Second Opinion anyone? Just some Fallout 3 flame wars.

I have replayed Fallout 1 about 20 times before Fallout 2 was even released. And for long time my ipression was that Fallout 1 was far greater than Fallout 2 untill i replayed Fallout 1 recently again. It just isnt greater than fallout 2.

You cant play an evil char in fallout 1 unless you decide to kill everyone and even than you have to avoid random encounters or you will turn good.

Random encounter chars sometimes have weapons that there animation doesnt suport wich means they fight you with unarmed combat and wear guns on them that you can loot when you kill them. And thats just slapy made in fallout 1.

Than there is tons of features missing in it like that you can only put 999 bottle caps at the time when buying something, you cant push npcs asside wich means sometimes they block you off and you got to wait for them to move. You cant lot all items with one button from bodies. Well this list goes on and on.

 

Arent those the cosmetic changes applied to FO2?

 

With endorsements like that, who needs criticism.

I haven't even played the game, but I'll add.


I'll take JE's combat over repeated kicks to the scrotum, or a hot curling iron in the anus.

 

Fallout 2 has some minor improvements with NPC options, interface and such, but the RPG gameplay, towns, and setting or better handled in Fallout.

Give me turn-base or give me shitty combat.

 

Also, there was no "Ask me" option in dialogue in FO2 as there was in FO1

 

what flame war? there was a total of 4 posts there last time i checked.

 

Angel X5452 is obvisously a publisher marketing exec spreading brainwashing suggestive propaganda, might as well be an evil jedi waving his hand saying "you don't need turned based" "people don't realy like turn based rpgs" "turn based bad" "now think happy thoughts and get in line and play our shallow casual game with no learning curve specially baby formulated to appeal to the broadest possible audience. ":evil:

Somewhere in their hidden labs they are still trying to pervert chess into a science fiction first person shooter and mutate checkers into a gritty mafia 3d action game.

 

I can't thank you enough for bringing your post from a flame war somewhere else to the codex. It's an excellent read and certainly the codex is short on flames.

PS - I'm being sarcastic.

 

I STILL like FO2 better than one. People who dont are just nitpicking because one was the riginal...just like some retards still insist star wars one is better than the empire strikes back.

Anyhoo, they are both great games so it is like arguing whether Plato or Socrates is more important...I hope we can all just agree that fallout 3 will be worse than either one, and possibly cause a few brain hemhorages and/or suicides.

 

There are plenty of reasons why one would enjoy FO1 more, and there are plenty of reasons why one would enjoy FO2 more.

Personally, I think FO1 is the better game (more focused, immersive, consistant, quality over quantity etc.), but I enjoy FO2 more. A few reasons would be the time limit in FO1 has always made me rush, and considering it's game length, it has always hurt my enjoyment of it too much (compared to alot of people here who think it adds to the game).

I enjoy FO2 more because it's longer, has more things to do, it's always made me want to replay it (a feat FO1 barely manages occasionally), and I can just have fun and laugh with all the jokes and easter eggs (no matter how many/how bad they're used).

Overall, I think FO1 had the better first experience, but I enjoy 2 more because it's always kept me coming back to it all these years, and it had more content (though, of cource, half as good to some). And of cource, this is all just my opinion.


P.S.

 

What? There's lots of evil things you can do in Fallout. You can side with Gizmo and kill Killian. You side with the Khans. You can align with the regulators in Adytum. The list goes on and on.

 

Yup, though, personally, I like killing everybody the best of the options.

 

Actually, I agree. I think one is better in a sense, but it is so much shorter that it makes me enjoy 2 more, and the sheer number of obscure references and easter eggs in 2 is just great. I have played 1 a handful of times, and 2 maybe 30 or 40 times.

 

Maybe a little of both eh?

The fact that people are still having the same shit tit for tat discussions about games that came out in a different decade shows how great these games were, or how stale the rpg scene has become. You pick.

PS: Play GTA San Andreas, it's good. It's been years since I spent more then 3 hours in one row on a game. Yesterday I spent all day and night on GTA, it;s that good.

 

I hate GTA:SA since it runs bad on the PS2 and have way too many requiredes thrown in without any reason.

 

It runs perfectly on the PS2. Why are you lying?

 

I like it, and I never have any probs.

 

Go to San Fierro, in some parts (usually the hills) the frame rate hits bottom (its very noticible in San Fierro).

 

Eh, I havent gotten there yet.

 

I guessed that much, Los Santos and the country areas runs well and its not noticible if there is a frame drop.

I wish you luck with that damn DDR sequences and that stupid race later on.

 

Fixed.

 

I've never seen anyone who does that. You must be confusing that with the people who cry "The prequels suck! The originals were hyper-mega-awesome! With sugar on top!"

 

Man, you said it. I've been giving this issue some thought in the last few days and I must agree that FO2 has some inconsistencies with the setting and perhaps it would have been better without those. And while I never minded the easter eggs and the pop-culture references, I guess it wouldn't have bothered me if there weren't that many (the total lack of easter eggs would bother me, however...). But NeutralMilkHotel really said it right, there are more things to do in FO2, that's why I finished it 10 times to this day, while I only played FO1 twice (the last time being recently). There is no doubt that FO1 is a great game, but FO2 seems more fun to me. I guess it's a matter of taste. I'm the kind of guy that likes easter eggs and the New Reno setting. I will admit that I found San Francisco a bit wierd, but I loved the **SPOILER** Hubology/Scientology reference.
And Redding was boring but other than that the locations of FO2 were great.
Anyway, this is just my opinion...

 

Yeah, i guess it's better to play games where there is nothing to do or discover. What was I thinking?

 

There's a hell of a lot more to "discover" in FO2 than lame-ass and totally out-of-place jokes that ruin the immersion and cheapen the setting.