IPLY Board stuff..

[Odin]

In a thread about Fbos and how it doesn't follow the story of Fallout 1, Damien Foletto aka Puuk said this about Fallout 3:<blockquote>"Hypothetically," a Fallout 3 game would stick mainly to the "universe" of Fallout 1, with some Fallout 2 for historical continuity. So, no hairy, intelligent deathclaws (Fallout 2's talking deathclaws were wiped out by the Enclave, so no more), no Humvees, etc.</blockquote>Sounds good!

JE also said this about TB vs RT in a thread about the Jinxed trait:<blockquote>Implement an okay translation of the TB rules without altering the core TB rules? Nope, this doesn't hurt my goals at all. RT is always going to be, at best, an analogue of TB, not the same thing. The only character that can suffer in this particular translation is the PC. If the player dawdles, he or she may lose the advantage of a higher Sequence than the opponents. But really, that's not a concern for me. If the player has chosen to play in RT, he or she is responsible for controlling his or her character efficiently. If the player doesn't like that responsibility, he or she should switch it over to TB mode.</blockquote>There's more where that came from, so get on over and read.

 

[Briosafreak]

Odin i already talked about that last part on a news bit bellow

Actually the last two paragraphs were my two news bits i made last night

 

[Odin]

oh well, I can only spot one of the statements..but hey... we covered it! twice actually..

 

[papa_legba]

JE sez:
"a Fallout 3 game would stick mainly to the "universe" of Fallout 1, with some Fallout 2 for historical continuity."

Why is BIS treating Fallout 2 like some redheaded stepchild of Fallout 1?

Fallout 2 is the one that commands most of the loyalty in the fan base and really won over hearts and minds. Fallout 1 was a great game, but the one that most people really loved was Fallout 2. You can talk about over-the-top jokes and such, but New Reno is right at the very core of what made fallout great, as much as the brotherhood of steel or the hub. Neglecting such things is a mistake.

To put it bluntly: any game that's not as much Fallout 2 as it is Fallout 1 will probably be a disappointment in my eyes. I'll still buy it, but I might wait until it's on the $20 rack instead of rushing out on the first day.

 

[Odin]

JE sez:
"a Fallout 3 game would stick mainly to the "universe" of Fallout 1, with some Fallout 2 for historical continuity."

Actually that was Puuk aka Damien...

Why is BIS treating Fallout 2 like some redheaded stepchild of Fallout 1?

Fallout 2 is the one that commands most of the loyalty in the fan base and really won over hearts and minds. Fallout 1 was a great game, but the one that most people really loved was Fallout 2. You can talk about over-the-top jokes and such, but New Reno is right at the very core of what made fallout great, as much as the brotherhood of steel or the hub. Neglecting such things is a mistake.

To put it bluntly: any game that's not as much Fallout 2 as it is Fallout 1 will probably be a disappointment in my eyes. I'll still buy it, but I might wait until it's on the $20 rack instead of rushing out on the first day.

Fallout was the best of the two, Fallout 2 wasn't all that good. The enclave didn't fit the setting and several other thing I'm not going to bother typing about, just read around the board and you'll understand..

 

[SStaatz]

I liked the first one better mostly because there weren't tons of little glitches that come with the loads of mini-quests that were in the 2nd game. I know the first one had it's share of glitches but F2 seemed really bad, I wasn't able to finish all the little vault city stuff most of the time (twice all the people disappeared and once it wouldn't let me get back into the city) and if you didn't get all the little triggers to go off in some very precise order you could really run into some brick walls.. there was just too many mini quests imo, I did enjoy the humor though..

Anyway I think they are just talking about cutting the really off-the-wall-stuff, and not the open-ended-mini-quest-loaded cities like New Reno.

 

[papa_legba]

JE sez:
"a Fallout 3 game would stick mainly to the "universe" of Fallout 1, with some Fallout 2 for historical continuity."

Actually that was Puuk aka Damien...

Why is BIS treating Fallout 2 like some redheaded stepchild of Fallout 1?

Fallout 2 is the one that commands most of the loyalty in the fan base and really won over hearts and minds. Fallout 1 was a great game, but the one that most people really loved was Fallout 2. You can talk about over-the-top jokes and such, but New Reno is right at the very core of what made fallout great, as much as the brotherhood of steel or the hub. Neglecting such things is a mistake.

To put it bluntly: any game that's not as much Fallout 2 as it is Fallout 1 will probably be a disappointment in my eyes. I'll still buy it, but I might wait until it's on the $20 rack instead of rushing out on the first day.

Fallout was the best of the two, Fallout 2 wasn't all that good. The enclave didn't fit the setting and several other thing I'm not going to bother typing about, just read around the board and you'll understand..

I've read around, and I find my self utterly at odds with the prevailing thinking. Fallout 1's attempts to be maintain an air of gravity were lackluster at best, nauseating at worst. (lackluster being MacGuyver as a Very Handsome Man named Killian Darkwater, nauseating being the preachy, condescending b*tch who led the Followers of the Apocolypse and made me want to strangle whoever wrote the dialogue for her). I found the humor of Fallout 2 far superior. It even helped the dramatic moments better, since they were thrown into sharp relief as opposed to being drowned in a sea of angsty/over-serious dialogue.

 

[Hellion]

Sure, the humor in Fallout 2 is superior, but I for one think that the atmosphere of Fallout 1 inspired greater awe.

How can you compare a Drill Seargant without a life who likes to put you on guard duty for more than 24 hours and a town the most interesting thing in which is "the rat god (...)" and an abandoned Highwayman, with scavaging a former top-secret military installation that has been hit by the bombs, walking through the streets of Necropolis (even looking at the map image where you select which part of town to visit sent a chill down my spine), entering a huge cathedral full of zealots while Master doctrine is being broadcasted on a screen in the back, or walking through the gruesome hallways of the Master's vault?

Personally the only time in Fallout 2 I felt the same "awe" as in Fallout 1 was during the cutscene showing the Poseidon oil tanker "waking up" and starting its trip to the Enclave (the bleeping "welcome to the Enclave" message shown afterwards was pretty cool).

 

[Dan]

Superior humor in Fallout 2? what? If you are saying it because Fallout 2 had monthy python encounters and such, you need to relook on the concept which is setting.

Fallout 2 screwed with the setting. In Fallout, the 50's sci fi post apocalyptical setting was really strong. You can see it when you go the Glow, you really feel the place. The towns in this game are well developed and interesting. The main quest has real urgency, you really feel there's a whole vault full of people who are going to die. The villian in this gameis also great. You have the master, not just a silly killing machine, he really believes in his ideology.

Now, look at Fallout 2.
The towns are pretty stupid. You have places like New Reno who doesn't fit the setting in one way, and places like Broken hills that doesn't fit the setting in a whole new exciting way. You couldn't care less about the main quest. The main villian is a stupid killing machine, and the game is full with refernces that has no connecting with the game.

Now, there's a lot more reasons, but this is just a few.

 

[papa_legba]

The main quest has real urgency, you really feel there's a whole vault full of people who are going to die.

I'll take "huge expansive game world where you can do everything" over "time limit to prevent you from noticing how small the map is," thanks.

The villian in this gameis also great. You have the master, not just a silly killing machine, he really believes in his ideology.

Actually, it looked more like a rehash of the Star Trek's Borg or Captain Power's Lord Dread to me. A LOT like that, in fact. So much that trying to claim it's more distinct than fallout 2's sounds utterly misguided to me.

Now compare it to Fallout 2's enemy of patriotism gone horribly wrong. A lot less cliche than the "evil cyborg going to destroy mankind" schtick. Granted, I thought the blind, fervant patriotism was a bit over-the-top when I first played it back in '98. These days it seems downright prophetic. Bonus points for reading the future.

Now, look at Fallout 2. The towns are pretty stupid. You have places like New Reno who doesn't fit the setting in one way, and places like Broken hills that doesn't fit the setting in a whole new exciting way. You couldn't care less about the main quest. The main villian is a stupid killing machine, and the game is full with refernces that has no connecting with the game.

Somehow, I consider "diversified setting" a bonus rather than a penalty. I'd rather see a variety of places rather than "people living in ruins" over and over again. I'd prefer a diversity of themes to just "DO THIS." Honestly, I thought showing signs of civilization developing again was the best thing they could have done, rather than just "80 years later and nothing has changed."

The fact that the world is a wide-open place without being whittled down to one or two themes makes it, how do you say, more realistic. More important, it makes it more fun and more immersive.

By the way, you seem to be mixing up "main villian" with "end boss." Frank Horrigan wasn't the main villian any more than the Master's leiutenent guy was, both of which has about just as much personality (PLEASE you don't think an english accent and a sophisticated affectation on a big monster is remotely unique).

 

[Sander]

Look, you're both forgetting one thing here: taste.

Taste differs, so someone can like 2 more than 1 and the other way around. For me, I liked the setting and everything of 1 much much more, it had more atmosphere, it drew you in more, and it didn't have that pesky tribal beginning, as well as that, I actually found the enemy of 2 to be more cliche than 1(1 had some real originality at that point, it had little to do with the Borg(The Borg controlled their drones exactly, there was no room for indiviuality, whereas the Master was a combination of all of the people he had consumed, with an apparent leadership from Richard Grey, but the mutants etc. were also more free, not even close to what the Borg did. But that's my opinion, feel free to feel different about it ).

All in all, Fallout 2 was bigger and had more diversity, but in my opinion, Fallout 1 had more atmosphere...

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Why is BIS treating Fallout 2 like some redheaded stepchild of Fallout 1?

Because it is.

Fallout 2 is the one that commands most of the loyalty in the fan base and really won over hearts and minds. Fallout 1 was a great game, but the one that most people really loved was Fallout 2.

What planet have you just come in from? No really, Mars, Venus? Can't be, that's too close. Have you been out orbiting Alpha Centauri for the passed couple of years? The only thing Fallout 2 has over Fallout 1 is "more quests". More areas, more quests. That's all. Even then, it has a one-way COMBAT ONLY ending that puts Fallout to shame.

New Reno is right at the very core of what made fallout great,

Woah!! Why was New Reno so great to you? A city built entirely on gambling with 4 different crime families at each other's throats all in the one city, (when there are other cities out there to work in) doesn't make sense. It doesn't make ANY sense.

To put it bluntly: any game that's not as much Fallout 2 as it is Fallout 1 will probably be a disappointment in my eyes. I'll still buy it, but I might wait until it's on the $20 rack instead of rushing out on the first day.

All you really want is more quests. Which is fine. Trust me, you don't want more New Reno areas.

I'll take "huge expansive game world where you can do everything" over "time limit to prevent you from noticing how small the map is," thanks.

The only time limit that exists is the 150 days to find the water chip, and the game time out after 13 years or so. Both of which make perfect sense. Once you get the water chip, you have ample time to explore and do what you will.

Did you not notice the time limit in Fallout 2? That has a one year time limit to save your village, or they all die and it's game over.

I'd prefer a diversity of themes to just "DO THIS."

What do you mean? FO2 still has you on a McGuffin quest to save your start location. That's pretty much as DO THIS as FO1 was.

Honestly, I thought showing signs of civilization developing again was the best thing they could have done, rather than just "80 years later and nothing has changed."

Did you miss Shady Sands? That's a developing community. Junktown too. The Hub as well. What you see in FO2 terms of cities rebuilding is an extension of what was occuring in FO1. Shady Sands becomes the NCR, the BoS disappear of the face of the Earth etc... Also, considering FO2 was 160 years after the great war, somethings would have to have changed.

Still don't see how New Reno was the best thing about FO2 though. And Chinaman City made no sense either.