Ever encountered an Enclave partol in Fallout 2? Good luck fighting them as easily as in Fallout 3, with nothing but a hunting rifle.



Mostly because now their bullets magically don't hurt you, even if you're in the line of fire.

Can't agree with you. I've played through Fallout1&2 multiple times and never did I find it challenging. Baldurs Gate1&2 were alot more challenging(and fun).


I'm not saying that companions in Fallout3 are great. But in Fallout1&2 they're just as useless if not more so, and the few commands you can give them don't make it much better.


Yes and I exploded their heads with throwing knives. And no I am not kidding. Max out luck and agility at the start, put enough points into your weapon skill(in my case throwing) get a few good perks and anything that crosses your path is one shot within the first round. If through some magical luck they should survive, they are either blind or knocked out and don't pose a threat anymore.


And I prefer that rather then having companions that pose a greater threat to me then my enemies.

You're not supposed to stand in front of Marcus when he has a gattling laser. It's common sense. Sure, it's random and unfair, but it's totally hilarious when he does tear you to shreds and it's a nice touch to the games. It's better than having your companions run around with safety scissors asking whether or not you'd like them to engage the enemy.

The original Fallout; as someone else pointed out it balanced gameplay and story the best. The Master is also the most interesting villain in the series thus far, and that really helps the game.

Fallout 1 also has the most admirable cast of actors:

• Ron Perlman (He's in FO3 but he's too "angry" there IMO)
  
• Richard Dean Anderson (Killian Darkwater)
  
• Jim Cummings (Gizmo)
  
• Tress MacNeille (Jain)
  
• More Jim Cummings (Set)
  
• Clancy Brown (Rhombus)
  
• Tony Jay (Lou)
  
• Jim Cummings Again (The Master)

You forgot Charlie Adler (Harold)!

Indeed, Interplay hired the best voice actors in the industry. You also forgot Kath Soucie who voiced the Children of the Apocalypse spy in The Cathedral (forgot her name), and provided the female voice for The Master.

Играю во все части, от прадеда Fallout по включительно Fallout3
Поистине впечатляющие проекты компаний Интэрплей и Беседы!
1-2 Fallout – это классика, которая вошла в золотую колецкию игр 20-века!
Хотя самый первый раз начинал с Тактикса, понравился, в дальнейшем прошел и первую и вторую часть Fallout, а буквально год назад Беседа порадовала, всех любителей пост-апокалипсистических игр в жанре RPG – игрой Fallout 3!!!
С мой точки зрения Fallout 3 лучшая игра 2008 года, а по кровавости стоит на одной полке с ?мертвый космос?. Тем неимение, хотелось бы чтобы разработчики Беседы, придумали более новый движок нежели тот который используется в Fallout3, для Fallout 4, если такой проект есть в планах у Беседы. Также можно было увеличить карту, к примеру: не только Вашингтон – (я сделал бы как в UFO). Ведь если разобраться, весь мир по игре пережил ядерную войну (почему бы не добавить). Я думаю многим пришлось по души походить к примеру возле Эйфелевой Башни, или убить пару мутантов возле Биг-Бена.

And there's Tony Shalhoub as Aradesh - I only know that guy from detective Monk but I used to enjoy that show and, apparently so does my grandmother, so we used to watch it together when I visited her (until they stopped playing it at 'convenient' hours ) so I kind of like the guy, even if it's for more 'sentimental' reasons, and I was excited to see him in the FO cast.


Well, that's interesting... I have no reason to doubt that, so I won't insult you by claiming that you (over)used walkthroughs or exploits (save&load during battle and the like) - I'll just assume that you have a 'talent' for that sort of gameplay that allowed you to grasp the 'philosophy' of it faster than most, which made you exceptionally good at it without much effort.

But if that is so, then you should consider that you belong to an 'unlucky' (if you wish) minority of players that are so naturally good at this sort of thing that makes it impossible to perceive the challenge that the vast majority of the people, of those who formed the game's target audience, faced. I, at least, had big trouble surviving in my first playthrough, at least until halfway through the game in FO1&2 while FO3, with its built-in walkthough and god mode, posed no trouble at any point, even though I don't think I'm too good with FPSs. I expect that most supporters of the old FO games faced a similar level of challenge when they first played.

Of course the fact that FO1&2 became way too easy eventually is, I believe, a common complain even between their most dedicated fans - but it should be clarified that that's not an inherent problem of the TB battle mechanics, as other TB games obviously retain high challenge throughout... As such I don't think that the solution is to drop it altogether - to paraphrase the saying: if it's broken why not fix it instead of just throwing it away? It's like if I was to suggest that Agatha Cristie's books should be banned because I can always find who the murderer is even though most people don't (which I don't either - in fact I have never found who the murderer was... not even once :banghead: - but that's just an example)

(and that makes 2 detective story references in a single post + 1 in my sig = 3... yes I'm a lot into murder mysteries lately)


And btw, anyone knows what the guy above wrote? I expect it's some sort of spammish rant or something but it's quite lengthy so I got curious

Since this is an English forum and gamesas is located in the USA, we respectfully request that English is used here for consistencies sake. Nothing against any non-English language, but the forums would become very confusing otherwise.
Да я ничего не имею против Английского языка, но мне казалось те кто читают этот форум, знают русский язык, или хотябы понимают, или у вас там этот язык не изучают?
Также понимаю что вы просите меня писать на английском и при этом, ничего против языка на котором пишу не имеете против, сылаетесь лиш на те факты что будет бардак на форуме. Глупость.
Мне просто тяжело писать на буржуйском тоесть английском языке, ведь я Русский, мой родной язык русский. К примеру когда люди знающие сугубо только английский язык посещают русско - язычные форумы, и оставляют сообщение на английском языке, то я нахожу в себе усилия перевести с помощю переводчика английский текст, что в принцепе вам и советую. Все просто!

Russian is quite a difficult language, so not many people here understand it.

LOL

I love all four of those... but cannot agree with you here. IMO Among the four... Baldur's Gate two is the best, but not for its combat ~not in the least, and not against Fallout 1's situations, and dialog. IMO Fallout is a little bit of 'outstanding', and Baldur's Gate is a whole lot of 'above average'; In the end BG2 weighs more, and wins by quantity. ~In the same way as a starving man might choose a bucket of chicken over plate of BBQ ribs.

I always considered them strangers, and loose cannons ~not army trained troops that could follow commands.

I'd like Fallout 1 the most if it wasn't so darned short. Fallout 2 has a crappy story and setting, but on the other hand it's longer and is less repeating. It also has very badly planned gameplay, with pretty much 70% of weapons and armor useless to the player along with combat where you either win without taking a scrach, or will be eliminated after a few combat turns (or all your companions die).
Fallout 3, it's not great in any aspect but it doesn't have any major flaws neither IMO. It's lot better in gameplay than the previous ones, due to the almost unlimited freedom in it. You can easily spend hundreds of hours in it, while you've seen Fallout 1 after several runs. Yet Fallout 3 is pretty lacking in dialogues, with exception of some dialogues that are pure gold.
But, then again, Fallout 1 is THE Fallout. It also has the Glow, IMO the best place in all Fallout universe.

Fallout Tactics? Meh. It's nice but I really don't like it. The BoS theme alone drives me nuts. That faction is so overrused, especially after Fallout 3. The knights-and-paladins theme it always had is pretty stupid and imaginationless anyway.
For Fallout 3 and DLCs, they're pretty much the same thing. But if I voted for FO3, I'd vote for it with DLCs since I have them.

I think I'll skip the voting. They all svck and are awesome in equal amounts.

You?re right about that.
PS:Are you working on that Enclave mod? I think it?s cool.

I understand your point, but [personally], that's not something I'd be looking for or would appreciate in a Fallout branded game; No I'm not kidding or being sarcastic. I would prefer the original series format of Fallout 1 with just graphics update (more in keeping with the series' use of graphics ~not the way FO3 mostly did it).

If I wanted an open freeform sandbox world, I'd play the Elder Scrolls series, and not the Fallout series;
With FO3 I wanted a refined continuance of Fallout's gameplay from the Fallout series ~but got Elderscroll's anyway.
This is the prime disappointment of FO3.

Wait, so you claim that BG's dialogue and writing was actually worse than Fallout ??

You have made your opinion pretty clear here already. But, you have your opinion, I have mine. There is no absolute truth and all we can do is to write these posts as long as we'd like, to no avail.

But I'm curious, why do you see Fallout 3 as such a demon? Why is it so bad to have freeform sandbox gameplay in a Fallout game? Personally I couldn't care less if it was Mario-like jump-and-kill gameplay for all Fallout games, as long as it keeps me amused. It's not like Fallout was some sort of a, paranoral being that was meant to be something forever. The series would have gone sandbox anyway even if BI kept it.

Fallout had an uncanny knack [I thought] for anticipating the player's desired responses. Like Fallout, BG had a great voice cast (and more dialog to show off their talents), but if you took the best of each, and made an equal list from both... Which would have the better dialog in your opinion?

Nobody votes in Fallout:Brotherhood of Stell, that?s a good thing

Mhm, can't really say which one. You are correct that Fallout has bad-ass player responses but overall, I found the dialogue in BG saga more memorable be it players responses or NPCs. I could write all Irenicus' quotes, Jaheira's or Edwin's rambling, Aerie's whining or Minsc's "Boo" lines.

But hey, it's a subjective matter though and it's either too much OT or the amount of my BG/Fallout nerdism means that I simpy don't have a life. :violin:

(I have many lives !)

In the end, we can both agree that those games are totally, incredibly ass-kicking.

:foodndrink:


You are right about the posts... but I consider what I pointed out as a self evident truth (not something I made up). Imagine that you loved Dawn of War, loved to play skirmishes, loved the fiction and setting. Imagine that Bethesda ~(not Relic), made a SEQUEL (as in Dawn of War 3) as a first person Quake 4 clone where you see the world from one unit [Relic is doing this btw ~but its not a DOW sequel].

It should be plain to see that the game offers none of the tactical gameplay of the series, and offers only the setting itself, and new gameplay.

Its the difference between playing monopoly and Hungry Hippos. The first game is about careful consideration, and the second is about acting first or you lose.

That may well be so... but the original devs were not in BlackIsle anymore, and they always intended Fallout to be a TB choice and consequence game. The Fallout that I played treated the wastelands as a time drain, most of the game centered around the towns, and the PC's ability to affect their fate. Free form exploration of the wastes (if only it were actually wastes) ~is a waste. Now... Had they made it a barren rocky expanse of mostly nothing (preferably with a unique randomized set of locations and encounters ~Such that you can't look one up online) then the challenge would be there, and finding someplace unique that no one else knows about might really be fun, or finding an encounter (like the TARDIS ~as a previous example), might really have had the total weirdness of FO1's wasteland. As it is, its lacking that, and the Alien ship is only there because it was there in the first one too ~and as a lead in to their DLC.

Fallout was more 'real' [to me] because of what it left out, and what the mind filled in ~FO3 cannot fill in ALL the gaps, but fills in enough to make it truly suffer the uncanny valley effect in a bad way. Gameplay wise it just feels wrong to me (it looks fantastic, but as I have said before... the only fun I've had in it was wandering around the wastelands avoiding any NPC that could talk ~and though fun, that's not the kind of play I'd expect or want of a FO#3).

IMO Linear play is no fun, but total sandbox play is no fun either (they are opposite extremes); But where FO3 (and TES4) let you wander at will, irrespective of time, the FO1 has you return to the Necropolis annihilated, or lose when your vault dies of thirst. I guess its the "spirit" of the project that I abhor. Its like if someone rewrote 1984 in Newspeak.

I was playing Stonekeep last night, and that game rather interestingly has an instant death encounter with [almost] no warning, and no recourse ~and its believable. Its not something you'd ever find in Oblivion or at least I didn't (and it wouldn't pass the committee), but its not only memorable, but something that actually felt like a danger.

BTW ~ Stonekeep is par with Oblivion in my book. Different games, but equally good, in uniquely different ways. [and with ironic similarities].

Everything is relative Gizmo my friend and subjective to your own personal tastes. Naturally, we've had this conversation many a time before and the best result that we can ever hope to get out of it is agree to disagree or in the very least respect each others' opinions on this subject.

Plainly put, people look for different things and get different satisfactions within the same activity. I fully understand your pov about why you want Fallout to remain in the same format as it always has been and what are your grievances with F3 as both a Fallout title and named sequel, while I believe you understand my differing perspective as why it is both a worthy sequel and game based on my own judgment.

I've often quoted different games which have altered their gameplay structures in order to "modernize" their titles or in the least reflect what the audience looks for during the times. Resident Evil and Metal Gear quickly spring to mind as examples of games whose core gameplay were altered and gained, not just exceeding success over their predecessors, but high critical praise for these changes.

F3 is far from perfect, in fact many of the shortcomings you criticize are those I myself agree with; mainly the elimination of choice/consequence and the watering down of the story; mind you I by no means agree that F3's story is bad or even poorly constructed as others express, I merely would have liked to see it expanded and the characters even more when judging against the stories of games I find much more developed such as Mass Effect.

This said however, I also have to comment that I don't find the original Fallout titles' stories to be that grandiose either. In fact when it comes to dialogue with Fallout and Fallout 2, I'm quickly reminded of a Beth title which often shares favorable nostalic evaluation: Morrowind. These games are often praised and heralded as being masterpieces, as some might argue, particularly when compared to the current iterations of Oblivion or Fallout 3. What I found after actually playing these games was that in fact they were hardly that superior at all to those they were being compared to.

The Vault Dweller's choices of dialogue were more developed and certainly hilarious (Oh that line about the sandwitch makes me giggle to this moment); but take just about any other character in the game and what you'll find are watered down and generic quest givers which offer a little information about the town you're at, the mission at hand, and maybe if you're really lucky of their background. The conversation I enjoyed the most in Fallout was with Harold because I felt he was the only real character outside the Vault Dweller who was given any sort of depth. Take anyone else: Aradesh, Tandi, your namesake, Killian, Ian, Decker, or whomever and really examine all of their dialogue and you may find what I mean. I find them about just as ordinary as any npc in F3. Chose One and the npcs of Fallout 2, the same.

Morrowind, oh my God how I was bashed over the head about the genius that was Morrowind when compared to the dull lameness of Oblivion. So I sat down one month and a half with the ES3 GOTY edition and played my way every quest I could from Vvardenfell to Solstheim and you know what I found? Exactly the same result as Fallout. Sure, I enjoyed the 10 minute long conversation with Vivec who was so rich in character that I hardly wanted to leave but everyone else...from Barenziah to Helseth to Dagoth Ur, they were just ordinary as characters. The wealth of Morrowind's richness lays in the background lore found in books. But all in all, their npcs were just quest givers with a little or no more to say much like Oblivion's; and in fact Oblivion's way of transmitting lore was simply altered to conversations instead of thousands of books thrown about everywhere, not diminished as most claim.

I really enjoyed my time playing Fallout and Fallout 2, I find the worlds intriguing and the settings are top notch because of the ideas that they represent. I find that this was translated well into Fallout 3, even though the fundamental gameplay was changed, and in fact altered to a preferred method of playing for me. When I'm playing a game, I like living the experience that the character is having; I like being the character as opposed to observing him like I would do a movie. Perhaps this is the reason why I enjoy Fallout 3 more; the Vault Dweller's journey was entertaining but somehow disconnected for me as I was more of an observer...I was recounting his journey but it was still his, with the Lone Wanderer it was my journey through the Fallout universe I experience because I am the Lone Wanderer and experienced the journey through my eyes.

This is the reason why I selected Fallout 3 as my favorite game. Nevertheless, in a strange way, I honestly feel that because they are so different Fallout 3 and its predecessors actually complement each other very well, the same as I feel about Morrowind and Oblivion.

PS Hope to see some more progress on that [censored] Enclave armor Gizmo, it rocks! :foodndrink:

I have to agree with gizmo too. What makes FO3 so "bad" is that since it is now the "official" sequal it's gameplay is now the "official FO" play style. So gone are game's in the originals vien. Unless you really see gamesas doing a 180 and actually making the next game in the FO series in the same way as the originals. IT's taking the FO game from one genre into a whole nothing gerne of play. I will likely never return to it roots. Also if you follow gamesas pattern of gameplay development, it only gets more and more dumbed down the more they "develop" the series. SO I perdict that you'll never again see anything like the original games in the series ever again.
Do yo uunderstand now?

EDIT: typos! Arrgh