Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

12 reasons why F2 is a bad Fallout game

Dodo1610

Arcane
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
2,155
Location
Germany
This isn't funny anymore.
 
Unwanted

Micormic

Unwanted
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
939
Honestly dude I didn't even read your thread because frankly I don't care.
What's the point of making clickbait troll threads? You clearly put a lot of effort into this for literally no reason. A few people will agree with you while the majority circlejerk calling you an idiot(they aren't wrong).


Do you ever just sit and take an honest look at the dismal state your life must be in if you've resorted to making tryhard trolling threads on a website like this?
 

Okagron

Prophet
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
753
How would you know if you haven't even played Fallout 1? You called the Vault Dweller, the name of the player character of Fallout 1, the Lone Wanderer, the player character of Fallout 3.

Well since the lone wanderer never complete the water chip quest he never recieve the super mutants quest. Therefore he doesnt save the wasteland.
 
Last edited:

Risewild

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
491
Location
Australia
Fallout 1& 2 both have restoration packs that actually clears it up. They make the games really crisp. My problem is pretty much only with the colors.
Back then, they were limited to a 8bit 256 color palette. I think they did a great job of showing a desolated wasteland "world" while limited to using something similar to this:
12eMj.gif

Also worth noting, is that they had to save some of the more pronounced colors for dangerous stuff (so it is easily recognized by the player as a danger), like green goo puddles for example. I really don't know how anyone could expect crisp colors in a 8bit 256 palette.

:shredder:
 

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Fallout 1& 2 both have restoration packs that actually clears it up. They make the games really crisp. My problem is pretty much only with the colors.
Back then, they were limited to a 8bit 256 color palette. I think they did a great job of showing a desolated wasteland "world" while limited to using something similar to this:
12eMj.gif

Also worth noting, is that they had to save some of the more pronounced colors for dangerous stuff (so it is easily recognized by the player as a danger), like green goo puddles for example. I really don't know how anyone could expect crisp colors in a 8bit 256 palette.

:shredder:
it's a PC game released in late 90s with pre-rendered sprites, not a Famicom game
 

steel legion

Novice
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
32
So there is basically just one ''true'' fallout game and that is 1?
Nah. There's Fallout 2 and depending on who you ask New Vegas as well. I say 1 is probably the best in my opinion.
Nah the serious only has two good game and that is one and 3. Look how 3,perfectly combined the story of fallout one and two story's and adding nearly all of the faction of the past game with a perfect explanation why there thousand kilometers from there place of origin so they don't have to add anything for them self.
 

Risewild

Arbiter
Joined
Mar 23, 2018
Messages
491
Location
Australia
it's a PC game released in late 90s with pre-rendered sprites, not a Famicom game
I don't get what you mean by this. Famicon had a 55 color palette:
GV7ZqQs.png

Fallout and Fallout 2 had a 256 palette color, like I said.

Also I forgot to mention that until 1995, pretty much all the computers, available to gamers, could only display 256 colors. Fallout 1 had start it's development in 1994-95. Using a game engine that was being made from scratch by Tim Cain.

It is the case that they HAD to use that palette because hardware didn't allow more. There is nothing it could be done back then about it, it was the technology we all had to use in those days.
 
Last edited:

Cael

Arcane
Joined
Nov 1, 2017
Messages
20,287
Yes it is my opinion, any statement anyone makes on the forum is an opinion, and people constantly mentioning it are being redundant. That being said, my metric for whether or not a game has an engaging combat system extends further than being able to shit someone in the dick.
No. It has to do with what you think is nice art because that is your principle hate towards the game, to which everything else is linked.

That doesn't justify the game being an absolute eye-sore to look at. I'm not someone that needs triple A graphics to enjoy a game.
Obvious fake news, since you have been moaning about it almost exclusively.

By pacing, I mean the beginning of the game is an absolute drag, and some of the combat encounters are absolutely fucked. The Gecko cave, which you need to complete if you want Sulik, is so horribly designed; as well as the random encounters generally being annoying as hell later on in the game.
Wrong. You can skip the Gecko Cave entirely and still get Sulik. And, as mentioned, Outdoorsman, which you can get to over 100 with putting a single point into it, completely negates random encounters. You haven't really played the game, have you?

This makes your claims completely suspect.

California =/= Hollywood. It's an entire fucking state boys, albeit a shitty state, but everyone who's from California isn't from Hollywood/associated with it.
Not according to the 2016 elections. Fucking Hollywood.
 
Last edited:

Martyr

Arcane
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
1,097
Location
Bavaria
amazing how nobody seems to get why some people don't like the visuals in Fallout.
it's a matter of taste: my brother dislikes snow areas in games, I disklike jungle areas, ItsChon obviously dislikes deserts. he just doesn't want to stare at a game that is 90% brown and 10% grey.

and that has got nothing to do with preferring triple A graphics.
one example: I really really hate the visuals in some areas in Morrowind, the ones with the dead trees. everything is grey, the landscape consists of rocks and the trees have no leafs and are almost black. there's even a city with zero vegetation and the roads & buildings are grey, too. then there are other areas which are completely brown and lack proper vegetation. that's simply not pleasant to look at.
now you might think that I'm a graphics whore. but wait a sec. go play The Elder Scrolls: Arena and head to Morrowind. it looks 1000x better in ES1 than in ES3 because it has more green in it and the towering volcano is pretty impressive.
so nope, I'm not a graphics whore (if I were, I would prefer Morrowind to Arena bc Morrowind has superior graphics). and neither is ItsChon. he even posted pics of Baldur's Gate as a positive example of visuals and Baldur's Gate doesn't even look better than Fallout, it's just not as brown/grey.
 

Grauken

Gourd vibes only
Patron
Joined
Mar 22, 2013
Messages
12,787
I'm not sure if that's brilliant or retarded logic
 

Theldaran

Liturgist
Joined
Oct 10, 2015
Messages
1,772
Fallout 1& 2 both have restoration packs that actually clears it up. They make the games really crisp. My problem is pretty much only with the colors.
Back then, they were limited to a 8bit 256 color palette. I think they did a great job of showing a desolated wasteland "world" while limited to using something similar to this:
12eMj.gif

Also worth noting, is that they had to save some of the more pronounced colors for dangerous stuff (so it is easily recognized by the player as a danger), like green goo puddles for example. I really don't know how anyone could expect crisp colors in a 8bit 256 palette.

:shredder:

Meh, my old Amstrad Joyce's games in green hues beat your 256-colour palette. That is true technology.
 

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy

FeelTheRads

Arcane
Joined
Apr 18, 2008
Messages
13,716
What facts did you get wrong? That because it has pre-rendered graphics then it can't be 256 colors? Yeah, therefore -> clueless.
 

Jacob

Pronouns: Nick/Her
Patron
Joined
Dec 24, 2015
Messages
3,336
Location
Hatington
Grab the Codex by the pussy
Look, someone who can't even admit that his snarky comment is a failure.

See, Risewild get it right, 90s PC can only show 256 colors, and Famicom can only show 55. I was wrong for basically saying that 90s PC can show much more colors than that.

But I never said pre-rendered graphics means it must be more than 256. My point there that I thought 256 color was the limit for a Famicom, not a PC game made past 1995. I thought 90s monitor had more colors than that.
 

ItsChon

Resident Zoomer
Patron
Joined
Jul 1, 2018
Messages
5,381
Location
Երևան
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
There are many examples of games with a 8bit color palette done right, several of them having been posted on a thread about color. And even if this wasn't the case, it wouldn't justify the shit graphics, just explain them.
No. It has to do with what you think is nice art because that is your principle hate towards the game, to which everything else is linked.
No mate. If the art was good, the combat would still be shit. The art being good would go a long ways towards me being able to deal with the shit combat system, but it would still be a major gripe.
Obvious fake news, since you have been moaning about it almost exclusively.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you just misunderstood me again, and are not a retard. There are countless games that I think have great graphics, which are far removed from triple A standards. I prefer most of my games to be in 2D over 3D. I just don't want the art to be shit. Good art has very little to do with the graphical fidelity of a game.
Wrong. You can skip the Gecko Cave entirely and still get Sulik. And, as mentioned, Outdoorsman, which you can get to over 100 with putting a single point into it, completely negates random encounters. You haven't really played the game, have you?

This makes your claims completely suspect.
I've openly admitted I've only played 4 hours of Fallout 2 with two builds, quitting after the Den. And I understand I can skip the Gecko Cave, but 1,000 caps is a ridiculous price. As for Outdoorsman, would've been good to know before I started playing. That being said, I'm willing to admit that perhaps I was wrong with the pacing (as now that I think about it, how can I say pacing is shit when I haven't gotten to the end game), I'll take that L. I'll change my claim to the opening couple hours of the game being shit. This is a minute point in comparison to the other two however. And again, other than the shit art direction and combat, the dialogue and world building was actually really fucking boring as well. I was very unimpressed. Perhaps it picks up later in the game, but the beginning is a snooze.
Exactly this, thanks for breaking it down. I knew you were solid the first time I talked to yeh.
 

Daedalos

Arcane
The Real Fanboy
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
5,559
Location
Denmark
Fallout 2 compared to Fallout 1 is quite mediocre. It is still a great cRPG, AND a good fallout game, but like I just said, it's lackluster compared to Fallout 1.

There's several reasons for this:

The story is not as coherent, tight and engaging as FO1
The tone and humour overall is more silly and loose, which some people don't mind, but others find quite annoying
The pacing of the story and the gameplay is not as tight and coherent as FO1

Fallout 2 feels more like a themepark adventure with all kinds of crazy stuff thrown in, while fallout 1 is a tighly knit story in a contained space, that tries to tell a deep story within its own confines.

The story in fallout 2 is not bad outright, but it is lacking in several departments compared to FO1, mostly in the writing and tone, but also just more worldbuilding.

I can understand that some people are upset with FO2 compared to FO1, but FO2 as just a fallout game and a cRPG is still a very good game.
 

PrettyDeadman

Guest
Fallout 2 had Fallout 3/4 bad level of world building.
Just a bunch of random crap thrown together without any thought given to consistency or genuity-> mumbo-jumbo tribes, 1930's chicago gangsters and etc.
Combat system was quite bad compared to Dark Sun.
 

Kutulu

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 3, 2015
Messages
1,376
Location
ger
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex
Just a reminder that this is the guy that rates "uhhh where dad" above nv......
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom