Sykar
Arcane
Gore and critical descriptions.
As I said, got old for me really fast.
Gore and critical descriptions.
Which gimmicks? The death scenes? Get old fast. Really fast. What else? The "I punch once with my Sledgehammer and guy flies across the entire screen" gimmick? Annoying at best.
Well ok, but then you would agree when you have game 1 that offers lots of things to do with terrible combat and game 2 that offers only combat with average combat, one person might like game 1 more and complain about combat in game 2 more?SRR was build on less resources relatively speaking with primary focus on the editor. The campaign was a goodie, nothing else, and that's how most of the backers wanted it.
I've been playing a little F1 on Steam recently. The UI feels like part of the world, writing is compact and descriptive, combat is punchy, it's great! Inventory may not be the best, but this game isn't nearly as obsessed with trash items as a Bethesda game, so it's ok.
Well ok, but then you would agree when you have game 1 that offers lots of things to do with terrible combat and game 2 that offers only combat with average combat, one person might like game 1 more and complain about combat in game 2 more?SRR was build on less resources relatively speaking with primary focus on the editor. The campaign was a goodie, nothing else, and that's how most of the backers wanted it.
I've been playing a little F1 on Steam recently. The UI feels like part of the world, writing is compact and descriptive, combat is punchy, it's great! Inventory may not be the best, but this game isn't nearly as obsessed with trash items as a Bethesda game, so it's ok.
One of the main qualities of FO1 it is unbeatable elegance. Look at its skills. So simple, but so effective!
You don't know this game very well it seems.Most skills were outright useless or gimmicky (Traps, Big Guns, Stealth, Barter, Steal, etc.)
One of the main qualities of FO1 it is unbeatable elegance. Look at its skills. So simple, but so effective!
and the game ends... which was not a good decision but something made to shorten the development and push the game out.
One of the main qualities of FO1 it is unbeatable elegance. Look at its skills. So simple, but so effective!
Tim Cain stated that it was patched out because it was not popular and a lot of "fans" complained about it. Im sure it was a matter of debate in the team too.Tim Cain stated that the time limit for the water chip quest was controversial within the team from its inception all the way until they shipped and that's why they eventfully patched it out.
The Vault could die but that did not have to be the end of the game.And I like the urgency of knowing that if I don't hurry, my vault will die and my game is over.
No one is really arguing that Fallout 1 was mechanically superior to 2. I think most people could agree that Fallout 2 made the bad skills a little better and was slightly more balanced.More 'Fallout 2 is the better RPG' camp.
From earlier in this thread:No one is really arguing that Fallout 1 was mechanically superior to 2. I think most people could agree that Fallout 2 made the bad skills a little better and was slightly more balanced.More 'Fallout 2 is the better RPG' camp.
not a lot of innovation over and above the core FO. They didn't do anything to balance out the SPECIAL system.
Ok, you got me. One post in a 29 page thread says they didn't do anything to balance it.From earlier in this thread:No one is really arguing that Fallout 1 was mechanically superior to 2. I think most people could agree that Fallout 2 made the bad skills a little better and was slightly more balanced.More 'Fallout 2 is the better RPG' camp.not a lot of innovation over and above the core FO. They didn't do anything to balance out the SPECIAL system.
The character system also was described as 'elegant' just now.
Maybe everyone assumed they didn't change the underlying formulas (much) and therefore didn't bring it up. I sure did.Ok, you got me. One post in a 29 page thread says they didn't do anything to balance it.From earlier in this thread:No one is really arguing that Fallout 1 was mechanically superior to 2. I think most people could agree that Fallout 2 made the bad skills a little better and was slightly more balanced.More 'Fallout 2 is the better RPG' camp.not a lot of innovation over and above the core FO. They didn't do anything to balance out the SPECIAL system.
The character system also was described as 'elegant' just now.
You don't know this game very well it seems.Most skills were outright useless or gimmicky (Traps, Big Guns, Stealth, Barter, Steal, etc.)
Stealth and steal is a viable path for almost every quest.
big gunz are best gunz
wish i could do that to this thread
So, you were in all places except ancient technological dungeons?
This is sarcasm, right?
Fallout tards really need to stop spewing bullshit about their game, I mean this shit has been going on for close to two decades now.
Almost all skills in Fallout are completely useless (I've played everything except Military Base, Glow and Cathedral). Traps? None in the game, you will find a couple in the hub which don't even damage you when you set them off, and it's used in the glow. Repair? Useless except for once at Necropolis. Science? Again useless except I think to talk to the farmer in Shady Sands.
The novelty has worn off for me and it just became a standard thing that I find sorely missing in other cRPGs.Gore and critical descriptions.
As I said, got old for me really fast.
Which gimmicks? The death scenes? Get old fast. Really fast. What else? The "I punch once with my Sledgehammer and guy flies across the entire screen" gimmick? Annoying at best.
Still haven't for me and I finished it more than 7 times.
For all the times i played both, i never knew that CHA doesn't influence speech checks, only serve as a multiplier. Always put my diplo char 8-9 zone, but now you tell me it was kinda uselessly spent points? Can i effectively convince Master to off himself with CHA 1?Hmm, I've been taking a look at the formulas behind skills and I never realized how much improvements Fallout 2 makes to them. In Fallout 1, the effect that attributes had on your skills was practically non-existent, in Fallout 2 they've been beefed up significantly.
Compare:
Small Guns:
5 + 4 * AG [Fallout 2]
35 + AG [Fallout 1]
Speech:
5 * CH [Fallout 2]
25 + 2 * CH [Fallout 1]
Well, investing in charisma in the first Fallout is useless in of itself, so even if it had a greater effect on the skill, it probably would've still been worthless. In Fallout 2 it has an actual effect, letting you have more companions, and has a greater effect on Speech (and Barter) to boot.For all the times i played both, i never knew that CHA doesn't influence speech checks, only serve as a multiplier. Always put my diplo char 8-9 zone, but now you tell me it was kinda uselessly spent points?Hmm, I've been taking a look at the formulas behind skills and I never realized how much improvements Fallout 2 makes to them. In Fallout 1, the effect that attributes had on your skills was practically non-existent, in Fallout 2 they've been beefed up significantly.
Compare:
Small Guns:
5 + 4 * AG [Fallout 2]
35 + AG [Fallout 1]
Speech:
5 * CH [Fallout 2]
25 + 2 * CH [Fallout 1]
Are there not actual checks that look for CHA? How bout INT? I also believed that some of the dialogues only appear within certain threshold of INT. Or is it also only a multiplier for some skills and number of skill points per level?