BurningInFlames
First time out of the vault
Just finished FO3 and am in the process of re-playing FO2 (at least the 5th time). Since I played the two games within days of each other I have had an urge to compare the positive and negative aspects of each game. Please let me know if you share these opinions or maybe I am being too harsh.
Intro
A. Song choice:
FO3 - "I don't want to set the world on fire" - The Ink Spots. The general gist of this song is love. However, I believe Bethesda chose this song because of the mention of the words "set the world on fire." Invoking images of a burning post apocalyptic environment is what they believe to be the selling point of the game.
FO2 - "A kiss to build a dream on" - Louis Armstrong. I believe the game took a slightly different approach here. Although this song's main point is also love, the idea behind it here is hope, creation and the use of imagination.
Although both classics, I personally thought the FO2 song was much more fitting of the games' main goal. The selling point of FO is the idea that you are in control not that you are going to see a bunch of cool flames and explosions.
B. "War" Speech - The voice in FO2 sounds like the voice of somebody that has seen the most horrific thing imaginable and is describing how it happened. The voice in FO3 sounds like some guy trying to be grim and failing...miserably. Although it is the same actor I think he missed the mark in FO3. Just listen to them on youtube and you'll see what I mean.
Context wise I find the FO2 intro more interesting and leaving just enough for self interpretation. FO3 spells out everything for you making the intro as "dumb" as possible.
FO 3 - Man was at war since early time, that never changed. Man kept fighting and destroyed each other and now a bunch of people surviving in a vault come out to face the world and its destruction.
FO 2 - Man hasn't changed and has finally destroyed itself not learning from past mistakes. Followed by relating FO2 to FO1 and explaining that hero becomes the monster (Beowulf). In reflection of the heroic (which at this point is questionable) life, the hero settles to create a town. The town is dying and the elder asks for your help.
I think the difference here is that in FO2 you begin as "The Chosen One" (basically the villagers thought you were special or perhaps did not want to risk their lives). FO3 places you distinctly in a heroic position stating that as one of the people of Vault 101 you will now enter the wasteland...with no real purpose...(this point is moot because later you are chasing your father). I prefer the sarcasm of FO2.
Character Creation:
I thought the idea of being born and choosing your projected appearances was pretty unique, however, incongruous with the technology at the present time, since you can't even purify water... The little mini-quests in Vault 101 were BY FAR superior than the tedious and boring temple of trials...I think I really hated that part of FO2. Really hated it. Alot. I think that the name Vault 101 was somewhat lacking on the creative end. However, overall FO3 destroys FO2 in this aspect, definitely an improvement.
Graphics:
FO2 was a beautiful game for its time, but unfortunately, that time has passed. The graphics in FO3 are modern and the game looks great overall. My biggest gripe here is variation. In FO2 try this. Start at Vault City and travel to New Reno. See a difference? New Reno "feels" sleazy and slimy. FO3 you can go from Megaton to Little Lamplight to Paradise City to Rivet City and the feeling in each city is exactly the same...somewhat post nuclear apocalyptic I guess...nobody really made any attempts to improve anything 200+ years after the war. At no point in this game did any city feel any different than any other city. Only differences were the quests and the fact that the cities were SUPPOSED to be different. You can argue that Rivet City looks different than little lamplight...yes it does, but FO3 failed in ambiance, which created the "feel" of FO2.
BoS
Ugh...these guys are pretty much indecisive fanatics. The BoS in the previous Fallouts makes decisions and acts on them. BoS in FO3 seems pretty much just like another town AND to top things off they will teach you how to wear power armor without you proving ANYTHING to them...
"Hey lets start an elite organization, which will require extensive training to enter. Once a soldier has proven his/her loyalty to us we will impart some of our secret technology slowly so as not to allow infiltration by our enemy. But, hey look there is the son of some guy we used to protect who seemed to have a good idea. I guess that means the son is a good guy and won't be a traitor...lets teach him everything we know without testing him."(FO3)
Seems very illogical to me. The whole concept of requiring training to wear a suit of armor that was created to assist your natural movement is preposterous, but hey it could have worked I guess.
I prefer the BoS in the previous game to the BoS in the current.
Enclave
Who? Oh you mean the guys in Super Advanced Power armor, that I killed with my 10mm Pistol because I strafed a lot at Level 6 on the hardest setting while wearing raider armor? You have got to be kidding me. (FO3)
For some strange reason I thought the Enclave of FO2 was a lot more menacing and actually posed a threat to society. Surprise, surprise.
Ghouls
Diminished and insignificant role in FO3. Unless you want to get addicted to Ultra Jet, ghouls serve no purpose in this game.
In FO2, ghouls were an integral part of the story and I believe some important points of the game involving society were made with the help of the ghouls. Ghouls were also a part of almost every town, big or small. FO3 does not recreate this type of society and the only mention of anything relating ghouls to society is the mention that ghouls are people too by three dog on the radio. FO2 takes the cake here.
Super Mutants
They must have spent the last 100 years practicing with the Enclave. In FO3 other than the fact that they look like super mutants, they shared nothing in common with the super mutants of FO2. I found it strange that in CA 100 years earlier humanity found a peaceful way to live between ghouls, SM's and humans, but in DC all SM's are just brute skull crushers (exception Fawkes). However, since these guys have been doing nothing but learning how to bash skulls, they should be pretty good at it. Unfortunately they are terrible! Killing a super mutant is no harder than killing a raider...sneak up on one, use a shotgun and watch their head explode...I think FO3 misses the mark once more.
FO3 leads you to believe that you will discover why the Super-Mutants are so concentrated in the DC area. However, when you complete the game it fails to mention anything about the Super-Mutant involvement in DC period. Perhaps I missed some sort of side quest that explains why the Super Mutants are attracted to the mall area. As it stands I am under the impression that this end was never tied.
Humans
FO2 - There are plenty of good humans, plenty of evil ones, plenty of ambiguous ones and everything else you can imagine. Characters you like, can relate to, despise, and are indifferent towards.
FO3 - Every human in this game seemed exactly the same. Stupid. I felt that if the bomb had wiped out the entire DC capitol wasteland, the world would not have lost much.
Monsters and Others
FO2 - Plenty of different types of enemies - Rats, Mole Rats, Geckos, Radiscorpions, Wamingos, Slags, Death Claws, Robots, Bandits, Raiders, Slavers, Yakuza, Mobsters, Ghouls, Super Mutants, Dogs, Ants, Plants, Exploding Brahmin, homeless, scavengers and plenty plenty plenty more. Different creatures depending on areas and some that can be found everywhere.
FO3 - Raiders, Feral Ghouls, Mire Lurks, Mole Rats, Death Claws, Radiscorpions, Yao Gai, Dogs, Flies, Roaches, Robots. Mostly Super Mutants and Ghouls.
FO2 had a much larger selection of enemies. I think FO3 was very boring in regards to fighting the hostiles of the wasteland, since super mutants and ghouls were 95% of the enemy.
Difficulty
FO3 - Very easy even on the hardest setting
FO2 - Very hard on Very Hard, Hard on Hard, Medium on Medium, Easy on Easy...go figure.
View
I think this issue is a matter of preference, my opinion is the the standard Fallout 2 view should have been preserved, but this is a moot point.
Story
FO2 - Start in village and create your own story. Open ended from start to finish. Pretty much the only definite was that you had to kill the last boss...perhaps there is even a way around that.
FO3 - Start in vault, follow father and stop the Enclave. Yawn. I felt the story lacked essence, and did not make up for it by allowing for the ability to be open ended. Dialogue options that should be available only if proficient in speech were attainable regardless (same for science, intelligence, etc). The story was very linear and you had to follow it in order to finish the game.
Dialogue
FO2 - Interesting and thought provoking dialogue. Increased my vocabulary and made me laugh on numerous occasions. Many references to pop, geek, sci-fi, and pretty much any culture. Numerous options in most situations. Perks and Stats affect the options in dialogue and the success of certain statements. Probably some of the most interesting and original dialogue I have ever encountered.
FO3 - Regurgitated Oblivion lines plus cursing for good measure. Made a Brooklynite never want to curse again. After hearing the tasteless cursing thrown in because FO2 had curses...I didn't want to say f#ck for the next 5 days. And was it me or was it every time that any character said a curse it seemed so...forced? I don't know just didn't fit. I'd say maybe 1 or 2 characters sounded normal when they cursed...the rest could of done without it...never thought I'd ask for less cursing but hey.
Your statistics seemed to be irrelevant in terms of dialogue options. Yes there was an option due to whatever perk or statistic once in a while, but most of the time the end could be accomplished by saying the standard options. This made it pointless to be well spoken. The options were not very original as well.
Conclusion
It's late and I need to sleep so in summary I have decided:
FO2 is a far superior game, even if the view style was changed and the VATS system retained, FO3 could have been a much greater game if the content was actually in tune with the FO series. The FO3 title seems like a very slight glimpse into the FO realm. Not only is it a slight glimpse but it also has major mistakes. How could combat armor be better than power armor? How could a mole inflict even the slightest bit of damage to somebody wearing power armor? How can Super Mutants be as weak as raiders? I think it would be fair to say that FO3 falls short of the FO name. I can't say the game was absolutely worthless, but it does not live up to the FO name. I'd rate the game a 7/10 and have absolutely no urge to play it ever again. FO2 on the other hand has a re playability that seems to be very uncommon in modern games.
Let me know if you guys agree with these points or if I am out of my mind? I know some these have been mentioned before but I never found any comparisons or likes/dislikes to others...any feedback is appreciated.
Intro
A. Song choice:
FO3 - "I don't want to set the world on fire" - The Ink Spots. The general gist of this song is love. However, I believe Bethesda chose this song because of the mention of the words "set the world on fire." Invoking images of a burning post apocalyptic environment is what they believe to be the selling point of the game.
FO2 - "A kiss to build a dream on" - Louis Armstrong. I believe the game took a slightly different approach here. Although this song's main point is also love, the idea behind it here is hope, creation and the use of imagination.
Although both classics, I personally thought the FO2 song was much more fitting of the games' main goal. The selling point of FO is the idea that you are in control not that you are going to see a bunch of cool flames and explosions.
B. "War" Speech - The voice in FO2 sounds like the voice of somebody that has seen the most horrific thing imaginable and is describing how it happened. The voice in FO3 sounds like some guy trying to be grim and failing...miserably. Although it is the same actor I think he missed the mark in FO3. Just listen to them on youtube and you'll see what I mean.
Context wise I find the FO2 intro more interesting and leaving just enough for self interpretation. FO3 spells out everything for you making the intro as "dumb" as possible.
FO 3 - Man was at war since early time, that never changed. Man kept fighting and destroyed each other and now a bunch of people surviving in a vault come out to face the world and its destruction.
FO 2 - Man hasn't changed and has finally destroyed itself not learning from past mistakes. Followed by relating FO2 to FO1 and explaining that hero becomes the monster (Beowulf). In reflection of the heroic (which at this point is questionable) life, the hero settles to create a town. The town is dying and the elder asks for your help.
I think the difference here is that in FO2 you begin as "The Chosen One" (basically the villagers thought you were special or perhaps did not want to risk their lives). FO3 places you distinctly in a heroic position stating that as one of the people of Vault 101 you will now enter the wasteland...with no real purpose...(this point is moot because later you are chasing your father). I prefer the sarcasm of FO2.
Character Creation:
I thought the idea of being born and choosing your projected appearances was pretty unique, however, incongruous with the technology at the present time, since you can't even purify water... The little mini-quests in Vault 101 were BY FAR superior than the tedious and boring temple of trials...I think I really hated that part of FO2. Really hated it. Alot. I think that the name Vault 101 was somewhat lacking on the creative end. However, overall FO3 destroys FO2 in this aspect, definitely an improvement.
Graphics:
FO2 was a beautiful game for its time, but unfortunately, that time has passed. The graphics in FO3 are modern and the game looks great overall. My biggest gripe here is variation. In FO2 try this. Start at Vault City and travel to New Reno. See a difference? New Reno "feels" sleazy and slimy. FO3 you can go from Megaton to Little Lamplight to Paradise City to Rivet City and the feeling in each city is exactly the same...somewhat post nuclear apocalyptic I guess...nobody really made any attempts to improve anything 200+ years after the war. At no point in this game did any city feel any different than any other city. Only differences were the quests and the fact that the cities were SUPPOSED to be different. You can argue that Rivet City looks different than little lamplight...yes it does, but FO3 failed in ambiance, which created the "feel" of FO2.
BoS
Ugh...these guys are pretty much indecisive fanatics. The BoS in the previous Fallouts makes decisions and acts on them. BoS in FO3 seems pretty much just like another town AND to top things off they will teach you how to wear power armor without you proving ANYTHING to them...
"Hey lets start an elite organization, which will require extensive training to enter. Once a soldier has proven his/her loyalty to us we will impart some of our secret technology slowly so as not to allow infiltration by our enemy. But, hey look there is the son of some guy we used to protect who seemed to have a good idea. I guess that means the son is a good guy and won't be a traitor...lets teach him everything we know without testing him."(FO3)
Seems very illogical to me. The whole concept of requiring training to wear a suit of armor that was created to assist your natural movement is preposterous, but hey it could have worked I guess.
I prefer the BoS in the previous game to the BoS in the current.
Enclave
Who? Oh you mean the guys in Super Advanced Power armor, that I killed with my 10mm Pistol because I strafed a lot at Level 6 on the hardest setting while wearing raider armor? You have got to be kidding me. (FO3)
For some strange reason I thought the Enclave of FO2 was a lot more menacing and actually posed a threat to society. Surprise, surprise.
Ghouls
Diminished and insignificant role in FO3. Unless you want to get addicted to Ultra Jet, ghouls serve no purpose in this game.
In FO2, ghouls were an integral part of the story and I believe some important points of the game involving society were made with the help of the ghouls. Ghouls were also a part of almost every town, big or small. FO3 does not recreate this type of society and the only mention of anything relating ghouls to society is the mention that ghouls are people too by three dog on the radio. FO2 takes the cake here.
Super Mutants
They must have spent the last 100 years practicing with the Enclave. In FO3 other than the fact that they look like super mutants, they shared nothing in common with the super mutants of FO2. I found it strange that in CA 100 years earlier humanity found a peaceful way to live between ghouls, SM's and humans, but in DC all SM's are just brute skull crushers (exception Fawkes). However, since these guys have been doing nothing but learning how to bash skulls, they should be pretty good at it. Unfortunately they are terrible! Killing a super mutant is no harder than killing a raider...sneak up on one, use a shotgun and watch their head explode...I think FO3 misses the mark once more.
FO3 leads you to believe that you will discover why the Super-Mutants are so concentrated in the DC area. However, when you complete the game it fails to mention anything about the Super-Mutant involvement in DC period. Perhaps I missed some sort of side quest that explains why the Super Mutants are attracted to the mall area. As it stands I am under the impression that this end was never tied.
Humans
FO2 - There are plenty of good humans, plenty of evil ones, plenty of ambiguous ones and everything else you can imagine. Characters you like, can relate to, despise, and are indifferent towards.
FO3 - Every human in this game seemed exactly the same. Stupid. I felt that if the bomb had wiped out the entire DC capitol wasteland, the world would not have lost much.
Monsters and Others
FO2 - Plenty of different types of enemies - Rats, Mole Rats, Geckos, Radiscorpions, Wamingos, Slags, Death Claws, Robots, Bandits, Raiders, Slavers, Yakuza, Mobsters, Ghouls, Super Mutants, Dogs, Ants, Plants, Exploding Brahmin, homeless, scavengers and plenty plenty plenty more. Different creatures depending on areas and some that can be found everywhere.
FO3 - Raiders, Feral Ghouls, Mire Lurks, Mole Rats, Death Claws, Radiscorpions, Yao Gai, Dogs, Flies, Roaches, Robots. Mostly Super Mutants and Ghouls.
FO2 had a much larger selection of enemies. I think FO3 was very boring in regards to fighting the hostiles of the wasteland, since super mutants and ghouls were 95% of the enemy.
Difficulty
FO3 - Very easy even on the hardest setting
FO2 - Very hard on Very Hard, Hard on Hard, Medium on Medium, Easy on Easy...go figure.
View
I think this issue is a matter of preference, my opinion is the the standard Fallout 2 view should have been preserved, but this is a moot point.
Story
FO2 - Start in village and create your own story. Open ended from start to finish. Pretty much the only definite was that you had to kill the last boss...perhaps there is even a way around that.
FO3 - Start in vault, follow father and stop the Enclave. Yawn. I felt the story lacked essence, and did not make up for it by allowing for the ability to be open ended. Dialogue options that should be available only if proficient in speech were attainable regardless (same for science, intelligence, etc). The story was very linear and you had to follow it in order to finish the game.
Dialogue
FO2 - Interesting and thought provoking dialogue. Increased my vocabulary and made me laugh on numerous occasions. Many references to pop, geek, sci-fi, and pretty much any culture. Numerous options in most situations. Perks and Stats affect the options in dialogue and the success of certain statements. Probably some of the most interesting and original dialogue I have ever encountered.
FO3 - Regurgitated Oblivion lines plus cursing for good measure. Made a Brooklynite never want to curse again. After hearing the tasteless cursing thrown in because FO2 had curses...I didn't want to say f#ck for the next 5 days. And was it me or was it every time that any character said a curse it seemed so...forced? I don't know just didn't fit. I'd say maybe 1 or 2 characters sounded normal when they cursed...the rest could of done without it...never thought I'd ask for less cursing but hey.
Your statistics seemed to be irrelevant in terms of dialogue options. Yes there was an option due to whatever perk or statistic once in a while, but most of the time the end could be accomplished by saying the standard options. This made it pointless to be well spoken. The options were not very original as well.
Conclusion
It's late and I need to sleep so in summary I have decided:
FO2 is a far superior game, even if the view style was changed and the VATS system retained, FO3 could have been a much greater game if the content was actually in tune with the FO series. The FO3 title seems like a very slight glimpse into the FO realm. Not only is it a slight glimpse but it also has major mistakes. How could combat armor be better than power armor? How could a mole inflict even the slightest bit of damage to somebody wearing power armor? How can Super Mutants be as weak as raiders? I think it would be fair to say that FO3 falls short of the FO name. I can't say the game was absolutely worthless, but it does not live up to the FO name. I'd rate the game a 7/10 and have absolutely no urge to play it ever again. FO2 on the other hand has a re playability that seems to be very uncommon in modern games.
Let me know if you guys agree with these points or if I am out of my mind? I know some these have been mentioned before but I never found any comparisons or likes/dislikes to others...any feedback is appreciated.
