Fallout Underwhelmed by Fallout :(

[Darth Roxor]

I do think that part of what many people find endearing about Fallout is that it has a sort of "tight" small indie game feel to it (though they might not describe it in those terms). It really is an obvious "B project" with a certain indie-like amateurish quality to it.

But like many indie games, it gets better later on, as the developer grows more confident and ambitious with his craft. Play until Junktown and the Hub and tell us if you've changed your mind.

<Excidium> wish I had an accoutn to tell him what I find endearing about my fists is that I can imagine them flying at mach 3 torwards his face whenever he posts things like that

 

[J_C]

With exactly 2x scaling there is no stretching. Each pixel is expanded to take 4 pixels exactly.

Cool, I will check it out how does look.

I don't see a problem with that. It's still very much clear enough to my eye.

It's not that I can't see it. But I like the graphics of games like Fallout, the Inifnity Engine game and such very much, and my heart is bleeding when i see them stretch out, with washed out colours.

 

[AngryKobold]

It's not that I can't see it. But I like the graphics of games like Fallout, the Inifnity Engine game and such very much, and my heart is bleeding when i see them stretch out, with washed out colours.

Just found out the nature of your problem. A cheap LCD. Don't thank me, it's nothing.

 

[FeelTheRads]

'sup Excidium. P. good non-post.

 

[Gentle Player]

But it can't be argued that game just lacked content compared to later RPGs, so I think it's understandable that it feels underwhelming especially after PST or even Fallout 2.

Fallout 1 was fine in terms of content density. Perfectly paced, coherent, and every area seemed to matter. What it lacked was the shovel-load of mindless, utterly banal filler content (which, nevertheless, the player is compelled to complete for that sweet XP) that is used to needlessly pad out the length of almost every RPG. It's no great loss, at least in my book.

 

[J_C]

With exactly 2x scaling there is no stretching. Each pixel is expanded to take 4 pixels exactly.

Tried it, but unfortunately is just like a simple upscale, without any better visuals. But no biggie, I found out that 1280x800 looks pretty good on my monitor. The characters are not tiny, but the picture is sharp, so I will use this resolution from now on.

Just found out the nature of your problem. A cheap LCD. Don't thank me, it's nothing.

Why are you so full of yourself jackass? Like you are some hotshot or something.

Cheap LCD. Sure, it is not the most expensive, but a Samsung Syncmaster 2253LW is doing allright. So just keep your advices to yourself.

 

[jagged-jimmy]

Junktown and then the Hub is where things really pick up. Until then it's mostly atmospheric, but there is not much quality content. But then..oh boy.

I mean if you heard all the praise and then... Shady Sands? Also to be fair, if you have a long long period of hype, everyone telling you it's best game ever, then you might expect too much. Happend to me with Torment.

 

[Infinitron]

I don't see anybody replying substantively to roshan's actual complaints here (can't believe I'm sticking up for roshan)

Fallout 2 has been regarded by many on these boards as some kind of rushed hackjob by Black Isle's incompetent "B-team", while the real masterpiece from the real masters was Fallout 1. But the truth is that other than being rushed, Fallout 2 was clearly the more professional project, made by the more experienced RPG designers.

If Fallout 2 hadn't been rushed, I don't believe there would have been any question at all about which was the higher quality game. Fallout 1 was the real "B-game", a low budget project that succeeded beyond everybody's expectations.

 

[Daemongar]

OK, so at Junktown now. So the first area has a guard that introduces you to the town, and.... nothing else. Except a doctor who you can find out is turning humans into food. But you can't confront him about it. Neither can you talk to the mayor about it. Started with the 2nd area, and thought thwarting the assassination attempt was cool, but totally unrewarding nevertheless as combat in this game is so pathetically easy even though I have yet to put a single point into small guns after tagging it... I can't believe that the Codex has been bitching about Dragonfall being too easy?

So you...
* Cleared out the radscorpions cave?
* Visited Vault 15 and cleared it?
* Saved Tandy from the Gang?
* Survived all random encounters?

Let's see, you posted a thread about best character builds (link) and now bitch about not having a challenge. You want a challenge? Don't have others design an OP "I want to see it all in one play" build.

Now that everyone designed your character, do you want folks here to walk you through what you should do, town by town? Just play the fucking game.

 

[Shaewaroz]

Playing any FO, FO2 or any of the Infinite Engine games with 1080p completely ruins the experience. I pity the fools who play these games on anything higher than 1024×768.

 

[undecaf]

It's no great loss, at least in my book.

It's not a loss at all, if you ask me. Too many games are bloated with incosequential filler content just to keep the player playing.

In general, I'd say that a cRPG is at its best when it finishes up before you get bored of it, but offers plenty of alternate playthroughs to cover that up. Fallout (and even Fallout 2, in my opinion) did exactly that. Leaving some of the excitement for subsequent playthroughs.

 

[Sykar]

It's not a loss at all, if you ask me. Too many games are bloated with incosequential filler content just to keep the player playing.

In general, I'd say that a cRPG is at its best when it finishes up before you get bored of it, but offers plenty of alternate playthroughs to cover that up. Fallout (and even Fallout 2, in my opinion) did exactly that. Leaving some of the excitement for subsequent playthroughs.

This is sadly true. I wish they'd remove at least like 50% of boring mindless combat in the majority of cRPGs. It's pointless and the fun fades quick stomping rats/insects/goblins/whatever into the ground.

 

[Daemongar]

I don't see anybody replying substantively to roshan's actual complaints here (can't believe I'm sticking up for roshan)

Speaking for myself, I read his post as a typical "This 17 year old game doesn't compare to game X, which came out last year..." Gaming tastes have evolved. Each town had 1-3 or so quests that would cross off. I am playing Skyrim here and there, and I swear I have 20+ and I'm only second level. Not only was Fallout kind of quiet sometimes, but the soundtrack reflected that and it had a barren atmosphere in locations. It wasn't constant action, and that's fine. If he's having trouble, I don't want to be around when he starts bitching about "The Glow." I find that a fantastic location, but it's not a combat or quest extravaganza.

Fallout 2 has been regarded by many on these boards as some kind of rushed hackjob by Black Isle's incompetent "B-team", while the real masterpiece from the real masters was Fallout 1. But the truth is that other than being rushed, Fallout 2 was clearly the more professional project, made by the more experienced RPG designers.

How much innovation was at work in Fallout 2, though? The addressed a lot of the complaints about FO (npcs, cap counting, inventory, whatever) but not a lot of innovation over and above the core FO. They didn't do anything to balance out the SPECIAL system. They added a lot more locations, and did up the difficulty. They went for quality, not quantity, though. The design of the world, creatures, combat, stats, all that was done by the B-team. The A-Team came along and ... added more locations and dialog. Not sure where the masters touches of a top quality shine on Fallout 2, that are not in Fallout 1. Maybe you have some examples that I'm just not thinking of?

If Fallout 2 hadn't been rushed, I don't believe there would have been any question at all about which was the higher quality game. Fallout 1 was the real "B-game", a low budget project that succeeded beyond everybody's expectations.

I'm not sure what you mean by quality, though. Fun? Stability? Interesting dialogue?

 

[Gentle Player]

It's not a loss at all, if you ask me. Too many games are bloated with incosequential filler content just to keep the player playing.

Oh yes, that was my point exactly. Just a turn of phrase.

 

[Nikaido]

I don't see anybody replying substantively to roshan's actual complaints here (can't believe I'm sticking up for roshan)

Fallout 2 has been regarded by many on these boards as some kind of rushed hackjob by Black Isle's incompetent "B-team", while the real masterpiece from the real masters was Fallout 1. But the truth is that other than being rushed, Fallout 2 was clearly the more professional project, made by the more experienced RPG designers.

If Fallout 2 hadn't been rushed, I don't believe there would have been any question at all about which was the higher quality game. Fallout 1 was the real "B-game", a low budget project that succeeded beyond everybody's expectations.

You're confusing polish with quality. Polished turds are still turds. There is no amount of arguing that can stand in the face of absolute retardation like the hubologists and other billion crap introduced in FO2.

FO1 was a tight game with no filler. It starts slow but everything more or less has a purpose and it has a solid ending that brings closure. It never needed a sequel, certainly not that sequel. Advancing in time even somewhat defeats the purpose of the concept behind Fallout, which is why even on the codex you'll find some people who prefer the very mediocre FO3 over New Vegas because FO3 fits the atmosphere and idea of a postapo game better. Fallout should have ended at number 1.

 

[Shadenuat]

Fallout 1 was fine in terms of content density. Perfectly paced, coherent, and every area seemed to matter. What it lacked was the shovel-load of mindless, utterly banal filler content (which, nevertheless, the player is compelled to complete for that sweet XP) that is used to needlessly pad out the length of almost every RPG. It's no great loss, at least in my book.

No, it just didn't have enough. Say when you get into Hub, what do you get? An empty, content wise, alley with a trader maybe at the side and a few pointless NPCs. And then you can work for the police and get slaughtered instantly in a fight character of your level is generally not equipped for. Or clear a house of another mob or try hunting deathclaw which, again, you're not equipped to deal with at all. And your only story related NPC is hidden in third area behind a house which new player might find probably just by accident.
Den from Fallout 2 had more cool stuff packed in it than two hubs in Fallout 1 combined. It was designed in a way to drag player into action but still know his place since there were always someone stronger.

You're confusing polish with quality. Polished turds are still turds. There is no amount of arguing that can stand in the face of absolute retardation like the huboligists and other billion crap introduced in FO2.

FO1 was a tight game with no filler. It starts slow but everything more or less has a purpose and it has a solid ending that brings closure. It never needed a sequel, certainly not that sequel.

Lol, today at K-kodex you can read that Fallout 2 should not have come to be

riiight.

 

[Infinitron]

Speaking for myself, I read his post as a typical "This 17 year old game doesn't compare to game X, which came out last year..." Gaming tastes have evolved. Each town had 1-3 or so quests that would cross off. I am playing Skyrim here and there, and I swear I have 20+ and I'm only second level. Not only was Fallout kind of quiet sometimes, but the soundtrack reflected that and it had a barren atmosphere in locations. It wasn't constant action, and that's fine. If he's having trouble, I don't want to be around when he starts bitching about "The Glow." I find that a fantastic location, but it's not a combat or quest extravaganza.


How much innovation was at work in Fallout 2, though? The addressed a lot of the complaints about FO (npcs, cap counting, inventory, whatever) but not a lot of innovation over and above the core FO. They didn't do anything to balance out the SPECIAL system. They added a lot more locations, and did up the difficulty. They went for quality, not quantity, though. The design of the world, creatures, combat, stats, all that was done by the B-team. The A-Team came along and ... added more locations and dialog. Not sure where the masters touches of a top quality shine on Fallout 2, that are not in Fallout 1. Maybe you have some examples that I'm just not thinking of?


I'm not sure what you mean by quality, though. Fun? Stability? Interesting dialogue?

I'm talking about execution, not vision. I think people are often too focused on what Fallout felt like it was trying to be than how well it actually succeeded.

All the credit to Cain for bringing his vision to life. The Star Control 2-inspired 100% non-linear open world model was ambitious and I wish more RPGs of this type used it. We've yet to see a big budget Kickstarter RPG that uses it. As somebody who played Star Control 2 and other non-linear games long before he ever touched Fallout, it's something I used to take for granted, but I've come around on that.

But IMO, Fallout 2 took that model and used it much more effectively. People are always all "hurr durr Fallout 2 just added quantity, not quality" but in that kind of world, sufficient quantity IS part of the quality. You cannot have an impressive world of choice and consequence without the locations in which to see your choices' consequences actually take place.

 

[Nikaido]

But IMO, Fallout 2 took that model and used it much more effectively. People are always all "hurr durr Fallout 2 just added quantity, not quality" but in that kind of world, sufficient quantity IS part of the quality. You cannot have an impressive world of choice and consequence without the locations in which to see your choice's consequences actually take place.

For that "impressive world of choice and consequence" to matter I would have to actually give a fuck about the world in the first place. Something that was lost as soon as I saw the temple of trials, with the hammer truly nailing it in when I saw the protagonist dream of the fucking tribals.

Infinitron you judge games like an autist, as a "checklist" to be filled. The sum of all parts doesn't decompose into a nice and convenient checklist and features in isolation are only worth anything if the rest delivers.

 

[Athelas]

They didn't do anything to balance out the SPECIAL system.

Uh, charisma. Its complete and utter uselessness in the first Fallout was a pretty glaring oversight.

 

[Sykar]

For that "impressive world of choice and consequence" to matter I would have to actually give a fuck about the world in the first place. Something that was lost as soon as I saw the temple of trials, with the hammer truly nailing it in when I saw the protagonist dream of the fucking tribals.

Infinitron you judge games like an autist, as a "checklist" to be filled. The sum of all parts doesn't decompose into a nice and convenient checklist and features in isolation are only worth anything if the rest delivers.

That's completely subjective and has no bearing on the quality of the game. The village is only a tiny portion of the game on top of that.

 

[Nikaido]

Uh, charisma. Its complete and utter uselessness in the first Fallout was a pretty glaring oversight.

And then the "experienced" developers at Obsidian did it again with New Vegas. What falls with dialogue skills and what falls with the charisma stats is pretty arbitrary and I think the true oversight was to keep charisma, rather than not giving it actual uses.

 

[Athelas]

And then the "experienced" developers at Obsidian did it again with New Vegas. What falls with dialogue skills and what falls with the charisma stats is pretty arbitrary and I think the true oversight was to keep charisma, rather than not giving it actual uses.

Charisma never had a dialogue purpose (apart from being an inconsequential component in the formula for the speech and barter skills). In Fallout 2 they gave it a unique function. Sure, the better option would have been to rebuild SPECIAL from scratch, but as stated before, Fallout 2 was rushed.

 

[Daemongar]

But IMO, Fallout 2 took that model and used it much more effectively. People are always all "hurr durr Fallout 2 just added quantity, not quality" but in that kind of world, sufficient quantity IS part of the quality. You cannot have an impressive world of choice and consequence without the locations in which to see your choice's consequences actually take place.

Didn't play Star Control 2, so I can't comment. I'm more prone to compare FO to Ultima 7, myself.

I think the staggering quantity in FO2 took away from the game, not contributed. Seemed like too many competing locations and activities not quite meshing with each other, working like hell to do the most they can with the limited interface/dialog system.

Some areas that I think didn't quite gel: the town with the Walamingos. Had three currencies, a mine with a lot of space aliens, and ... not really anything at the bottom and that currency just kind of sat in my inventory forever. The town of New Reno with the boxing, and San Francisco kung fu fighting. Both of them were there but "underdeveloped." Lots of individual areas varying in quality and felt kind of rag-tag in parts, with a finale that didn't have much of anything to do with 99% of the game. I think it would have been a better game if they dropped 25% of the locations and focused on stuff that mattered to the story. At least FO has a plot arc.

I actually like FO2 a lot, and my thoughts are probably in the minority on it's flaws. There were actual choices and consequences in FO, and FO2 had some pretty complex ones (Bishop family, etc.) At the end of the day, I think folks reflect mostly on the individual locations of FO2 (the Den) but not much else. Maybe weapon selection and more complex npc's and interactions. When people reflect on FO it's the innovative system they created, the locations, the story, the Master, Dogmeat, the Glow, etc. This may seem unfair, but there was a lot of unique and interesting stuff -> that supported the story.

 

[Nikaido]

Charisma never had a dialogue purpose (apart from being an inconsequential component in the formula for the speech and barter skills). In Fallout 2 they gave it a unique function. Sure, the better option would have been to rebuild SPECIAL from scratch, but as stated before, Fallout 2 was rushed.

That function is somewhat related to speech. High dialogue skill in the game is more or less the power to convince people to see things your way, yet you are arbitrarily limited in your recruitment because of charisma?

 

[Athelas]