I love FPP, and 3D/Iso ~I just do not like FPP in a Fallout series game.
IMO FO3 should have resembled the Witcher (visually and somewhat mechanically), though set in the future ~without elves.

True, in that it was probably done to balance out the game, but alas it did have the opposite effect (had the game been otherwise in balance, the weight wouldn't have mattered, but as it is, it's just way off). There was no resource management at all in the game, at least not the kind one would notice and care of. And partly because of that, the balance of Fallout 3 was completely bonkers. But then again, I guess that was the idea from the start, easy access to everything, and little to no restrictions and limitations that would've moved the scale a bit to the better (and with only a little cost to accessibility). :shrug:

i can respect that..
at least from a perspective, i think thats why they tried to implement the 3rd person cam.. We all know that it has its bugs. but i do like that it was optional..
I would have been happy with juat a 3rd person.

I know there have been leaps and bounds in iso's as well.
But i do like my visuals and think there can be a happy medium of visuals and mechanics

ha. hope that wasnt too reduntant

Thank you for your flame Boradam. Way to go.

Is there any part of this that you find at fault ... and can you explain exactly why when playing that role of a person.

QUOTE
That’s speaking as a so-called hardcoe F1,2 fan. I was once in love with F2 but am now in love with Fallout 3 for the improvements in game-play. I can understand your frustration, that after having played Fallout 3 with it‘s polish, and then going and playing Fallout 2 where the mechanics produce a diminished role-play it can be a shock. END

That was not a flame, saying that "Thanks for not answering my question, I never expected you to" is a very rude comment.

That does not seem to be a complete question, so please leave the entire thing.

.... and mine was not a rude comment, but a statement of my expectations. Can we stop this drivel that you started please.

The question, I'll try again.

Is there any part of this that you find at fault ... and can you explain exactly what and why when playing that role of a person.

"playing Fallout 2 where the mechanics produce a diminished role-play"

What exactly do you find wrong or incorrect with that and exactly why?

I find Fallout 2 pretty fun to play. You just need to be a bit creative in your thinking
(played fallout 3 first)

Fallout 1 and 2 had a lot of gunplay, and as I said in my original post:-

" was Fallout 3 dumbed-down by comparison, no not really, it depends on how you played the games and what you actually did in them, but that was a matter of choices."

So ... if you chose to just concentrate on gunnery in Fallout3 ... then you will get your warped view of the game ... do more questing and character interactions to get RPG aspect ... it's a game of your choices ... if you're choosing to play wrong, then of course you will have the wrong view and understanding of the game. It is all down to the player's choices, they can play the game however the desire, if they make a mess then it's down to the player's incompetence of game-play mostly.

And standards have risen since FO1, 2. Good grief, how does anybody see that. Hugely improved over those early games, in every respect. It would be horrific if Fallout 3 was the same standard as those early games. Oh no-no-no.

So the Fallout 3 had better story, more diverse quests and was a lot more harder to finish than the originals. How didn't I see that before, must be all the action and nice graphics.

Oh god how I miss the days when games were made by nerds to nerds. Instead of being made by sellouts to masses...

Sorry for being rude, but I just think that was a bit too bold thing to say about the standards.

This.

How do you push ppl in Fallout 2? Sometimes I got stuck with NPC in entrance doors.

Right click on npc, hold mouse button & move mouse up/down to choose from menu.

screenshot: http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k320/Nederviking/scr00002.jpg

*edit* Seriously guys, read the manual & F1 help page before commence playing. The classics doesn't hold hands!

It's a game about real choices that make a real difference both in gameplay and story - if you act out of a character you have made, you will notice it as well as when you act according it. You make the choices of how you want to play. If one feels role-play is diminished due to the mechanics, it's just a players incompetence of gameplay.

See what I did there?

More over, I can't see how that thing you quoted can possibly be, since the mechanics support and even highlight the role over the player. You have to assume a role and play by it. How can that be diminished? And if you pretend that the protagonist is you, I can't see how the mechanics get in the way.

Or, by "role-play", do you mean pretending to be something the game does not recognise or support to begin with? If that's the case, I can understand that playing as Crusty the Clown can be a bit frustrating.

Word! Noticing that some of you don't even comprehend the basics which are written in the bloody manual it's no wonder that your game feels like brahmin dung! Nothing wrong with that btw, the classics are known to have a steep learning curve but don't complain about it when you didn't took the time to read the instructions properly.

Darned! Wooz I need a drink!


Tagging Jinxed would make a goofy Crusty adventure.

This really boils down to YMMV.

I suspect that the majority of those who started with Fallout 1 prefer 1 and 2, and those who started with Fallout 3 prefer 3 and NV. The key is the huge difference between 2 and 3, they might as well be from different franchises. (What did some one call Fallout 3? Oblivion with automatic weapons?) From 1 to 2 or from 3 to NV are evolutionary changes, 2 to 3 is revolutionary...knowing that revolution doesn't necessarily mean improvement. It's a question of expectations of what the game should be like.

I started with Fallout 3, and trying to move to Fallout 1 is a shock, primarily because the graphics, movement and interface are ten years older. Looking at a little isometric figure zig-zagging through a hex grid looks very crude, coming from Fallout 3 and the TES games (speaking of which, Daggerfall is a year older than Fallout 1, but its first-person view was more natural for me, though the graphics are just as awful--just as dated--as Fallout 1). The Fallout 1 interface is so "bad" (translation: "unfamiliar") that it's very hard to get into the game enough to appreciate the writing. Once I get accustomed to the interface it will no longer get in the way of the story, and hopefully I'll come to appreciate Fallout 1.

Eh, I don't know. I tried Fallout 1 and after a few crashes (had the community bugfix patches) and generally mediocre gameplay I never touched it again. Fallout 2 same story except I stuck with it a bit longer. Got to that town with the slaver guild, sold "Suleck" or whatever and got bored pretty fast afterward.

Fallout 1 is simply the best game I have ever played, and that is coming from a FORMER Fallout 3 fan, who came to Fallout by 3. The world felt so real, and the combat was fun. The writing was the best I have every seen from a video game, and everything is just awesome. Once I put the game into my computer, I could not take it out, it was much to addictive.

By the way, the Hub is the best post apocalyptic city ever made in a video game.

I don't care about graphics - that's how I got hooked on that stupid (addictive) javagame called "minecraft". I was browsing the web one day, saw it on youtube and thought: "oh wow what's wrong with this game from 2010, no fancy graphics ?!" I must try this and became addicted!

http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/195/5/4/Creepers_by_TurnThePhage.png

Damn those creepers but I have built sophisticated cactus, redstone circuit water traps!

That wasn't rude Feideri, it was your opinion, fair enough.

Yes Fallout 3 had better overall stories and more diverse quests ... not harder to finish than the originals, about the same depending on how it was played. The originals were easy enough to finish as I seem to remember.

Playing the originals was so easy though with that semi board-game play, it was a shame, it could have been so much better.

The writing of the early Fallouts was ok but nothing to drool about as some seem to do.

The early Fallouts integrated the Board-Game play and Role-play RPG quite well I suppose, but that's if you don't mind that kind of mix in it not being fully a RPG game, it a preference of the kind of game you like, personally I find that the full role-playing aspect of Fallout 3 to be preferable and a huge improvement. Yes at one time I did love the early Fallouts but Fallout 3 made the Fallout genre so much better.

Playing a real "person".

Well done UnDeCafIndeed.

It's a matter of opinion as to whether going from a mix of Board-game and Role-play .. to a fully RPG game is a revolution or evolution.

Whatever you call it .. I vote for it!

.. and that's from one who loved the early Fallouts, I know improvement when I see it, it gets my vote.

Yes I've seen those opinions such as Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns .. laughter .. how can anybody have any regard for what they say after saying such a thing .. chuckle .. they are very nearby, caution.

Thats....... debatable

As for the OP

Is your opinion, so I respect it, but Fallout 1 and 2 was "fresh meat" back in the 90, along with Baldurs Gate and Diablo

As for the RPG nowadays,

Its too fast paced

Yes the early Fallouts were "fresh meat" back then which is why they were so loved, as I did as well. The “fresh meat” now is really what we have now, but still having basically the fundamentals of the old, in my view.

RPG too fast paced?
By comparison, yes faster and no, there are plenty of opportunities in such as Fallout 3 to go slow, VATS and even "pause" will do it. True fast-travel speeds up the game but it does cut down the mundane and less interesting play, and it's quite logically implemented with no real unfair advantage, if you were skilled enough to reach the destination it's reasonable to say that you would be as skilled and able to get back, apart from that assumption fast-travel makes very large maps with numerous locations more feasible to have.