Do you like Arcanum more than Fallout?

[Saint_Proverbius]

The hilarious thing is that the ironically named 'balanced sword' is far better, and is available the second you step off the blimp if you make your character right. Using it, you will never have the slightest challenge.

The Sword of Air is slightly better than the Balanced Sword. They're basically the same sword, but the Sword of Air is slightly faster. The Sword of Air is sold in the first town and it's relatively cheap to boot. I've always been able to buy it and a few haste potions after doing several quests in town.

So yeah, the two best "speed" swords in the game are very, very early in the game and can be used all the way through just because of how many attacks per round you'll get.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Do you like Arcanum more than Fallout?

No, the combat sucks too much and it's main story was too linear. It didn't allow as much of the random free-roaming that Fallout allowed.

 

[nikpalj]

I've played Fallout 2 when it was released for about a dozen of times and enyoed it very much. Chris Avelone's (if I remember right) writing are great and that's what made the game such a deep and wonderful experience for me - I'm always interested in deep quests and a good story then anything else.

Also the ok combat system, although I would die for the game if they had merged a Jagged Alliance 2 combat system with with rest of the F2 game, and added something akin to a dynamic campaign sys to it in which players could themselves create quests for the game by way of a freely released editor. Maybe make it like a competition with the best new modules being added every few months or so...

I bet that guys all over the world would create new modules for this even today!

It's a pity that nobody wants to make such a complex game as I've described above today because it seems that every damn game designer today is out for money and not to simply create something deep, lasting and beautiful like Fallout was...

I've never played Arcanum because at that time I switched my game preferences into the tactical/strategy field (specially Shogun and Medievel Total War games) but if anybody made a challenging and truly complex SP RPG today I guess that I would try it out. As things stand - I'll have to wait for the second coming in order for Christ to enlighten game designer folks that games aren't about greed and ripoff but rather their level of depth and general complexity...

 

[Norfleet]

The hilarious thing is that the ironically named 'balanced sword' is far better, and is available the second you step off the blimp if you make your character right. Using it, you will never have the slightest challenge.

Why the balanced sword? It didn't seem like that exceptional of a weapon to me. Does it have some special property that makes it so much better than nearly every other weapon in the game? Other than that it's nice and available early, what's so great about it? Other than the fact that melee in general is more powerful than anything other than Disintegrate.

 

[hiciacit]

Getting past the zombies inside the Jewelers (forget their name) was work enough for me. Though some builds made it a lot easier.

The Schuylers, yeah that can be some hard work if you're not dragging that dwarf around and your character is not primarely build for combat.

I'd say: Arcanum < Fallout < Fallout 2

Arcunum's setting more then made up for alll it's glaring shortcomings. In fact, I'm replaying it now...I get my ass handed to me where ever I go, but apart from that, I'm having a blast.

 

[Elwro]

Arcanum is the only game I have original copies of in English, Polish and German. (Although my German wasn't tough enough to handle it... two years ago. Hm, time for a replay maybe...)

 

[Shagnak]

Do you like Arcanum more than Fallout?

No, the combat sucks too much

Yup, agreed.

I've never got more than 20 percent into it.
But the setting really really appeals and I really want to like it despite some major flaws. I plan to get back to it.
Along with...umm...Divine Divinity, TOEE, the Silent Storm games, and half a dozen others. By the time I do the version of Winblows I have installed will no doubt make playing an impossiblity. Oh well...

 

[Texas Red]

Do you like Arcanum more than Fallout?

No, the combat sucks too much

Yup, agreed.

I've never got more than 20 percent into it.
But the setting really really appeals and I really want to like it despite some major flaws. I plan to get back to it.
Along with...umm...Divine Divinity, TOEE, the Silent Storm games, and half a dozen others. By the time I do the version of Winblows I have installed will no doubt make playing an impossiblity. Oh well...

Well, imo, the combat of ToEE is the best of... anything! It is really, really good.

 

[Bradylama]

Arcanum had a much better roleplaying element, I'll definitely give it that. Arcanum made you feel more a part of its world as opposed to the foreign meddler in Fallout.

Even though Arcanum is the game that turned me on to Steampunk, I still prefer the post-apocalypse. The combat in Arcanum also sucked too much, so Fallout is the greater game to me as a sum of its parts.

 

[suibhne]

Why the balanced sword? It didn't seem like that exceptional of a weapon to me. Does it have some special property that makes it so much better than nearly every other weapon in the game?

Especially early in the game, attacks per round > *. The Balanced Sword and Sword of Air both get an insane number of attacks per round.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

You know, now that I think about it, I liked Fallout better. Not for the combat, but the setting itself (though arcanum's was fucking amazing). The setting of the post apocalyptic wasteland where you rely on yourself is soo fucking good, I absolutely adore it. I think it appeals to many because it's both a large desire for us to set out alone to prove ourselves in some way, and it's also a fear and anticipation of the unknown. Not only that, but can you imagine the fucking adventure that you might have in a PA wasteland FO type setting? Truly a life worth living when you get down to it. Arcanum, while amazing, was like all other fantasy games: too civilized to appeal to my unruly heart. Thats not to say I dont love the setting. But fallout simply takes the fucking cake.

 

[Cycloptis]

Well, I haven't played Arcanum too too much just yet (this game sidetracked me from Lazarus, and now Bloodlines has sidetracked me from this) but it was role-playing at some of its finest. It bests Fallout in several ways, namely dialogue and customization. Even though there was a sort of rosy onlook with the industrial technology, it wasn't quite the same as the retro-futuristic/post-apocalyptic excellence of Fallout.

And then there's the combat, which needs not be mentioned. It's actually surprisingly similar to Fallout's, but it lacks all of the visual/audible feedback that made Fallout's system so good. Not to mention, at least in my case, my AI partners' actions can be annoying as hell. Oh, and of course the imbalances are lame.

I'm glad they took the living world a bit farther with NPCs that frequently moved, but I'm still finding storekeepers in their same exact spot, regardless of time. Of course this isn't really important, it's just disappointing that Ultima VII is still the best game in these respects, more than ten years later. The music also bugs the hell out of me and...there are gramattical errors in the writing (but not the voices).

I really like the city design of Tarant. I hope there's more like that later in the game. Arcanum really does seem to be excellent, but there are just a few too many flaws to give it the nod over Fallout.

 

[kingcomrade]

Fallout > Planescape: Torment > Arcanum > Fallout 2

 

[Admiral Rimjob POOBUM]

there are gramattical errors in the writing (but not the voices).

There are a hell of a lot in Fallout, as I recall.

 

[Binary]

This topic sounds pretty much like "do you prefer cabbages or lettuce".

Personally, I prefer icecream, but since it's not an option...

Between Arcanum and Fallout it's a tough choice. Fallout is finisheable in a few hours even if doing all quests, and gets pretty boring after the 2nd or 3rd challenge ("right this time I'm finishing this game without a single shot!"). Arcanum's combat is much worse than Fallout's.

I'd probably still vote for Fallout 2 even considering its strange plot.

 

[FatalFailure]

I liked arcanum, but for whatever reason, it continually came across to me as some sort of twisted perversion of Shadowrun. And since I really liked Shadowrun at the time, I was continually comparing Arcanum to the PnP system, and the weird Sega Genesis pseudo-RPG, and eventually I just sat there screaming at the screen because I couldn't figure out how to use the campaign editor well enough to make Matrix jack-in points for elven deckers and such.

Then I said "Oh, I get it... not enough people liked fallout, so we gotta get all the creepy elf-fetish lovers in here, with their magic swords +28 and such?" so then I kinda made my character a weird tech-only psycho, and ended up missing out on much of the game that way. "Oh, so you're the best shooterer? *BLAM!* Now I'm the best shooterer! And I'm king of this town, ya damned pointy-eared seller of Satan's POISONS! *BLAM BLAM* Secret skull-n-phrenology conspiracy? That's not what Mr. Gun says! *BLAMBLAMBLAM*"

FO2 for the win (and severe lack of elves) followed by arcanum, then FO1. PTS should be in there somewhere too.

 

[Cycloptis]

there are gramattical errors in the writing (but not the voices).

There are a hell of a lot in Fallout, as I recall.

That post really accentuates how out of touch I am with Fallout. I really need to play through it again.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Secret skull-n-phrenology conspiracy? That's not what Mr. Gun says! *BLAMBLAMBLAM*"

Hey, that was a good quest.

Okay, killing everyone was fun as well too I suppose. I can still recall the fleeing peasants during my massacre of Tarant.

 

[voodoo1man]

Fallout gets my vote. It's much more polished. The overall experience was more satisfying. Not to say that Arcanum wasn't a damn good game.

 

[fraunclein]

Having just played them all for the first time during the last few months, I'd say:

FO > Arcanum > FO2

FO1 was a great sum of atmospheric setting, fun game mechanics and a pretty good story told in a great way. I can't really point out any badly implemented or tedious elements about it, except maybe the repetitive special encounters with raiders & the mutant groups in vicinity of the military base. The shortness didn't bother me at all - it took me over an week to finish my playtrough, and my scientist/sneaky/smallarms PC didn't even explore the Glow or the Brotherhood of Steel.

I couldn't finish FO2. The unintresting plot, the inconsistent gameworld and the sophomoric humour among other things just made me lose my interest to play on. The whole game felt like one of those "ambitious" fanmade total conversion modprojects which retain the good game mechanics of the original but somehow just don't feel right anymore. I'll have to try it again using the "setting improvement mod", which looks rather interesting.

Arcanum felt like the real sequel to FO, retaining and expanding on almost everything that was great in the original and sending it all on a time machine to the steampunkish 19th century. I played a melee/sneak/mindfuck magic PC, so I can't yet comment the notorious issues with the combat balance (supposedly, with techies?). The combat system itself was above mediocre, but I think the real thing that fucked up the combat was - like mentioned earlier on this thread - the badly designed dungeons/encounters, most of which were plain diabloesque running through the corridors and killing some faceless foozles - recharge and repeat. Most of the unique encounters were actually quite fun.

 

[LCJr.]

I played a melee/sneak/mindfuck magic PC, so I can't yet comment the notorious issues with the combat balance (supposedly, with techies?).

Not specifically techies as ranged characters in general. Especially in turn-based. If you play realtime a ranged character isn't too bad as long as your ammo supply holds out. Turnbased is another story. 99% of the guns have a range of 15 and thrown weapons 20. A critter moves 2 "squares" for every AP in TB. So anything with Dex over 8-10 will go from max range to in your face in 1 turn. Add to that starting out your hit chance at max range pretty much sucks.

What gets techies in general is that you have to spend your CP on IN(and PE if a gunfighter) so your DX it going to be a lot lower than most other builds.

It's just makes you wonder if they played their own game or played it with more than one build.

 

[Ladonna]

I know Arcanum isn't balanced well, but its still quite doable with just about any build. Name one game where every build is the same difficulty as the others?

eg: Try going through Fallout with a Martial arts character.....Its small I know, but just an example of how I look at things. Magic is powerful in Arcanum, but it made my Tech walkthroughs all the more fun outdoing those Magical tossers.

 

[FatalFailure]

I know Arcanum isn't balanced well, but its still quite doable with just about any build. Name one game where every build is the same difficulty as the others?

eg: Try going through Fallout with a Martial arts character.....Its small I know, but just an example of how I look at things. Magic is powerful in Arcanum, but it made my Tech walkthroughs all the more fun outdoing those Magical tossers.

Much like what LCJr. said, the balance starts to fall apart once you take into effect the whole weird turn based/RTwP/RT/WTF? combat round system. Techies (especially gunslinger type techies) can totally smoke most baddies in their 'real time' combat setup. You can kite, and with a high enough speed/PE/etc, tag anyone in the head that you want without too much fear of badthings. Toss in a trap or two as you kite, and BAM! a winnar is you.

Consequently, the two speed blades are STUPIDLY powerful in turn based mode. Mostly all the badguys I came across ran towards me, which means I could spend a swing or two slicing their face off, and still have enough AP to run towards the next badguy and get in a final hit or two. And god forbid you get that timestop spell.... However, in RT mode, it seemed entirely too easy to get swarmed by the baddies and get your face crushed in HtH.

Finally, most of the patches I downloaded seemed to all affect the tech side of the house, either dropping dmg or range. I may be looking through rose-colored glasses at this, but I honestly felt that your choice of 'weapon' and theme (magic/tech) severely limited you to one type of combat system in order to survive.

I agree, that it's pretty fruitless to try a martial arts/HtH/weaponless character in Fallout (I tried last night, it sucked, but it may also just not be my playstyle) but when everyone in the late game is packing heat, it seems shameful to show up at a gunfight *without* a gun. But... Arcanum *did* at least try to give you that option (HtH) along with spell slinging, bow shooting, shotgunning, etc... a shame the combat turn system was so borked to make it nearly unfeasible to play some of those combat 'styles' for those who preferred one turn-system over another.

 

[suibhne]

I had a blast playing a charismatic gunslinger in Arcanum when I had a party of melee fighters. I'd hate to think of doing it solo, tho...

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

eg: Try going through Fallout with a Martial arts character.....

That's probably the hardest one to go through the game with in Fallout. If you're just going to punch everyone to death, you're going to have a tough time. Fallout 2 added some decent perks to augment the pudgelist types, but it's stilly pretty difficult even with power fists.

However, a gunslinger in Arcanum is way, WAY harder than a magey melee character. Gunslingers, given the nature of the game, shouldn't be as remotely obscure as a pudgelist in Fallout.