a different way to look at 3 and NV would be to see them both as Fallout 3, just Fallout 3 DC and Fallout 3 NV since that is the up and coming trend in video games or at least you could suspect that developers would use such a trick to avoid the perception of franchise fatigue

It's just a shame, because I love the world to pieces, but Fallout 1 and 2 are just really, really boring to me. Some people argue that turn-based gave it more strategy than the new games, but I really do like the first-person FPS perspective more. Turn-based games drive me mad and I tried tabletop role-playing with Dungeons & Dragons and hated it.

No but you stated the entire game was which would include WW of which I am sure you can agree with is not all canon(though some might be debated as such)

Try it with GZDoom source port and Brutal Doom mod

And games that have http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8ZgtBl1sr4 are simply not made anymore

On topic of Fallout, i never seem to get too far in it either I once end up into some place filled with super mutants i had no hope of beating

Personally I immensely dislike turn-based games. Fallout 1 didn't appeal to me all that much and I've never really figured out why. Maybe something about the time-limit...I dunno. Fallout 2 however...appealed to me immensely. Despite it being turn-based, somehow. The story just kept dragging me back again and again, demanding I finish the bloody thing.

The game didn't think I was a moron and didn't hold my hand like a lot of other games do. It just said "here's the story, here's your character, here's your map......knock yourself out". That was it. No extensive tutorial on what did what and how you were supposed to do things. Just play, if you do something 'not so smart' the game will let you know. Usually by pwning your pixelated rear. Add a good story and good characters to it and I was sold. I'm not saying that Fallout 1 didn't have good story or good characters...I highly doubt it did...I just never seemed able to get in to it. Fallout 2 though...Hell yes.

I don't know, the game surely thought i was a complete moron.

Probably because i had my intelligence set to 1, hahaha
That's a joke.
Fallout 1 is great.

I don't own Fallout 2. Did they even change much?

About that time limit thing on Fallout 1...

I do think people make too much of it. Without getting into spoilers, only the first part of the Main Quest is on a timer. Once you complete a couple of objectives (that actually make sense for needing a time limit, really) you can take your time after that.

And honestly? They give you a lot of time to complete that objective. You get reminders the closer you come to hitting the time limit, and there's even one (possibly two, can't quite remember) way to extend the time limit.

The time limit is a bit off-putting, but at its core I simply don't enjoy the turn-based combat. It's a shame, because I really want to experience the story, but cannot stand the gameplay. I guess I can always watch a playthrough on YouTube. Somewhere might have compiled the main story quests together, or something similar.

Yeah, I feel differently about turn-based games (they're my personal preference,) but it's just a difference of opinion. There probably are some youtube videos out there, I'd imagine.

http://tagaziel.blogspot.de/2012/01/sequel-vs-spinoff.html

In short:

- The lack of a number is meaningless
- The contents matter and Fallout: New Vegas is a direct sequel to Fallout 2
- New Vegas is a part of the main series, to argue otherwise is baseless




In other words, you're accustomed to hand holding and being spoon fed fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/images/4/40/FunComic.png). For older games you need to free your mind, Brad. Learn to think outside the box. Find your own solutions.

Basically, become an active, rather than a passive participant of the experience. The reason Fallout seems weird is because you don't get a pop up telling you to go look for your dad and giving you the place where to look. Instead, you're given a clue and then you have to work out where to find the water chip. Take a proactive stance. Explore. Ask questions. Shoot monsters. Shoot people. Then explore some more.

It's glorious. But you need to free yourself from the shackles imposed by modern mainstream games.


Ooooh yeah, baby. Brutal Doom blows most recent shooters out of the water in terms of pure fun and hardcoe gameplay. Best enjoyed on Ultraviolence!

It's not to do with the spoon-fed customs of new titles, because I've played plenty of games which rely on you thinking of way to solve problems. The original Deus Ex, for example, often had it so that the simplest (usually FPS style) of solving a problem was usually the worst. It's simply the turn-based nature of it. I hate it.

If I do decide to give it another go, could you offer any tips? Because, as of last night when I gave it ago, I found myself using up the entirety of my supplies within the first dungeon (Vault 15). It just seems really hard.

No "extensive tutorial"? Are you forgetting the awful, awful Temple of Trials crap?

I would replay Fallout 2 a LOT more, but everytime I think about doing so, I remember I have to get through the 'Ren Fair' tribal junk at the beginning of the game that feels like a dimensional warp opened and Baldur's Gate collided with Fallout in the California desert. Who built a giant stone temple with a carved stone head to rival the Sphinx after the apocalypse?! Was it the tribals? How? When? Why are they living in tents then?

Not to mention that whole Temple tutorial is a trial in frustration if you are putting points into anything but Melee or Unarmed.

Come on now, the temple takes you 5 to 10 minutes to run through.

Have you got the combat speed turned up in both ff and fo?

Also as someone said you should have "always running" set as on.

This is a FO forum . . so I don't think it's a matter of people"fussing"over FO1 so much as it's more a bunch of fans in one place

old and new.

I didn't say people were "fussing" over the game. I simply meant it as a question, as to what the critical renowned is about. I can't get past Vault 15 without raging over the game.

The turn-based system is simply awful. I expected there, in a turn-based tactical game, to be a cover system of sorts - but no.

The voice acting isn't very good, but that I cannot slander it for cause neither is Bethesda's always the best, and the graphics weren't necessarily awful for its time but certainly not impressive either.

Why does it get critical acclaim is more what I'm asking...

You forgot that most of things the guy is talking about are opinions. IT IS a spin-off because Bethesda said so... they own the rights to the franchise and they did not create this game. Its a technicality! I'm trying to figure out why you want to defend it so bad? I guess you could say that its a direct sequel to Fallout 1 and 2, maybe... but it is a spin-off in the series of games that BGS is making, plain and simple.

I love it for the story and characters it's a game that gets better the further into the story you get, i'll admit that the turn-based combat system is pretty simple (I can't think of a TB system more simple off hand) but the amount of choice and consequence and the story is what makes it good for me.

I know. I just hate it so much.

It destroys and delays immersion in the game world for me, and just doesn't make any sense. I still replay Fallout 2 once every couple of years, but I just hate it's beginning on a visceral level.

A Does it matter?

B it's got so much content and adds to the series so much it shouldn't be considered some sort of side experience like spin-offs can be.

Let's not turn this into a debate as to whether or not New Vegas is technically a spin-off, but as you've said I'm pretty certain that even Bethesda and Obsidian themselves referred to it as a spin-off. After all, Bethesda are making the main Fallout series now, and New Vegas was not made by them. I don't see the fuss anyway. It's not as though being referred to as a "spin-off" makes it any less of a great game.

Thats exactly what I said on the first page? All I was trying to say is that it is a spin-off technicality, it doesn't make the game any worse or better? I loved NV, but was simply stating a fact about the game in technical perspective.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas are both awesome. End of.

Fallout 1, on the other hand, is a gem which is too rough for me. I just can't stand it...

The turn-based combat and difficulty are real off-putters to me.