4861

Brainwashed, fanboy lackey obviously.

4862

No, I’m pretty sure he’s just been paid off like all the gaming media.

EDIT:YES EFG, I’M BEING SARCASTIC, AS WAS GRIFMAN!

4863

Can we please wait until the game is before we start calling out journalists for giving a hotly anticipated game good reviews?

(Grifman’s post smacked of sarcasm but Sarkus post… well, if he’s joking that’s some damn dry humor)

4864

You mean Sarkus humor. I hope. Because I did not get paid. :(

4865

Grifman was obvious, you were very dry. This is the internet, that sort of shit is quite common, and I don’t know you well enough to assume you are joking.

4866

You are the most combative person on the internet…well of most recent memory in our little corner of the internet.

Does that satisfy your needs a little bit?

4867

Since I was the one who pointed out the GT review to which Grifman was referring, and since I didn’t fill that post with any kind of attack on said GT position, I thought it was pretty clear. And it’s not like I haven’t been posting in this thread since day one and pretty consistently been talking positively about FO3.

And while you may not know me well enough to assume I’m joking, you don’t seem to have a problem assuming I’m not joking despite the context and evidence.

4868

Fallout Tactics Spoiler Ahead !!!

I can’t remember which of the three endings I got (I did finish the game just after it was released and haven’t played it since.), but what I didn’t enjoy was the final vault being home to all the scientists who ended up inbreeding so much that they turned into drooling cretins. Most of the rest of the game was pretty dark, and then they end off with something goofy like that. It was just a little bit jarring and typical Fallout trying to be funny.

4869

Considering that both Bethesda and NMA/Self-proclaimed “Keepers of the True Fallout Flame” don’t consider FO:T canon, I don’t know how much the ending really matters.

4870

Can’t remember the exact details now, but the endings I recall are:

  1. You reject the AI’s offer to join with it, and destroy it instead

  2. You join with the AI and your karma is low. Your body dies, and your combined consciousness rules the wasteland with an iron fist.

  3. You join with the AI and your karma is high. Your body dies, and your combined consciousness helps the BOS rebuild civilisation.

Sounds like you got the first one, maybe.

4871

If that’s directed at me, I’m not sure how my post re: called shots could be considered ‘foaming’. I find the idea somewhat silly, but it’s not like I want to shit on the developers’ doorstep over it.

4872

Thanks, you’ve jogged my memory. I got the second one. I still remember being a bit perplexed at the outcome.

4873

There was a bug in the final mission. If you use explosives to destroy the brains in the vats, the game counts that as evil – even though the mission requires you to kill the brains IIRC. You have to do it with guns, or some other long-winded way if you want the “good” ending.

4874

Shot for the heads up. I’ve been wanting to play through it again. Also, you might want to add some spoiler tags on the endings in case some people pick the game up after reading this thread.

4875

I replayed Fallout 1 and 2 recently to prepare for Fallout 3. I had an exceptionally long post typed up but I’ll try to make it brief.

The first Fallout is surprisingly sparse when it comes to dialogue trees. It focuses on more meaningful decisions rather than flavor text for your character. It also has a compelling and realistic motivation for your character, water. I also found the turn based combat very engaging. On a modern machine, the wait between turns is minimal. I did experience some dumb AI, but personally, that added to the atmosphere. It makes combat feel messy and chaotic. Also, the mapping/area system is well implemented. It really feels like you are in a wasteland and gives the game a slightly depressing feeling if you continue to check out formerly populated areas only to find that the destruction makes everything looks the same. I also liked the fact that it’s not immediately clear where the game is taking place when you start it for the first time.

Fallout 2’s mechanics improved greatly on the original, with the exception of its wasteland. Everything is relatively close together for story reasons, so there’s less exploration. Fallout 2 improved the barter system by reducing the amount of cash quite a bit (at least for the early to mid game), while making items abundant. This felt much more like real bartering. Fallout 2’s overhaul of the skill system and added perks really let characters define themselves, while encouraging players to diversify their skills with the increased skill point costs above 100, 130, and so on. The NPC AI is also much better, as is the using the NPCs as packs, and altering their equipment.

I do have to say I came out with a fondness for the turn based gameplay. There’s nothing like knocking a guy down with a shot to the groin and my NPC companion going around and stabbing them to death afterward. Turn based combat can give you a cinematic appreciation for the combat, where real time is more about immersing you in the experience. However, Fallout 2 really jumped the shark when it came to pacing the game and the story. It started out with a neat concept–comparing emerging and competing societies–but instead ended up being mostly a farce. Still, some of the dialogue (but not all by any means) is expertly written.

I did not like the fact that by the end of both games, you’re basically forced into Power Armor and high tech guns. Fallout one was a bit better about this that Fallout 2, but it’s still annoying. I also didn’t like the fact there was so much combat in Fallout 2. The original Fallout could be played more like an adventure\rpg rather than Fallout 2. Fallout 2 is much more focused on combat, but it did have a good share of alternate outcomes as well.

I’ll be happy with Fallout 3 if they keep the tone of Fallout 1 (a focus on meaningful actions and compelling motivations), while maintaining solid gameplay systems (bartering, skills, companions, etc) of Fallout 2. Yes, I’m aware FO3 isn’t turn based, but I mean more in the quality of execution.

Wow, that still ended up being long.

4876

You aren’t forced into anything.
Technically, yes, if you planned on surviving more than halfway through the game, you needed the power armor, but, what? you were thinking you could go up against other guys in power armor in your biker leathers?

I used the sniper rifle and that custom 1-shot pistol you get from that one guy for doing a quest for him. ( Henry’s? pistol or something like that)

Start combat, Sniper rifle to knee, crit, leg blown off enemy 1, down in a pool of his own blood.
Round 2, Sniper rifle to knee, enemy 2 down, and unable to attack.
Round 3, enemy 3 close enough to melee, switch to pistol, aimed shot to eyes, crit, head blown off, Dogmeat chews on enemy 2.

Pushing small weapons skill past 130 or 150 whatever it was, made these 2 weapons " Godlike", didn’t matter what you were up against, or even how outnumbered you were, I had to reload a saved gamer due to death less than 5% of the time.( and I’d go out of the way to get into combat to try to get tons of ammo)

4877

That’s like saying Super Mario Brothers doesn’t force the player to jump. It’s necessary for players to complete the game, at least it felt that way while playing.

I didn’t have as much luck small pistols as you did, but glad that worked out for you.

4878

Definitely not the case in Fallout 3. Small arms are possibly better than energy weapons, at least unless you get a certain special encounter item.

John Sansker is right though- you could definitely do more than fine with just small guns, sniping for the eyes, in Fallout 1/2. But I agree that Power Armor was more vital and almost everyone will eventually adopt it.

4879

Small Guns were better than Energy Weapons in Fallout 2 as well.

4880

Red Ryder SE all the way!

Edit:
Well, Mordrak, now that you like Fallout 1 & 2, I’d like you to play Fallout 3 and tell us in comparison to those how it measures up.