Mod News Fallout FIXT Alpha 6.1 Released

[Goral]

commie
There were no geckos (golden or other) in F1. Play the game again before you judge it. Obviously F1 > F2.

in Fallout 2 almost all the quests amount to crossing the street and fetching something or killing someone. (...)

Fixed.

F2 has many more quests but most of them are fetch/kill quests and only few are memorable. Plus there are quite a few silly ones (practically every quest in Broken Hills, Redding or San Francisco). In F1 besides the Regulator one you have missing caravans quest, Gizmo quest (which you could approach in many different ways), hostage quest (which was repeated in F2), Loxley quest, The Glow quest (there is nothing as awesome as this location in any game I know, Sierra Army Depot doesn't even come close), finding the thief, calming the rebel, rescuing Tandi (this was a really interesting quest because of many ways to do so)... Practically every quest is a gem and there are no fillers here just to prolong the game. And while it's true there are quite a few kill quests, all of them are memorable (contrary to F2 ones). Meeting a deathclaw and killing it for the first time was quite rewarding. Working for Decker as a hitman was unforgettable.

All in all, F2 has probably as many awesome quests as F1 but because there are many shitty quests too, F1 is superior because the ratio of awesome quests to shitty ones is bigger in F1.

 

[tuluse]

I mean that it was better at doing those things that are unique to the RPG genre. Providing a coherent experience is something that all games are supposed to strive to do.

I suspect though the real problem here may be that the core Fallout mechanics just aren't interesting/deep enough to support a game of FO2's size. The people saying "the experience wasn't coherent enough for me" might just have gotten tired of it after a while.

No it's not the mechanics, it's the world building.

In Fallout, everywhere you got is directly thematically tied together. In Fallout 2, maybe 20% of places you visit have really nothing to do with the rest of the game.

Also the over-plot feels like cheap knockoff of the first game. Your people are in trouble, go find the mcguffin, oh wait the whole world is in trouble, blow up the bad guy's base. Are you telling me that Chris Avellone couldn't have come up with something more original?

Further, there was too much combat in Fallout 2. This might tie into the mechanics, but they should have reduced the number of enemies in most places and allowed for ways through than just killing everything.

 

[Infinitron]

No it's not the mechanics, it's the world building.

In Fallout, everywhere you got is directly thematically tied together. In Fallout 2, maybe 20% of places you visit have really nothing to do with the rest of the game.

Also the over-plot feels like cheap knockoff of the first game. Your people are in trouble, go find the mcguffin, oh wait the whole world is in trouble, blow up the bad guy's base. Are you telling me that Chris Avellone couldn't have come up with something more original?

I don't really have an argument with you here, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Personally, I think the worst thing in Fallout 2, story and setting-wise, was San Francisco. It was an absolutely terrible late game area. After all you've seen in the wasteland, you do not want to deal with Scientologists and kung fu guys.

New Reno gets a bad rap, but IMO it works well as a meaty mid-game area where your character can grow from clueless weakling to well-connected badass. New Reno is okay in my book.

Further, there was too much combat in Fallout 2. This might tie into the mechanics

Yup.

 

[tuluse]

I don't really have an argument with you here, but I just don't care that much about these things.

Fair enough. I can totally see why a person would prefer Fallout 2. There's more shit to do and the shit is more complex. I'm not a crazy who doesn't like Fallout 2, I rank it quite highly, I just have a slight preference for Fallout 1.

If the world was fair, Black Isle would lasted another 20 years making Fallout games and at some point they would have put it all together perfectly.

 

[valcik]

Personally, I think the worst thing in Fallout 2, story and setting-wise, was San Francisco.

Same here. San Fran along with Broken Hills has been written by Mr. Colin McComb, who is working as a lead writer of Wasteland 2 right now, which makes me disconcerted a little.

 

[tuluse]

I don't think Colin is working on Wasteland 2 at all.

 

[Infinitron]

Personally, I think the worst thing in Fallout 2, story and setting-wise, was San Francisco.

Same here. San Fran along with Broken Hills has been written by Mr. Colin McComb, who is working as a lead writer of Wasteland 2 right now, which makes me disconcerted a little.

Colin isn't a lead writer on Wasteland 2. He is, however, the lead designer of Torment: Tides of Numenera.

I know that he feels bad about his work in FO2, though.

I don't think Colin is working on Wasteland 2 at all.

He did do some writing for it.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

What's wrong with San Francisco?

For me the same thing that's wrong with Junkyard, namely that the only real quests are the boring "two factions, choose which leader to kill and get reward" thing. Infinitron is completely right about New Reno btw, the mobster quests are the best ones of both games (bar the few fetch ones).

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

Vertibird plans? Martial arts quest (Dragon path is most challenging)?

The martial arts one is ok, but then I still like Reno's boxing matches better because they don't have that silly good/evil thing going on and the Masticator is kewl. The vertibird plans quest I always thought was a bit lame: the BoS guy can take copies but the other ones can't? Would have been better if you actually had to choose between the three factions and didn't always get the upgrades as a freebie.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Spare us the faux elitist crap. The Super mutants, radscorpions, golden geckos and the Lost In Space robots in FO1 hardly make it a candidate for Asimovean sci-fi faggotry in comparison. FO 1 only appears 'superior' cause it's so barebones, with simple quests, plot, triggers. Fallout is the what a serious RPG would look like if it was meant for the consoletard audience: simple and short. A true "my first RPG". That doesn't make it crap(it's brilliant), but one needs to see it in perspective that as a RPG it's lightweight and easy.

Space us your PMS temper tantrum. I directly pointed out to the newfag that the inconsistent sillies in F1 were Easter Eggs, whereas F2 has plenty of inconsistent sillies on the map - New Reno and San Fran, as others mentioned. FO1 has quests that can be solved in different ways and allows you to play it through in multiple ways. And as pointed out, it doesn't have any gecko's. Everything else fits neatly together in that 50's Atomic Future setting.

 

[taxalot]

"I love Fallout 2 despite its lack of consistency and quality content. Also, New Vegas is a good game, but Fallout 3 sucks."

 

[CreamyBlood]

I love grid based inventory systems. Especially one column grid based inventory systems. I wish someone would replicate that. Scroll bars are awesome.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

New Reno was a great location with a lot of stuff to do in different ways, enough for you to go through it with several characters and still not feel like you've seen everything. People who dislike it because "it's inconsistent with mah lore" don't like having fun. Not that they deserve it anyway.

 

[Sduibek]

Fallout is less modded because its harder to mod than Fallout 2, and Fallout 2 is already ass to mod, even if it got lots better after Timeslip came in. Also Fallout 2's version of the engine is better and more developed with new features.

Yes, this. Many things that are "easy" to mod in Fallout 2 would be impossible to do in Fallout 1 without reverse engineering the executable. And that kind of shit is awful so only some of the crazy folks at TeamX would do it. But they don't exist anymore, so there you go.

That's right, instant mutant invasions. For when the post-apocalypse just isn't "post" enough.

Damn, that must be insane. Also hilarious. Every city overrun by mutants already, everyone is dead and captured, you must go and sneak through the ruins to shift some loot and bolt, or get some gear by taking it from the refugees and raiders going around in the random encounters, avoid mutant patrols and salvaging gear and getting levels slowly until you can finally retrieve the Water Chip, only to find out you gotta go back there and kill all mutants once and for all, and for once, you're way underleved compared to the original game.
Someone needs to make a LP of this.

Anyway this is actually the reason I'm responding -- this post reminded me that when they are set to Instant, it sets Vault 13 invasion date time to the lowest available in the other invasion timings: 0.25x normal, or 125 days.
Would it be a good idea to change that? Like if the player wants instant invasions, should we say fuck it and give them a really long time before Vault 13 gets invaded? (given the higher difficulty curve or whatever blah blah)

 

[Sduibek]

I just tried it for a while and gave up after about two hours. That shit is crazy, there's not access to hardly anything. I mean with savescumming and stealscumming you can get hunting rifles from random encounters, and you can get metal armor from Garl, and a plasma pistol in Necropolis, but it's a pretty shitty deal. You'd have to play a long long time to make up for the usual access to quests/traders/etc.