Fallout game and I don't see myself playing Fallout 4.
What is so enticing about Fallout games? All I see is a mediocre first person shooter/RPG type game with cartoony designs and characters.
|
On June 25 2015 20:51 RapidTiger wrote:
I've never played a Fallout game and I don't see myself playing Fallout 4.
What is so enticing about Fallout games? All I see is a mediocre first person shooter/RPG type game with cartoony designs and characters.
Fallout 1 & 2(esp. 1) are over the top CRPG games still very respected today. Ambiance, story telling, dialogs, dark humour, the post-nuclear holocaust world feeling is over the top. I recommend everyone who didn't play yet. Only thing negative about those games are they are old and somewhat may push new gen. players out because of outdated graphics but crpg games are rarely criticized by graphics anyways. Play without spoil yourself from forums/wikis and your'll have a very pleasant time.
Fallout 3 is a good game in its own rights but I don't consider it as a true/proper sequel of old series. Fallout New Vegas is a good revival from some of the old FO developers and considered decent. It is worth to play with the proper modding especially.
|
On June 25 2015 20:33 Nebula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 16:16 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2015 16:05 Narw wrote:
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill. Because all that nonsense makes literally no sense in the Fallout 'lore' / 'universe' if you are accepting Fallout 1 as canon. In fact, half of that nonsense destroyed the game for alot of people that were sound of mind enough to slog through the fucking unacceptable first 1/4 of the game that was just basically unplayable since you had to kite geckos with a god damn spear for most of it. I didn't even mention that the actual plot itself is basically just as garbage as Fallout 3's plot was, as Fallout 2 *gasp* uses the GECK as some mythical miracle saving device, just as Fallout 3 does. Instead of chasing for the Geck though, you're just chasing your dad and the Geck in Fallout 3. Chea! Chill? I'm just upset that people are hating on one of the few larger companies that does things relatively right. Just because they didn't make a game that you like doesn't mean you should irrationally hate it. Objectively Fallout 3 was not a terrible game in the slightest, it certainly by no means was any worse than Fallout 2. The only thing you can compare between the two is really their plots, and both plots essentially sucked ass anyways. Fun Factor/Atmosphere/Music/etc. are opinion based, so we really won't get into those. That being said, if we're gonna talk about things like ease of use (such as the UI), easing the player into the game (tutorial), scaling of difficulty in the game, gameplay pace, etc., Fallout 3 takes an absolute dump on Fallout 2's chest from an objective standpoint. Fallout 2's UI was absolute shit even for its own time, the balance was just wildly off, and the overall pacing was just stupid as hell (hey, I have a spear, I can't kill shit, yay I have a gun but then suddenly these dudes with energy weapons show up and my guns are now useless, oh I have power armor now PEW PEW EVERYTHING DIES). What in the fuck, this is massively untrue. If you took a tag point in melee, it was easy to kill anything as a melee at the start. There is also never a point in time when you have a gun and it's now suddenly useless because an enemy has an energy gun, wtf? No shit the game gets easy when you get the end game armour which you shouldn't get playing it first time through or so until near the end of the game anyway. How the fuck did you have to kite geckos with spears and shit, nothing made you do this early in fallout unless you wanted to and if you had a tag point in melee they werent ever a problem unless you built a shitty character? If you would like me to make a video of doing so, let me know, maybe you were just bad at the game/too young to use brain? :> I hate Bethesda because instead of developing their own post apoc series, they went the easy way, took a well loved series for the easy purchases and then failed on understanding what made fallout. Fuck, beth think black humour is blowing someone up. Call it Post Apocalyptic Wasteland and i wouldn't give a shit.
Yeah friend of mine did a standard (no shortcuts) playtrough (of F2) killing everything with his bare hands. There is shitton of perks enhancing unarmed/melee combat.
|
On June 25 2015 20:51 RapidTiger wrote:
I've never played a Fallout game and I don't see myself playing Fallout 4.
What is so enticing about Fallout games? All I see is a mediocre first person shooter/RPG type game with cartoony designs and characters.
I can only talk out of my own perspective, other players might greatly divert from that.
Fallout1 was the first post-apocalyptic RPG I played. It was sth. new. It didnt have the fantasy setting, and it was also somehow different from sci-fi (and by that I mean space and aliens).
It had nice elements in character building and you could actually choose where you want to go and how you want to do quests (as far as i remember).
As a fan of turn based combat the fighting mechanics the game suited me. I had a lot of fun at that time.
The setting was cool: I actually got the feeling of the world went to hell and all the leftovers want to kill you. It was the time when giant radioactive rats were still a thing and radioactivity was a constant threat (different from F3). Humour was nice, fights were challenging most of the time (for me), not always of course.
All in all, a great game I really enjoyed.
Fallout2: Yeah, pretty much the same as Fallout1. Of course the story was different, but gameplaywise it felt the same. I can´t even remember any big differences in mechanics, graphics or anything else. It would have been a nice addon, but it didn´t feel new to me. Thats why I don´t like it too much in comparison to the original fallout1. It was okayish, more crazy, which some people liked, but I didn´t except the part of having potentially a deathclaw ally. That was really cool!
Fallout3: Next gen fallout to me. Instead of an isometric perspective it was first person shooter style. Then there was VATS, which I liked at the time for the cinematic effects and that it gave some sense to the levelling of combat skills. At the same time it felt somehow out of place, because VATS effectively mixed FPS with turn based combat. It felt like they tried to mix both to create sth better but missed out on the strengths of either system. MAybe it would have been better they had relied on only one. I don´t know. Maybe they could have done it somehow better.
Storywise F3 was OK. To me it was kinda similar to F1, since you were chasing something again (F1: GECK, F3: Father) And I don´t like too many similarities. I prefer to get sth new, when I spend money for a new game.
F3 was also in a way different regarding "open world" stuff. Sure, in F1 you could choose the destination where you walk, but at that time I enjoyed it more because I had not done it so often in various games yet. In F3 you could also explore, but it felt more repetitive. Another tunnel, more ghouls, more raiders yadda yadda. I played F3 most of the time totally ignoring that I should search for my father and that made the story somehow meaningless. It was simply more boring than F1, but it was still fun to play. Not mindblowing, but fun. E.g. I really think the possibility to nuke Megaton was a nice thing.
Fallout:NV: Better main story? More consistent? Better factions and playstyle rpg options? Yes, yes and yes. But it had exactly the same game mechanics, graphics etc. as F3. So again: A nice game as an addon. Also the replayability was better than F3. But as a stand alone title too expansive. If I had not played F3 before, I assume it would have felt much better to play it, as I did not enjoy the mechanics before and everything would have been new. But I had done so before 
And then we have F4: I don´t think, that it will "feel new" to me. I might get it if it is on sale. But so far I have not seen a single thing that convinces me that I will enjoy it that much, that it is justified to spend 60€.
Of course, people will have different views. Oppinions are subjective. Maybe I have nostalgia googles on or my memories are not that good as I think they are. But thats how I feel about the series right now.
|
On June 25 2015 15:52 superstartran wrote:
You're like one of those guys that think Arcanum was a great game or some shit, but at least those guys weren't irrational or illogical, they had some logic to their arguments. Yours is just a whirlwind of "I HATE FUCKING BETHESDA SO I'M GONNA AUTOMATICALLY SHIT ALL OVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO."
Hey man, Arcanum was a great game.
|
On June 26 2015 00:10 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 15:52 superstartran wrote:
You're like one of those guys that think Arcanum was a great game or some shit, but at least those guys weren't irrational or illogical, they had some logic to their arguments. Yours is just a whirlwind of "I HATE FUCKING BETHESDA SO I'M GONNA AUTOMATICALLY SHIT ALL OVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO."
Hey man, Arcanum was a great game.
Arcanum is still a great game. Aside from lackluster combat system, a very good game.
|
On June 25 2015 20:33 Nebula wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 16:16 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2015 16:05 Narw wrote:
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill. Because all that nonsense makes literally no sense in the Fallout 'lore' / 'universe' if you are accepting Fallout 1 as canon. In fact, half of that nonsense destroyed the game for alot of people that were sound of mind enough to slog through the fucking unacceptable first 1/4 of the game that was just basically unplayable since you had to kite geckos with a god damn spear for most of it. I didn't even mention that the actual plot itself is basically just as garbage as Fallout 3's plot was, as Fallout 2 *gasp* uses the GECK as some mythical miracle saving device, just as Fallout 3 does. Instead of chasing for the Geck though, you're just chasing your dad and the Geck in Fallout 3. Chea! Chill? I'm just upset that people are hating on one of the few larger companies that does things relatively right. Just because they didn't make a game that you like doesn't mean you should irrationally hate it. Objectively Fallout 3 was not a terrible game in the slightest, it certainly by no means was any worse than Fallout 2. The only thing you can compare between the two is really their plots, and both plots essentially sucked ass anyways. Fun Factor/Atmosphere/Music/etc. are opinion based, so we really won't get into those. That being said, if we're gonna talk about things like ease of use (such as the UI), easing the player into the game (tutorial), scaling of difficulty in the game, gameplay pace, etc., Fallout 3 takes an absolute dump on Fallout 2's chest from an objective standpoint. Fallout 2's UI was absolute shit even for its own time, the balance was just wildly off, and the overall pacing was just stupid as hell (hey, I have a spear, I can't kill shit, yay I have a gun but then suddenly these dudes with energy weapons show up and my guns are now useless, oh I have power armor now PEW PEW EVERYTHING DIES). What in the fuck, this is massively untrue. If you took a tag point in melee, it was easy to kill anything as a melee at the start. There is also never a point in time when you have a gun and it's now suddenly useless because an enemy has an energy gun, wtf? No shit the game gets easy when you get the end game armour which you shouldn't get playing it first time through or so until near the end of the game anyway. How the fuck did you have to kite geckos with spears and shit, nothing made you do this early in fallout unless you wanted to and if you had a tag point in melee they werent ever a problem unless you built a shitty character? If you would like me to make a video of doing so, let me know, maybe you were just bad at the game/too young to use brain? :> I hate Bethesda because instead of developing their own post apoc series, they went the easy way, took a well loved series for the easy purchases and then failed on understanding what made fallout. Fuck, beth think black humour is blowing someone up. Call it Post Apocalyptic Wasteland and i wouldn't give a shit.
Bullshit, lmao. You could get fucked so hard in early game because even with a 95% hit rate you could still miss 4 times in a row and just lose and have to reload from right there. Much of the early game was slogging through a bunch of trash mobs and forcing mobs to come to you to waste all their AP, leaving you to have easy pickings on them. The early game even with melee/unarmed tagged was stupid as fuck, and by the time you even got a gun, you're still getting screwed by the horrendous combat system half the time and are forced to reload. The only time you don't get absolutely shit on by RNG was if you happen to have power armor, and for most people on their first playthrough they won't have power armor early.
Maybe it's just me, or maybe the people defending Fallout 2 in this thread simply can't read critically above a high school level, because the game seems to be obviously made with a 13 year old's humor. Anyone who says Fallout 2 is the epitome of great storytelling and writing needs to wake the fuck up. The creators of Fallout 2 didn't even know what 'Fallout' really meant, there was absolutely no consistency to the plot, the world, the atmosphere, at all.
On June 26 2015 00:10 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 15:52 superstartran wrote:
You're like one of those guys that think Arcanum was a great game or some shit, but at least those guys weren't irrational or illogical, they had some logic to their arguments. Yours is just a whirlwind of "I HATE FUCKING BETHESDA SO I'M GONNA AUTOMATICALLY SHIT ALL OVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO."
Hey man, Arcanum was a great game.
Arcanum was 'meh' more than a great game. Combat system pretty much ruined the game for most people.
|
On June 26 2015 02:27 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 20:33 Nebula wrote:On June 25 2015 16:16 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2015 16:05 Narw wrote:
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill. Because all that nonsense makes literally no sense in the Fallout 'lore' / 'universe' if you are accepting Fallout 1 as canon. In fact, half of that nonsense destroyed the game for alot of people that were sound of mind enough to slog through the fucking unacceptable first 1/4 of the game that was just basically unplayable since you had to kite geckos with a god damn spear for most of it. I didn't even mention that the actual plot itself is basically just as garbage as Fallout 3's plot was, as Fallout 2 *gasp* uses the GECK as some mythical miracle saving device, just as Fallout 3 does. Instead of chasing for the Geck though, you're just chasing your dad and the Geck in Fallout 3. Chea! Chill? I'm just upset that people are hating on one of the few larger companies that does things relatively right. Just because they didn't make a game that you like doesn't mean you should irrationally hate it. Objectively Fallout 3 was not a terrible game in the slightest, it certainly by no means was any worse than Fallout 2. The only thing you can compare between the two is really their plots, and both plots essentially sucked ass anyways. Fun Factor/Atmosphere/Music/etc. are opinion based, so we really won't get into those. That being said, if we're gonna talk about things like ease of use (such as the UI), easing the player into the game (tutorial), scaling of difficulty in the game, gameplay pace, etc., Fallout 3 takes an absolute dump on Fallout 2's chest from an objective standpoint. Fallout 2's UI was absolute shit even for its own time, the balance was just wildly off, and the overall pacing was just stupid as hell (hey, I have a spear, I can't kill shit, yay I have a gun but then suddenly these dudes with energy weapons show up and my guns are now useless, oh I have power armor now PEW PEW EVERYTHING DIES). What in the fuck, this is massively untrue. If you took a tag point in melee, it was easy to kill anything as a melee at the start. There is also never a point in time when you have a gun and it's now suddenly useless because an enemy has an energy gun, wtf? No shit the game gets easy when you get the end game armour which you shouldn't get playing it first time through or so until near the end of the game anyway. How the fuck did you have to kite geckos with spears and shit, nothing made you do this early in fallout unless you wanted to and if you had a tag point in melee they werent ever a problem unless you built a shitty character? If you would like me to make a video of doing so, let me know, maybe you were just bad at the game/too young to use brain? :> I hate Bethesda because instead of developing their own post apoc series, they went the easy way, took a well loved series for the easy purchases and then failed on understanding what made fallout. Fuck, beth think black humour is blowing someone up. Call it Post Apocalyptic Wasteland and i wouldn't give a shit. Bullshit, lmao. You could get fucked so hard in early game because even with a 95% hit rate you could still miss 4 times in a row and just lose and have to reload from right there. Much of the early game was slogging through a bunch of trash mobs and forcing mobs to come to you to waste all their AP, leaving you to have easy pickings on them. The early game even with melee/unarmed tagged was stupid as fuck, and by the time you even got a gun, you're still getting screwed by the horrendous combat system half the time and are forced to reload. The only time you don't get absolutely shit on by RNG was if you happen to have power armor, and for most people on their first playthrough they won't have power armor early. Maybe it's just me, or maybe the people defending Fallout 2 in this thread simply can't read critically above a high school level, because the game seems to be obviously made with a 13 year old's humor. Anyone who says Fallout 2 is the epitome of great storytelling and writing needs to wake the fuck up.
Maybe you should calm your titties and stop calling others "13 yos", "high school level humor" and other bunch of unnecessary aggressive accusations with no value.
Early game is a little bit harder than new gen. games and you need to think strategically to overcome this. Fallout 2 is not even considered a hardcore game, it is a turn based rpg in which you can smoke with one hand and play with mouse only. After getting the fundamentals it is very very easy actually.
There is no reason to argue Fallout 2 with you because you have a blind hate and Fallout 2 is far more better than you described.
|
On June 26 2015 02:44 Laserist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 02:27 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2015 20:33 Nebula wrote:On June 25 2015 16:16 superstartran wrote:On June 25 2015 16:05 Narw wrote:
You mean i didn't knew you could find a hood wearing Deathclaw in some Vault close to California Republic? Or that i could become said pornstar in New Reno? Or cheat in boxing fight with fake gloves (or get your eat bitten off)? Yeah, i certainly didn't play that game or didn't pay attention, than you for pointing that out. You are making some weird assumptions based on your own perception of how stuff should look (while you attack people for pointing that F3 dosn't meet their perception of how game should look for em).
From the part that starts with a true CRPG player thru Arcanum and ends on hating on Bethesda. Are you even talking to me? It so out of place, chill. Because all that nonsense makes literally no sense in the Fallout 'lore' / 'universe' if you are accepting Fallout 1 as canon. In fact, half of that nonsense destroyed the game for alot of people that were sound of mind enough to slog through the fucking unacceptable first 1/4 of the game that was just basically unplayable since you had to kite geckos with a god damn spear for most of it. I didn't even mention that the actual plot itself is basically just as garbage as Fallout 3's plot was, as Fallout 2 *gasp* uses the GECK as some mythical miracle saving device, just as Fallout 3 does. Instead of chasing for the Geck though, you're just chasing your dad and the Geck in Fallout 3. Chea! Chill? I'm just upset that people are hating on one of the few larger companies that does things relatively right. Just because they didn't make a game that you like doesn't mean you should irrationally hate it. Objectively Fallout 3 was not a terrible game in the slightest, it certainly by no means was any worse than Fallout 2. The only thing you can compare between the two is really their plots, and both plots essentially sucked ass anyways. Fun Factor/Atmosphere/Music/etc. are opinion based, so we really won't get into those. That being said, if we're gonna talk about things like ease of use (such as the UI), easing the player into the game (tutorial), scaling of difficulty in the game, gameplay pace, etc., Fallout 3 takes an absolute dump on Fallout 2's chest from an objective standpoint. Fallout 2's UI was absolute shit even for its own time, the balance was just wildly off, and the overall pacing was just stupid as hell (hey, I have a spear, I can't kill shit, yay I have a gun but then suddenly these dudes with energy weapons show up and my guns are now useless, oh I have power armor now PEW PEW EVERYTHING DIES). What in the fuck, this is massively untrue. If you took a tag point in melee, it was easy to kill anything as a melee at the start. There is also never a point in time when you have a gun and it's now suddenly useless because an enemy has an energy gun, wtf? No shit the game gets easy when you get the end game armour which you shouldn't get playing it first time through or so until near the end of the game anyway. How the fuck did you have to kite geckos with spears and shit, nothing made you do this early in fallout unless you wanted to and if you had a tag point in melee they werent ever a problem unless you built a shitty character? If you would like me to make a video of doing so, let me know, maybe you were just bad at the game/too young to use brain? :> I hate Bethesda because instead of developing their own post apoc series, they went the easy way, took a well loved series for the easy purchases and then failed on understanding what made fallout. Fuck, beth think black humour is blowing someone up. Call it Post Apocalyptic Wasteland and i wouldn't give a shit. Bullshit, lmao. You could get fucked so hard in early game because even with a 95% hit rate you could still miss 4 times in a row and just lose and have to reload from right there. Much of the early game was slogging through a bunch of trash mobs and forcing mobs to come to you to waste all their AP, leaving you to have easy pickings on them. The early game even with melee/unarmed tagged was stupid as fuck, and by the time you even got a gun, you're still getting screwed by the horrendous combat system half the time and are forced to reload. The only time you don't get absolutely shit on by RNG was if you happen to have power armor, and for most people on their first playthrough they won't have power armor early. Maybe it's just me, or maybe the people defending Fallout 2 in this thread simply can't read critically above a high school level, because the game seems to be obviously made with a 13 year old's humor. Anyone who says Fallout 2 is the epitome of great storytelling and writing needs to wake the fuck up. Maybe you should calm your titties and stop calling others "13 yos", "high school level humor" and other bunch of unnecessary aggressive accusations with no value. Early game is a little bit harder than new gen. games and you need to think strategically to overcome this. Fallout 2 is not even considered a hardcore game, it is a turn based rpg in which you can smoke with one hand and play with mouse only. After getting the fundamentals it is very very easy actually. There is no reason to argue Fallout 2 with you because you have a blind hate and Fallout 2 is far more better than you described.
1) Accusations that are true. If you enjoyed Fallout 2's writing you enjoy 13-15 year old humor. There's nothing adult about becoming Mike Tyson the 2nd, nor is there anything 'adult' about becoming a pornstar. If you can't see why Fallout 2's world makes literally no sense at all (since it was literally designed almost as a gigantic joke) then we don't need to speak anymore. Go ahead and put me on ignore. Adult (as in, those geared towards the older crowd, not porn) RPG games are about making choices and having real consequences to them, typically consequences that shape the world around you. Fallout 2 in fact limits many of your choices, forces you into a combat role at times, and really isn't that great of a true RPG.
2) Early game is not just 'a little bit harder' than new gen. games, it's harder than most of the games of its own time period because of the ridiculous amount of 'noob traps' that are implemented into the early game. Didn't pick melee/unarmed? Good luck in the Temple of Trials and early game for the most part. Don't know that your allies can blow your head off? Oops. Didn't realize that you can do such and such things? The main argument is of course, read the manual or an online resource. A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. There's a reason why games like Fallout, Pool of a Radiant, and other cRPGs have all but died out.
|
On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
The main argument is of course, read the manual or an online resource. A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. There's a reason why games like Fallout, Pool of a Radiant, and other cRPGs have all but died out.
Ehh, I'm not sure I agree with that really. Even modern "hard" games that are well-received for their difficulty like Dark Souls are actually really poor at making the underlying mechanics or even "how to play the game" fully known to you early on. The difference is that they pace the content in a way where you can find ways to progress without being stuck on certain mechanics, so finding certain things out about the game later doesn't feel lame after the fact.
The problem you're describing isn't the mechanics themselves being obscure or inaccessible, it's that the game isn't pacing you through the content in a way that allows you to make those mistakes. A well-designed hard game doesn't brickwall you early on, it paces you into the difficulty while ramping up to the meat of the game. A game that brickwalls you with a game knowledge hurdle 5 minutes into the game isn't harder than a game that takes 1/3 of its length to ramp you into the full difficulty of the game, it's just more annoying to get into. Even the old dungeon crawler genre which is known for this kind of shit has more recent revival entries like Grimrock or the Etrian Odyssey series that do a better job of this pacing even though the core mechanics and presentation are similar.
Unfortunately at the time of FO2's release, these aspects of game design weren't well fleshed out in the industry. Gaming (and especially PC gaming) still was relatively niche, so issues of designing the early game to smartly pace people into the experience was not really something designers thought about in detail in the RPG genre (even though console platformers had been doing it for years).
|
On June 26 2015 03:15 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
The main argument is of course, read the manual or an online resource. A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. There's a reason why games like Fallout, Pool of a Radiant, and other cRPGs have all but died out. Ehh, I'm not sure I agree with that really. Even modern "hard" games that are well-received for their difficulty like Dark Souls are actually really poor at making the underlying mechanics or even "how to play the game" fully known to you. The difference is that they pace the content in a way where you can find ways to progress without being stuck on certain mechanics, so finding certain things out about the game later doesn't feel lame after the fact. The problem you're describing isn't the mechanics themselves being obscure or inaccessible, it's that the game isn't pacing you through the content in a way that allows you to make those mistakes. Even the old dungeon crawler genre which is known for this kind of shit has more recent revival entries like Grimrock or the Etrian Odyssey series that do a better job of this pacing even though the core mechanics and presentation are similar.
Dark Souls at least teaches you the mechanics abit earlier, so if you fail you don't feel like you're an idiot. Oh I died to the boss? It's because I didn't do XYZ.
Fallout 2 however just doesn't even make any sense. Remember the dynamite/cart scene? Yeah, good luck solving that one if you get stuck. Oh, I needed the stick! Except the entire game, I have never needed to do such a ridiculous combination not even once. Cool game huh? There are loads of instances of such things in the game, not to mention the ridiculously bad pacing of the combat as you said.
|
I mean, there's a ton of stuff you don't know at first in Dark Souls that helps a shitton that the game outright doesn't tell you. It just doesn't smack you in the face with those things by putting you in a situation where you're flat out stuck without knowing those things. So it doesn't feel like the game is just keeping things from you because the things you find out later don't feel like they kept you from progressing up to that point.
Again, I think this is an aspect of game design that wasn't really fleshed out in 1998, so it's hard to *blame* Interplay for making their game this way--but it is a definite flaw of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
