What did you NOT like about FO 1 & 2?

I

IOError

First time out of the vault
Howdy. :) The idea for this thread and its relative (What DID you like about FOT?) have both been kind of rattling around in my head for a while, and I'm quite interested in what people have to say.

In the case of FO 1 & 2, almost EVERYBODY here on the forum thinks that both games were great, wonderful, they had a blast playing them, etc. Fair assumption, right? FO is King. So the question that occurs to me is, granted that the games rocked my world when I played them "back in the day" and continue to do so today, what was BAD about the games? Or just suboptimal? I'll get the ball rolling with the first thing that occurs to me, but fire away with whatever occurs to you. Didn't like the graphics? Isometric perspective makes you violently ill? Hated the plot? (HA! :D I doubt it.) Roleplaying was weak in some way? Whatever you personally think could have been improved/jettisoned/added, even if it heretical, go for it.

In my case, about the only things I can't rave happily about in Fallout 1 & 2 are the comic relief moments. Oh sure, humor is great and I appreciate the occasional change of pace, but sometimes it was a bit overdone, especially in FO 2. I could have done with a lot fewer Easter Egg moments or obvious references to our popular culture. Mike the Masticator and the Goonies reference are two minor examples that occur to me; they are presented in a fairly upfront and obvious fashion (Every country in the world knows of Tyson, and the Goonies reference was a total non sequitur so far as the game itself was concerned.) And the humor in the oilrig, especially the laughable President and VP, really diminished my feeling of being the unstoppable all-conquering hero, fighting truly evil people for the good of mankind, yada yada. A poorly chosen time for humor, at least in my book.

Random encounters? Oh hell, bring those Unwashed Villagers on! The more Fallen Whales the better! Those, for me, are great because they are a level removed from the game itself. But when humor is written in the fundamental plot and storyline... it feels less like post-apoc to me and more like slap-stick. Bah humbug.

Hmmm, I also wouldn't have minded a subplot/series of quests concerning the "Aliens", maybe something not totally dissimilar to the Golden Gecko Nest. You know, an, "Oh so that's where they came from..." sort of thing. But, that's wishing for a lot.[/i]
 
the only qubbles i'd have with FO 1 and 2 are the graphics but fallout shouldn't be expected to have up-to date gfx when they were made several years ago when the graphics may have been good at the time.
 
JJXB said:
the only qubbles i'd have with FO 1 and 2 are the graphics but fallout shouldn't be expected to have up-to date gfx when they were made several years ago when the graphics may have been good at the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was tempted to say, "the graphics myself", but I had to admit that I STILL don't have any complaints about them and at the time they were top-notch. As you point out, we can't legitimately complain about the graphics unless other similar games at the time looked much better. Can't compare contemporary work to possible future work, right?
 
well, i have a friend that is sceptical about playing FO1/2 because he is a console gamer that has played F: POS which in my opinion has corrupted him because hes too used to ps2-quality gfx
 
Oh good lord, he needs HELP, and quick! :D Quick, send him some classics to teach him the error of his graphics-obsessed ways!

Zork! Elite! Angband! ;)
 
Fo1: The comparatively small and unresponsive world. The number of trash skills, trash perks, trash weapons and so on.

Fo2: The bugs. The innumerable missing or half-baked features (despite the game being several times larger than Fo1 already). The comparatively low quality of the last few locations.
 
IOError said:
Oh good lord, he needs HELP, and quick! :D Quick, send him some classics to teach him the error of his graphics-obsessed ways!

Zork! Elite! Angband! ;)
Click to expand...

hes alredy played FO1 and he just sees it as a point and click adventure with crap TB rpg elements. ive tried to get him to see hes completly wrong about F: POS but i have had no luck, i think its permanently corrupted him. but what should i expect from a console fanboy?
 
FO1: Hmmm, true. Really wasn't hard to meander around the wastes and reach the boundaries pretty quickly, was it? And so many useless character perks... :shock:

FO2: Whew yeah, talk about a game that needed several patches. :D (And they never did quite get it all right!)
 
You know, it's getting pretty bad when I start to feel the need to congratulate someone for posting a good topic in the right place.

Damn, it's enough to make even me...

/me starts to bawl like a little girl and runs away.
 
FO1&FO2 didn't have enough badguy quests...I allways ended up being a do-gooder.. :(
Also, I was very disapointed when fallout1 ended..."what??" "finnished??" "nooooooo....."
 
Fallout 1:Well, nothing major really.Just kind of short.
Fallout 2:Need I mention the bugs involving the car and the party members(what made it all the worse was that when I first played FO2 I had no way to get a patch) otherwise it's still the best RPG I ever played.
But as it has already been said, the most annoying thing was and still is people who say Fallout 1&2 are crap and don't even try any of them, they they just look at the graphics etc.
 
Fallout: Small world like said about. More than it being small though, it felt empty. Junktown is a pretty good example. It's like, what, five shacks and 20 people altogether? It needs guards, sherrif, doctor, hotel, and casino...? It felt a lot like it was a set up, no normal people wandering around living. The Den was better but still kind of felt empty with just some quests to do. "Trash" weapons also got on my nerves. I finally got an assault rifle and, oh... It sucks. Hmm.

Fallout 2: Bugs and lots of unfinished stuff. Maybe one too many side quests also. For the first part of the game it really feels like you're wandering around being Mr. Fix-it for other people's problems. Not all that bad in itself but it can drag at times. Lack of ammo for the Thompson and FN FAL got on my nerves as well.
 
Yeah, a lot of people complain that it's hard to play a bad guy. Especially when it winds up turning the entire town hostile. But CRPGs in general, even if they're far superior in their role-playing elements to console games, do seem to thrust the player onto a specific path (Baldur's Gate) or force the player to complete a specific task no matter what their alignment (Fallout). And they like to punish those who play evil characters. I hate to say it, but even though Fable was short and didn't have much of a story (and most story threads lead to an incomplete dead end), the devs really hit the nail on the head when it came to killing townspeople: witnesses either ran and hid, cowered, or got the guards. And I always thought it was funny to have a little kid hurling rocks at you after seeing you just shoot someone into pieces with the Gauss rifle.
 
My complaints consist of the following:

The hand tool. Myriad were the times where I tried to grab something on the floor and it refused to turn to the "grab" icon, thus going intpo lovely detail about the messy stains on the floor.

A glitch in San Fran where my car got chopped in half for no reason at all, and cant be fixed or driven.

Slightly awkward End Combat; sometimes you would get into combat withh something that would not logically be fighting you for any reason at the moment.

Finally, the dithered see-through walls. While it makes sense from the perspective, it was very very hard to see anything on the other side, and to convince the hand tool or the eye tool you want to see something inside/outside the building, on the OTHER side of the wall.


Thats about it.
 
Dare we admit our most loved thing is not perfect! BLASPHEMY!

Its ok...

F1:It was hard to play an evil character...I tried once and ended up beating the game as defender...I would have also liked some of the more empty parts of the map to have minor unique locations. (grabs crotch) Oh and they didnt make my piece big enough especially considering Im a hero.

F2:Numerous bugs. Some enemies too hard or too easy.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
 
I've just busted into FO2 (yep, that's why I disappeared)...I have to say that I don't like the Temple of Trials or any of the "primitive" scenarios. If I want a character poking critters with spears, I'd play Diablo. When I play FO, I want Road Warrior, not D&D.

Jay
 
Fo1-Being an evil character and the first time i walk into the hub i get shot full of holes from guards two screens over. Way too short.

Fo2-The too many items bug!!!
 
I dislike the bugs in F2 but I have little trouble even without patches! They went overboard with the humour in F2, but I thought Fallout had the right balance.

I see the graphics more as an advantage as a disadvantage as it makes it seem more real and imaginative when people are more blurred up. I have noticed that the graphics are only repellant to shallow, stupid people, so I don't feel particularly sorry for them missing out on the wonders of Fallout 1 and 2. I hate the armies of twins in more advanced rpgs, although I understand that it's all they have time for. I wonder if games in the not so distant future we go to the trouble of having random-generated unique individuals as opposed to archetypes? Anyway, I love the dark atmosphere and setting, of which the graphics are an integral part.

I did like Fallout and its realistic capturing of the post apocalyptic feel, but it was just too small. I liked the fact that F2 was sprawling despite the fact that it was disjointed and didn't fit the background in too many places. Tribals made little sense, but I though they were cool anyway. (Go Sulik!) If only they could have made F2 in the same vein as the original, only with more features and much larger and longer. That would have been (an even better) the best game ever. The 'tell me about' thing was useless, but it had potential.
 
quietfanatic said:
I see the graphics more as an advantage as a disadvantage as it makes it seem more real and imaginative when people are more blurred up. I have noticed that the graphics are only repellant to shallow, stupid people, so I don't feel particularly sorry for them missing out on the wonders of Fallout 1 and 2. I hate the armies of twins in more advanced rpgs, although I understand that it's all they have time for.
Click to expand...

Spot on! (KotOR anyone?) I actually think the graphics in Fo are brilliant compared to anything. A minor problem in Fo2 was that most new items and character models didn't fit the design style 100%, Leonard Boyarsky having left the boat after the initial stages (which I suppose explains why the tribal models have the same animation style as the originals, as opposed to, say, Orville Wright or the black Mordino guards).
 
Per said:
A minor problem in Fo2 was that most new items and character models didn't fit the design style 100%, Leonard Boyarsky having left the boat after the initial stages (which I suppose explains why the tribal models have the same animation style as the originals, as opposed to, say, Orville Wright or the black Mordino guards).
Click to expand...
Pretty much all of the charcter models that were new to FO2 were bugged. I mean, look at the animations for the shi. Terrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top