Finally, someone who gets it!

I agree wholeheartedly. Fallout was originally designed to be a very dire and serious game, with some dark humor and witty remarks (mostly from the beloved Vault Dweller) thrown in for good measure. I think Fallout 1 balanced seriousness and humor perfectly. Fallout 2 was just a bit over-the-top. You could even tell with the character design at times, NPCs seemed a lot more casual and less believable. The combat taunts also drove me insane in FO2. In FO1 they were used sparingly, but in FO2, I think they were used before every attack...

I think the taunts just went hand in hand with greater NPC involvement within FO2. I also think FO2 was allowed to be a little more casual in the respect that the region had come a long way from the events of FO1. It was no longer so much about the dangers of the wasteland claming and destroying the last remnants of civilisation, and more to do with the politics and diplomacy of the established factions, bringing the powers that be together, instead of in FO1 when people wwere trying to squeeze out a bleak exsistance. That's why I'm not particularly bothered with the changes in FO2. I embrace them if anything, but I guess even the originals have their divided fans

Fallout 1: I was in elementary school when this came out, and I wasn't going to be allowed to play it then. The old graphics might hurt my sensitive eyes.
Fallout 2: I found it for $4.99 and got it but it won't work on my computer, which happens with a lot of old games.

I didn't say there wasn't obvious dark humor in those two products. I'm actually not a big fan of House, but I acknowledge that it has its moments.



Well I never said that my opinion on Fallout 2 was anything more than opinion. I still find it an enjoyable game, but the OOC humor can be irritating at times.

Well I didn't say it was obvious either, but I guess that was the core of your shot, heh.

I've been playing since the day Fallout came out. Followed up with Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics.

I guess it's hard for some folks to understand that reasonable people can have differing opinions. Humor is very subjective to start with.

I'm not sure if that was a knock at me or what, I was just making a point that it's one thing to have an opinion, and it's another thing to be overly critical about a secondary aspect of a game that was never very important to begin with, that seemingly ruined someone's experience of a game. svcks for them, but humor's hardly a big deal whether you like it or hate it.

No, not a knock on you, but rather on this entire thread. There is no set answer for any of this. What constitutes humor, quality of gameplay, the meaning of roleplay or the importance of any aspect of gameplay is highly subjective. I get it that some folks like the humor in FO2. I just don't understand why other folks don't get why I didn't like it. Both points are equally valid, IMO.

Edit: The "svcks for them" argument can be quite the show stopper, and could be applied (and has been...I should know, having done it myself) to any negative argument about FO3, just as well ans any negative argument about anything really.

Wait, wait, wait. Do you mean to tell me that after encountering your anti-Fallout 3 manifestos for months I'm now learning that you've never even played it?



Why am I not surprised?

If we had all the facts and definements, we wouldn't have anything to discuss I understand why you may not like it, but I cannot understand why for someone like Talonfire it was something that, judging by what he said, was a complete embarassment and seemingly gamebreaking, for him at least, each to their own sure, I just think it's a little extreme myself.

And you use that argument far more than I'd like, especially when I used to complain about the overbearing differences in FO3, I half expected you to pull me to one side on that one But I guess it works in all aspects, and is a very cop out statement, but it's just humour, it's not an epitome gameplay, so forgive my flippant comment.

Yes, many of us are guilty of that failure in logic. Many of us have made leaps of faith and are beyond logic when it comes to these games, be it FO3 or the earlier Fallouts. Honestly, all three games are far from perfect, but we as fans, have minimized the faults of our favorite games because what works keeps us happy. Seems obvious, but it doesn't hurt tho throw it out now and again.

I don't recall ever saying it was "game breaking" I just found it annoying, and if I were Black Isle I'd have been embarrassed; especially after the huge negative backlash they got from it.

Where in his post did Gizmo say he had not played FO3. I guess you have missed the videos he uploaded onto youtube. So I guess your making an assumption based on the fact he always keeps FO1 and 2 installed on any PC he owns (like me). He has most certanly has played FO3.

I have played all the games in the series, I like FO1 the most, follwed by FO2, Tactics is an ok JA2 ripoff, FO3 is an ok spinoff type game, not a bad reimagining, but not that great as a sequel.

I've not only played it... I've started modding it


[quote name='orcbait' post='14055747' date='Mar 30 2009, 07:09 AM']Where in his post did Gizmo say he had not played FO3. I guess you have missed the videos he uploaded onto youtube. So I guess your making an assumption based on the fact he always keeps FO1 and 2 installed on any PC he owns (like me). He has most certanly has played FO3.[/quote] :foodndrink:

Where in his post did he say he had?



Yes, I apparently have. I've gotten behind on my Gizmo Fan Club membership fees and I'm no longer receiving the daily e-mails.



No, I didn't make any assumptions (nor should you). I based my conclusion on the fact the didn't mention it in his post.



Very good. I'm glad to hear he's given it a try then.

The question poll question is "How many FO3 players played 1 and/or 2?". So having played FO3 is assumed in this topic, and the question is about FO1 and 2, not FO3.



Actually, you should make assumptions based on the thread's subject.

Regardless of everyone elses opinion in here(which they are all entitled too), Fallout 2 is one of the best games ever made. Look at games now, and then look back at everything in it. You wouldnt need to look hard.

Its a msaterpiece of gaming, popular culture be damned

I've played all three of them, Fallout 1 being my favourite.

I picked up the bundle pack of Fallout 1 and 2 when I entered College. I've been a Fallout Fan ever since. So yeah, I've played all three. Though I'll admit I've never beaten Fallout 2.

Not that there's anything wrong with the game, it just starts to wear on a guy after a bit. Fallout 2 lacks the "Post Apocalyptic" feel of Fallouts 1 and 3. Also I never got the sense of dread from the Enclave that was attached to the Super Mutants. The whole experience was slightly disjointed and seemed advlt for the sake of being advlt (The entire town of New Reno).

I've only played Fallout 3 at a friend's place so far, but I'm going to vote anyway just for the lulz. ^_^

I've played all three installations (and Tactics) in the order they came out. The original Fallout is still undoubtedly the best in my mind, and I'm not sure what I could say about Fallout 3. It's a fun game, but, from my perspective, is it a good FALLOUT game? It's hard to say. I must admit, one thing I have come to like about Fallout 3 in the short amount of time I've played it, is that Bethesda has definitely brought back the post-apocalyptic feel of the original, which was lost in Fallout 2 if you ask me.

I think some people don't consider that 'post-apocalyptic' can only stay 'post-apocalyptic' for so long, of course Fallout 1 is more 'p-a' than Fallout 2, because Fallout 2 is set that much further after the events of Fallout 1 and the great war. Civilisation picks itself back up, it doesn't sit around and play a post-apocalyptic RPG on a pre-war gaming system, and then conplain that the second post-apocalyptic RPG was less apocalyptic than the first one :P I don't even know what I just did there >_<

My point is, I'm more bothered that FO3 is more 'p-a' having been based 200+ years after the great war. As long as it makes sense, I'm happy, and it doesn't make sense as far as I'm concerned. FO2 was about uniting the wasteland, we already had the gore-laiden hallways of FO1's cathedral, and the horrifying mutant threat sweeping the wasteland, what would be the point of doing it again? Whilst FO2 maybe effectively less apocalyptic, this makes every bit if sense to me.

This is true, Fallout 2 featured an actual evolution for the setting. Eighty years after Fallout 1, things actually changed and progressed; while in Fallout 3 everything is exactly as it was in Fallout 1. California and the Capital Wasteland are two entirely different regions, but I find it hard to believe that no one in the D.C. ruins even tried to pull off something to the scale of the New California Republic. Sure the absence of a G.E.C.K. may have hurt in that regard, but even Shady Sands seemed more stable than Megaton or Rivet City.

There's two reasons for that. One is a practical gameplay reason while the other is a lore reason.

The gameplay reason is, you don't resurrect a franchise that's been essentially dormant for 10 years, call it "Fallout" and then have cities and civilization all over the place. The "Smashed back to the Bedrock" setting of the Capital Wasteland was utilized to introduce new fans to the Wasteland.

The lore reason though, is that there's an awful lot of Rads in the Capital Wasteland. Seriously, in Fallout 1 you had the Glow and in Fallout 2 were the Toxic Caves, but that's just one area on the entire map that gives you a heavy dose of Rads. In Fallout 3, there's plenty of places you don't want to linger for long amounts of time, if you value your health. My guess is the more densely radiated nature of the Capital Wasteland compared to the Core Region was detrimental to the development of larger settlements.

Really, through my time in the Capital Wasteland I've come to the conclusion that it's only been in the past 50 years the Capital Wasteland has become even remotely habitable to anyone other then Ghouls. Megaton's only on it's second-to-third generation since it's founding (Since Nathan's Wife's Grandfather helped organize the town). When you look at areas around the D.C. area (like Pittsburgh) and realize that Humans were voluntarily settling those regions despite the conditions, it makes you wonder just how bad the East Coast got hammered compared to the West Coast.

There's also the fact you see no signs of agriculture in the Capital Wasteland. Surviving off meat (from a...variety...of sources) and whatever leftover foodstuffs you can scavenge from the ruins is not going to really allow for massive populations even in the best of circumstances.

Well, its passing as a worthy sequel of the series is subject of much debate. But the argument of gameplay is purely subjective and would be pointless arguing.

Radiation in the Capital Wasteland should be even less of a threat after just a few years, and yet 200+ years later there are still potent levels dotted all over the wastes, it makes as much sense as any other aspect of the D.C wasteland 200+ years after the great war, which is not much sense at all. The original survivors that were trying to get into Vault 101 were able to survive immediately after the firestorm, so I doubt there would be any potency teo centuries later. In previous games you had hotspots, but you still accumulated rads traveling the wastes, not that it's an important detail when comparing the lack of radiation in the wastes in Fallout 3, yet there is a varying degree of potency in other areas, mainly underground metros and interiors. The Capital Wasteland is just as habitable as the core region if not more, to imply anything else is nonsense.

That's a very flipant conclusion. The hub was founded just 16 years after the great war, there's no reason D.C would have essentially be uninhabited for 150 years compared to the core region. Just because Megaton may have only been in existence for two to three generations at most doesn't mean it makes any more sense than the events (or rather non-events) of D.C itself.

As for food stuffs, it's everywhere in the wastes, pre-packaged food still exsists, apparently. This is yet another inconsistency that makes no sense, the Capital Wasteland is plump and ripe for the picking even after two centuries...Need I say more. There are brahmin herds in D.C, and rivet city has the makings of its own hydroponics. Megaton has 30 - 40 residents, an easy amount to sustain and they don't seem to be complaining of a famine. There has always been plenty of opportunity for expansion.