Fallout 4

Click here and disable ads!

Well, Wasteland 2 is already my Wasteland 4 then

I don't agree that writing in FO3 was a joke. It wasn't perfect to be sure, but I do think that it is the best output in terms of story that bethesda has ever done, considering that their other writing efforts are weak. I thought fallout 3 had some interesting investigation quests, which gave you the opurtunity to gain much more insight by sneaking around and hacking computer terminals, and where not everything were as it initally seemed. Among those, were a couple of Fed-EX quests, but so had NW, at least as many. I also thought the opening of fallout 3 was strong, with the most immershive character creation I've ever seen: Much better than the psychology test and the character-creation-o-matic machine that you go to, which conviniently stands around in the house of a doctor in a remote village.

That being said, I did think NW's writing was better, as I said earlier. Though not miles and miles better. As for Quest structure, not sure if I agree with you, the basic quest structures seem the same for both games. Branching? Maybe? There were certainly quests within fallout 3 with branching, and I don't remember those choices as less interesting than in fallout NW. Then again, I've only played a subset of the quests of both games once, and a long time age too, so I'm hardly an expert here. All those technical aspects of quests can be implemented to the eagles scream though, but it doesn't matter at the end of the day, if the quests are not interesting, fun and sucks you in. And it is in the latter where NW triumphs over fallout 3, C&C and everything else is just icing on the cake.

Not

Not trying to be an asshole but the only quest that was branching I can remember was the wasteland survival guide quest, the quest with the russian dude was more boolean than anything.

There was at least another one with a vampire cult leader (or did he think he was a vampire, I don't remember, maybe it was cannibals) on a bridge or close to some bridge.

Oh yes I forgot about that one

Possibly, but the fact making these two antagonists give up is so easy and instantaneous is awful writing either way. At least in Fallout 1 you had an okay argument, though.

The day will come when a diplomatic solution means more than two minutes of passing speech passes or showing evidence near the end of the game. Or maybe it won't.

oh god, these story/setting fags again.

Game and gameplay = mechanics, you want story or setting? go read a book or watch a movie.
Game is supposed to be played for it's mechanics (forgotten realms, gurps).
Fallout 2 is same as 1 in this aspect, while 3 and NV is not.

Fallout would still be a good game even if it had ponies and south park characters while retaining SPECIAL, turn based combat and isometric setting ( hmmmmm obsidian making SP rpg...)

People who claim that Fallout 2 is a worse game than F1 or a bad game in general are partialy the reason for the decline.

What is good with fallout 1's turn based combat? You only control one guys, with the only option open to you in combat: click-on-man-to-kill. All the inherent advantages of TBC like strategy and planning, seems completely lost to me in fallout 1, and only serves to slow the game down.

^
This is why we can't have nice rpgs anymore like Fallout, gtfo. I hope that Wasteland 2 has exactly this and bores you to death while you take your meds for add.

Character skill over player skill, better control, more combat options... If I want visceral action, I play an action game.

What? That's bullshit. Go play a PnP RPG if you want mechanics! Games are for the story! FFS!

I'm serious, disregarding the non-answer of syril. Better control? Sure, I guess, but better control do to what? Run around, loaded on action points and click to shot-on-man, while the enemy can't follow you? And what exactly are those expanded combat options, that you would not have in RT combat?

And another thing, reading from my post that I want more visceral action game combat in fallout 1, suggests some seriously lacking reading skills, if I'm going to bother with this, you have to do better than this and do some actual arguing.

I believe personally, that fallout 1 would be better off if it had implemented the RT/TB-combat hybrid that arcanum had, where you could, if you wanted to, change between RT and TB combat at will.

oh jesus.... are you a 10 yr old? or are you just a natural dumbfuck ?

1s) Nice to see that you neglected Unorus character skill over player skill.

2) It's about stats, watching numbers, having a dice roll that ends up with various effects - that is the combat of a real rpg, THIS is the fun of the combat (of any rpg). You click once and watch the game mechanics in action.

INSTEDD OF MASHEEUN BUTTANS IN TWITCHA WITH DUK AND MATURR STORY THET LEAVES YOU LKILLKIN MOOUSSA BUTTAN LIEEEK A KINEKTT TARD.

But that's too boring for you so go and play twitcher with Havoc.

Yeah. Come and play a game with mechanics with me!

I honestly don't believe Obisidian is going to make another Fallout spinoff seeing as how the vast majority of gamers nowadays preferred FO3 to FO: NV.

I like how the best arguments a lot of codexers can present, starts with suggestions of inferior age, intellect or naivety either due to nothing, or due to my join date on this forum. This is then followed by a non-sequitor or red herring which has nothing to do with the point I raised, and then finally, it is toppled of with a good ol' strawman, which god knows where it's coming from.

This is the last time I'm going to bother with answering on this, if I can't get a better answers, which adresses specifically the questions I raised.

Good, now that everything is cleared up you can go and fuck yourself.

And he can also GTFO with his decline ideas. Fallout with real time combat? Travesty!

Who gives a shit, the market isn't exactly saturated with the types of games Bethesda is known for - if it's deemed profitable for both parties, of course they'll do more.

i thought it was generally accepted (particularly here on the dex) that FO1 and FO2 had pretty fucking terrible and boring combat, partly because it's single-character+TB and severely lacking in tactical and strategic options. i don't know if it would've been better in RT, but at least it would've been faster

Did they? Posts on the internet don't tell an entire picture. Just look at the Steam stats and you'll see that thousands of people still play New Vegas at once every day and Fallout 3 doesn't even rank.

updating my decliners_list.txt

My point exactly. There is nothing particularly good to be said about the combat in fallout 1, if you ask me. That is not what fallout 1 does well. As I said, I think it would have been improved somewhat, if the same combat system was implemented as in arcanum, where you could either have pure turn-based combat, for TBC-junkies, or a hybrid, where you could change between the other at will.