Duck and Cover

Cimmerian Nights wrote:It's impossible to speculate, but it gave me a better vibe than the thought of a Bethesda sequel. Wasn't Sawyer the lead on VB? Instills more confidence than Todd and the OB crew.

You've got it right.

I was cautiously optimistic. Some of the new factions and locations seemed interesting. Game design decisions were surprisingly 'old-skool' and didn't rely on candy graphics but there wasn't really any gameplay innovations(mostly a cleaned up version of SPECIAL). I wasn't convinced on the Icewind Dale posse's storytelling abilities and quirks such as what Troika has delivered. Perhaps it would've been another Fallout 2.

VasikkA wrote:I Perhaps it would've been another Fallout 2.

Which is still better than IWD, NWN or Morrowind and Oblivion, no?

I think Fallout 2 gets alot of unneccesary shit cause honestly it seems that outside of like Planescape and the original Fallout (And I guess Arcanum if you're that type of OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone) and afew other titles (maybe) it was one of the best rpgs out there. Even with those titles, I still think Fallout 2 was one of the best RPGs out there. Sure, there were some stupid design decisions or what have you, but compare it to the shit we've been getting recently and will get for quite some time to come (Read: Forever).

Wolfman Walt wrote:I think Fallout 2 gets alot of unneccesary shit cause honestly it seems that outside of like Planescape and the original Fallout (And I guess Arcanum if you're that type of OH SHIT I HEAR THE ICE CREAM TRUCK!!!!!111!1111oneone) and afew other titles (maybe) it was one of the best rpgs out there. Even with those titles, I still think Fallout 2 was one of the best RPGs out there. Sure, there were some stupid design decisions or what have you, but compare it to the shit we've been getting recently and will get for quite some time to come (Read: Forever).

Good point, FO2 is held to a pretty high standard, and although it has it's flaws, probably still belongs in a top 5 list considering that not much else can approach it.

jetbaby wrote:There's a large difference between your friends and family dying of mutant rape or water loss and robots coming at you in the night.

So... yeah I'm still not seeing the point. Let me ask you something specific: within the whole "robots chasing you" idea, what is it that you think is shitty? Robots? Chasing? Something you're not telling us? Is there something about the storyline that isn't "Fallout-y" to you?

jetbaby wrote:Also, the whole NCR-takes-over-california-andgoes-to-war-with-the-BOS thing was kind of dumb.

Sounds pretty plausible to me. Why wouldn't different groups feel threatened by one another and try to assert their authority? Happens all the time in the real world. It would have been *more* plausible for all the different power groups to live in peace and happiness forever? I think not.

Urizen wrote:"gritty" is used to describe the graphics theme used. "so 1993" is used to describe outdated graphics. get with the program.

Still not seeing an argument here. The screenshots I'm looking at right now do look "gritty" as you say, but as someone else said, these were demo shots. Thus, the graphics could've only improved from there. Once again, these screenshots demonstrate a move forward if one is to restrict perspective to 3rd-person / isometric.

What would have been better?

And concerning negative comments on Fallout 2: Fallout 2 was great. The people who criticize it don't seem to have arguments other than FO1 > FO2.

t. sneezed wrote:Fallout 2 was great

LIAR! fallout 2 was not great. half-baked story, more shitty references per town than all of the references in fallout 1 combined, horrible sprites. most of the towns were pretty unimaginative as well. redding, broken hills, modoc and all the towns after vault 13 really ran together. it had a handful of redeeming features, namely more perks, more weapons (how :haris:) and a cool political intrigue aspect running between a few towns.

it was a bad direction for the series. if it was released today i bet most of the community here would complain bitterly about it.

FO1>FO2

atoga wrote:

t. sneezed wrote:Fallout 2 was great

LIAR! fallout 2 was not great. half-baked story, more shitty references per town than all of the references in fallout 1 combined, horrible sprites. most of the towns were pretty unimaginative as well. redding, broken hills, modoc and all the towns after vault 13 really ran together. it had a handful of redeeming features, namely more perks, more weapons (how :haris:) and a cool political intrigue aspect running between a few towns.

it was a bad direction for the series. if it was released today i bet most of the community here would complain bitterly about it.

FO1>FO2

Hmmm... so I just thought of something. Does anyone here actually have anything *critical* to say about Fallout 1? Because most of what you said Atoga could just have easily been applied to Fallout 1.

Unless you put every facet of Fallout 2 under microscope and do a bit-by-bit comparison, it's hard to tell the difference between FO1 and FO2. The only difference is that FO1 came *before* FO2, so FO1 is romanicized as the standard-bearer.

TelemachusSneezed wrote:Because most of what you said Atoga could just have easily been applied to Fallout 1.

hardly. the story in fallout 1 was superb, what with the moral ambiguity and all, the sprites and artwork were uniformly dope, the references were funny and not all that nerdy, and i liked virtually all the characters except for some at the brotherhood who were a tad flat. some of the sidequests were a bit generic too (mostly the early game shady sands ones) but the rest were intriguing, especially in & around the hub.

fallout 2 shared some of those qualities, but the fact is fallout 1 was tight and fallout 2 was sloppy, and the story in fallout 2 WAS quite boring and trite. one could argue that because fallout 2 tried to be way bigger in terms of scope, and because it was rushed (8 months?) it should be excused somewhat, but that don't follow. so fuck you m8

:ec comics:

I couldn't see any noticeable differences in the sprites and artwork between FO1 and FO2. You must have eyes like a hawk.

What moral ambiguity was there in FO1 that wasn't in FO2? I do recall there being more references in Fallout 2, but it didn't really seem that overdone.

Concerning story, I didn't even notice the differences. Maybe it's the fact that I played the two back-to-back, that there was no chance for expectations of a second one to build up.

atoga wrote:hardly.

word.

on VB: I liked the graphics/engine - as seen in the 'desert+building' screenie, as the interior shots were very early and had undetailed textures etc. The changes to SPECIAL seemed alright or at least interesting IIRC. I don't know about the story (other then the start) or cities 'cause I didn't care enough after the game got cancelled.
Altogether, I really looked forward to VBuren. :RIP:

moral ambiguity: killing the master certainly falls under the category of being a morally ambiguous act, since he was trying to help humanity survive da harshness of da wasteland, etc. etc. in my mind, his intriguing character and all this moral ambiguity muck makes him one of the illest videogame villains ever. conversely, in fallout 2 you have the enclave, a big ol' evil government institution which i didn't really think twice about blowing up, and the one-dimensional, tacked-on-at-the-end-for-no-good-reason frank horrigan. nigga please.

also, a lot of the art were rubbish. look at the sprites for vic, the ncr cops, the ants etc. the art is sloppy (it's sorta cartoonish and doesn't fit in with the style used in the rest of the game) & their movement is clumsy.

i am being too harsh, of course. i've played through fallout 2 at least two or three times and enjoyed the majority of it, but all the flaws i noticed killed the immersion for me.

PiP wrote:Altogether, I really looked forward to VBuren. :RIP:

seconded.

VB would have had great potentel.

Those complaining about the graphics: THe game wasnt finished. All we had were basic skins.

Story: So it does something to heavily lead you to work on the main quest.

So what.

Fallout had the same thing with the water chip.

Tech: Thats one thing I thought Rosh and the others were full of it on, yeah the big 'goverments' and groups would have tech

BOS and NCR going to war: It had potentel. I wonder if it was supposed to be set after Tandi died, and a newer less qualified leader took over the NCR.

All in all, it was VERY promising. It had the potentel to TRULY use 3D in a way that fit Fallout.

But it still looked like crap
And not like Fallout, not the same style in buildings and stuff.
If you're switching game engine, switch to something that looks better than the old one, not worse...

That was my point.

S4ur0n27 wrote:The VB graphic looked like early 3D, which was total crap; no detail at all, blend and repetitive textures.

Are you for serious?

You do realise Van Buren was miles away from a playable build, and the graphic textures were on a point in the dev cycle they never got to, rite? Screens were from the tech demo.

Tele wrote:Any more retarded than to force one along a plotline, say, by trying to find a waterchip before your fellow Vault-dwellers died? Or trying to find a GECK?

Aye, both Fallouts drove on FEV as a McGuffin, Van Buren was going to continue it with a new virus (yay!) and scary robots (fleet of cars, baby!)

The robots and the rocket ship were probably the only things I didn't like.

Also, the whole NCR-takes-over-california-andgoes-to-war-with-the-BOS thing was kind of dumb.

Intended to regress the world. The feeling was there was too much progress post-Fallout 2, which was ruining the feel. Hence, step back.

That said, there were two design ideas that were just too good to pass up:
1. Blowing up Hoover Damn would flood half the map with radioactive goo. Not killing everyone and locking off the towns, but changing the towns completely and opening up new paths. Choice and consequence, baby.

2. Once you were on the Rocket Platform DEATHFROMABOVE sattelite (which was a brilliant addition, in the Dr. Bloodmoney tradition of Death From Above 50's fear, I just didn't like that you had to go there (then again, you were supposed to take a rocket to the Master in the original Fallout too))...once you got there, depending on how well you did with science or speech (or other options, I'm unsure), you could stop it from firing a number of nukes...but NEVER all. And you were at the controls, steering them.

Imagine that, in the line of dark and gritty, in the line of moral ambiguity (there's some throwbacks in that direction all through the storyline, noticeably the ghoul settlement), you have to choose, after working so hard to save all the towns, which ones you're going to kill, which people deserved to die and live, but no option to save them all, ever.

Hells yeah.

Even with those titles, I still think Fallout 2 was one of the best RPGs out there.

It is. Fallout 2 burning is slightly misguided. I actually think it enhances on some of Fallout's original RPG gameplay concepts by elaborating them more consistently here and there (noticeably in New Reno), but it just fucks over the setting too much. It's kind of a small step forward in mechanics and execution, but a big step backwards in setting.

Hmmm... so I just thought of something. Does anyone here actually have anything *critical* to say about Fallout 1? Because most of what you said Atoga could just have easily been applied to Fallout 1.

Bad faction and reputation system, slightly unbalanced combat system, its choices sometimes needed more consequence and a lot of the NPCs were really too flat. Other than that, nope.

Imagine that, in the line of dark and gritty, in the line of moral ambiguity (there's some throwbacks in that direction all through the storyline, noticeably the ghoul settlement), you have to choose, after working so hard to save all the towns, which ones you're going to kill, which people deserved to die and live, but no option to save them all, ever.

This reminds me of the original setting with Junktown's quests... Helping Killian would make Junktown suffer, but helping Gizmo would make Junktown flourish. This sort of difficult and troubling decision making would be awfully fun to see in video games. Too bad they cut it out even from the original Fallout, so I doubt we'll be seeing that kind of stuff in the near future

Biggest improvement from FO1 to FO2 would have to be the "take all" button

LoneGunman wrote:Biggest improvement from FO1 to FO2 would have to be the "take all" button

I thought hand to hand combat was vastly improved.

I never was very much for the whole hand to hand combat thing. Even though ive played FO2 from start to finish 6-7 times i never got the hang of it. Neither melee weapons, even though the sledgehammer is very nicely done in swing mode. Looks like a really painfull blow.

Come to think of it, i have always played through the game in the exact same way. Kinda stupid i guess because there is so much diversity in it. However, i never did get bored doing the same thing over and over again. Maybe this is another testament to how great a game series FO is.