Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Interview Avellone Interview On Edge

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Dark Matter said:
Anyone who thinks FO 1 is better than FO 2 is a complete idiot.
Manners, Dark Matter, manners. I thought we've agreed that an acceptable way to make a bold statement is:

Face it, your notion of Fallout 1 somehow being better than Fallout 2 is a fucking joke!


A 40 hour game vs. a 7 hour game where the core game mechanics are pretty much identical? FO2 is better based on that alone.
In other words:

"Face it, your notion that quality is somehow more important than quantity is a fucking joke!"

I'm with you, go on.

FO2 offers you a lot more choices, and there are far opportunities to use the different skills. Most of the useless skills/attributes in FO1 actually offer some pretty nice benefits in FO2 (like charima letting you have more party members).
Yes, there are some design improvements. So?

The areas in FO2 were far more memorable as well. Compare New Reno and Vault City to the boring Hub (which had like 5 quests in total...even the smaller areas in FO2 offered more content than that).
Only 5? WEAK!

Let me guess, Baldur's Gate 2 is your favourite game.

It's a fucking video game about super mutants and guys in power armor.
Then Fallout 3 is worthy sequel.
 

Forest Dweller

Smoking Dicks
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
12,373
Vault Dweller said:
FO2 offers you a lot more choices, and there are far opportunities to use the different skills. Most of the useless skills/attributes in FO1 actually offer some pretty nice benefits in FO2 (like charima letting you have more party members).
Yes, there are some design improvements. So?
So...it's better game?
 

Dark Matter

Prophet
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
1,227
Location
Toronto
Vault Dweller said:
In other words:

"Face it, your notion that quality is somehow more important than quantity is a fucking joke!"

I'm with you, go on.
No, it's not about quantity being more important than quality. The point is that, even if we were to agree that the setting and story in FO1 are better, it's not enough to make up for the fact that FO2 is about 5 times longer and the actual gameplay is still more or less the same. The whole quality beats quantity argument would be valid if we were to compare a 100 hour-long Oblivion vs. 7-10 hour Fallout since there's a significant difference in the actual gameplay between the two i.e. Fallout's gameplay is far superior to Oblivion's. However, in the case of FO1 vs. FO2, the gameplay is so similar that it's silly to claim that the quality of FO1's 7 hour experience is somehow far superior to FO2's 40+ hour experience.

Yes, there are some design improvements. So?
Design improvements which make the core gameplay better than FO1.

Only 5? WEAK!

Let me guess, Baldur's Gate 2 is your favourite game.
Yeah, just 5 quests in the biggest hub in the game is pretty lame. And again, the whole quality vs. quantity argument doesn't apply when comparing with FO2 because not only did FO2 have far more quests, they were just as good in terms of choices and being able to finish them in multiple ways.

And yeah, BG2 is one of my favorite games.

Then Fallout 3 is worthy sequel.
No, my point is that not being entirely true to the setting is not always a bad thing. That doesn't mean all changes result in something good. FO3 is an example where a lot of silly and stupid things were added, but they didn't necessarily make the game more fun or memorable. However, in the case of FO2, hubs like New Reno and Vault City were totally fucking awesome and better than any area in FO1 despite the fact that they may not necessarily be true to the setting.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Dicksmoker said:
Vault Dweller said:
FO2 offers you a lot more choices, and there are far opportunities to use the different skills. Most of the useless skills/attributes in FO1 actually offer some pretty nice benefits in FO2 (like charima letting you have more party members).
Yes, there are some design improvements. So?
So...it's better game?
Not necessarily. Most sequels feature some design improvements, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are better games overall. One can argue that Fallout 3 made skills more useful (like Science, for example) and increased the number of Charisma checks. Is it a better game?

Same goes for KOTOR 2.
 

Dark Matter

Prophet
Joined
Jun 17, 2007
Messages
1,227
Location
Toronto
Vault Dweller said:
Dicksmoker said:
Vault Dweller said:
FO2 offers you a lot more choices, and there are far opportunities to use the different skills. Most of the useless skills/attributes in FO1 actually offer some pretty nice benefits in FO2 (like charima letting you have more party members).
Yes, there are some design improvements. So?
So...it's better game?
Not necessarily. Most sequels feature some design improvements, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are better games overall. One can argue that Fallout 3 made skills more useful (like Science, for example) and increased the number of Charisma checks. Is it a better game?

Same goes for KOTOR 2.
The difference is that FO3 changed a lot of things for the worse, FO2 didn't. FO2 only improved the core mechanics, it didn't make them worse in any way. The only way one could argue that FO2 is still worse than FO1 is by looking at the actual quests and world design. If FO2 merely amounted to going from one dungeon to another killing a gazillion enemies along the way, then yes, FO1 can still be considered the better game. But that's not the case with FO2, it offers more than FO1 in just about every regard. More choices, more dialog, more combat, more uses for skills/attributes etc.
 

Forest Dweller

Smoking Dicks
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
12,373
Vault Dweller said:
Not necessarily. Most sequels feature some design improvements, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are better games overall. One can argue that Fallout 3 made skills more useful (like Science, for example) and increased the number of Charisma checks. Is it a better game?
But the myriad design regressions in Fallout 3 more than offset the small improvements. Can the same be said for Fallout 2?

EDIT: Damnit Dark Matter WAIT FOR YOUR TURN!

Same goes for KOTOR 2.
Are you saying that it isn't?
 

almondblight

Arcane
Joined
Aug 10, 2004
Messages
2,624
almondblight said:
I think the quality vs. quantity arguments are spot on.

Fallout 2 had a number of problems, so many that I have to walk
through the game in my head to even remember them all. I never even
finished the game (quit somewhere around San Fran), and I completed
Fallout five times (more so than any other game I've ever played).

Let's review Fallout 2:

Initial dungeon - we all agree that this sucked. Went on much, much too long, and the idea seemed silly to me. The most important part, though, is it highlights one of the largest flaws in Fallout 2 - combat filler. The original Fallout didn't have good combat, really, but it was fun because there usually wasn't too much of it (sans the military base), and it was designed decently. In Fallout 2 they keep the same flawed combat system, and add a lot more combat, so that it moves towards (but not nearly as bad as) JRPG level mindless combat. They have combat dungeons, that are just long, drawn out fights in a bunch of places. There didn't seem to be many in Fallout 1.

To this end, a bunch of new and boring fodder was created. Giant ants, giant scorpions (mini-radscorps?), killer plants, packs of wolves, aliens, yakuza, etc. The long, drawn out, and mostly mindless combat takes away from the game immensely.

Ok, so get a quest which is about the same as the quest in Fallout 1, then leave the village, and the first place you encounter is...a couple of people in the middle of nowhere. There are a few people in a bar, and a few guys you are told dress up like bugs. And you have a quest to kill 30 wolves. That's about it. No head of the town, no idea why the people are there, nothing, really. Feels like a half put together mod.

I should expand on the wolf quest (I think it's in this town). It shows how there's not just more combat, but worse combat. Fallout 1 always sucked when you had to fight a lot of people, because the system wasn't set up for that, so you'd have to wait 10 minutes for all 25 people to take your turn until you could move again, and that move might be "walk 7 steps towards the battle, wait for 25 more people to take their turn."

I don't remember this being a problem, though, in any place except
for the boneyard and a little in the military base. Most of the time
it seemed like the designers knew what they were doing, and made it so
you only fought 1-6 beings at a time. In Fallout 2, however, this seems to happen a lot.

Then you go to the second city, the Den. It is supposed to be lawless, and we see that, because there is no government. Well, as this is the second city and the first one was empty, there's been no government anywhere in the game so far, so it doesn't feel so much like a lawless area as another half thought out idea. It has the stupid ghosts, and this or the first town (or the next) has a boring quest where you have to slog through some mutant gecko cave. Oh, and it has a ghoul guy that is pretending to be a mummy for lulz.

Next area (that I remember), that stupid little town that has the shit bomb, pinky and the brain, and the shotgun wedding. I don't remember anything else from the town. Next (I think) is vault city. Another major flaw in FO2 shows up. The head of vault city asks you to turn in a spy; the spy asks you to help work with NCR to defeat vault city. OK, finally a choice! No, wait, I can do both without any drawbacks...what the fuck...

Then there's ghoul town (or wherever Harold is, I forget), which is another annoyance. Tandi NCR, Harold runs some ghoul town, man in Vault City sings the theme to FO1...yeah, I played FO1, I don't need you to keep reminding me of it.

Somewhere along here is the other pinky and the brain mouse. I think you have a philosophical conversation with him. Like the one you have with harold. And joe the supermutant. And tommy the talking deathclaw. Reminds me of anime where someone thought it would be deep to have 12 year olds in fighting robots randomly quote Kant.

Then there's mutant sheriff town. The crazy anti-mutant group was a cool idea. The talking plant that is jealous that his scientist master was now more focused on the chess-playing scorpion you have to beat was stupid. I think there's a combat cave in here? Don't recall.

Ok, now New Reno. Avellone is proud of this, aye? I have to say, some of the mafia quests were kinda cool, like being the bodyguard for the meeting with the enclave, or the one where you had to lie to the boss and pay out with your own money. And that's about the only thing I remember being "kinda cool" about New Reno.

It was pretty crazy that I was going on missions for all 4 mafia families at the same time - back to the lack of consequence part. They only get pissed off if you become a made man for one of the other families, and that only happens at the end of the mission string. You can accomplish every mission for every family up until the last one, and all the other families are still happy to make you a made man.

The "screw the guys wife, if you are a good enough fuck, she will tell you the secrets" part was lame. The game actually says something like: "she doesn't finish talking, but goes back to sleep. Perhaps if you were a better lover, she would have said more." People like this?

Oh yeah, and there's a porno theatre you can be a fluffer at, and a porn collect-a-thon. And the yakuza/goodfellas baddies that would randomly attack you outside of it.

Then there is that mining town, Red Hills or something. The only thing I remember from there is that aliens invaded the mines, and you had to slog through a very long and very boring dungeon to finish the mission regarding them. It made no sense, it was boring, and I gave up on it.

Next, NCR. It's supposed to be the capital of a huge state, the entirety of which - sans the capital - is just south of your map.

Then talking death claws. Scientologists. Bruce Lee. The Enclave area where you walk in, ask them for power armor, then leave. Another combat slog on a tanker, if I remember right. This is when I gave up on the game.


Also, it kept most of the problems of Fallout 1 (useless skills, poor combat, etc.). Even though I could move NPC's now, I found I got stuck more often with them because of the poor design.


******************


That about sums it up.
 

Vaarna_Aarne

Notorious Internet Vandal
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
34,585
Location
Cell S-004
MCA Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2
Satori said:
Vaarna_Aarne said:
I'll say again: Fallout 2 has good shots at trumping Fallout 1 with just New Reno alone.

Now, as for Avellone and comics, I'd love to see him get a try with something like Doctor Fate, Hellblazer, Dr Strange, Green Lantern Corps (Swamp Thing doesn't qualify because it is sacred) or some cut of his own jib. Actually, I would really like him writing something with both Shazam & kids and Anton Arcane.
Quite frankly I feel that as long as Avellone has an interest in his subject he could apply himself to any comic series and it would come out trumps.
I guess so. The way I'd see it, he'd probably be something like a less tripping-balls Morrison, so I guess he'd do best with a particularly rich premise to utilize (and naturally, without fight-per-issue quotas, since those can ruin any comic).
 

ghostdog

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 31, 2007
Messages
11,158
I had more fun with fallout 2. I find it slightly better than Fallout1 but I consider both games very good. I can understand that some may like Fallout 1 more since they find it more consistent with the setting but someone saying in nerdrage that Fallout2 is shit is completely retarded.

The only problem I found with Fallout 2 was that San Fransisco was a not-so-well developed area that seemed to have been made on a hurry and that kind of reduced the buildup to the ending. Also, the "main" villain was very generic but the rest of the enclave base was interesting and you also had the opportunity to kill the president of the USA which is always a plus. And let's face it the "I want to make you all mutants because we are the future :noblemadman:" villain of the first game is also generic.

As for New Reno I think it's one of the best crpg areas ever created. The quest structure, the characters the writing and the layout is superb. Again some people may find that the mafia, porn business or the sometimes humorous and playful style is not "consistent with the setting" but I think the whole area was masterfully created and I enjoyed it greatly. Anyway, I don't think the fallout setting ever took itself seriously, it has always been in the style of P-A pulp fiction and b-movies.
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
Jasede said:
I assure you we don't have cities like New Reno in Germany.
We don't give up easily, either (to a fault). But dagorkhan, name one location in FO1 that feels more alive than New Reno.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Dark Matter said:
No, it's not about quantity being more important than quality. The point is that, even if we were to agree that the setting and story in FO1 are better, it's not enough to make up for the fact that FO2 is about 5 times longer and the actual gameplay is still more or less the same.
Longer why?

Almondblight: "Let's review Fallout 2:

Initial dungeon - we all agree that this sucked. Went on much, much too long, and the idea seemed silly to me. The most important part, though, is it highlights one of the largest flaws in Fallout 2 - combat filler. The original Fallout didn't have good combat, really, but it was fun because there usually wasn't too much of it (sans the military base), and it was designed decently. In Fallout 2 they keep the same flawed combat system, and add a lot more combat, so that it moves towards (but not nearly as bad as) JRPG level mindless combat. They have combat dungeons, that are just long, drawn out fights in a bunch of places. There didn't seem to be many in Fallout 1.

To this end, a bunch of new and boring fodder was created. Giant ants, giant scorpions (mini-radscorps?), killer plants, packs of wolves, aliens, yakuza, etc. The long, drawn out, and mostly mindless combat takes away from the game immensely.

Ok, so get a quest which is about the same as the quest in Fallout 1, then leave the village, and the first place you encounter is...a couple of people in the middle of nowhere. There are a few people in a bar, and a few guys you are told dress up like bugs. And you have a quest to kill 30 wolves. That's about it. No head of the town, no idea why the people are there, nothing, really. Feels like a half put together mod."

However, in the case of FO1 vs. FO2, the gameplay is so similar that it's silly to claim that the quality of FO1's 7 hour experience is somehow far superior to FO2's 40+ hour experience.
What exactly does "the gameplay is similar" mean? Fight, talk, explore? That's broad enough to describe a lot of games, including Mass Effect. So, let's determine first what this gameplay is, if you don't mind.

Btw, where does "7 hours" number come from?

Yeah, just 5 quests in the biggest hub in the game is pretty lame.
Why? Should all/most locations be ridden with questgivers?

And again, the whole quality vs. quantity argument doesn't apply when comparing with FO2 because not only did FO2 have far more quests, they were just as good in terms of choices and being able to finish them in multiple ways.
All of them? No.

Fallout 2 was loaded with idiotic and meaningless quests lifted straight from Japanese RPGs. Find a book for Rebecca, put a ghost to rest, bring a meal to Smitty, ask Stacy to tell you a story about her cat, kill rats in Farrel's garden, offer to shovel shit for 5 days, bring tools to Valeria, find a boy's doll, find Cornelius' gold watch, etc. The last one is funny because the watch was in a shitter and you need to blow up and the poo ends up everywhere. Funny, right?

Quality or quantity?

Fallout 2 isn't a bad game. In fact it's a very good game, despite the flaws. However, Fallout 1 is a much, much better game. I'd put Fallout in the 90-100 category and Fallout 2 in 80-90.

And yeah, BG2 is one of my favorite games.
Figures.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,044
Dicksmoker said:
Vault Dweller said:
Not necessarily. Most sequels feature some design improvements, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are better games overall. One can argue that Fallout 3 made skills more useful (like Science, for example) and increased the number of Charisma checks. Is it a better game?
But the myriad design regressions in Fallout 3 more than offset the small improvements. Can the same be said for Fallout 2?
Easily.

Same goes for KOTOR 2.
Are you saying that it isn't?
Isn't what? A better game? Don't think so.
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=6525
 

ushdugery

Scholar
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
371
Vault Dweller said:
Some stuff about fallout 2 being loaded up with filler.
But some of the ongoing gecko/vault city/redding/ncr political stuff really trumps some of the simple nature of a large number of the first game's quests it's just that all the filler they throw into the game gets in the way. I loved fallout when I played it because it didn't contain filler, simple in many ways but it was all set pieces that carefully interlaced with each other and huge portions were just truly engrossing conversations. That said there was so much opportunity for more scope that I saw in the game and when fallout 2 in some ways provided that but then lumped on trash stuff that I had to wade through I found it a less enjoyable (although still excellent) game to finish, it's just that I felt that it didn't achieve what it might have.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom