The Fallout 2 question

[Acrux]

Fallout Tactics > FNV

[Fargus]

Fallout Tactics > FNV

They're both great

[wndrbr]

Can't say i like Atom. But it's not a bad game. They put a lot of effort into it. Is Trudograd any good?

it's like PST to BG. Urban setting, tons of walking and talking, the amount of combat encounters can be counted on one hand. I'd say it's pretty good, but if you want to travel the wastes, blast raiders and loot stuff, then Trudograd won't be your cup of tea.

[Fargus]

Can't say i like Atom. But it's not a bad game. They put a lot of effort into it. Is Trudograd any good?

it's like PST to BG. Urban setting, tons of walking and talking, the amount of combat encounters can be counted on one hand.

That's strange. I mean why bother adding power armor then?

[viata]

The real question, what's worse? Fallout 3 or Fallout 4.

Any person that has an answer to that question have played both games and at that point you can ignore that person's opinion in most games. He clearly lacks any taste in gaming.

[rusty_shackleford]

Can't say i like Atom. But it's not a bad game. They put a lot of effort into it. Is Trudograd any good?

it's like PST to BG. Urban setting, tons of walking and talking, the amount of combat encounters can be counted on one hand.

That's strange. I mean why bother adding power armor then?

Because it's cool.

[Lhynn]

I found 3 to be better than 4 because it had that strange uncanny valley quality where nothing quite made sense. It was like you were playing in a fever dream, but not really.

I found the whole game kind of disturbing, like you were inside the mind of an asylum patient. It wasnt just zany, it was bonkers, but it was not self aware at all, it was like the writers werent in on the joke.

That quality to me sets it apart from 4, which is mostly by the numbers, competent shooting, and built almost like fallout 2 was. With an inconsistent tone, where every location feels like it belongs to an entirely different region, even if they are just a street away. But overall toothless, harmless, dumb.


In a way fallout 3 is bethesdas attempt at making fallout 1, while 4 is their attempt at trying to make fallout 2.

tl;dr: fallout 3 made me feel something, fallout 4 was just existential dread for all 3 hours it lasted on my computer. That said they are both ****, the first one just seems to at least have a soul.

[Atlantico]

I genuinely enjoyed both F1 and F2. I thought F2 was better on the whole, perhaps because I played that game first — but no pop culture references bothered me in either game. Honestly they were on par with other RPGs of the time. That kind of thing was expected because in the late 90s RPGs were not a "serious business".

Love both, and FO:NV as well. All good stuff.

[Tweed]

Fallout 3 is just a bunch of ****** cargo cultish quests from people who didn't (and still don't) understand why Fallout was any good. And also some stolen plotlines from Star Trek: Voyager.

[rusty_shackleford]

Best ending for Fallout is joining Master's army. West coast gets destroyed, Enclave shows up decades later, cleans up what supermutants are left(sterile, remember), populates West coast without any opposition.

[Norfleet]

Best ending for Fallout is joining Master's army. West coast gets destroyed, Enclave shows up decades later, cleans up what supermutants are left(sterile, remember), populates West coast without any opposition.

You'd think, yet there seems to be an endless horde of them well after they should have largely died out. Apparently making more Shreks is something that keeps happening.

[Arilando]

I recently finished both Fallout 1 and 2. I was not that impressed by either. The world building and the main quests are great, but the actual gameplay is tedious and most of the sidequests are boring. Both games also have a significant number of bugs.

I liked Fallout 1 better because it's better paced and has better writing. A lot of the writing in 2 seems like a really cringe attempt at being funny. And they made the villains cartoonishly evil, Fallout 1 villains were at least somewhat believable. The beginning of Fallout 2 is also pretty bad compared to Fallout 1. Arroyo, Klamath and the Den are all pretty boring.

The settlements, especially in 2, are also too large IMO. It makes it tedious to find the NPCs that actually have interesting things to say or serve some kind of gameplay function. Smaller settlements would be easily justified given the post apocalyptic setting.

[rusty_shackleford]

[TKVNC]

The atomic age that never actually came because free love man, and peace or something.

[rusty_shackleford]

The atomic age that never actually came because free love man, and peace or something.

I recall Cain saying something like "Fallout is what the 1950s thought the future would be like, Bethesda's Fallout is if the 1950s was the future". Which is why in classic Fallout you see some futuristic designs as how the 1950s envisioned it, and in nu-Fallout you just see 1950s designs but in the future

[logincrash]

The atomic age that never actually came because free love man, and peace or something.

I recall Cain saying something like "Fallout is what the 1950s thought the future would be like, Bethesda's Fallout is if the 1950s was the future". Which is why in classic Fallout you see some futuristic designs as how the 1950s envisioned it, and in nu-Fallout you just see 1950s designs but in the future

I hate post-Morrowind Bethesda so much, it's unreal.

[Tweed]

I've always wanted one of these.