Game News Fallout 2 vs Diablo 2

[chrisbeddoes]

Diablo 2 is a apple. ( multiplayer battlenet)
Fallout 2 is an orange. (singleplayer only)

Both are great games.

 

[Seven]

I'd just like to ask what the hell the purpose of questioning my credentials was.

I was being cynical you prick.

 

[Malak]

Why can't it?

Anyway, Diablo is considered an RPG by many people because it has all the trappings of an RPG. But really, it is missing the main ingredients: choice. It offers one path through the game, superficial character development, and nothing but fighting. There is no role to play that you have any choice in choosing or choice in how you will apoproach the role you are given. Fallout is all about choice.

You make a good point. However, if we based the genre of RPG solely on this one characteristic, how empty it would be. And really, what is choice? Do you think you had any choice at posting that? It was your role, there was no doubt you would. And so to, my barbarian's role is to slay Baal, and slay him he does. Do I not fit the role?

There is story, there is character progression, there are roles to choose, and depth is really too subjective to be objectively applied to a game to push it either as an RPG or an action game. But then, that fine line between the two grows ever thinner with the elements mixing together in new games.

I have story, character progression, and choice[/i] in an FPS. Does that make it an RPG too?

 

[Malak]

Diablo 2 is a apple. ( multiplayer battlenet)
Fallout 2 is an orange. (singleplayer only)

Both are great games.

I don't like oranges. And I don't like orange juice. I don't even like the color orange.

 

[Rayt]

Anyway, Diablo is considered an RPG by many people because it has all the trappings of an RPG. But really, it is missing the main ingredients: choice. It offers one path through the game, superficial character development, and nothing but fighting.

I'm not too sure of that. Character development goes pretty deep, in fact you have more choices for the character than say Planescape Torment or Fallout. You can make tons of combinations which each can be combined with specific kind of gear to make new cobinations. You can make sorceresses who only fight melee and still be incredibly powerfull. Paladins who focus on ranged combat or only act as healing support for the party. Barbarians singers who function as some kind of bard, etc. Unfortunatly, they are all combat based so I guess that makes it superficial as you have no options to change your character social wise (besides instead of saying "fuck u n00b" saying "Here, you can have this armour") But within the game type, being hack and slash, I consider it extremely rich.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You make a good point. However, if we based the genre of RPG solely on this one characteristic, how empty it would be.

Choice=role-playing. That's what RPGs are all about. RPGs are not about stories, adjustable stats, romances, and loot, they are about choices. That's what separates Fallout from Quake and, yes, from Diablo. Doesn't make either one of these a bad game, I like them all, but only one is a true RPG.

And really, what is choice?

Good question. Choice is a freedom to do what you want, not what developers want you to do. D2 does offer you a choice to develop a character as you see fit featuring truckload of builds, but that's about it. The rest of the game is a giant battle arena.

my barbarian's role is to slay Baal, and slay him he does. Do I not fit the role?

By your logic, every game is an RPG since every game puts you in role of somebody or something. The fact that it aint so should tell you that you're mistaken.

But then, that fine line between the two grows ever thinner with the elements mixing together in new games.

Common misconception, really. The line is very thick and distinctive. There are games with adjustable stats, even FPSs, and there are games that support role-playing. Simple as that.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Well, there is some ground for comparing sequel to original in both. Like many have said already, Diablo had a much better story, while Diablo 2 was just going for the "more = better" philosophy. The same thing goes for Fallout versus Fallout 2.

But I don't think you can compare Fallout 2 to Diablo 2 as to which is better. As a CRPG, Fallout 2 spanks Diablo 2. There shouldn't be much doubt at all about that. An example of a quest in Diablo 2 is GO KILL BLOODRAVEN. They're all pretty much like that. In Fallout 2, you have things like the situation with Vault City's water being polluted by Gecko's power plant, where you can destroy the plant, fix the plant part of the way, fix it the full way, and so on. Each of these options has it's own outcome, and there are even things that stem from these outcomes that can introduce new quests, like doing the GREED IS GOOD ghoul's quest - though the ending is broken for that one.

Diablo 2 is more of an action game, though. It's a fast paced, multiplayer romp. Fallout is more tactical in nature for it's combat.

Now as to other things.. 200th Bhaal run is boring as shit. Sorry, it is. Might be fun at first, but things like Baal Runs ruin Diablo 2. They make it less like a game and more like using a cheat for experience over and over again until you're uber. For those who don't know what one is, you get with a party and have someone run from Worldstone Keep level 2 all the way to Baal, they send a town portal once they get to Bhaal, and everyone fights all the monsters he summons for ph4t XP. They're always the same set of monsters, each time. You'll level pretty fast by doing this over and over again. Meh.

Diablo 2 does take skill. That's why there's some people who can master the hardcore ladder and others who die a lot.

And so to, my barbarian's role is to slay Baal, and slay him he does. Do I not fit the role?

Yeah, and there's no choice in the matter, is there? You're a powerful barbarian who killed Nilihick(*whatever), why wouldn't Baal want you? Why can't you sell out like that other guy did for power? Instead of straight up killing Baal, why can't you just slip passed him and use the worldstone to banish him?

That's what a CRPG is all about really. Action CRPGs are, they're more about the action.

 

[Anonymous]

It's true, dude. D2 is the superior game. For example, it doesn't get boring even after the 200th time you've killed Bhaal.

Strange, Bhaal runs bored me to tears, which is the reason I stopped playing it, bordem.

D2 loses point after awhile, you just level to 25, then do baal runs, mf runs, baal runs, mf runs, baal runs, mf runs, baal runs, back and forth, over and over to be Mistar Kewl. It games lame.

FO2 has a large list of things wrong with it, but I feel it's on par with Diablo 2. Personally, I HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE why whenever people talk about Fallout they ALWAYS talk about Fallout 2. Fucking mainstreamers.

FO1 > (FO2=D2)

 

[Seven]

Preach brutha', preach...

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't really do many baal runs and spend most of my time with Killzig completing quests and hunting for phat lewt. That does the game for me.

 

[Spazmo]

I agree with Pat. Both Fo2 and D2 are great games and I love them both, but neither one can touch Fallout. Fo2 and D2 do different things, but they both do what they do fairly well.

 

[Seven]

I agree with Pat. Both Fo2 and D2 are great games and I love them both, but neither one can touch Fallout. Fo2 and D2 do different things, but they both do what they do fairly well.

Who the hell is Pat, have you had you medication for today. Also, I believe that most people who prefer FO2 over FO have played FO2 prior to playing FO. Given this they don't realize the subtle bastardizations of FO2, and the significant shift in atmosphere, as a result they see FO2 as an improvement rather than a step back. Really, though whar did FO2 add; it was longer and lacked the charm of the first game in the series, that's it.

 

[Spazmo]

Pat is LlamaGod, the fucker is just too lazy to use his full screen name, PatricktheLlamaGod.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It takes a bit of intelligence to realize that FO2 was infact an inferior game to Fallout, aside from a few interface improvements. Ausir's the only person I know who played FO2 first and didn't like it anywhere as much as the original. Everyone else is of the belief that FO2 is 'teh bettar' if they played it first.

 

[Azael]

Well, I belong to that category as well. Borrowed Fallout 2 from a friend back in 1998 (or '99, can't really remember for sure) thought it rocked and decided to check out the first game. Other than missing some of the interface improvement (especially the option to push away NPCs who were blocking your path) and the more useful companions, I thought the original game was cooler in pretty much every category.

 

[The Situationist]

the subtle bastardizations of FO2

Explain.

 

[Malak]

Yeah, and there's no choice in the matter, is there? You're a powerful barbarian who killed Nilihick(*whatever), why wouldn't Baal want you?

But I didn't kill that necromancer. You don't have to do a lot of the quests. So there is still choice.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Choice between killing everything and killing only selected ones is not really a choice as it's forced (i.e. you don't really start a game and kill every little thing from Act 1 to Act 5, you have to choose what to kill) and it means nothing (what does it matter if the necro lives or dies in each particular play session?). So what is it that you are actually choosing?

 

[dipdipdip]

It takes a bit of intelligence to realize that FO2 was infact an inferior game to Fallout, aside from a few interface improvements. Ausir's the only person I know who played FO2 first and didn't like it anywhere as much as the original. Everyone else is of the belief that FO2 is 'teh bettar' if they played it first.

Add me to that list. I'd purchased the sequel first, and it never really grabbed me. I still went ahead and purchased the original (not too sure why) and fell in love.

I've beaten the original three times, I believe, and am probably gonna go for a fourth time pretty soon, where I've only beaten Fallout 2 once, and it was truly a labor of love -- I just don't like the game's pacing, and aside from the party members, the game feels.... lifeless to me.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

But I didn't kill that necromancer. You don't have to do a lot of the quests. So there is still choice.

Eh... Chosing to do a quest or not isn't exactly what we're talking about here. We're talking about ways of completing something multiple ways. That's like installing the game and saying Diablo 2 has choices because you chose not to kill Baal. You're not choosing, you're just not playing.

 

[Seven]

the subtle bastardizations of FO2

Explain.

The little things that made it inferior to the original. The focus on making the game kewl, rather than trying to navigate the broader implications of such a world. I can go indepth if you like, but I think these things are self-evident.

 

[The Situationist]

No, that's okay. I thought you meant something more specific regarding the mechanics of the game when you said 'bastardizations'.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No, that's okay. I thought you meant something more specific regarding the mechanics of the game when you said 'bastardizations'.

Possibly because the term 'bastardization' reminds people of the debates on Bioware's rules' bastardization? Success, my brethen!

 

[HanoverF]

Uh huh...I might prefer a game of pinball over chess, but I wont claim pinball is a better game.

Depends on the pinball... Twilight Zone Pinball is a better game then chess

 

[Country_Gravy]

Uh huh...I might prefer a game of pinball over chess, but I wont claim pinball is a better game.

Depends on the pinball... Twilight Zone Pinball is a better game then chess

I think that Fallout 2 is definately better than chess... but just barely.