Second Opinion anyone? Just some Fallout 3 flame wars.

If you took out all the jokes and characters related to them, there would be no game left.

Most of them are not obvious, and I doubt you get the majority of them if you say something so stupid.

Me, I like a bit of cheese but I guess not everyone does.

 

I always thought it was ridiculous to talk about 'inconsistencies with the setting'.

First, it has been 80 years since the first game! A lot can happen then.

Second, the way things wrapped up in fallout one it makes pretty much NO sense there are so many supermutants running around, or so many ghouls for that matter.

The tribals make perfect sense to me...when travel is by foot there are going to be HUGE changes in culture just in the space of a few miles let alone 100 miles.

If they made any mistake, it was to rehash more of the same stuff as last time...the things people bitch about as 'inconsistent' they should really call different. Theya re just pissed that fallout two was not exactly the same as fallout one, but if anything they were too similar and all new threats and whatnot would have been better.

 

Just because you blew up the military base and the cathedral doesn't mean all the super-mutants out in the world just drop dead.

EDIT: My bad, thanks Spazmo.

That is quite possibly the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read.

 

Uh... no. It takes sudden and catastrophic radiation exposure to create ghouls, such as being in a vault with an open door when the bomb is dropped. The radiation that remains is just enough to kill people but not ghoulify them. New ghouls could be created if more nukes were detonated or by some other means, but the ambient radiation wouldn't do it.

 

New Update On This War:


FO2 > FO1

 

Thank God for posts like that. Who needs evidence? Nay, who needs words when two acronyms will do!

Fallout is superior to Fallout 2. It broke new ground, it was serious and it was consistent. Fallout 2 was more of the same, it didn't even take itself seriously and it was inconsistent in quality. Fallout 2 is a splendid game, but when put next to the original Fallout it is quite simply incomparable. The addition of interface upgrades, an inferior story, zillions of easter eggs and pornstar role-playing opportunities does not make a better game. End of discussion.

p.s thispost > vol's lolz

 

At least bring new 'evidence'. Stop repeating yourself when my repetition is better. As for providing evidence - I have. Multiple times. Over, and over, and over again.

FO2 > FO1

 

I always thought about Fallout 1 and 2 in the same way as I think about Gothic 1 and 2. While the later provided more intricate gameplay mechanics and deeper individual dialogue, it lacked the overall grim atmosphere of the original. Like in Gothic Fallout 1 has great atmosphere in places like Shady Sands and Junktown and places like the Glow are sheer genius.But even Fallout 1 has its share of misfired opportuniteslike The Hub which for some reaseon I can't stand and I rush through it every time to move forward. Nevertheless Fallout 1 is also pretty dead as very few NPCs can be talked to which cheapens the immersion a bit by only portaying the wasteland from the perspective of a few chosen, which are typically not common folk but some part of "government".

Fallout 2 shows a more varied range of NPCs and it never occured to me that the problems it shows are inconclusive with the Fallout setting. Drugs, slavery, prostitution may be the first things that rise in a society which lacks almost any justice and where only the strong rule. Life in the wastes must be also very bleak so it is understandable that people are thankful for ways to escape this reality. It is still a mystery to me why the designers thought that so many pop-culture references where needed because they already got the central themes right. Let's not forget that many of the Fallout 2 designers actually regretted putting in some much information from the real world into Fallout 2 and planned to drop it in Fallout 3.

I'm willing to give Bethesda the benefit of doubt for the time being but as many others I also fear that they will pick the wrongs things from the predecessors to please the younger audience among their customers.

 

I'm beginning to hate the word "inconsistency".
New Reno was cool and I find to to be very "consistent" with the setting. I can surely see a crime capital emerging in a post apocalyptical world. Tribals also make sense to me, btw.
So the towns were generally different (theme towns being the term used). Consider the fact that 80 years had passed since FO1. Would it really have been more fun if all the towns (or most of them) were like Junktown and Shady Sands? I think the towns in FO2 which mostly resemble those are Klamath and Modoc. I think those are the most boring towns in the game, there is absolutely nothing special about them. Ok, I admit, maybe Redding is a bit too wild west for my taste, but other than that everything is cool.
I don't think there is really a point in arguing about this stuff, it's all a matter of pesonal taste. I like easter eggs. Some people don't. I respect that. But I don't go around saying "FO1 sucks! This game is shit, it doesn't have enough easter eggs." Some people here do this kind of thing about FO2, which is total bullshit. You cannot make such a difference. You can say "I prefer FO1 because...". I respect FO1 for being one of the best RPGs I have ever played, but I prefere FO2 for several reasons, including dialog, NPCs, easter eggs and others.
FO1 was the first and now FO2 is trashed because "the atmosphere is not the same". Well, it's not the same fucking game, and it takes place 80 years in the future. Things change. If anybody expects FO3 to have the same atmosphere and be "consistent" with the FO1 setting, you might as well not buy the game cause you'll say it sucks. I just hope it stays true to the things that made Fallout a great RPG (dialog, story, role-playing) and I hope they don't add completely stupid stuff like, I don't know, little green men or something.

 

Four crime families that manage to not kill each other off? Four crime families, a porn studio, gambling and prostitution rings all centered in a single town and living on likely less than third world economy?

I don't have a problem with these things existing in a post-apocalyptic world; without law, the dregs of society are bound to come up. How they managed to get there, and develop that kind of power (and thrive) when everyone in the gameworld is basically still trying to recover from it's nuclear aftermath is the disconcerting part.

How about purple Alien miniatures instead?

 

If my memory does not fail me that bombs fell over 150 years before Fallout 2 so they had pretty much time to recover. It also clearly shows in Fallout 2 as most towns have developed some kind of stable economy and are used to trading with other towns. They are not fighting against the immediate consquences of the nuclear war anymore, so it's not that unbelievable that there will be towns which are dedicated to a specific work. Remember that we also have locations like Las Vegas today which offer nothing which you need for survival but just dumb fun and I guess people in the wastes are as likely to find pleasure in such thinks as our current population. I also disagree that ALL towns were theme towns (like SF was). Redding for instance has an intact mine which produces something the wastes are lacking so again it's logical that the people will concentrate on exploiting their advantage.

Well, and the four Mafia families couldn't kill each other because they needed the outside help of tribal. Logic, eh ? :wink:

 

It's more likely they'd slip further in to a dark ages than recover in that time. People living in the vault would still be at the height of the prewar technology, then they'd leave and things would get harder for them. There wouldn't be the time for things like educating kids, fixing everything that breaks especially when you can't just order new parts or a new machine, and so on. They'd be too busy defending their settlement from mutant animals, raiders, supermutants, and other hostiles while at the same time getting crops to grow, getting fresh water, building shelters, etc. They'd be better off when they left a vault than they would be two or three generations removed from leaving the vault.

 

I love both F1 and F2.

They are pretty different, yes. But hey: if they were completely the same it wouldn't be interesting, hm?
The difference is not big. I mean, the atmosphere is still the same. And no new features can't distort it, it's still solid, depressive, gritty atmosphere of Fallout.

F2 had much more freedom, compared to F1, where you were nailed to the main plot and had a timelimit, and what is most importantly, there were less options, less dilemmas, less influence upon the world.
But it doesn't depreciate F1 in any way, no. They just have somewhat differnet approaches and totally different main plots.

And i don't get why people bitch about easter eggs, tribals and such. What's so bad in it, please explain! Is it unreal? Say, how come that tribals can't be in PA world? They are now, in real world. Lots of them. Mos tof easter eggs are quite normal, not too weird. And even if they are, they are not thrown around everywhere in the game, only on special encounters, which are not that frequent.


Anyway, this is so lame inferiorating F2 just because it has a different plot. The world is solid, that's what matters.

 

"It's more likely they'd slip further in to a dark ages than recover in that time."

Proof please.

 

What the fuck? Read his post.

 

Well, people have been living under such conditions for thousands of years and still they managed to craft cultures like Babylon, Egypt and ancient greek and even more recently our current civilization. And Fallout 2 never made the impression that all people were educated, most even didn't know what the prewar machines were supposed to do. But figuring out how certain machines work should not be impossible due to no shortage of science and repair books.

 

I killed 10x as many supermutants in fo2 as in fo1. It makes no sense that only a tiny percent of them would be taken out. Then, in fallout tactics you kill about a million more.


As for the second part it's probably because you don't GET 90% of the jokes and obscure reference. You latch onto the 3rd grade level ones that everyone gets and dont see the rest. Literally every NPC would be gone.

Fallout also had a lighter side, which was often very subtle...but meatheads like you just didn't pick up on it, I guess.

 

The tribal thing especially, since those are the people MOST LIKELY TO SURVIVE. They exist already in remote areas, and they have the skills that would be needed to live without electricity and farms and motorized vehicles.

It is also a way of life which would come about naturally eventually with no technology around.

 

"What the fuck? Read his post."

What the fuck? His post isn't proof.

 

Also, most of the survivors were NOT in vaults as far as I can tell.

Another big factor is how the war came about - the oil ran out. Without that, there is no energy source available for machines that does not require lots of high technology.

Even refining oil would be hard, but setting up solar power or something? Forget it. Maybe some wind power for some lighting, but it is not going to be enough to keep civilization going.

 

Everything's a reference or joke if you read into it enough. KILLIAN DARKWATER, KILLIAN BEER? OBSCURE REFERENCE OMIGOD THOSE GUYS ARE FUCKING COMIC GENIUSES!

Fallout Tactics doesn't count, at least most of the time.

 

FOT is even worse than FOBOS. At least FOBOS had b00bies, and the combat was fun...

Oh, oh. I better be careful; or I might get banned from my second FO related site today. LOL

 

Where else did you get banned and why?

 

No comment. I was evil. I was punished. Game over for me.

This is a FO flame war; not a Volourn flame war... Let's stick to the task at hand..

 

Sure...