What is Better???

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Thu May 23, 2002 1:42 pm

True, FO2 had more side-quests, but most of them were down-right lame and boring. Of course FO2 had some improvements, it was the sequel, but as a game, Fallout was superior in many ways.

Not to mention Fallout 2 was more of a science-fiction game than a post-apocalyptic game.

Sc0pE · Post by **Sc0pE** » Thu May 23, 2002 1:52 pm

yes i agree, but you can't look at it from the perspective of reality, or from that of undifined catagories...
eg: turn based is strictly games that play in a turn based system...
eg: fantasy is a bit like sci fi but magic ect..

where as post apocalitic, since it has never happened can only be described as after nuclear war...

the game (FO2) is based in the year 2161 (? i think..) and is based on a persons view of what the world would be like after a nuclear war... it is in some ways a sci fi- but not as much as post apocoliptic...

still the energy weapons ruin the effect a bit as well as the aliens...
but a really good thing about the FO2 was that every single quest was sloted neatly into the story line...

-it is all personal preference, we can argue, debate, but at the end of the day it all comes down to what you really think-

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Thu May 23, 2002 2:11 pm

Fallout 1 was in 2161, Fallout 2 was in 2241. But yeah, it comes down to personal preference, they are after all two pretty different games.

Wolf401 · Post by **Wolf401** » Thu May 23, 2002 8:00 pm

Fallout 2 , there you didn't have any forced mission and you can go a lot of
ways . More weapons , towns and enemies . In Fallout 1 you were tied to one mission ; to find a water chip in 40 days . By the time you have it you've practically explored the whole map . In Fallout 2 you can relax and go to confront the bad guys whenever you want

Red · Post by **Red** » Thu May 23, 2002 9:07 pm

I'm for the first...

Fallout 2 had way too many references, it's new weapons were all "real life" weapons which didn't fit into the setting, and the new armours were really lame - even the APA. The story barely holds up...

Don't get me wrong, I love Fallout 2, but in comparison to the first installment, other than it's size, it simply wasn't as good.

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Thu May 23, 2002 10:11 pm

What really threw the game off, especially towards the end is the amount of guns and ammo, not to mention Power Armor which seem to be a dime a dozen in San Fransisco, despite everyone wearing pajamas. It was too easy to get a hold of the most powerful gear available.

It just didn't feel like the "wasteland" it was supposed to be.

Vergilius · Post by **Vergilius** » Thu May 23, 2002 10:40 pm

Agreed but hopefully the feeling of a ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œwastelandÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬? will be back. I ask you; how many secret storages of pre-nuclear tech can there be left now? And how many power armours can still be functional? And of course, how many gangs with how many.. ?

[ the usual reference rant include here ]

BTW if anyone is interested I voted Fallout, not Fallout 2.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Fri May 24, 2002 1:05 am

Wolf401 wrote:Fallout 2 , there you didn't have any forced mission and you can go a lot of
ways . More weapons , towns and enemies . In Fallout 1 you were tied to one mission ; to find a water chip in 40 days . By the time you have it you've practically explored the whole map . In Fallout 2 you can relax and go to confront the bad guys whenever you want

In Fallout, you had two missions: Find the Water Chip and destroy The Unity.

In Fallout 2, you had two missions as well: Find the GECK and destroy the Enclave

I'm not sure what the criticism is there, since they were the same in that respect.

One of the problems with Fallout 2 was that there was no urgency at all to the GECK quest. Save Arroyo? No thanks, I'm busy looking for a gold watch in this sewer. That's prety silly.

However, by the time you find the GECK, chances are, you've explored most of the map as well, so I'm not sure why you're criticising Fallout for that. In fact, you can get lucky in Fallout and score a Water Chip pretty quickly if the first place you go from The Hub is Bakersfield. That's just luck of the draw there.

Wolf401 · Post by **Wolf401** » Fri May 24, 2002 1:24 am

Thank you for pounding my reply into the ground SP .

I meant time . In Fallout 1 there was a time limit , in Fallout 2 there isn't

Vergilius · Post by **Vergilius** » Fri May 24, 2002 1:40 am

Wolf401 wrote: I meant time . In Fallout 1 there was a time limit , in Fallout 2 there isn't

Hm, the time limit is actually a huge +, gives you the sense of urgency.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Fri May 24, 2002 2:48 am

Wolf401 wrote:Thank you for pounding my reply into the ground SP .

Any time.

I meant time . In Fallout 1 there was a time limit , in Fallout 2 there isn't

Right, like I said, there was no urgency in Fallout 2. If Arroyo was dying, you'd think you'd have a certain amount of time to save them before the situation got to a critical point. This was done in Fallout with the time limit on the water chip quest. After all, Arroyo's food was running low. They were getting diseases. There should have been something to relay that importance. There wasn't.

If you're going to have an urgent quest, there needs to be something in the gameplay that backs up that urgency. That's why the time limit in Fallout was a good thing.

Jimbo san · Post by **Jimbo san** » Fri May 24, 2002 3:11 am

I agree. The time limit gave the narrative a punch that number 2 didn't have. There was a greater sense of urgency, even if the time limit (i felt) was rather generous.

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Fri May 24, 2002 10:54 am

Jimbo san wrote: even if the time limit (i felt) was rather generous.

Yes, but you wouldn't really know that before you've recovered the water chip and are on your way home, that's why it was impossible to say if you were ahead of the time limit. That was what i felt when i played it the first time anyway.

Red · Post by **Red** » Fri May 24, 2002 8:25 pm

Well, given you do all the little sidethings in FO1, if I remember correctly, I was left with only ~20-30 days left (and I think that was with getting the water to V13 too...)

The problem (imho) with FO1's deadline is that it "killed" your character to do reach, even though you would of moved on... But then again you needed v13 for FO2, but that wasn't known back then...

As for FO2's urgency well, you don't actually KNOW it's not urgent unless you read a walkthrough, however the (stupid) dream is so vague that you never really feel it urgentm and hoped for another one to come later on...

Vergilius · Post by **Vergilius** » Fri May 24, 2002 9:17 pm

Red wrote: As for FO2's urgency well, you don't actually KNOW it's not urgent unless you read a walkthrough, however the (stupid) dream is so vague that you never really feel it urgentm and hoped for another one to come later on...

Well, hm, if I understood you, you say that we could not know if it was urgent, but unless my memory is complete gone they stated in the FAQ that there was no time limit, and the dream was a relatively poor incitement.
If I misunderstood you, just ignore me.

Red · Post by **Red** » Fri May 24, 2002 9:32 pm

No, you're right, albeit who read readmes? Well, then again I clearly remember knowing right up front there was no time limit, regardless of readme, so I guess it is a known fact.

Furthermore the town not dying is part of the plot... Although they could of simply made you kill the Enclave because they're evil and made a bad ending for Arroyo. Actually, that would rock...

Jimbo san · Post by **Jimbo san** » Fri May 24, 2002 10:49 pm

Red wrote:Well, then again I clearly remember knowing right up front there was no time limit, regardless of readme, so I guess it is a known fact.

Wasn't it on the packaging?

Also, there is a time limit, but it stands at an extremely generous 13 years (or so).

Duck and Cover

What is Better???

What's Better? Fallout or Fallout 2?