Have to say, I agree.



You know what a random encounter is? You know how you could be jumped by the wrong sort of enemy, something just a bit too powerful for your current level and equipment, as you tentatively travelled the map?

I'd love to know what perfect moves would save you from a gatling gun and missile launcher-wielding group of super mutants if you happened to be caught too close to Mariposa. Reloading and hoping for a bit more luck I suppose.

Fallout 3's higher difficulty settings annoyed me in the fact that your enemies just turned into giant bullet sponges. Mutant Overlord on Very Hard difficulty wasn't particularly "hard" to take down... I was more worried in the fact that I would run out of bullets...

I wish instead of just turning enemies into big bullet resistant pieces of meat, that they actually had better combat skills when the difficulty was higher up. I mean, you can notice people taking cover in the game, but say on very hard difficulty you were fighting mutants, and instead of just slowing walking towards you rapidly firing and reloading, they might aim for a limb or go behind cover and blindfire...

yea, I guess we just need better combat AI overall *sigh* dreams for Fallout:Chicago

Sometimes, when you put you stuff out here, it really makes me wonder if you played the games at all.
We all know how turn-play worked, those of us who played it. Unlimited time was not an issue .. if you couldn't think of a good move in a reasonable time then it is unlikely that you ever will, but unlimited time will help those that are a bit slow.

Well I found it very easy in Fallout 2, I quickly figured the tactical best approach, best way to play and best moves to make ... once you have done that the rest is plain sailing.

It then became boring at times because I knew I was going to win a combat, but had to go through it in slow motion taking turn by yawning turn. How do turn-play fans enjoy that.

That's speaking from my experience of playing the game.

Yes back in those days the game was about the best you could get and I enjoyed it, but now the present Fallout 3 is vastly better in all respects. Some old games are worth playing again but not Fallout 2 for me.

The Fallouts 1 and 2 are for turn-play fans, (who on here seem to take every opportunity to try to trash the real-time role-play of Fallout 3 that I find vastly superior).

I really don't see how you found Fallout 2 hard, you even had more companions to help you, and under no pressure of time to think of a good move.

We are never going to agree, you like turn-play, I like role-play of Fallout 3. Leave it at that.

I wasn't trying to convert anybody, only giving my experiences, and mine was that Fallout 2 was not difficult if you thought about it, and you had plenty of time to do that.
Just saying

It would be good if at higher settings the AI was better but that would be a bit unfair to those playing at easier settings. Give enemies better weapons and armour would be better ... kind of making them bullet sponges I guess ... but the player seems to be a bullet sponge anyway, shrug .. and with all his stimpacks and perks ... and the enemy never seems to regain their lost health when you return after resting, no wonder the player can never lose.

Personally, I moderate the weapons, armour and other things I use to give a constant difficulty of play .. it works but it would be better if the game did it for me.

That's not really what I was talking about, though. The combat wasn't hard the get a grasp on (as in, understand how you meddle with it), and I never claimed otherwise. You can't sail rough if your sails are bad and keel unfinished.



The same way you enjoy the run'n gun of Fallout 3. Which, in my eyes, could've even been fun with a bit more work and focus.



Sure, but mostly these days, it's not the concept anymore so much as the realisation that gets 'trashed' and hoped to be imrpoved upon in the future. You see, people can make, and agree with reasonable compromises. See how New Vegas fares, it's far from perfect, but it does try to create something more of a middleground between the originals and the Bethesdian style. You don't see too many "original fans" trashing it.

Once again I am reminded as to why I don't post as much.

Yeah, I've pretty much stopped posting too.

:confused:

Nether one will be favorite when a Fallout that FINALY lets you join the Enclave (without mods) comes out A.K.A Fallout 4.......................................................................................................................hopefully............just kidding it will!!!!!!!!...........................or Bethesda's going to NOT have a happy camper on thier hands!!!

It's:-
which fallout game do you like the most and why?

Fallout 3 is my favorite because its more accessible than 1 & 2 but I do love all of them.

Fallout 2.

Fallout 3 for how much it improved on Fallouts 1 and 2.

(Not sure if I've said that before)

In your opinion In my mind, it dumbed it down for the masses.

My favorite Fallout game is clearly the best Fallout game, Fallout 1. It has some of the best writing ever done in a video game, the death animations were bad-ass, and the ethics were grey.

To top it off, the world was designed with plausibility in mind, and the world felt so real, almost like I was living in it. The Hub is the best city ever made in a video game, right down to the http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxEkElmi7nw It really felt like a thriving city.

I have played 1,2,3 and new Vegas

Played FO3 loved it but I felt like I was being hit in the head with a baseball bat in writing(had few exceptions) and while had creative towns without going over the top lacked any proper depth and to much good and evil. DLCs mixed, loved the pitt and point lookout, hated MZ and the other 2 were ok. Also had the best world to explore.

FO1 had trouble geting in to the turn based(ussaly cant stand turn based) but I came to love the game for the towns and writing (plus multiple endings what wasnt based between being truly evil or a saint). Towns had a lot of depth but dident find them over creative in design.

FO2 Enjoyed it but alot more mixed, liked the darker themes and how towns are now geting civalized but the over the top popculture got stupid and some towns seemed to be very disconnected with the world (San Fransico comes to mind alot). Poor weapon balencing


New Vegas Loved it constantly and be my favorite since it gets a great middle ground between the classics and the new, great writing,multiple endings, decent companions with the gameplay of Fallout 3 with Ironsites and recipe system. Though lacked Fo3s explorabilty and the classics population in towns (though guess thats the price for the middle ground). Enjoyed NVs more bittersweat endings and poltics. The DLC so far I found is great, though starting to grow a tad impaitent with no trailer or release date for Honest hearts though.

Duh. You dont get what im saying..

Fallout 3 is my favorite. Sure there were a lot of things that didn't make sense and the dialog wasn't the best. But I liked the story just fine and I liked the colorful characters[even if a lot of them did have the same voice. ]. The game is just downright FUN! and the replayability is fantastic. The detail and thought put into the landscape and locations is amazing. I really love the post apocalyptic setting and the FO3 atmosphere. Exploration is supreme. The quests are fun and challenging.

Fallout: New Vegas has it's good points...dialog, companions(the best thing!), more guns and crafting, there is some roaming which is nice, but not much in the way of challenging exploration. I also feel like I'm being funneled in a certain direction when I play it. And I have a huge issue with the quests. I find most of them very boring and not replayable at all. They are mostly blah, blah, blah, blah, blah and then go here, go there, fetch this, fetch that, with no challenge involved. The main storyline I also find uninteresting. The fight on the dam is lackluster to say the least. The character housing is terrible. A lot of the characters are really boring.

I like them both for different reasons, I just prefer Fallout 3.

I haven't played 1 and 2. But turn based doesn't appeal to me. I might get to them eventually just so I'll know what they are all about.

I'm hoping Fallout 4 is a combination of FO3 and New Vegas.

Fallout 3 was absolutely stuffed with "ethics" of play and of all shades.

As the introduction said. It's your game so play it the way you want. There is no "right" way to play.

The "exploration of the ethics and ethical play" is down to the player.

Even Fallout 3 combat had more "ethics". You had the ethical choice of killing a pleading submissive raider, or a running away one ... something that the early Fallouts never had as I can remember. You could even try submitting and making them a non-enemy, an ethic that the early Fallouts never had as I recall.

Every situation and quest in Fallout 3 was an ethical choice, the whole game was "ethics" of all shades.

Quote alex man142 "and the world felt so real, almost like I was living in it."

The world of Fallout 3 was far more real than the early Fallouts. Half the time in the early Fallouts it was real enough ... the other half it was un-real turn-play combat, abnormal with nothing "like I was living in it", far from it.

That's why Fallout 3 is such an improvement. More ethical choices and more like I was actually living it.

Indeed. To each his own.



Wrong. In old Fallouts, sometimes when injured or outgunned, they would run away swearing at you too.
Hell, they can even recognize what level you are or IF you are sporting superior equipment and soil their pants afterwards. Something that F3 generic gung-ho raiders were missing.




Subjective matter. People have standards, and the half-baked trainwreck F3 was not really all "ethics!" to me. Especially NOT the random raiders as opposed to the F1 clans.



It is an improvemenent in the graphics aspect, I gotta give you that. But what good it is that when it's an illogical mess?
I am not gonna argue with you about the TB combat. Lemme just say, I vastly prefer it in Fallout over twitch shooting and the whole player skill>RPG system skill overall.

Also, you reallly oughta refresh ye memories about the old and supposedly inferior Fallout games. Objectively speaking, they may *not* be THAT inferior as you would like to think.

Well actually I wasn't wrong, I just never had them running away, I killed them sure, maybe too quickly, shrug. I was never able to submit trying to make them a non-enemy as I could at least try in Fallout 3.

Every situation and quest in Fallout 3 was an ethical choice, the whole game was "ethics" of all shades.



To call F3 a half-baked trainwreck is just an insult, and as said in the game introduction "It's your game so play it the way you want. There is no "right" way to play. So really, ethics was down to the player's choices.



Fallout 3 an illogical mess, no more illogical than the early Fallouts ... which Fallout 3 did sequel very well

You prefer TB combat, fine we all have preferences, half the time in the early Fallouts it was real enough role-play ... the other half it was un-real turn-play board-game combat, abnormal with nothing "like I was living in it", far from it.

I never had "twitch" shooting that you seem to think Fallout 3 has. Faster thinking yes, it comes with practice and it is so much more realistic a role-play game like that.

My memories of the early Fallouts remain as they are now, enjoyable at that time way back when there was little else good going, but now vastly improved into a full role-playing game with vastly more content and better play.

i didn't play the first one, but played fo2 and it is a great game. the combat system and camera view is archaic by today's standards, but the writing is excellent. and the restoration project mod is top notch.

fo3 is an excellent game also. but the characters and story are very weak. i don't understand how people call fnv linear when fo3 is by far the most linear in terms of story. it also lacks the sense of humor that make fo2 and fnv great. it takes itself far too seriously. i hated the father, hated the self righteous bos i was forced to help, and didn't care about the main quest or the ending. the world was good, but far too much time spent underground (you've seen one subway tunnel, you've seen them all).

fnv is my favorite of the bunch. improved mechanics from fo3, and more importantly, great characters and writing. the best from fo2 and fo3 in one package.

edit: they are all great games. i would score each one 9.5 or higher. it is only my preference and what i think an rpg should be that makes fnv my favorite. fo3 was my favorite game...until i played fnv. and i hope when i play the next fallout, that will be my new favorite fallout game.

1. I agree, but being forced to join the BOS really killed the "play the way you want," feel, duh.

2. Not exactly.

3. In Fallout 1, enemies would run away if outgunned, or if you were heavily armed. I did not see that once in Fallout 3. To top it off, I don't think that holstering your weapon worked.

4. If you mean by ethics, "BLACK AND WHITE," then you and I are not on the same page. I prefer that the ethics are grey, not like FO3, which had messy Black and White.

5. Fallout 3 was NOT more real than the originals.

In the originals, I actually knew how the city survived. The Hub had farming, so did Junktown, Shady Sands, Adytum. The Hub IS the most realistic city ever made in a video game. Why? It felt plausible. The world actually felt like it was progressing as time went by, which is real.

Now, Fallout 3 did not feel plausible in the slightest. You had people living in un-walled towns with three people, IN A LAND WITH RAIDERS, DEATHCLAWS, and [censored] ROBOTS everywhere! See the problem? In the real world, they would have gotten killed on day one. Rivet City was real enough, but the radiation everywhere really killed the world.

6. Fallout 3 DID NOT have more ethical situations. Fallout 1 had the most, and the writing was the best as well. At least in Fallout 1, I could pick sides in the main quest.

7. Sure, Fallout 3 had real time combat, but it was awful. If they implemented it like RDR or COD, it would have been fine, but targeting was awful, enemies kept moving and took no cover, and it was just a sloppy mess.

I felt like I was in the world of Fallout 1, that is a testament to its skill and writing. If I can be immersed in a TB game, than that shows you a ton. If I can't be immersed in a REAL TIME COMBAT game, then that shows you something is very very very very wrong.

Well actually I wasn't wrong, I just never had them running away, I killed them sure, maybe too quickly, shrug. I was never able to submit trying to make them a non-enemy as I could at least try in Fallout 3.

1. Same with FO1

Every situation and quest in Fallout 3 was an ethical choice, the whole game was "ethics" of all shades.

2, Not true and hyperbole. In Fallout 3, I was FORCED to join the BOS, even if I hated them. Not exactly ethics, right?



To call F3 a half-baked trainwreck is just an insult, and as said in the game introduction "It's your game so play it the way you want. There is no "right" way to play. So really, ethics was down to the player's choices.

3. I was FORCED to join the BOS, so I could not play as I wanted. Bethesda made a "right" way to play with the forcing part. It was a half baked copy pasted mess, and yes, thats an insult, because its true.


Fallout 3 an illogical mess, no more illogical than the early Fallouts ... which Fallout 3 did sequel very well

You prefer TB combat, fine we all have preferences, half the time in the early Fallouts it was real enough role-play ... the other half it was un-real turn-play board-game combat, abnormal with nothing "like I was living in it", far from it.

I never had "twitch" shooting that you seem to think Fallout 3 has. Faster thinking yes, it comes with practice and it is so much more realistic a role-play game like that.

My memories of the early Fallouts remain as they are now, enjoyable at that time way back when there was little else good going, but now vastly improved into a full role-playing game with vastly more content and better play.

Realistic role play? Yeah, well, I guess each person has opinions.

In Fallout 1, if I had ONE intelligence, I acted like it. If I had bad skills, I acted like it. In FO3, skills almost did not matter, which is not realistic. A person with ONE intelligence acted the same as a person with 10 Intelligence. I could shoot straight with a low guns skill, and I was not as blind as a bat with ONE perception

FO1 and FO2 were much better RPGs than FO3. FO1 and 2 had MUCH more content than FO3, that is why people keep playing them after all of these years.

Money where your mouth is time. Objectively, Fallout 3 isn't anywhere near as bad as you think it is. In fact, I vastly prefer FO3 over 1 and 2 (both of which were hellishly easy to me). New Vegas is...okay. It's main downside is that I think Obsidian was trying too hard with the country-western theme (level action rifles when semi and full auto available? In the hands of elite Rangers?)

@Sitruc
Fair enough. My tone probably says otherwise but I have no issue with Fallout 3 as a game. :fallout:



It goes both ways. I(and many others too) don't necessarily see F3 as a saviour and holy grail of the series for example.
I also have never openly said that I hate or depise Fallout 3 overall. It's just a poor Fallout game in my opinion.

New Vegas did more than okay IMO. While the Western feel might have been a bit cheesy, it *did* fit the whole atmosphere overall.