Fallout 2 - It's meant to be good?

[Quetzacoatl]

Yes, heard Tim Schafer likes Minecraft and now I don't know what to believe in anymore, but is there really an extensive track record of this?

I guess what I am asking for is if anyone has a list on hand.

http://rpgcodex.net/content.php?id=200 Reading this bloody horrified me.

 

[Wyrmlord]

I was annoyed that they pussied out on the pure Anti-Americanism of F1. In F2 the pre-war government became weird, stupid late cold war Reagan America, which is like using the safe version of America at its worst as the object of satire and the agent of the apocalypse (and doing stuff like making the vaults into a comedy military-industrial complex Dr. Strangelove thing). In F1 it was relatively sacrosanct WWII/Battle Hymn of the Republic America.

Also, the US government was like the ancient Mayans in Fallout. They were a mysterious extinct ancient organization of great technological terror inhabited in its Deathclaws, FEV soldiers, Power Armour wielding soldiers with Plasma Rifles, and so on.

But in Fallout 2, they were still existing, only with less power. That made them just another post-apocalyptic faction like anyone else - the Khans, the Brotherhood of Steel, whatever.

Best of all, like you say, Fallout America was the true core nationalistic America, and Tim Cain really questioned what was the use of those ideals in a world long destroyed. But with the ex-Enclave man in San Francisco Oil Tanker in Fallout 2, we hear about how that nationalistic America was a supposedly one of good ideals, but later corrupted by narrow forces. That is just cheap and cliche. And far less radical than the original's message - it's not about the good or bad America, but what is left of America after nuclear war.

 

[LoPan]

I don't know if I want a list anymore. I had forgotten that article and now I'll have to find a way to explain to Jesus that I had nothing to do with it.

It really is a difficult article to deal with. Magnanimity follows but the prejudice it creates just doesn't disperse.

 

[Lightknight]

Fallout 2 is a good game but very much inferior to the first Fallout in almost every way save for size and some of the quest design.

But those are what counts, right ? Also, "in almost every way" doesnt include better balance, better encounters, hth becoming an actual system, followers control, etc. I'd say FO2 had the most developed steal/kill/persuade style for many years, i still have no idea if any more recent game had beat it in that aspect.

 

[sea]

Fallout 2 is a good game but very much inferior to the first Fallout in almost every way save for size and some of the quest design.

But those are what counts, right ? Also, "in almost every way" doesnt include better balance, better encounters, hth becoming an actual system, followers control, etc. I'd say FO2 had the most developed steal/kill/persuade style for many years, i still have no idea if any more recent game had beat it in that aspect.

I don't know about better balance - while the "rush to Power Armor and Plasma Rifle" exploit isn't there (or at least, it is, but it's harder to do), Fallout 1 has a very good difficulty curve throughout and I don't think Fallout 2 can claim it's much better.

Better encounters? Again, I'm not so sure... a lot of Fallout 2's encounters are just trash mobs for the most part, and Fallout 1's were limited enough that every enemy you fought required slightly different strategies, plus the locations varied a bit more (and creative tactics like locking enemies in a house and tossing grenades into the windows were more viable).

Not sure what you mean by steal/kill/persuade, but Fallout 1 does all of that stuff as well, for pretty much every quest (unless it just isn't viable). Fallout 2 also requires more combat, generally, and it's less open due to the number of plot gates, so in some senses I'd say it's weaker in terms of the choices it offers you (but again, there are definitely exceptions, like all the inter-city politics and whatnot).

As for sheer size - no, I'll take a consistent, coherent and focused RPG over one that's massive but lacks good pacing and momentum. Fallout 1 was more forward-moving, building in complexity, momentum and stakes throughout, while Fallout 2 was much more about solving local problems without real in-universe incentive in the greater scheme, and then sort of dumped the plot into the last 1/4 of the game.

 

[Commissar Draco]

It seems it's much easier to like FO2 if you play it before FO1.

Funny that, old chap.

Because I, despite living in the most geographically isolated (and yet most awesome) region of our fair land, I played Fallout first.

I loved it.

Then my father found me Fallout 2 and I told him to buy it.

I loved it even more.

So what you said is WRONG, at least in my case.
The whole "Fallout 2 was uncohesive ruined the series wah wah awh" is nothing but filthy revisionism, probrably derivated from guys like Rosh and Vault Dweller.

Fallout 2 is probrably one of the best CRPGs of all time, if not THE best.

We say not to filthy revisionists.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fallout 2 is a good game but very much inferior to the first Fallout in almost every way save for size and some of the quest design.

But those are what counts, right ? Also, "in almost every way" doesnt include better balance, better encounters, hth becoming an actual system, followers control, etc. I'd say FO2 had the most developed steal/kill/persuade style for many years, i still have no idea if any more recent game had beat it in that aspect.

I don't know about better balance - while the "rush to Power Armor and Plasma Rifle" exploit isn't there (or at least, it is, but it's harder to do), Fallout 1 has a very good difficulty curve throughout and I don't think Fallout 2 can claim it's much better.

Better encounters? Again, I'm not so sure... a lot of Fallout 2's encounters are just trash mobs for the most part, and Fallout 1's were limited enough that every enemy you fought required slightly different strategies, plus the locations varied a bit more (and creative tactics like locking enemies in a house and tossing grenades into the windows were more viable).

Not sure what you mean by steal/kill/persuade, but Fallout 1 does all of that stuff as well, for pretty much every quest (unless it just isn't viable). Fallout 2 also requires more combat, generally, and it's less open due to the number of plot gates, so in some senses I'd say it's weaker in terms of the choices it offers you (but again, there are definitely exceptions, like all the inter-city politics and whatnot).

As for sheer size - no, I'll take a consistent, coherent and focused RPG over one that's massive but lacks good pacing and momentum. Fallout 1 was more forward-moving, building in complexity, momentum and stakes throughout, while Fallout 2 was much more about solving local problems without real in-universe incentive in the greater scheme, and then sort of dumped the plot into the last 1/4 of the game.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Fallout 2 bashing is the new hip way to earn Kodex Kool Kredits.

 

[DwarvenFood]

Oh well, it's probably that I see it through rose-tinted glasses because I played FO2 before playing FO1 and these were my first steps in the Fallout universe - and man, I loved it from the first second even though I had never heard of Fallout before that.

Same here.

Same here.

 

[Menckenstein]

My biggest issue with FO2 was the triads shit, that should've been cut before they left the planning stages.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Fallout 2 bashing is the new hip way to earn Kodex Kool Kredits.

It's new?

Roshambo and Vault Dweller were doing this before...

- Well, for the lack of a better word -

...before it was cool.

Even if my own criticisms are not as strong as theirs (they believed it ruined the setting and the theme, which does not matter as much to a non-storytelling-gamer like me), the quests were certainly a little on the boring and uncompelling side.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I like FO2 more, I said "seems" because that's what it looks like to me, since I played FO2 first. The humor didn't really bother me because I wasn't expecting srs bzns.

As for sheer size - no, I'll take a consistent, coherent and focused RPG over one that's massive but lacks good pacing and momentum. Fallout 1 was more forward-moving, building in complexity, momentum and stakes throughout, while Fallout 2 was much more about solving local problems without real in-universe incentive in the greater scheme, and then sort of dumped the plot into the last 1/4 of the game.

storyfag

 

[Surf Solar]

storyfag

What has this to do with storyfaggotry?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Fallout 2 bashing is the new hip way to earn Kodex Kool Kredits.

Sounds like someone never was on NMA .

 

[Kaol]

It's probably mostly due to the combat system that i don't like it. Just tried arcanum for the 1st time and can't get into that for the same reason.

 

[Coyote]

Even if my own criticisms are not as strong as theirs (they believed it ruined the setting and the theme, which does not matter as much to a non-storytelling-gamer like me), the quests were certainly a little on the boring and uncompelling side.

Huh. I played FO first and definitely prefer its atmosphere/setting, but I have a slight preference for FO2 overall largely because of the quests. The design of some of the better quests and the way your choices interact with one another still, IMO, has yet to be surpassed by another RPG. Of course, there are a lot of boring fedex quests and such too, and most of them are concentrated near the beginning of the game, which results in many dropped playthroughs and makes it tougher to get to the good parts than I would like.

 

[sea]

storyfag

I like a good story, but something as basic as pacing and forward momentum needs to be accounted for in gameplay as well. Fallout 2, generally, does not have that - it flounders for its first third with boring fetch quests and combat against boring low-level enemies as you hit the attack button over and over, then gets interesting as the fetch quests disappear and are replaced with interesting choices and intuitive solutions revolving around the game mechanics and character development, then it turns into a dungeon crawl with repetitive trash mobs in the final third. I can appreciate changes in game mechanics and structure, but I'd prefer that the evolution be focused and forward-moving rather than arbitrary and based more on which city you're in than anything else.

As for trying to gain KKK points - I had already formed my opinions on it years ago when I first started playing it. It's still a good game and all, but after playing Fallout 1, it certainly did not come across as the sequel I wanted.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

It's probably mostly due to the combat system that i don't like it. Just tried arcanum for the 1st time and can't get into that for the same reason.

I got annoyed by combat a lot. Way too random, no cover/stances, execution-style encounters with multiple enemies that have much higher stats than you can have (there's lots of humans of with stats excessive like ST08PE10EN08CH05IN06AG08LK05), inventory exploits, free weapon change, etc.

 

[Johannes]

Fallout 2 bashing is the new hip way to earn Kodex Kool Kredits.

As if there was something wrong in bashing/criticizing the downsides of something you (or I) like.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Indeed there isn't, but more often than not it slides into delusional skyway-style claims.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

storyfag

What has this to do with storyfaggotry?

Just a joke, couldn't resist it because of the words he used. I also had problems with the pace at the beginning (Klamath, Redding and Modoc in particular), and with Arcanum's beginning as well.

 

[DragoFireheart]

Go cry elsewhere. The story is the fukkin' same as expalined above, fucktard.

- It's the same if you fit both into the mold of "you, chosen one, go find X item. When you return, Y threat came around and you must fight it" which is a mold that is commonly used in many RPGs. You can pretend they are the same story but just because both have you fetch an item and then fight the bad dudes doesn't mean they have the same story. One is about discovery, the other is about survival. One has shit story, the other has the best execution and flow of any CRPG.

 

[Wyrmlord]

Indeed there isn't, but more often than not it slides into delusional skyway-style claims.

As a major latecomer to the RPG genre, I played many old ones first (because they were free!)

I don't typically obsess over the 1983-1995 era games. They are not perfect. They have flaws. But once I start mulling over the gaming experiences I have had from games of that period, a game like Fallout 2 feels like...a footnote in RPG history. Does it compare in having the best fights or encounters ever seen in the genre? Nope. Does it compare in having the best in-door dungeons or areas? Nope. The best hubs with quests and merchants? Maybe. The most challenging and mind-boggling quests or object/clue-finding? The style of the Highwayman quest is very much in line with the very difficult quests from BaK and M&M, but it's not the typical Fallout 2 quest.

10-20 years from now, retro-gaming sites could be listing a lot of other games much higher on user rankings, and Fallout 2 would probably be down there with Road War or Lands of Lore: Throne of Chaos - worth trying just for satisfying idle curiosity and little else.

All this is by the way of saying I was really disappointed by it!

 

[RK47]

Go cry elsewhere. The story is the fukkin' same as expalined above, fucktard.

- It's the same if you fit both into the mold of "you, chosen one, go find X item. When you return, Y threat came around and you must fight it" which is a mold that is commonly used in many RPGs. You can pretend they are the same story but just because both have you fetch an item and then fight the bad dudes doesn't mean they have the same story. One is about discovery, the other is about survival. One has shit story, the other has the best execution and flow of any CRPG.

I think Volourn has a point. The GECK is such a ridiculous plot device that I kinda hated looking for it. It goes against the spirit of the original Fallout where survival is a hard thing, not something you just add water and voila - Vault City. Compared to the Vault Chip, the GECK makes no fucking sense when V13 Overseer didn't even attempt to move out from his Vault.

The GECK doesn't have to exist to form the player's motivation to explore the Wasteland. It's such a big place out there and you want to send a lone man to find it? Unbelievable. Injecting conflict in the wasteland will make the player aware of what's at stake, and how small his village seems to be in the bigger picture.

In fact, I really cannot accept that the Vault Dweller become such a retard and form a community of tribals with spiritual beliefs and temples. That's just bullshit. What happened to pre-existing communities like Junktown and the Hub? Why did he not choose to settle there instead, where he might have established a reputation for himself and have a better life?

 

[Quetzacoatl]

I think Volourn has a point. The GECK is such a ridiculous plot device that I kinda hated looking for it. It goes against the spirit of the original Fallout where survival is a hard thing, not something you just add water and voila - Vault City. Compared to the Vault Chip, the GECK makes no fucking sense when V13 Overseer didn't even attempt to move out from his Vault.

The GECK doesn't have to exist to form the player's motivation to explore the Wasteland. It's such a big place out there and you want to send a lone man to find it? Unbelievable. Injecting conflict in the wasteland will make the player aware of what's at stake, and how small his village seems to be in the bigger picture.

In fact, I really cannot accept that the Vault Dweller become such a retard and form a community of tribals with spiritual beliefs and temples. That's just bullshit. What happened to pre-existing communities like Junktown and the Hub? Why did he not choose to settle there instead, where he might have established a reputation for himself and have a better life?