Commentary: 11 ways Fallout 2 was better than Fallout 3

[Cloaked Figure]

[edit]

 

[Wirdschowerdn]

Fallout 2 was better than Fallout 1.

But Fallout 3 owns them both in every way.

 

[Erebus]

Get over your Arcanum fetish already. It was a moderately good game at best.

 

[Kingston]

Thanks for the link.

Some 'Best Thread Ever' material in the comments

6. Open world freedom
You write Fallout 2 has more, and I guess you mean it has a bigger map. My response: Fallout 3 has 3 dimensions--meaning, you can look up and down too. And it looks more real. Fallout 3 clearly wins this one.

 

[Worm King]

Get over your Arcanum fetish already. It was a moderately good game at best.

It's far larger than both FOs combined and has a more interesting setting. Everything about Arcanum is better. Even the seemingly lame combat is more enjoyable because the variety of characters is huge compared to a gunner/melee characters whom you can max out on the 3rd level.

 

[Longshanks]

FO1 > Arcanum > FO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FO3

 

[Worm King]

FO1 > Arcanum > FO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FO3

Play FO 1 again following with a replay of Arcanum. You will realize just how dated FO 1. For example, compare Shady Sands with Shrouded Hills.

 

[Vibalist]

What makes FO1 superior to FO2 is a coherent universe. FO2 had all sorts of silly shit that didn't fit in.

And FO1 may be dated and smaller in scale than Arcanum, but I still find it more enjoyable. The various gameplay elements come together in a better way. It's greater than the sum of its parts.

 

[Worm King]

What makes FO1 superior to FO2 is a coherent universe. FO2 had all sorts of silly shit that didn't fit in.

And FO1 may be dated and smaller in scale than Arcanum, but I still find it more enjoyable. The various gameplay elements come together in a better way. It's greater than the sum of its parts.

No it's not. Name me one thing about FO 1 that is better than in Arcanum. As a whole it's just dated and inferior compared to Arcanum.

 

[Kingston]

Combat, durr.

 

[Dark Elf]

My personal opinion is that Arcanum is the better game of the two, but this is somewhat akin to how Rock n' Roll racing is "better" than R.C Pro Am.

That's some serious isometric pwnage by the way. The Need For Speeds should watch and learn.

 

[Worm King]

Combat, durr.

I already mentioned that that's not true. In FO you have the jaw dropping variety of either going melee or with guns, with all weapons linearly becoming available as you progress through. In Arcanum you have an overwhelming(I was overwhelmed by all of the options when I first started) way of dealing with your enemies.

 

[Vibalist]

What makes FO1 superior to FO2 is a coherent universe. FO2 had all sorts of silly shit that didn't fit in.

And FO1 may be dated and smaller in scale than Arcanum, but I still find it more enjoyable. The various gameplay elements come together in a better way. It's greater than the sum of its parts.

No it's not. Name me one thing about FO 1 that is better than in Arcanum. As a whole it's just dated and inferior compared to Arcanum.

You miss the point. I don't need to mention one thing in FO that's better than in Arcanum when I just said that it's the way the various gameplay elements come together that makes FO superior. You didn't understand what I wrote.

Arcanum may be better on a point-by-point basis, but FO1 has something to it that makes it better than the sum of its parts, and thus, despite the fact that the interface is more cumbersome and the dialogue is worse, is still a better game. For some reason or other, FO1 was just a much more exciting experience to me than Arcanum, which I quit after putting 20 to 30 hours into it out of boredom.

 

[Worm King]

What makes FO1 superior to FO2 is a coherent universe. FO2 had all sorts of silly shit that didn't fit in.

And FO1 may be dated and smaller in scale than Arcanum, but I still find it more enjoyable. The various gameplay elements come together in a better way. It's greater than the sum of its parts.

No it's not. Name me one thing about FO 1 that is better than in Arcanum. As a whole it's just dated and inferior compared to Arcanum.

You miss the point. I don't need to mention one thing in FO that's better than in Arcanum when I just said that it's the way the various gameplay elements come together that makes FO superior. You didn't understand what I wrote.

Arcanum may be better on a point-by-point basis, but FO1 has something to it that makes it better than the sum of its parts, and thus, despite the fact that the interface is more cumbersome and the dialogue is worse, is still a better game. For some reason or other, FO1 was just a much more exciting experience to me than Arcanum, which I quit after putting 20 to 30 hours into it out of boredom.

I understood that and wrote "As a whole it's just dated and inferior to Arcanum" in response. You're not making any sense; how can a game be better overall if ALL of its individual elements are worse?

 

[Vibalist]

You're not making any sense; how can a game be better overall if ALL of its individual elements are worse?

it's the way the various gameplay elements come together

 

[Vibalist]

Alright then. I still enjoyed FO1 more than Arcanum which makes it better in my book.

 

[King Crispy]

It's a battle of the douchebags... TO THE DEATH.

 

[Imbecile]

Dont agree with a few of those. (and I preferred Fallout 1 to 2 anyway )

And only eejits say strived instead of strove.

 

[Flink]

FO1 > Arcanum > FO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FO3

+1

 

[Imbecile]

Chips>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Fallout>>>>>>>This Thread>>Imbecile

 

[Xor]

Well I think we can all agree they're both better than Fallout 3.

 

[BethesdaLove]

In Arcanum you have an overwhelming(I was overwhelmed by all of the options when I first started) way of dealing with your enemies.

Oh you poor soul. Maybe you should try equiping the ring?

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

No it's not. Name me one thing about FO 1 that is better than in Arcanum. As a whole it's just dated and inferior compared to Arcanum.

How about a severe lack of pointless filler content? Like all the trash combat in Arcanum. P Schyler and Sons? Black Mountain Clan? Stillwater Pass? Going to Nasrudin? Vendigroth Ruins? The Void? The extra dungeons? They were pretty damn bad.

How about a more balanced combat system? You couldn't destroy everything early on in Fallout 1, but get the first level Black Necromantic spell and you're set for a long time. Once you get Summon Ogre, nothing can beat you. I'm not even mentioning how broken the real-time/turn-based stuff was.

How about a much better interface that didn't require hotkeys to do much of the things and was far more intuitive?

How about much better aesthetics? Not talking graphics whoredom here, but the fact that Arcanum had things that were really goddamn stupid looking, like jungles that were rectangular and such.

What about much better designed areas? Tarant was great, but everything really dropped off from there. Places became less of intersting, fleshed out settlements and more generic quest dumps. Look at Stillwater, the Elf cities, Tulla, and Roseberry. They're pretty barren and lack a lot of character, unlike places like Shady Sands, the Hub, Lost Hills,and Junktown. None of Arcanum's dungeons matched the Glow, the Cathedral, or the Military Base.

What about not having a ridiculously linear storyline that was cliche as could be up until the end? I liked Arcanum's story ultimately because I gave it a chance, and trusted the developers. But I can't say I wasn't a little sick of all the Nasrudin bullshit, and the numerous pointless dungeon quests in the main story.

Don't get me wrong...I like Arcanum a lot. But Fallout 1 is just so much better because it doesn't take huge dips and dives like Arcanum does along the way, as far as quality goes.

 

[HanoverF]

Fallout 2 > Fallout is to Phantom Menace > Star Wars

Personal taste can't really be wrong, but that one is. Or tantamount to being mentally retarded.

 

[Black]

Arcanum >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FO2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FO1

Me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.