Fallout Underwhelmed by Fallout :(

Yeah, what does it matter what the game is based on or how the first game even was? Let's throw everything in it for... no reason other that because lol.

Newfags gonna newfag.

Tell me, is there something to what you would say "no" to in Fallout? If yes, why? Or everything just goes?

 

@VD
My numbers were better than expected, as it is written in The Vault: Karl(NCR){his is NCR, capitol of the New California Republic. Population 3000 and growing. No slavery, no gambling, no drugs. President is Mrs. Tandi, my boss is Sheriff Dumont. That answer your questions?}.

I have read it. This is quite a large area, so it might fit. Overall then the cities would contribute to around 1%-2% of the whole population.

 

Actually, I didn't entirely agree with him but he puts a lot of thoughts into his posts which makes them enjoyable.

I don't recall claiming that. Care to refresh my memory?

It was a joke but to a point. Bethesda did a bunch of theme parks in Fallout 3. From my Fallout 3 review:

"Instead of a consistent and logical world, we get "cool shit". What's cool shit, you ask? An excellent question. Cool shit is whatever stuff random Bethesda designers thought would be cool. To be honest, Fallout 2 was also sporadically guilty of this syndrome, but Fallout 3 takes it to a thoroughly different level."

 

Your take doesnt have anything to do with whats true about the game. It is your own take on it.

And who said that the setting alone was the point?

Are you people capable of replying to anything without using fallacies?

I SAID that those few elements you mentioned are perfectly fine in a setting based on 50s pulp sci fi alternate history that Fallouts are. Especially when we consider that representation of those elements was not meant to be realistic.

Who said they were? Me? Is that just more fitting to strawman in because it seems like it supports your argument?

Yes? how about cRPG and PnP genre? That doesnt count?

They seemed post apocalyptic enough to me.

Yes, that what i was saying. Someone decided that 50s retro pulp allowed for a few small instances of a few NPCs being dressed up in weird ways. Thematically they probably "thought" that people would wnat to make it seem like "good ol days" and so dressed up the part.

EXCELLENT! THEN STOP MAKING IT!

Because wizard hats are not 50s retro sci fi pulp thematic at all, maybe?

My main point which you strawmaned onto above was that those few examples are small and practically inconsequential additions over the CORE GAMEPLAY of the the game, which is completely in line with what first game was made of.
Its just that there is always some FOOLS who go blind and cannot see 95% of the game because theyve run into a few smaller examples of stuff they dont like.

What real RPGs? And ofcourse, there is an easy solution for that. Just buy the latest bioware schlock and enjoy it.

No, thats what you are doing to me.

Thats because you are telepathic.

Never heard of it.

Not US citizen so all that never mattered to me at al. plus, you say you liked it and then you go for argument from absurdity.

Yes, master dancing macarena is exactly the same counter example. Of course.

How is that not post apocalyptic material? It could be better of course but... wtf are you talking about?

very small areas and small subquests.

What?

Notice how you here go into talking about it all as if its a MAJORITY of main quest line - which is a fallacy, again.

You only need the chinese clan or hubologist to get fuel to the tanker, ITS A SIDE QUEST.

Whats really important about san fran is that the Brotherhood is there - which is the MAIN QUEST LINE.

No it doesnt. Becauee 95% or more of the game is core Fallout original gameplay and style, with only a few additions that were there because obviously the game was meant to be larger and bigger then the first one.

Infinitron is a mass market shill whose leading his own small idiotic anti-fallout campaign for years now. Because in his logic "people like it too much and it isnt a perfect gaem" - which of course nobody ever claimed in a raterded manner he does.

As a personal reaction thats completely fine. You played F1 first, it set some expectations in you for a sequel, but these small additional elements in the sequel ruined that expectation for you.
I played F2 first so my encounter with Fallout as a game and setting are based on that.

The real truth is that there was two Fallout games. And they were both great. Both had smaller pieces of content that was not that good and numerous smaller details that could have been better.
Dont even get me started on the master and the finale of the first game, or some of its locations and design decisions.

Nothing about F2 takes anything away from the first game.

because it had 5% of content that you didnt like... yeah right.

i wouldnt be so sure about that.

 

Of course. I can see that.

You are correct, you never directly claimed that in a way i said. Unfortunately i had to go an check that horrific article to make sure...

What has Philip K Dick ever done to you to insult him so? Did you ever read any of his books or just blurbs about them?

:shivers:

Renaissance of schlock content, false reactivity, linear gameplay, fake forced "choices" that dont change or affect anything else, etc, etc,
(btw, have you ever tried to play it again and actually explore those "other paths" and "non linearity" or did it all stay on that single superficial playthrough? did you ever reach california even?)

but, yes it seemed to me like youre saying its a successor to Fallout games because of that ending rant about being the instigator and renaissance and whatnot of a whole rpg genre- and to me Fallout games are true RPG games and representatives of the genre.
My bad.

It was a fallacy and blatant lie meant to smear an original Fallout game into something connected in any way with shit bethesda produced much later on. Oh and btw, who bragged in a polygon interview with having been responsible that bethesda bought the Ip, and so prevented Troika from getting it?

-corrected-
As you very well know, directly comparing an original Fallout with shit from bethesda as if they are related or "same" in any way possible can only be cleansed in a jousting duel. Let me know when youre ready.

 

who the fuck thought it was a good idea to release hiver

 

Tell me, is there something you could not nitpick about FO?

 

The point is that fedora wearing gansters are largely from 20s to 40s of 20th century, so the society in Fallout would have such things as a part of its past.

The point is that a few small additions to the game do not make whole of the game something else, or bad.

Yet the same few examples are constantly pushed as if they just devalue the whole game into something - not Fallout.

Dont worry, i have no intention of staying long.

Youll get back to splurging stupid shit without any logic, sense or reason soon enough.

 

good, i like my shitslurping to go on without interruptions

 

Read most of his books. Quick example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Days_of_Perky_Pat

Such a community would be a perfect fit for WL2. In fact, you'd think it was written for it. Quite a few of his many post-apoc stories explore weird "what if" scenarios instead of more realistic ones.

First, he did start it and I'm pretty sure that his success influenced many developers (like Obsidian, for example) to give it a try. Second, the game IS non-linear, does have a LOT of reactivity (maybe it's not the kind you like but it's there) and choices. We can argue if the game is good overall, the same way we argue about Fallout 2 qualities but it's a different story.

Yes to both questions. I'm pretty sure the review includes references and screens from California.

Well, I didn't. Glad we sorted it out.

Both games (FO2 and FO3) feature a very similar approach to the setting - let's throw in all the cool shit we can think off.

- yakuza with samurai swords
- gansters with tommy guns running casinos
- aliens
- ghost
- talking rat
- talking deathclaws
- a villain who looks like a giant robot and wants to kill everyone for the lulz
- scientologists with celebrities
- kung-fu town, complete with the Dragon vs Lo Pan showdown
- shaman contacting you through dreams cutscenes

Plus all the inconsistencies and illogical shit like NCR.

Now, clearly, if you don't give a fuck about the setting, if the setting is just some background decoration and you're willing to accept anything, you will like the game a lot. If the setting is important to you and shit that doesn't belong rubs you the wrong way, you will like it a lot less.

 

My bad. Reread MRY's post and figure it need reply.

You've got the right analysis but you've got the wrong conclusion.

Fallout 1 is thematic about a destructive environment post apocalypse, Everything just been destroyed a few years before and people really struggle to make ends meet, to survive. I will admit that I dont like this subgenre of PA much. Never like the hand to mouth subsistent struggle for survival.

Fallout 2 belong to the subgenre of rebuilding the world after apocalypse, which is a different type and much more to my liking. The world been destroyed long enough that people can start crawling back up. Villages pop up one after another, old villages expand into town, old towns into cities etc... it's not just survival anymore (though there's still that) but the struggle to prosper.

They are both of Post Apocalypse genre, but the settings, the developments, are different. The emotions they aim to raise in readers/players also are different.

 

FO 2 takes place about 150 years after the great war. Considering that quite some technology actually survived alongside computers and books containing the necessary knowledge to use, maintain and maybe even build it I do not see it as unfeasible as to how civilization starts to grow back 150 years after the war and due to isolation do turn out to be so drastically different in various ways.

 

Of course you do. Have i ever said anything to the contrary?

Such a community would be a good fit for w2 or any post-apoclaytic game, if it was done with any kind of intent to actually have some quality content in it.
But w2 doesnt have anything even resembling such a scenario and such deeper meaning to any of its locations or quests and stories which are all cheap soap opera schlock garbage.
Therefore you made an example that is completely non applicable and an insult to Philip K Dick.

He did start the whole kickstart the cRPG thing, but w2 is the last example of what anyone should follow.

Non linear in a way where you simply refuse to do one or two locations and dont play them at all?
Do any of the choices you make create anything different in the following content?

If reactivity is fake and based on one trick pony schlock content, and if choices dont make much difference in anything then faceplam 3 (or any biowarian shit) is about as valuable as w2.

Is it? matters of quality are different stories now?

If you said W2 then i would agree. Any insult i could think off as a reply to this would be very deserved and applicable but ... maybe its such a disgrace by itself that no further bashing is needed.

- additionally, that is apparently the answer you give when asked about previous statement where you claim that Fallout 2 took advice on design from Bethesda.

Time line... common sense... logic... reason....

Barely 5% of the game in FO2. If that. 95% of the setting in Facepalm 3.... or is it 100%?

few random encounters. A katana is a weapon as any other. US is full of them, btw, cheap or a bit better replicas as they are.

no, just a few of lower thugs that dress up like that. Neither Mordinos nor Bishops were just gangsters with tommy guns. And the other two families were nowhere close. Nor was their purpose to be "gangsters with tommy guns".

mutated experimental biological weapons.

a very small sub-sub quest.

mutant.

mutants.

No, he wants to purify the wasteland from all the mutants and so rebuild pre-war civiliaztion.
An insane villain who is a half robot half flesh mess who wants to kill everyone or make huge green HULK looking mutants out of them. Kills himself immediately when you tell him his muties cannot reproduce and present him with some "evidence" you picked up who knows where.

small subquest. irrelevant. there is no kung-fu in the game except that generalistic name being used.

Tolerable in the overall context.


Anyway, as i keep repeating, nothing more then 5% of the whole content.
And if you can get so influenced by those small and mostly irrelevant additions that the 95% of the game stops being relevant to you then you are not worthy of actual discussion about objective merits of the game.

not inconsistent but misrepresented.

Thats clear only to you. And is nothing more then a strawman argument.

Strawman.

Strawman.

No shit...? the ultimate result based on three strawman arguments.... fantastic logic.

You may like it a lot less but thats not an actual proof that the game is less of Fallout game.

 

Child town, whatever-the-shit it was called with it's virtual reality? But fuck if I know, I have just some vague memories from Driackin's LP.

Edit: aaand ninja'd

 

So was Megaton. And Rivet City.

 

http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/index.php?threads/underwhelmed-by-fallout.96549/page-7#post-3699308
While my relationship with the setting is different from yours since i played F2 before i played F1, i thing it is wrong to say that Fallout 1 takes itself more seriously than Fallout 2. Personaly i didn't found F1 all that different in tone than 2, at least not to the extent to make F2 a totaly different experience and a betrayal to the setting.
And keep in mind that i'm a total storyfag who adores Fallout for it's atmosphere,writing,setting and way less for it's reactivity, skill use etc. And the wacky tone was part of the Fallout setting from the start.

Now, i agree that Fallout 1 had a more concise world, the wacky elements were somewhat more subdued, less in your face (but they were there, that they were less of them is a result of the game having much less content in general, it has less good content as well), and had a more tight theme, plus better atmosphere (not that Fallout 2 locations hadn't, but they were all over the place as far as tone and quality are concerned)

One the other hand Fallout 1's locations were barerbone contentwise, the quest design and reactivity left much to be desired compaired to the second game, plus the writing in F2 was better than F1.

I can fully understand why someone can prefer the first game, but the opinion that the first game is infinently superior to the second as far as quality content is conserned or that the only reason for someone to prefer the second game are the gameplay changes is wrong.

 

Excellent post, but this was the one thing that completely sold me on the game on my first playthrough. Awesome design.

 

Agreed.

There's also that in Fallout 2 the percieved "themeparkiness" actually builds into something in the grand scheme of things, something that gives an incentive to visit them again and try out some different things in subsequent playthroughs. In Fallout 3 the locations outside the mainquest (most of the game that is) - and within it too - most usually exist in their own respective vacuum bubbles where once you're done with them once, you're most likely done with them for good. The world structure being similiar to those civil war re-eanctments, or medieval fairs where the employees dress up and act their parts for the visitors and make sure they are never out of beverages.

 

The strongest and most potent point of the "reactivity" of the Fallout games was not that it was "perfect".
It was that they both clearly showed the way where the cRPG design should go. They both were huge THIS WAY TO INCLINE!!! sign posts.

Both with what was best about them and about smaller mistakes they did.

And thats exactly what W2 is doing.