I've seen it and I have only been here twice for any prolonged period of time, now, and once before new vegas came out. certainly it was much more prominent before, but not so much now. I guess coz all the true Fallout fans have stuck around here and aren't ignorant of F1 and F2, and all the casual fans or Beth fans went away or went off to play Skyrim.

Hey man, nothing wrong with a cheap game! the whole reason i donated 15 bucks to wasteland 2 was to get a copy on the lowskie. If it turns out to be really good I'll def buy a full priced box copy when it releases, though.

It's like I told a new member the other day, $20 or less isn't that big of a risk if you really enjoy Fallout. Sure they are old and even if you don't think you will like it because it's turned based. It's less then $20 for Fallout, Fallout 2 and Tactics. It is more expensive to go see a move nowadays so why not buy them? I would rather buy three old games then go see a movie that will most likey be crap.

See, I think there are very glaring obvious issues with FO2.

A lot if people moan on FO3 story and writing.

Well, FO2 had: vault experiments. Yo, gotta be surprise yo!

FO2 had: POOF: Enclave. Yo, yo, yo! Here we are!

But people who except glaring plot pits, moan and MOAN: wtf Enclave or BoS doing in CW, and cry they did it for fan service, and some even say it breaks canon.

So, that is what irks me, is people who think the originals are just a gift from God, and bash FO3. With that said, I think the opposite bashing is also lame.

Everyone has their gripes, and that is fine, but just complaining gets nowhere, imo. So, I look forward to FO4, and as a consumer, I expect a product that will rival the originals. With their first fallout under their belt, and a learning experience it was, I do not think that is a unfair expectation.

What is funny is I bought the three pack, cuz I didn't think I ever played Tactics. My best friend says: "Dude, I watched you play that game. It has the drill instructor from FMJ. So, when I got around to playing it, it all came back. Oh yeah, I did play this. I later found my original copy in a box.

So, PSA of the day: don't do drugs.

Fallout 2 is my 3rd (behind Fallout 3 and Tactics) least favorite Fallout game for those reasons and more.

So will you please drop it, people have different opinions then you, complaining about it gets you nowhere.

Really? Because ive seen it pretty regular. Were you here in the build up to the release of F3? The amount of hate for the originals was unfathomable, and continued for a long while after release to a lesser extent.

Maybe the whole who hates what more arguement should just be laid to rest for now. The vast majority of us who live in this section don't hate, that should be enough.

Yeah there was some pretty bad stuff in F2, Talking Deathclaws, Vault Experiments etc
We dont ignore that, we know its there. we learnt to enjoy the game despite aspects of it, just like with F3 (although there may have been more problems in f3)

But you don't make a baseball team play football for half the innings. And if you do it probably wouldn't be a great mystery why baseball fans hate the change.


Try playing through Fallout 1 and 2 with a Strength 1 character. Bet you'll be utter [censored] at combat since you can wield essentially no weapon effectively. Try playing through Fallout 3 that way. Oh no you have less inventory space. Good thing ammo is weightless and there's no strength requirement for this rocket launcher. Try playing through the originals with 1 agility. Can't do much in combat compared to a 5 or 10 agility can you? The only difference in Fallout 3 is you can't use VATs as much. Try playing through the originals with 1 perception. Bet you're gonna have a hell of a time hitting anything with a ranged weapon. Try playing through Fallout 3 or New Vegas with 1 perception. Red dots show up on your magic compass a lot later. Good thing you can manually spot most enemies if you're halfway cautious.


Perks? Perks don't change the fact that perception and agility went from demonstrably important skills with a major impact on your character to providing minor bonuses. In the realtime combat of Fallout 3 a 1 agility and 10 agility character perform exactly the same. A 1 perception character will have no more trouble headshotting a super mutant at 500 yards than a 10 perception character.


Yes it was pointless in Fallout 1. Then in Fallout 2 they tried to find a way to make it more important. It didn't completely work and you could still get around it via heavy abuse of mentats (although at least you end up addicted to those in the originals) but they were looking to correct the issue and Van Buren was going to try even more by making charisma have a lot more impact on follower interactions and dialogue checks. Then in Fallout 3 it went back to being a dump stat along with Agility, Strength, and Perception. This is why people complain about Fallout 3. Instead of looking at the original games and saying how can we do better as y'know Fallout 2 and Van Buren attempted it just focused on a bastardized merging of Fallout with the Elder Scrolls.

From a business perspective that makes perfect sense as would making that baseball team play football if you knew it would bring in hundreds of thousands of new football fans. From the perspective of a baseball fan it svcks.


Who is talking about difficulty? Although I really don't know why you would ever consider Fallout 3 hard. I died the once the entire game because I wanted to see how far I could fall without dying. Are you seriously telling me one of those highwayman random encounters on the way to Vault City or the remnants of the Master's Army around New Reno never ate you for lunch? If so you got pretty lucky.


RPG has a very broad definition these days. You can't tell me with a straight face that Fallout 3/NV and the originals are the same type of game. And crazy though it may seem some people may vastly prefer one type of game to the other and hope the series can return to that or at least get as close to it as possible.

The reaction you felt there is an ongoing constant of what it's like for me to patrol these desolate forums.

Complaining about the complainers; be they real or imagined, is no better than the initial act of complaining.

Oh well here we go again.
I don't hate Fallout 3 as a game, as a game it's really fun, I spent 800+ hours on it, I can't think of 10 games I've spent that much time playing.
But I hate it as a Fallout game, there is the difference.

And I don't hate Bethesda, they do make good games, just not good RPG's, so I don't trust them but I don't hate them.

Really?
I've seen tons of things, [censored] graphics, horrible controls, old and not relevant to the series anymore, bad writing, bad concept, bad design and lots more.

Okie: Aby of those Special combos, I coild play the games with.

With any stat you say, lowered to "1" and taking Gifted(with gifted you cannot have a stat of 1), if I wanted I can, at character creation have 3 stats at 10, one 6, one, 7, and two at 2.

Or, 2 at 10, Luck at 8(10 when I get NCR) and bumb up the 6,7 or both.

With AG of 2, I still have 6 action points. I would prolly make a melee character with STR 10.

And seeing how you didn't nerf my traits, I could take small frame with the STR 10 and have agi 3, which makes a difference if I choose inc agility perk.

Even with Charisma 2 as long as I tag Speech it starts 40%. I have int 10, no lack of skill points. Not getting BRoF will svck if I want to use guns..so, I prolly stick with melee. Good thing at end game I don't even have to fight.

So, whatever Special you want to self nerf down, you can still make a billy bad boy who kicks butt, even if that includes smooth talking. That is how it works.

Perks with low agility requires careful planning. But my first choice would be cautious nature. Will help if I just run from random encounters until I get outdoorsman high.

Btw, and it been awhile since I played 3, but if there is no min str to fire a RL, they are still heavy. Pretty hard to carry stuff with str 1, so lugging any heavy weapon around would svck. I've never used heavy weapons for that reason, and that is with average Str.

And no, in FO2 random encounters never chewed me up. If I made a combat character I played agility 10. And If forced to fight someone I knew could kill me, can easily run. But by the time you get VC you handle raiders, and by NCR you can handle anything but Enclave, and by San Fran it is a cake walk. I leave my companions in San Fran and clear Navarro and the rig by myself. It fairly simple.

But, whatever. Can SPECIAL be better? Sure.

Do you hate FONV as a FO game, too?

Of course you could. You could probably make a pretty effective character with probably any of those examples I offer as you demonstrate below. But your character would still be quite different from a character with a much different stat distribution and will not be nearly as good at activities that rely on stats they're deficient in. That's the difference between the originals and Fallout 3. In Fallout 3 a 1 perception character can blow enemies heads off half a mile away as effectively as a 10 perception character. A 1 agility character performs the exact same in every way out of VATS as a 10 agility character. You can be a deadly unarmed fighter with 1 strength or 10 strength.

This is how SPECIAL was defining in the originals and not so much in the newer games.


There is no minimum strength to fire any weapon in 3.

A minigun weighs 18 pounds in Fallout 3. Thanks to Strength having less of an impact on carry weight in the newer games the lowest weight limit you can have is 160 pounds. Combat armor weighs 25 pounds, helmet 3 and ammo is weightless so a fully kitted out character with a Strength of 1 and no strength boosting equipment or bobbleheads still has 117 pounds of free weight.

Now your strength 1 character in Fallout 1/2 will be unable to hit much of anything with the minigun to start with given that he's 6 points below what is required to use it. He'll also only be able to carry 50 pounds of equipment which means a minigun, weighing in at 28 pounds will take up more than half of his carry weight. If he wants combat armor he'll have a grand total of 2 pounds free for all other equipment including ammo for that minigun which actually weighs something in the originals. Or he'll be stuck with leather armor the entire game.

This is a great example of why SPECIAL was more defining in the originals than the newer games.


Surprising. I recall even having one very combat focused character wiped out by the Master's Army remnants around New Reno. However that's subjective. I certainly wouldn't dispute that Fallout 1/2 are quite easy games overall. I just find the newer games even easier.


Okay. So why are you complaining about people complaining about it and things like it? That's how you hopefully get things to improve. By criticizing it and pointing out where and how it can do better.

No, I don't hate it as a Fallout game, I love/hate it as a Fallout game, love it as an RPG and like it as a game.

To explain that.
Love/hate: It isn't truly Fallout but it's the most Fallout we could get with Bethesda's design and restraints on complexity as with the time constraint.

Love: I think it's a great roleplaying game, I've been able to roleplay in it really well.

Like: I only like it as "a game" because while it's RPG aspects are good it doesn't have a dynamic world so it quickly becomes boring, it has a lot of wasted space in it, like the cliffs along the eastern side of the river at the south, lots of land that could have had something of interest but is just cliffs, it's unbalanced with combat and it has it's engine problems.


I don't love it on all three aspects the same as I don't hate it on all three aspects.

IMO Fallout is the franchise; Also IMO a franchise stems from the root upward... IMO Fallout 3 is a grafted branch from the TES tree growing off the Fallout trunk... and it's fruit is is now what is expected by the [new] majority of Fallout fans. Fallout New Vegas is like a branch taken from the Fallout trunk and grafted onto the TES tree.

To put it another way... Fallout 3 is [IMO] a TES derived Fallout; while Fallout New Vegas is almost (but not quite) like a Fallout derived TES ~there is a difference.
I prefer neither over the original roots. Using the above examples as a base, I would have wanted a Fallout derived Fallout 3 instead of either one of what we ultimately got. IMO Van Buren would have been a Fallout derived Fallout 3, and even the Troika Tech Demo looked like it could have become one had they secured the license.

Closer to Topic: I do not think FO:NV could have been different; for Bethesda was both publisher and owner, and they surely had the final say in every detail of the design. We know that they forbade certain aspects of Obsidian's ideas.

That's about how I feel as well.

I thought all the dinosaurs were people who played the originals first.

Hence Dinosaur meaning old fossil, possibly meaning old fan.

Meh.......now i can't find my FONV disc....where did it go.......

Okie: I would say weapon skill, small guns or energy weapon defines how well you can hit as opposed to perception. This, seems changed in Tactics, where range becomes more of a factor. So with PE 2(gifted) as long as I get my weapon skill 125% + I don't think it would matter, but, it would mean no sniper perk or sharpshooter(not as good in 1,2 anyway). However, with luck agi 10 and better crits and more crits, it wouldn't matter.

Str 2 a tougher self nerf, until PA. Then you are golden with a pulse rifle, which I believe has str 3 or 4.

I use VATS, so for me in FO3, low agility would svck. As would pe, as I do believe FO3 still has range modifiers. Don't use VATS, and you are correct. The only weapon I do not use VATS with is long range Gauss rifle fire. Or a sniper rifle if I used one, I am a energy weapon kinda guy, even though imo gauss is not ew.

In regard to master remnants. That random encounter is always 2 nightkin, 2 centaur and 1 or 2 floaters. One nightkin will have laser rifle. The other I think uses a flamer, maybe sometiMES RL or minigun. I always go NCR before Reno, which means I am pretty set for gear, but usually I run into mobster and yakuza around reno, and remnants around military base. I usually go San Fran before military base, so APA for me, once I talk to Matt or whatever BoS dude is. With outdoorman books a plenty, well...

But, blah. I view FO3 as a fallout game. It is a rpg, in that world. I didn't play TES before...so to me, it was all new. But, I have given my expectations for 4, and plan on the games to improve, as NV improved aspects of 3, that trend should continue, and I will be a happy camper.

Try the second drawer from the bottom.

[edit]

Also, it's not like I don't think Fallout 3 has any RPG in it, no no, I think Fallout 3 is an sandbox action adventure game with RPG elements, just like Saints Row 2 and Skyrim.

Just thought I'd clarify that part.
I don't think Fallout 3 is an RPG, but it does have RPG elements.

I originally thought that also. I guess I am a fossil, as I played in order, and I'm old. At least women have stayed same age since I first played.

It would have been perfect if they would have let you continue playing after the main quest. -.-

It depends. Do you want Fallout 4 to be more like New Vegas and the orginals or do you want it to be more like Fallout 3?

It would have been terrible if they had done that. There would have been only two ways for them to do this, either make the pre-ending very simple so you can show all of the changes(Fallout 3) or have a pre-ending as complex and far-reaching as New Vegas', but change very little after the fact. There is no way that you could stay true to all of the changes the ending of New Vegas entails, it would be like making an entirely new game. Plus continuing after the ending would have invalidated the story of the Courier and the all importance of the Battle of Hoover Dam.

I also personally don't see the point of this in an RPG. I'm fine with it in say Red Dead: Redemption or a GTA because you aren't role-playing in them and there is very, very little choice in how the story takes place so the world wouldn't change hugely. When I finish the last mission of an RPG though, I've completed the story of that character and I move onto another one.

Perception definitely has a significant impact on your chance to hit in ranged combat in the originals. And again I'm not saying a perception 1 character would be unworkable in Fallout. I'm saying unlike Fallout 3 it has a clear and significant impact on your character.


Again this is not me challenging you to figure out an effective build within these constraints. You can probably do that. That's a good thing in a decent RPG. This is me pointing that unlike in Fallout 3 and to a lesser extent New Vegas SPECIAL stats actually do have a major impact on your character.


And I don't use VATs very often so it's a complete dump stat and my 1 and 10 agility characters perform exactly the same. Fallout 3 does not have range modifiers as far as I'm aware. My 1 perception and 10 perception character can certainly both be awesome snipers from the get-go. My strength 1 character deals as much damage with his punches as my strength 10 character.


So why do you have an issue with people pointing out Fallout 3's missteps in the hopes that future games will correct them and improve?

I don't have an issue with that. My issue was with people who bash and offer up no constructive criticism, and act like 1 and 2 were perfect, which they are not.

The melee str damage thing does not make sense, I am pretty darn certain STR gives damage increase.