Replace the word "Fallout" with "Batman".

Is Batman Forever out-of-genre because it's not dark like Batman (1989) or Batman Begins? Or is The Dark Knight out-of-genre because it's not campy like the 1960s series with Burt Ward?

Answer: neither. They're just different takes on the same story.

The fundamental elements - rich guy with bat fixation beats up bad guys - are there, but the handling of each is different. Nobody says you have to like every exploration of that thematic setting, so your best bet is just to enjoy the parts you like and ignore the parts you don't. Plenty of people don't like Batman & Robin, but nobody's holding a gun to your head and making you watch it, and for those who love it, good for them!

I like the day-glo camp of Batman Forever and the grit of The Dark Knight. I don't think it makes me less of a fan for enjoying both.

Yeah... FALLOUT 2 wasn't too great, but I still play it and love it. I love the original Enclave outfit compared to the one now. But in all, it feels really out of place.

The random encounters early game in fallout 2 svcked ass
I was traveling from the den to vault city and got stopped like 20 times by the same encounter, either 10 robbers or raiders against me allo of them using jet and stimpacks, i died like every time

It's a harsh world out there.

I loved the random encounters. You were not babysitted and had to actually do something in order to survive.

Sure, but when the power puff girls fly by, the scene is ruined, regardless of which Batman you are watching.

(Not sure if you're new to the series or not, if you are this post might help ya out a little, if not--just go ahead and skip it! )

One thing to remember about Fallout 1 and 2 is that while they are certainly not preventing you from going anywhere you want, whenever you want--they are still linear on a sort of logical level. What I mean is that the game gives you little nudges and hints at the very outset which leads you in a direction where the areas are sort of "level-scaled". If you go straight from Klamath to New Reno, well good luck! It sounds like you were going on this more logical path, as Den to Vault City is pretty much the common path...so I wonder were you attempting to hit the exit section of the map or were you attempting to fight? Sometimes early on in the game running and escaping is a necessity! Usually though, if you follow the nudges, find all the quests in each town and complete them you should be doing pretty good with your experience level and hopefully with your inventory by the time you start encountering harder enemies in the wasteland. I've never had much of a problem with the route I usually take, so I'm not sure what else to tell ya. Aside from this--there's always the beauty of having plenty of saved games before you leave the town you're in!


Another thing to think about is that the higher your Luck, Perception and Outdoorsman skills are--the better chance you have at not only avoiding encounters but ending up placed inside the encounter closer to the red-shading/world-map exit. There are also quite a few perks you can choose which make these moments more lucrative, fun and special:

* Explorer
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fortune_Finder
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Mysterious_Stranger
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Pathfinder
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Ranger
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Scout
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Survivalist

Hope this helps in a possible future retry!


Also, on a related note about Special Encounters--I'm not sure what the deal is with people having a problem with them. While I admit that within the actual content of the game Fallout 2 has many pop-culture references and can tend to lean on the goofy side, I don't find the Special Encounters to be really any different than in Fallout 1 or Tactics. They were always supposed to be merely non-canon winks from the developers to the fans which break the fourth wall--for fun and nothing else. Oh well--you can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Here's the thing...

Even though the Fallout series is described as a Post-Nuclear Roleplaying Game, it never really set out to be an RPG set in a truly post-apocalyptic world. Even the first game, which is very difficult and gritty, has enough zany SCIENCE! moments to really set it apart. It's a retro sci-fi roleplaying game that just happens to be set in a destroyed world. Fallout never had the intention of showing the true to life hardships of living in such a world... it's merely a setting for the story which is almost intended to be taken for granted.

A few posters commented on the similarity of the Fallout series' similarity to Westerns. I've always felt that the Western and Post-Apoc genres are essentially two sides of the same coin. Exactly how different are the Raiders from tribes of "savages"? Watch "High Plains Drifter" and "The Road Warrior" side by side and you'll find that the two have an awful lot more in common than not. "The Man With No Name" trilogy of movies with Clint Eastwood and even "Once Upon A Time In The West" could easily be converted to post-apoc stories in the same vein as "Mad Max" with only a few costume and prop changes.

In fact, when I think of somethign being truly post-apocalyptic, I think of "The Road". The novel (I still haven't seen the movie) focuses more on gritty survival, the bond between humans, and the horrors of a collapsed society rather than S&M biker gangs, mutated monsters, and Warhammer 40K rejects.

I want an RPG. Not a wasteland safari and tourism.

Same here, I enjoyed Jim Carrey as the riddler personally (im a carrey fan shoot me). my favourite movie was Batman Begins though, favourite show was the cartoon I grew up with ''Batman: The Animated Series''.

back on topic, never played fallout 2 but going to soon and from what I heard it was different than the first one in a few ways but it sounds like ill enjoy it alot I always loved a good computer RPG. Shame I missed out on it first time around but ohwell its never too late .

That's a major part of Bethesda's RPGs, and these are the Bethesda forums, and you're here...

It's not like they couldn't improve on the non-safariparts of their games.

Ol' Percy Crump here thinks one big difference no matter how you look at any of the thematic points are the amount of memorable towns and characters in the first two. Heck those two are jam-packed with 'em. Fallout 3 not so much. I have to admit I do love the "safari" part of Bethesda's Fallout and can't think of really any other game which tears down those linear-driven walls so well and just lets the scenery run right by you but still that ain't enough for me. I want characters like Percy Crump and Wooz and Marcus and Athabaska dike and...well you get the picture. :fallout:

I agree that FO2 can seem kinda incoherent at times compared to FO1. In my opinion however, this does not stop it from still being a damn fine game. I'm kind of torn about the special encounters. While some are jarring, most of them still make me smile.

The incoherence of the game isn't just becouse of the special encounters though. Some of the games areas (New Reno) just don't seem to fit with the rest of the game. At the same time, New Reno in some ways is one of the best designed areas of ANY game I've ever played. :shrug:

Am I not allowed to express my opinion mr. nutzi?



I agree, my dream would be a game with Bioware writing and Bethesda free-roam. Now THAT would be epic.

They'd certainly tell you it was, that's for sure (and you could count on one embarrassingly-written romance angle too!).

I always liked FO1 better than FO2, but FO2 had a more refined UI [IE. the fixes needed in FO1]; It was also bigger, and was still very cool. The heads and voices were not as good (IMO), and sprites like Vic and the woman in the black mini-skirt, seemed like crude additions to the assets (being not quite the right art style IMO). Game-wise it was fantastic; and definitely superior; Story-wise, I thought it had the same "sequel curse" that you find in many movie franchises.

The scorpion was silly, though in my personal opinion about it, it would not have been so out of place had the lab been in a shack out in the wastes instead of in the center of town ~(the Fallout series seemed to me to have a kind of "dual reality" going on, where the wasteland was uncharted and weird, while the towns were "back in the world"... Normality ~with only the crazies, psychos, and junkies to worry about.)

hmmm, in order of how much I like the game play

1)Fallout tactics (thank you for pump action shotguns)
2)Fallout 3 (highly modded)
3)fallout 1
4)fallout 2
5)Fallout 3 (not modded.)

In order of what breaks cannon the most.

1)Fallout 3 (biggest break)
2)Fallout BOS
3)Fallout tactics (is it even cannon? its still good story and game)
4)Fallout 2
5)Fallout1 (no break)

What has gotten the most game time?

1)Fallout 3 (modded)
2)Fallout tactics
3)Fallout 2
4)fallout 1
5)fallout 3 (not modded)
6)fallout BOS.

stock for stock, IMO tactics beats Fallout 3 hands down, I loved tactics, the mid west setting and all.
then I have to say, Fallout 1 would be next.

Don't get me wrong, if I could have FO-3 looks and FO-1 game play that would be a blast, I still want to see the following places visited by beth

Mid U.S like tactics.
(vegas covers some of this) southern U.S, as in Florida and such.
Back to the west.

Cool, I like posts like this--helps to understand peoples' posts when you get to know where different members stand with the series. I'll list my own based on your lists:

In order of how much I like the game play and UI

1)Fallout 2 (thank you "Take All" button!)
2)Fallout 1 (it introduced me to what I would judge all other games by)
3)Fallout Tactics (love the prone sneaking position)
4)Fallout 3 (highly modded)
5)Fallout 3 (not modded.)

In order of what breaks cannon the most.

1)Fallout 3 (biggest break)
2)Fallout BOS (thongs? really?)
3)Fallout tactics (semi-official canon)
4)Fallout 2 (ok, guys--things are getting a little hot in here)
5)Fallout1 (no break)

What has gotten the most game time?

1) Fallout 2 (thank you Kilap and all the modders out there!!)
2) fallout 1 (it's a tradition by now, what can I say?)
3) Fallout tactics (only played it ALL the way through twice, but I consistently play it and have it installed)
4) Fallout 3 (modded) ((usually just to see how awesome the modding community is))
5) fallout 3 (not modded) ((the dialogues just completely ruined this game for me))
6) fallout BOS. (no.)

Oh God, I thought I was the only one who felt this way! Fallout 2's new sprites seem too stiff and 3D, hell, I believe they have far more frames (or far more subdued animations) than the original assets from Fallout 1, regardless, I really get annoyed by them. Ones that particularly come to mind are Vic's inability to move his arms and the Geckos which appear to be sodomizing something when they dodge bullets.

I preferred FO1's talking heads - the perspectives were far more neutral and the lighting was much softer, whereas in Fallout 2 almost every Talking Head felt as if they were directly in your face or 2 feet taller than you. Exceptions included Hakunin and dike Richardson, in my opinion.

Gameplay

1)Fallout 2
2)Fallout 1
3)Fallout 3
4)Fallout Tactics

In order of what breaks cannon the most.

1)Fallout BOS - Come on anyone putting FO3 here really is just grinding an axe for no reason.
2)Fallout Tactics - Same deal
3)Fallout 3 (Arguably bits of FO2 could fit here - Talking giant rats?)
4)Fallout 2
5)Fallout 1

I think that the beginning of Fallout 2 was very post-apoc. You had a spear and knife, and it was hard to get bullets if you got your hands on a gun. Eventually you discovered more towns, then yea.



I'll change this to Planescape:Torment writing and Bethesda free-roam. Now THAT would be epic.



Grinding an axe for no reason? Super-mutants never ate humans, just kidnapped and dipped 'em. Children aren't immortal, and killing them makes people hate you. Raiders are people, not psychotic cannibals, with no sense of smell. Computers don't need a power connection to work, and everyone has at least one.

That's just off the top of my head things gamesas totally ignored/overlooked when making FO3.

They didn't eat them in Fallout 3. If I recall, they never explained what happened.


This is purely for Pr reasons. People (especially the ESRB) don't take kindly to child deaths in video games, especially in modern 3d environments.


What? There were plenty of encounters with raiders who weren't insane cannibals, they just did what they did. Raid, kill, and loot.


Perhaps its different on the east coast. In fact, a lot of things could be different on the east coast, especially since Fallout 3 is the only game to visit it.


Of course they did, but that certainly isn't to say the fans, or Fallout 2, didn't overlook things either.

And to add to the thread, Fallout 2 has to be the weakest of them all. Far too much emphasis on combat and too many attempts at being silly.

Again those criticisms could be just as easily and just as accurately applied to Fallout 3.

Different group of people entirely.

Thats like saying that because you met some people that have never eaten it, no person eats venison. Thats not a canon breach

Never mind the fact they seemed to have a whole lot of Kidnap-to-dip going on.

I did have a witty comment here, but upon recalling the rules, I've taken it out.

See my first point

Met plenty of people without computers, and I carried plenty of easily portable power sources in all of the games. I fail to see your point.

I don't know what Fallout 2 is like but, the wild west sounds like fun. How developed is a town going to be post war. ? Fallout 1 seems like Australia or something so far, I think. Australia would be fine but, as locations is concerned that is pretty faraway.