belowmecoldhands
Savant
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2014
- Messages
- 795
These're not professional reviews by any means. They're just impressions I got after completing the games. They're on GoG, so if this is not allowable, please let me know and I'll go about this differently. For now, I'll use direct links to them.
Eschalon Book I:
http://af.gog.com/forum/eschalon_series/just_finished_eb1_my_conclusions_inside?as=1649904300
Fallout:
http://af.gog.com/forum/fallout_series/fallout_1_finished_my_impressions/page1?as=1649904300
So my interest was in seeing who agrees and what they disagree about. Since these reviews do a lot of the work of expressing my opinions, I'd rather let them talk for me right now before I start taking a dive.
To please those who think I should say something before launching into this thread, I'll try to appease you. Firstly, my reviews of both are mixed, but somewhat positive. There were many negatives associated with the games, but if I had to say which game faired worse, I'd say Fallout. Many will disagree. I should say Fallout 2 improved on many of the negatives I saw in Fallout, which were principally: more content, better hireling system. Yet since I have not played Fallout 2, I cannot be sure. Despite this, I still enjoyed parts of Fallout, some of which are probably unique to me.
I'd also like to add I want to explore the topic of how far RPG's should go with mechanics which produce surprising or unpredictable negative results. For example, if you enter a dungeon and are immediately assaulted by a powerful creature with only moments to decide what to do, how many moments are enough? What of traps? Should there be traps in a dungeon that'll nearly kill you or cause great harm or disease? Should they be easily visible, partially visible, or completely invisible? And there're a myriad of other negative mechanics I've encountered in varying games, with a range of unpredictability.
Eschalon Book I:
http://af.gog.com/forum/eschalon_series/just_finished_eb1_my_conclusions_inside?as=1649904300
Fallout:
http://af.gog.com/forum/fallout_series/fallout_1_finished_my_impressions/page1?as=1649904300
So my interest was in seeing who agrees and what they disagree about. Since these reviews do a lot of the work of expressing my opinions, I'd rather let them talk for me right now before I start taking a dive.
To please those who think I should say something before launching into this thread, I'll try to appease you. Firstly, my reviews of both are mixed, but somewhat positive. There were many negatives associated with the games, but if I had to say which game faired worse, I'd say Fallout. Many will disagree. I should say Fallout 2 improved on many of the negatives I saw in Fallout, which were principally: more content, better hireling system. Yet since I have not played Fallout 2, I cannot be sure. Despite this, I still enjoyed parts of Fallout, some of which are probably unique to me.
I'd also like to add I want to explore the topic of how far RPG's should go with mechanics which produce surprising or unpredictable negative results. For example, if you enter a dungeon and are immediately assaulted by a powerful creature with only moments to decide what to do, how many moments are enough? What of traps? Should there be traps in a dungeon that'll nearly kill you or cause great harm or disease? Should they be easily visible, partially visible, or completely invisible? And there're a myriad of other negative mechanics I've encountered in varying games, with a range of unpredictability.
Last edited: