[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/vr/ - Retro Games

View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 319 KB, 1024x768, primtribe1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
1166293 No.1166293 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Anyone else finished Fallout 2 several times but couldn't play F3 for more than several hours?

>> No.1166345


>> No.1166350

I find all three Fallout games equally unsatisfying.

>> No.1166360

I like 'em all

>> No.1166364

Anyone else finished Fallout 1 dozens of times but could never get into Fallout 2 at all?

>> No.1166365

I've finished several times Fallout 1 and Tactics. Somehow I always drop Fallout 2 halfway through the game whenever I muster up some strength to play it... Dunno why.

>> No.1166367

Now that's a shit.

>> No.1166370

Probably. I like it nonetheless.

>> No.1166373

Why? It's pretty good, just not an RPG.

>> No.1166374


>Wanna play a Kung-Fu Pornstar build
>Hit for 2 dmg.

>> No.1166375

How is it not an RPG?

>> No.1166420

Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas I've played multiple times
Fallout Tactics I've played twice
Fallout 3 I was barely able to make it through he main storyline once
Never played Brotherhood of Steel

>> No.1166424


Oh man. I love Fallout 2.

But yeah, I got to all the vampire bullshit in Fallout 3 in one town and was like..."wtf? get these vampire shit out of my fallout" at least i got to murder all of them though that was a saving grace.

>> No.1166443

How is it an RPG? It's a strategy / tactics game, like Jagged Alliance.

>> No.1166446

it's the opposite for me. every time i feel like starting a new game, i just think of shady sands and junktown and the notion evaporates. it's just so boring. for a series famed for its C&C, the original is actually very limited in that regard.

>> No.1166449

>it's just so boring. for a series famed for its C&C, the original is actually very limited in that regard.
It's limited in content, not in C&C. F1 is a pretty short game compared to the rest of the series, but even in shady sands and junktown you can solve most quests in multiple ways and get different outcomes.

>> No.1166452

Jagged Alliance is a RPG. You have a team of individuals, not a mass of uniform troops.

>> No.1166456

if by multiple ways you mean two ways, then sure, i guess that's technically multiple.

>> No.1166459

>You have a team of individuals, not a mass of uniform troops.
I guess Gears of War is RPG too in that case.

>> No.1166461

No, it's not. No one would even think about calling it RPG back when it was released, I don't care if every game is now called RPG or "with RPG elements" because it's kinda like some RPG games in some ways.

>> No.1166468

There is no reason to call it anything but an RPG. Many RPG have tactical combat, it has nothing that sets it apart from them.

>> No.1166471

Cocks & Cunts?

>> No.1166478

exactly. FO2 has plenty of fucking, and having sex with my future gay husband gave me "the greatest orgasm of my life."

>> No.1166480

It's a strategy / tactical game. Tactical combat is the main aspect of it. Fallout is an RPG with tactical combat, New Vegas is an RPG with FPS combat, their main aspect is role playing. I guess you could JA or tactics have RPG elements, but that really just muddles things up IMO.
Point is, Fallout tactics or JA can't be compared to games like F1/2 because they go for different things.

>> No.1166484

Fallout tactics doesn't even let you choose your dialogue (JA barely does). How the fuck is it RPG.

>> No.1166486

Fallout Tactics is different from Fallout because you control a team and have a linear progression.
If you go your way then suddenly Wizardry is no longer RPG because there's no "role-playing" involved at all.

>> No.1166487

To what length of explanation of the obvious we sometimes have to go to battle the literal-minded, eh? I know how it feels.

>> No.1166490

>an RPG means being a LARPing faggot who pretends to be a paladin
according to the muh choices brigade, wizardry is no longer an RPG.

>> No.1166491

Since when is dialogue options part of RPGs? Shit wasn't even invented until Ultima 4 and multiple choice came up even later.

>> No.1166493

>Fallout Tactics is different from Fallout because you control a team and have a linear progression.
I never said anything about these things.

>If you go your way
I never said anything about these things. Try again.

>> No.1166494

shit, how does this happen? i thought i was safe from being inducted into the hivemind.

>> No.1166502

/v/ please leave

>> No.1166503

On of my biggest grips aside the obvious is that Fallout 3 totally failed with loot/item/weapon representation.

Making the inventory really implemented into PipBoy felt like a good idea at first, however lack of nice item pictures and rich item description made the entire interface feel like shitty spreadsheet.
I loved the item icons in Fallout 1/2. Every item felt like... fucking item. Exploring world for carefully hidden loot was rewarding as hell. When you found new weapon it made you feel you really HAVE IT in your inventory. In Fallout 3 the world is cluttered with shitload of useless items that aren't even items at all. It's just an empty promise of an item represented with single word in shitty Excel table.

>> No.1166507

nice argument

>> No.1166509

Being different from Fallout does not stop Fallout Tactics from being a role playing game. Fallout is not the sole representative of that genre.
Role playing games are not about character interactions. Those belong more in the realm of adventure games.

>> No.1166515

better than >>1166490
This isn't /v/ you don't win by calling people faggots.

>> No.1166518

if you would stop pretending to be offended, you would see that i, and others, wrecked your lame argument that an RPG meant talking to people and making arbitrary narrative choices. if you think that redirecting the debate to the fact that i talk like i'm on 4chan is a good tactic, you would be wrong.

>> No.1166524

You didn't. JA is a strategy game. That's the main focus of the game.
I don't care if you see it as games as RPG because they share some elements with them.

>> No.1166530

You make a few strategical decisions in the type of "I explore/liberate this area next" but the overall focus of the game is tactical combat and party development.
FT doesn't even have a strategic aspect, you just follow orders.

>> No.1166534

I'm the opposite, I love FO3 but I can't really get into 1 or 2.

>> No.1166543

that's still not an argument, you're just repeating your ill-informed conclusions and getting huffy.

what, are RPGs not allowed to have good tactical combat? if it's not a CYOA book, it stops being an RPG because of a literal interpretation of "role-playing game"? a term, mind you, that only really makes sense in its original tabletop setting.

>> No.1166575

In Fallout, role playing is the main focus. It's an RPG. It also has tactical combat.

In Fallout tactics, tactical combat is the main focus. It's a tactical / strategy game. It also shares some elements RPG Fallout games.

> it stops being an RPG because of a literal interpretation of "role-playing game"
Role playing is kinda important in ROLE PLAYING games. Much more important than the way combat is handled. Would you say JA is RPG if it was a shooter with the exact same story, characters etc? Of course not.

>> No.1166585

Guys I bought Fallout 1, the combat seems like something im going to fucking hate so - any tips on how to make it ez as fuck so i can get to the next dialogue / decision making goodness?

>> No.1166586

Small guns, then energy weapons. Lots of agility and perception. Aimed shots to eyes.

>> No.1166594

No, stats are what's important for role playing games. The whole notion of role playing is a misunderstanding, none of the original RPG involved role playing beyond playing the role of a particular hero or a group of adventurers instead of a whole army.
Their roots lie in strategy games like Chainmail.

Fallout is more an RPG with adventure elements.

>> No.1166598

*Raises hand*

I must've played through both 1 and 2 hundreds of times; lost all interest about halfway through 3, never felt even slightly tempted to pick it back up.

>> No.1166608

thanks breh

>> No.1166612

I never played Fallout. I'm seriously thinking about play it.

>> No.1166623

The main thing that made me quit F3 in disgust is that it makes no actual attempt at creating a believable wasteland. It's just a themepark of cool shit (and some quests and towns might be individually good, I don't know) with no coherency at all. It's like the game doesn't even try make most things it does as meaningful in a real world comparison, and even when it does it just comes of as a bad joke

>> No.1166627

They were just theatrical cannibals. they fit fine in the fallout universe, what with the ghouls and mutants and kung fu masters and stuff

>> No.1166630

I actually haven't played 2 or 1. did't really car efor 3 either.

>> No.1166631

>It's just a themepark of cool shit (and some quests and towns might be individually good, I don't know) with no coherency at all.
To be fair Fallout 2 is guilt of that to some extent too. It's a much better game than 3, but if there is one thing that always bothered me about Fallout 2 that's it.

>> No.1166647

I didn't touch Fallout 3 until I was positive I got over it not being like its predecessors. It took a few years after release, but one day I sat down and actually gave it a shot... and it was really fun...

>> No.1166649

People seem to forget just how silly the first two games were.

>> No.1166692

2 wasn't really that silly and it's mostly why I like it over the first. It put all the big green mutants and such in the background for most of the game.

>> No.1166708


Sank dozens of hours into Fallout New Vegas, only played F3 for about 6 hours. It just didn't feel a lot like Fallout, it was more like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or something.

>> No.1166774


yes it was. I stumbled across the Starship Enterprise and a two Monty Python bits randomly in my travels...and i liked that.

>> No.1166804

I could never get into Fallout 3 at all, I don't know what it is about it.

New Vegas is pretty cool though

And the first two games are good.

>> No.1166808

Those were just random easter eggs.

>> No.1166817

I love 1 and 2, tried to get into 3 and NV multiple times but they're just the same bland crap to me. I honestly don't know how most people who hate 3 can enjoy NV.

>> No.1166841

NV has better gameplay and a much better story.

>> No.1166928
File: 64 KB, 640x480, dawson-crying.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>mfw Fallout 3 removed romances

I love how they handled it in Fallout 2. You could actually get married to an NPC of the same sex, if you wanted. At least they were thoughtful enough to be inclusive.

... but then Fallout 3 did away with NPC romance entirely.

>> No.1166946

>shotgun wedding
hells yeah

>> No.1167161

I played Fallout 3 for well over a hundred hours
I actually never finished fallout 2. I like it more than 3 though.
I have finished Fallout 1 several times. I think its the bes tin the series

>> No.1167186

>2 wasn't really that silly
But it was. And not just in random encounters, San Francisco was basically lol scientology + lol Big trouble in little china. There is pinky and the brain in Gecko, Reno is so over the top with the "mob town" theme it seems more like an easter egg, the president of Enclave spouts references to Clinton all the fucking time, and I'm probably missing tons more being European.
I love this game, but they went waaaay overboard with this shit.

>> No.1167195

That was my first impression too, but warmed up to it. NV has much better writing and the world in general seems more believable and interesting.

Gameplay is just slightly better than in 3 (that is: crap). You need a ton of mods to make it good. I hate that engine with a passion.

>> No.1167217

>if by multiple ways you mean two ways, then sure, i guess that's technically multiple.
In the Rescue Tandi quest, there about 5 different ways to complete the quests, including one that requires a luck of 9, being a man, and wearing a leather jacket

>> No.1167243

I enjoyed Fallout 2 a lot once I figured out how to play it right.
Learning how to rest/heal was the biggest thing.

>> No.1167313

Just wanted you to know you are not alone.

>> No.1167417
File: 144 KB, 862x677, fallout_fan_art_by_petrovi4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>finish Fallout 1, feel satisfaction
>finish Fallout 3, feel empty

>> No.1167464

except you should already beat FO3 in just a fewhrs?

>> No.1167535

Play New Vegas. Much closer to a fallout vibe than 3 ever was

>> No.1167701


Mutants with tress on their head: cool
Kung fu masters: cool

Vampires?: Gay as Fuck

>> No.1167804

Fallout 3 really did earn it's "Oblivion with guns" smear. It didn't help that the world was so barren even though it the game takes place long after the nuclear bombing. Combat worked better without VATS most of the time. Don't even get started on Bethesda's broken writing and morality systems.

I played FO2 from start to finish when it hit the bargain bin many moons ago. I think it came with a hefty manual that was required reading, and a novella. I didn't enjoy the game; the writing was intriguing, but the combat was annoying. Being successful in FO2 was more about building a system exploitation build than any other strategy.

>> No.1168410

>but the combat was annoying. Being successful in FO2 was more about building a system exploitation build than any other strategy.
That's how many games worked back then. You had to understand the system, and yes, exploit it in many cases. If you weren't familiar with how the game worked you ended up with 1-2 experimental characters until you figured out what's good and started over. A lot of skills / perks were next to useless or downright horrible (Bruiser in Fallout).

Not a perfect system for sure, but I still take that over "press v to win" that F3 and NV have every time. If you become invincible god with unlimited money by level 8 without even trying something is terribly wrong with the game.

>> No.1168413

>If you become invincible god with unlimited money by level 8 without even trying

You are kidding right? Unless they were exploiting the game, metagaming to grab high power items found in dangerous places and playing a character with 10 luck to farm casinos I do not see how you can have 'unlimited money without trying' at anything close to level 8. I am level 9 in FO3 right now, I have less than 6000 caps and raiders are still a threat, hardly 'invincible'.

>> No.1168429

You get everything you need just laying around, you CAN'T die in VATS, and I can't see how could you die outside of it unless you go AFK or forget you can just open the inventory and heal up while the world waits for you. You don't literally have unlimited money, but you might as well. I played F3 without knowing anything and I never once came close to running out of ammo or chems. Unless you use mods (which you should) the game is a joke even on highest difficulty.

New Vegas is a little better (by introducing dead zones early on like Deathclaws in the Quarry), but it's basically the same shit.

>> No.1168432

No because Fallout 2 has an absolute shit battle system.

>> No.1168438

You certainly can die in VATS, NV removed the huge damage resistance you get. I have been killed in VATS several times. Deathclaws are still more than capable of slaughtering a player character before he has a gun that can easily kill them, they are faster and take off more than half of your health in one hit. Same with powerful weapons or massed fire, you also seem to be implying access to infinite chems. Against some enemies you can use a lot of stimpaks just to stay alive.

>> No.1168443

>You certainly can die in VATS, NV removed the huge damage resistance you get. I have been killed in VATS several times.
I wouldn't know, I didn't use VATS in NV much because I hate it. That's how it worked in F3. It's a horrible system. Either have the game turn-based or a shooter. With VATS it's a shooter where one party essentially has access to active pause.

>Deathclaws are still more than capable of slaughtering a player character before he has a gun that can easily kill them, they are faster and take off more than half of your health in one hit

>you also seem to be implying access to infinite chems
Yeah, that how it works basically. You get tons for free from scavenging and you can just sell junk to get more with no problem. I can't imagine how you could run out of them. And stimpacks aren't the only healing items too. I seriously can't see how you can die in F3 unless you intentionally handicap yourself in some way or use mods that make the game harder. In NV there is at least hardcore mode.

>> No.1168742

Should've started with 3 OP, then you can appreciate the older games.

>> No.1168754

What about that Fallout 1.5 thing?

>> No.1168760
File: 681 KB, 800x800, always.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]


I played all five Fallout games and loved them.
I generally think Fallout Tactics was the weak link.
I found all Fallout games fantastic. Hard to pick a favorite. Maybe it was FO2.

>> No.1168784

What do you think of Brotherhood of Steel?

>> No.1168787

> all five Fallout games

>> No.1168793

Do you mean the Fallout 3 that never was?
There's a download somewhere out there, I've played it.

>> No.1169026

>get Tesla-Beaton prototype early in game
>make a bunch of weapon repair kits
>maximum weapon quality
>stock pile electron charge packs
>set for life

I killed Legendary Deathclaw at level 8.

>> No.1169053

I've never finished Fallout 2. The beginning is fucking awful. "oh, you want to actually use guns? Haha, what are you, some kind of faggot? Enjoy getting beaten to death multiple times and reloading in that temple until you beat it." "Oh boy my first gun, it's a... pipe rifle, well OK." "Oh hey, after fighting through twelve million rats, I found a pistol, fuck this."

>> No.1169073

>Enjoy getting beaten to death multiple times and reloading in that temple until you beat it.
Maybe you just suck? The temple is a tutorial, even with low ST/EN you shouldn't die there unless you get really unlucky or just don't know how to play the game.

>> No.1169092

How is it possible to suck? I know how to click on an enemy and use one of the two options available to me for hitting him. That section of the game is just fucking awful.

>> No.1169101

The worst that can happen is getting poisoned since there's only limited antidote and healing powder and you can't rest to heal.
The warrior in the end can often only be beaten by stealing the key, which can require repeated reloads.
It doesn't really do a good job as a tutorial.

>> No.1169105

You could have too low strenght, agility or endurance, using wrong weapons, using aimed attacks with not enough skill in melee/unarmed, or just having wrong approach. You don't even need to fight most enemies in the temple including the guy at the end.

>> No.1169110

>The warrior in the end can often only be beaten by stealing the key, which can require repeated reloads.
You can beat him no problem with ST and EN around 5-6 and no skill in unarmed or melee. You can also avoid the fight if you have good charisma / speech.

>> No.1169114

> I know how to click on an enemy
Do you not know how to outrun enemies? Do you not know how to sneak past them? Do you not know how to detect traps and lure enemies there?
If you insist on being a berserk just roll a str10 retard.

>> No.1169116

>including the guy at the end

I recall that my options were talk him out of it, pickpocket, or murder him. If those weren't options, I was basically doomed to continual reloading.

>> No.1169120

> or murder him
It is pretty hard to do without cheating even if you knock him out - he admits defeat at ~30% health, unconscious too.

>> No.1169121


Not an option as memory serves, you have to beat him.

>sneak past them

The stealth system in Fallout 1 and 2 is useless, broken bullshit.

>lure them to traps

Oh fucking boy, let's make this fight even more tedious.

>play the game a very specific way to make this section not suck

That's my fucking point. If you don't start out as an unarmed or melee specialist, the starting section of the game sucks shit.

Let alone if you want to use energy weapons or big guns. I know I sure as fuck have never, since it's not worth bothering.

>> No.1169126

spent over a year on fallout 3, exploring the wasteland

spent about half that amount of time on new vegas, I dont give a fuck about all these quests and faggot companions, and the exploration isn't as good. granted its still a fun game and has better dlc

fo1 and 2 were amazing in their time, I was more of a xcom and doom guy

metallic monks still one of the best songs of all video gamedom, up there with tristram, megaman2, and the quake 1 soundtrack

>> No.1169136

> outrun
> him
I meant ants and scorpions. Usually if you cannot beat them it is because you have other skills, so you can steal key or talk your way out of final fight.

>> No.1169137

3 options is not enough? You can't talk, steal or fight so what makes you think you should pass the temple? And he's not very hard to beat anyway unless you went like 1 endurance 10 intelligence or something.

>> No.1169141

Stealth is a huge advantage. Most enemies will ignore you as long as it's active.

>> No.1169145

Oh, the ants and scorpions aren't that bad, kind of a pain in the ass, I've died to the scorpions a couple times before, but shit happens.

How many skills are there in Fallout 2? You start with 3 tag skills. Limiting to such a narrow range of options is absolute horseshit.

>> No.1169154

>Oh, the ants and scorpions aren't that bad, kind of a pain in the ass, I've died to the scorpions a couple times before, but shit happens.
You don't even need to fight most of them. Run / sneak past them if your character can't handle them. Most scorpions are in side areas of the temple.

>How many skills are there in Fallout 2? You start with 3 tag skills. Limiting to such a narrow range of options is absolute horseshit.
Then start over. It would take you like 2 minutes if you're still in the temple. Turns out energy weapons and science aren't very useful when you're in a primitive tribe.

>> No.1169157

>Then start over. It would take you like 2 minutes if you're still in the temple. Turns out energy weapons and science aren't very useful when you're in a primitive tribe.

Then why are they options?

>> No.1169170

You do not even need to tag anything to beat the temple, just have decent corresponding stats.
And it seems intuitively obvious (or is it hindsight?) which skills are worth tagging in a generic, non-pacifist and non-retard build. That is one basic combat skill and speech. Third tag can be spent on anything that seems interesting - be it energy weapons, science or gambling for example.

>> No.1169176

Because RPG. They're useful later.

>> No.1169183

>Get Fallout 1&2 from a download in 04.
>Have a blast, finish the games multiple times.

>Fallout 3 comes out one day, I'm pretty excited leading up the release date.
>Start playing, it's kind of neat.
>Finish the game about 8 hours later, just kind of sigh disappointingly.

That said, Bethesda still added a lot of little things to the world for explorers, just not a lot of dialog outside of major areas.

>> No.1169184

Yeah whatever, I'm smashing my face against a wall here. You're never going to admit that the temple maybe, just maybe, was a poor design choice.

>> No.1169194

As someone who started with F2 before F1, I wholeheartedly agree the temple was bad design. It's not something that needed to be tossed out entirely, but it could've used a little bit of explanation here and there to ease the player into the game world. A sort of tutorial function for new players.

>> No.1169195

Isn't a newcomer well served with the pre-fab characters?
The temple can be beaten without a tag in unarmed or doctor but it's an annoying obstacle, both when you are fresh and when you're replaying the game.

>> No.1169203

I think making the temple a technological structure (some sort of pre-war relic they've come to revere) so they have an excuse to include uses for more skills as well as some either broken down or makeshift options for big guns and energy weapons (like a tribal handgonne and high tech flaregun or something) as well as starting out with a pipe rifle would have gone a long way to improving it.

>> No.1169206

The thing is, the entire temple takes like 5 minutes. The guy at the end can be beaten with average stats and no tagged melee. You might have to reload once if you have low strenght/endurance get unlucky and didn't tag steal or speech.
Is it good design? Could be better, but If you have this much trouble there, maybe you shouldn't play the game if any obstacles upset you this much.

>> No.1169212

Speech isn't a very intuitively obvious pick at all unless you already know how the game is going to play out, and certain skills (like science and doctor/first aid) have descriptions making them look way better than they are to anybody who doesn't already have in-depth knowledge of the game.

Even with that, there aren't many possible builds that can't beat the temple. If you come from some different game and decide on a savage melee tank character sacrificing AGI for STR/END/PER you'll fail spectacularly of course, but then you just restart and learn that you never sacrifice AGI in a combat build in Fallout.

>> No.1169218

I would've just added someone lightly explaining skills like Doctor, Science, and Speech. I made a high speech character and even though I tried to talk my way out of the place a couple of times, I failed each one of them, but received no indication that I was actually using a skill. You just click a response, dice are rolled behind the screen but you never can see it happen, so you just assume it's the same answer every time.

>> No.1169220

how the fuck do you guys play these games, that you complete the main plot quest in 8 hours?

do you just rush through the main quest on normal difficulty without looking around at anything?

you're fucking spoiled is what it is, even relatively easy games like the ultima series required that you completely search every area before you could finish the game, and there was no internet to look up where the important items were. you just had to find them

I feel sorry for you, that you simply can't play games as they were intended, and they have to be streamlined and sped up to compensate for your saturation of information and short attention span

I didn't complete the main quest in fallout 3 until several months after I started, and I had still only explored about 3/4 of the wasteland at that point

>> No.1169225

...who are you talking to?

>> No.1169226

AGI reliance was something I disliked in Fallout. Each action point is so valuable, you can't afford to skimp out on the stat because extra hits are much better overall than any amount of strength. I would've probably given characters 10 AP base, agility gives 1 AP per 2 AGI, max 15 AP. Make AGI less important overall to combat.

>> No.1169236

They don't upset me, they bore me. After the temple and the tedious bullshit of getting the character to a point where I don't suck shit at everything I do, I'm so sick of the game I'd rather slam my hand in a door than continue playing, since I know for a fact that slamming my hand in a door is going to be entertaining on some level.

>> No.1169240

>8 hours later

Did you just run through the main quest without doing anything else?

>> No.1169241

You sure you're in the right thread?

>> No.1169247

I think he's referring to me: >>1169183

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 took me quite a while to beat, about a month in total. I dicked around and searched every place I went to throughly, Fallout 1 taking about a week, Fallout 2 taking about 3.

Fallout 3 I just continued on the main quest, which was ridiculously short, cut shorter by speech checks. Out of the vault in 20 minutes, went to Megathron and was pointed to 3 dog, followed a marker through metros shooting and killing everything along the way, speech checked 3 dog, went to Rivet city, explored the monument, found dad in Tranquility Lane, went back and got attacked by the Enclave, found the location of the GECK, speech checked my way into little lamplight, dove through the vault, through Raven Rock, then completed the final quest.

I spent about half that time looking around at different places (The android quest in Rivet, Canterbery Commons, etc.), so ultimately my first run through the game took about 4 hours of main quest. Then again, if you play the game to rush through it fast as possible, you're doing it wrong, but I felt with the quest marker and obvious way of telling you where to go and do things at each point, you spent very little time wandering around and doing random stuff and more time plowing through the game.

>> No.1169249

It's a fucking RPG. That's how they work. You start weak with bad equipment and work your way up progressively while discovering more of the world. If you don't enjoy that why are you even playing it.

>> No.1169253

There is a speedrun where a guy beats F2 in like 10 minutes, but I'm pretty sure he cheats or uses a modified / early bugged version.

>> No.1169260

There are plenty of RPGs where you start out capable and the difficulty curve is appropriately designed. RPG doesn't mean "starting out will be a chore you undertake out of a sense of masochism and stockholm syndrome".

>> No.1169264

No offence but, you got "beaten to death multiple times and reloading in that temple until you beat it" and didn't even figure out you can talk your way out of the fight at the end or steal the key. It's not the difficulty curve, it's you.

>> No.1169272

>implying I didn't figure that out

What kind of presumptuous idiot are you? If you don't have those skills tagged, your chances of success are so pathetically low you wind up in the same situation. Did your mother have any children that lived?

>> No.1169274

Yeah, I've seen the F1 version, clocked at 13 or so minutes. Being short isn't the problem, it's how the game is structured.

In F1, I left the vault, found shady sands, kept going, and found V15. Upon exploring, I came to an elevator shaft and didn't have any idea how to proceed, so I went back to SS and asked around. I found a rope in some guy's inventory to barter with, and while I was looking for that, I found a few other things I could do -- Ian gave some other locations to check out on the world map, and there was a rad scorpion problem that I could take care of as well. Most of the game would mention or show other things not related to my main travels that would often lead me off the water chip. On top of that, the water chip quest would have a couple of difficulty spikes that would also encourage me to do something else while I attempted to get more experience, guns, and armor to take on something like the death claw.

With Fallout 3, I never really had the need to look around and try to figure out how to proceed. Everything was laid out, difficulty was scaled so I could take on super mutants just as easy at level 3 as I could at level 30, and very rarely would someone on the main quest give you something else to do or point you to somewhere you should go.

It's not that Fallout 3 has a lack of quests and things compared to the original (I'm pretty sure it actually has a lot more content, even if it's not all particularly interesting), but you oftentimes have to actively go look for it yourself rather than stumble upon it. The Dunwich building and Canterbery Commons are both places that are nearly completely disconnected from the rest of the world -- you actually have to be looking for them rather than hearing about them offhandedly from someone else.

>> No.1169275

your /v/ is showing :)

>> No.1169293

I'm willing to excuse F2's lack of starting equipment based on lore. You're a tribal, it makes sense you'd start with a pointy stick and a bag of rocks. Plus, because of that design where melee weapons are common and usually weak, small guns tend to be uncommon but available to those who want them bad enough, and big guns/energy weapons are amazing but incredibly expensive and rare, you can differentiate the weapon classes far more than if you made them all equivalent on the "good" scale.

Picking your weapon skills in Fallout determines where you'll have the easiest times in combat and where the fights will get harder. If you pick unarmed/melee, than you'll have a much easier time fighting early on when everyone else is using those same weapons. As the enemies move up to guns and lasers, you'll start to fall behind, because even though you're the best point-stick using tribal in the land, other people not as good are using things that can vaporize you. Small guns offers a balance (You can get your first gun in Klameth, a pipe rifle for free or purchase a 10mm from a shop.), while with big/energy weapons you don't find one until way later (Though they're by far the most powerful weapons in the game compared to all other classes, minus the gauss rifles.).

>> No.1169302

Your upset is showing

>> No.1169305

That's the thing, bug guns and energy weapons weren't actually that amazing. Small guns had everything you'd ever need and included no shortage of extremely powerful weapons. The .223 pistol in the first one was all you needed, and in the second the gauss weapons made the game play on easy mode.

>> No.1169308

But melee/sneak is one of the strongest builds in FO2...

>> No.1169312

I'm not the one who couldn't beat a tutorial multiple times and goes ad hominem when it's pointed out :D

>> No.1169319

>getting screwed by an RNG in a shitty tutorial

Yeah whatever, your so LEET ability to click and hope the RNG favors you skills are to be fawned over. Hey everybody! This guy is fucking awesome, let's worship him! Nobody can select punch, or kick quite like him! I bet he can even equip a spear! I am in awe sir, in awe!

>> No.1169320

They all have extremely powerful weapons (bozar, gauss rifle, pulse rifle in F2, in F1 small guns are weaker than EW near the end), but only small guns are useful for the entire game.

>> No.1169323

Are you talking about that really high level slayer build where you essentially score free critical hits on enemies, forcing knockdown and skipped turns while ignoring armor on them? I agree, it's really powerful, but it requires a pretty high level to get. From about level 6-15, I never got much use out of melee and unarmed, at least to the point where I would've taken them above a gun of some sort. I always did small guns -> eye shots since it was pretty quick to get high enough to make use of it and very easy to find a small gun.

Yeah, there were a few guns that wound up outdoing anything from the big and small version. I never knew about the .223 for my first few runs though, although the gauss stuff in F2 was broken as hell from the point of view I wrote. Would've been fine if it were pretty well hidden though.

>> No.1169338

I beat f3, but never beat f1/2. But on the other hand, I powered through f3. On f1/2, I have spent about 100 hours playing.But I always do something stupid and fail the main quest because I did something for rp and killed someone important. The original two are far more immersive experiences. Also more enjoyable.

There are only two other games where I really roleplay in single player. Mount and Blade and Crusader Kings 2.

>> No.1169348

I liked that F1/2 used a tabletop system that wasn't D&D. Still not as good as the Storyteller system imo, but SPECIAL didn't have nearly as much refinement time.

>> No.1169358

You can't really fail in the main quest in FO1 since all you need to do to win is shoot a guy and interact with a computer to beat it.

Or well, technically I guess you can make the MB inaccessible if you're really REALLY trying.

>> No.1169360

Storyteller adapts terribly to video games. It was supposed to run off of GURPS, which would have been amazing.

>> No.1169361

>cantebury commons

There are multiple people who mention it and its clear from a long distance away so people will see it and wonder what is there.

>> No.1169362

SPECIAL is pretty good, but the balance of skills and traits/perks in F1/2 is kinda bad. You have some that are moderately useful, but most fall either into "don't bother" or "must have" category, sadly.

>> No.1170783

Played bg tens of times hunfreds of hours on fo3 and nv. Can't get into fo1 or 2 why is this

>> No.1170796

Fallout 1 and 2 are pretty boring when it comes to moving between locations (even moving inside cities is pretty damn boring), maybe that's why?
Badly mapped keyboard controls might be another one, where you're almost forced to use the mouse for everything unless you have a quicklist printed out.

>> No.1170828

Isn't that true of real life? Scenarios shouldn't be contrived to make skills evenly balanced across the board, playwise; it makes no sense sense for any random ability to be as effective as any other.

Take Arcanum for example, there are a million abilities and stats and a third of them are totally broken and exploitable but the game is a blast unless you start sperging out all over the place and plow through the story with a 20 ST, 20 DX ogre hitting people over the head with a hammer for 30 hours. Balance in CRPGs is really overrated.

>> No.1170830

>Isn't that true of real life?

Yes, yes it is.
But games aren't about being like real life, incredibly unbalanced games are very rarely as fun to play as balanced games.

A skill that has no use in a game has no business being in the game in the first place.

>> No.1170837


this is the most generic opinion of the series.

i think it has become a mantra of fallout discussion.

fo3 made the combat more fun. ever had to wait for five minutes while the whole town makes their move in fo3?

that was a big improvement in slaughtering whole towns.

fo3's biggest failure?

a lack of hookers to jack for loot.

new reno ftw.

>> No.1170842
File: 26 KB, 680x681, 1381648048794.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>fo3 made the combat more fun

>> No.1170846


there were six, yep. nobody counts that one game for some reason.

i never had a chance to play it.

>> No.1170848

It was definitely faster though, you could just spray at a bunch of weaklings instead of getting into a turn-based slog with them. I'm not keen on the overly-cinematic VATS in 3 (which though a good idea could have been done much better) but at the same time it makes the game more accessible to those who are terrible at FPS.

>> No.1170856


no. i always beat his ass because i was unaware at the time that there was another option.

which made my character builds limited.

>> No.1170857

Fallout Tactics had real time combat as an option.
The turn base is only a real problem in crowded cities like New Reno.

>> No.1170859


>> No.1170865

>random encounter: a dozen rats
>random encounter: 10 raiders vs merchant caravan
>random encounter: a family of half a dozen radscorpions

Fallout 1 had a lot of combat where even running away because you cba was slow.

>> No.1170870

If only Disgaea came out as it was years before it actually did, people would have less sitting around waiting for the enemies to finish their turn.

>> No.1170874

>Should've started with 3 OP, then you can appreciate the older games.

Although the exact opposite happened to nearly every last person who tried it.

>> No.1170876

That's why you always sneak in combat.

>> No.1170879

haven't tried Fallout 3 yet, but I just can't bring myself to finish Fallout Tactics.

>> No.1170895

>You're never going to admit that the temple maybe, just maybe, was a poor design choice.

I honestly never had trouble with it, but I was familiar with the first game so I guess that makes things a lot easier.

>> No.1170931

>but I just can't bring myself to finish Fallout Tactics.
It really goes downhill after the mutant missions. Once you get energy weapons it's just robots, robots and more robots, and because your squad is like level 30 at this point you kill everything before it even comes close.

>> No.1170979

It might be off topic but, should I use the restoration patch of Fallout 2?
This is my first playthrough ever.

>> No.1170986

Get One Handed and then be amazed by how fun melee is until you get to the point where everyone has burst fire weapons and you don't have power armor.

>> No.1170989

It was patched but at 1 point you could make unlimited money playing caravan. Think you could get like 30k caps a game or something like that. This was by Primm if you're curious.

>> No.1171009

No but I bet he's smart enough to go "hmmm, these enemies can only move/attack so much before they can't act, I wonder if I can attack them and then run away enough for them to only be able to chase me and not attack me." I know I figured that almost instantly when I first did the temple.

>> No.1171042

>implying everyone goes for high agility on their first character

>> No.1171052

7 is high? And since every weapon skill is governed by agility the only reason to not go high agi is not reading any of the character information you're given.

>> No.1171074

Yes, 7 is high (or "V. Good") unless you go for Gifted.

>> No.1171096

Pretty sure you just don't know how to use the tools given to you. Game pretty much tells you how to build a character if you take the time to read. If you can't figure it out maybe it's time for something easier. Maybe a jig saw puzzle is more your speed.

>> No.1171121

I'm pretty sure you're confusing me with somebody else.

And no, the game doesn't tell you that AGI is a main staple of every single non-pacifist (and some pacifist) build in the game. That tip was for INT.

>> No.1171135

Yeah except for the whole governing every weapon skill and your action points and your AC, The game doesn't tell you agi is important.

>> No.1171148 [DELETED] 

people who criticize fallout 3 are suffering from vidya stockholm syndrome, they are the vidya equivalent of liberals, who are most definitely not into logic

they believe that games are still supposed to completely restrict every action, giving you specific, stratified choices, a clear path to a predetermined goal, and that the 'plot' is somehow relevant to a medium where plot is inherently not interacting with any other design element

its troubling because there were no such assumptions in early table top gaming, and no such assumptions in early video games. even something as early as zork, a game which was nothing but words, did not have a set narrative, but rather a series of encounters and environments

fallout 3 was clearly designed around a vision of a world, and not something as straightforward as a 'quest' or a 'story'

unlike new vegas, it allowed the player to do all of the roleplaying in their own mind, with the game simply being a tool. the quest dialogue in new vegas allowed no such freedom. your choices were unmistakably defined

is there still a place for games like new vegas? certainly, and new vegas is a particularly good example of it's genre. but it will always be an inferior "video game" when compared to a true sandbox like fallout 3

>> No.1171158

>governing every weapon skill
If you "take the time to read" you would quite easily figure out that INT is important to all weapon skills FAAAAAR more than AGI is.

>> No.1171160


and Ive had this discussion often enough to know that when counterpoints cannot be presented, (because they've never given serious consideration to the possibility that their genuine preferences are based on false assumptions) those who disagree have no choice but to express mock incredulity, or make other negative comments with no content

>> No.1171163

>unlike new vegas, it allowed the player to do all of the roleplaying in their own mind

You can say that about literally every video game ever made. Who wrote this tripe, Todd Howard?

>> No.1171164

You're trying to hard to bait.

>> No.1171182

Except INT doesn't give AP nor does it give AC. AGI is more important to the character as a whole then INT.

>> No.1171189

Not that guy, but INT gives you more skill points in the long run (for combat skills too).
You're right that high AG is vital for any combat build though, once you reach ~150 skill you won't notice any difference most of the time.

>> No.1171202

I would agree if it wasn't for the stupid build. Which works really well. Skill points are largely useless if you pick up enough books for your weapon skills. And companions can pick up the slack for things that do require skill.

>> No.1171208 [DELETED] 

my post was deleted

no doubt they will use the excuse that the post contained the word 'liberal'

cannot into objectivity: if you disagree with the preposterous ignorance of the majority you'd better make sure your dialogue is squeekeir than a newborn mouse, or the rules will be tailor-applied to you specifically

you are truly pathetic btw

show me how long you can ban me

seriously use your maximum power

>> No.1171220

I'm sure they'll listen to your plight.
Cause you're a faggot

>> No.1171376

Really, Agility being the source of action points was a dumb idea. As a stat that governed your defense and a whole assload of skills, it would have been fairly well balanced, but in a turn based RPG, actions are your most precious resource.

>> No.1171416

It makes perfect sense that agility gives you more action points, the problem is just how much it gives you.

When combat revolves around getting 2 shots instead of 1 in one turn you must go for the option that gives you 2. The relation is sometimes different, you get more attacks with melee weapons, perks etc, but that's the general idea. If you had let's say 20 AP base +1 for each AG, 8+ AG wouldn't be a nobrainer for almost every built.

This is kinda how they did it in F3/NV with points in VATS.

>> No.1171875

I don't actually think it makes that much sense. "I'm a better gymnast, so I'll keep my cool and make better use of my time in combat" is ridiculous. There should just be a best number of AP that everyone gets that can only be affected by things like perks or special abilities.

>> No.1172006

>San Francisco was basically lol scientology
what's so unrealistic about that? there's a shit-ton of them on the west coast, and it's perfectly plausible that in 100s of years time they'll still be there.

>> No.1172342

I loved FO3 and almost everything about it and while I really want to like 1&2, I just can't. It's the battle system's fault mostly. I hate to be one of those "fans" but I think the gameplay switch is a massive improvement although strangely enough, I don't enjoy NV that much.

It's a shame too, since the plots seem so much more interesting than the ones in 3 and NV.

>> No.1172962

Not that it's unrealistic, it's a world were radiation turns people into green mutants after all.
The problem is that they have no purpose in the game other than being a joke (there is like 1-2 meaningless sidequests for them). Everything about them screams "ha ha ha get it? These guys are like scientology! So funny! get it?!". It's not even a joke, just a reference. And the game is full of crap like this.

>> No.1173140

I've beaten 1, 3, and NV several times, but I have yet to get through 2 once.
I usually get a little way into the game, and then life gets in the way and I forget whatever the fuck I was doing when I get back.

>> No.1173210


When I think of San Francisco, I think of the massive gay population residing there. "lol scientology" is more synonymous to me with Clearwater, Florida.

>> No.1174135



Fallout 3 is ruined due to logic

2 has no such qualm

nor 1,

NV gets a bit unfun but its very ploshed compared to 3 and I enjoy the region better anyway so I sunk 300 odd hours in it

>> No.1174169
File: 1.31 MB, 250x141, 1362562037231.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

I love Fallout 2 but let's be honest here. That temple was total dog shit to go through.

>> No.1174364

Sure it was, but it was never impossible, or even hard, unless you deliberately screw up your build by reducing all four physical stats.
And that is a good indicator that a character who can neither fight not run or hide would have a very, very hard time surviving in the wasteland.

>> No.1174374

Logic? Explain. Do you mean it takes itself seriously in comparison to 2?

>> No.1174415
File: 98 KB, 912x670, Fallout 3-The Plotline.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Not him, but

something like that.

>> No.1174431

Half of this is crap.

>> No.1174591

It's /v/ exaggerating but it's true enough.

>> No.1174606

Still, if the guy got beaten multiple times to the point he ragequit the game he had no slightest idea how to play. If the temple teaches you one thing it's that you can skip boring combat.

>> No.1174610

I mostly enjoyed fallout 3 up to the point where i realized just how static everything was. The characters, the missions, the story, hell even the leveling system was pointless. When it came out i was so exited because I had replayed the first two somewhere around 30-40 times and I needed a new fallout fix.

I have only beaten fallout 3 once. I never even touched the dlc.

>> No.1174629

VATS in NV was nerfed significantly, but the manual aiming mechanics work a lot better, its honeslty the only game that i like Iron Sights in

>> No.1174646

I've practically memorized f1 and f2

the first few hours of fallout 3 were great, I literally enjoyed the fuck out of it even though I was sceptical like all of us were back then (fps? oh come on)

then I got to the edgy vampire place and something made me wary, I played on and got to little lamplight and as I continued feeling sort of meh I got to the clusterfuck writing disaster that was the endgame. It's seriously the worst writing I've ever witnessed and I've been playing games for 20 years

for some reason I really enjoyed operation anchorage though, lel

>> No.1177686

say anons if I was to try new vegas, would I need dlcs? or dlcs are shit.
Implying not being a poorfag, I can afford, but dlcs can ruin the experience

>> No.1177701

The DLCs are full on expansions that I find to be on par if not better than the main game, I'd pick them up.

>> No.1177702


I found all four of the DLCs in NV to be pretty enjoyable. Honest Hearts might be the weakest, but it has dat Burned Man.

>> No.1179130

I really couldn't get into Fallout 1. Is Fallout 2 better?

>> No.1179643
File: 268 KB, 939x1405, 1368142906625.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

Depends. It's hotly debated, almost the borderlands 2 meme fest of its time, but I fucking love it. NMA have an amazing fallout 2 restoration patch, it has to be one of the most complete fan made patches.

Removes some fun though, no quick way to get the car. Can't steal a bozar from the weapon guys. Thoroughly recommend it.

>> No.1180054
File: 11 KB, 282x286, Untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

>stats are what's important for role playing games

I guess Team Fortress 2 is an RPG then.

>Their roots lie in strategy games like Chainmail.

And you'll notice Chainmail is not called an RPG. It is called a tactical wargame. The differences between modern D&D and Chainmail are what make it an RPG and not a tactical wargame--namely, there is now more to it than just running through dungeons killing monsters.

Any game can be called an RPG if you're that liberal with the definition because any game is going to have some form of "stats" that dictate what things do what, when, and how. The only difference with Fallout Tactics is that those numbers are visible to the player and they will go up after an arbitrary number of kills. You know what else that's true for? DotA (not an RPG), LoL (not an RPG), Warcraft 3 (not an RPG), Zelda 2 (not an RPG), the entire Heroes of Might & Magic series (not RPG's)...shall I go on?

Just because there are numbers attached to your avatar and those numbers go up after awhile does not make a game an RPG.

>> No.1180136
File: 954 KB, 1024x768, FalloutTactics_Addiction.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]

So you're saying the definition of RPG changed over time and we have to use your modern definition on our retro gaming board? And classic titles like Wizardry should no longer be considered role playing games and instead include games that have historically never been counted as RPGs?
Warcraft 3 and Heroes of Might and Magic are strategy games unlike Jagged Alliance or Fallout Tactics. They have role-playing elements but they aren't the single dominant part of the gameplay.

Your stats in Fallout Tactics don't just go up, you level up like in other Fallout games under the SPECIAL system. It's not a simple rank system like you may find in some RTS.

Clearly defining a RPG should be difficult, even flat out impossible, but Fallout Tactics being one shouldn't be questioned. It's the same as Fallout with additional combat controls and less overall freedom.

>> No.1180496

I find this post seriously terrible.

Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.