15 ms·

You really should try. They're clunky and old, but they are great stories with engaging narratives, interesting characters, and ambiance aplenty. Which is reall

• mstade 10y ago
  Another thing the old games has that Bethesda forgot about: replay value. I still play FO1 and FO2 every now and then, and still find things and side quests I never knew existed. And they are interesting – not just randomly generated "there are ghouls that are bothering me over there, plx 2 go and kill them kthnxbye" grinding crap. I've just finished Fallout 4 and can't for the life of me be bothered to play it again. I had fun, it's not a bad game, and I don't mind the price of admission, but just like Fallout 3 it'll end up in a box somewhere and I'll never care for it again. Not so with FO1 and FO2 (my favorite being FO2) – I dread the day I can't play them anymore because they are too old. Also, pro-tip: http://user.tninet.se/~jyg699a/fallout2.html http://user.tninet.se/~jyg699a/fallout2.html That guide has everything, it's awesome.
  • Brakenshire 10y ago
    Are there any modern games that fall into the same category, do you think?
    • Fyorl 10y ago
      You could try Pillars of Eternity. Also, Fallout 3: New Vegas was done by Obsidian, not Bethesda, and Obsidian has many of the same staff that worked on the original Fallouts 1 and 2.
      • PetrolMan 10y ago
        Pillars of Eternity is really fantastic. I dropped more hours than I'm willing to admit on that game and I might pick it up again when I have some more free time. I'm also really looking forward to playing Tyranny.
    • jerf 10y ago
      Fallout is itself a spiritual successor to a game called Wasteland, which is old enough to have been released on the Commodore 64. The people who made Fallout couldn't get the rights to Wasteland so they made Fallout. Well, now they have the rights, and you can pick up Wasteland 2 now: http://store.steampowered.com/app/240760/ http://store.steampowered.com/app/240760/ Currently on sale 60% off, though I'll say I've seen it on sale quite a bit. I'm sure it'll be on sale Christmas again.
      • coredog64 10y ago
        I cut my teeth on the original Wasteland (on an Apple 2) and am working my way through WL2 (haven't yet got to CA). Wasteland 2 is good but buggy. There were some balance issues with the original and even though they went back and made a director's cut it's still not great. I'm most annoyed by the way that certain factions are hostile depending on where you are on the map (e.g. not based on actions).
        • thisone 10y ago
          You're just missing the Red Boots DLC. Makes everything perfect. Warts and all I really enjoyed wasteland 2
        • jerf 10y ago
          I was disappointed my initial "balanced" party was very difficult to fight with, and I had to go back and remake a party where everyone uses assault rifles (and one sniper) and a backup melee weapon. I don't mind realism (in which that is the only sensible build for what our characters are doing, there is a reason real militaries carry around so many assault rifles), and I don't mind artificially balancing things out so that all weapons are equally valid or situationally useful, but don't tell me you did one on the hint screen, then do the other.
      • gcatlin 10y ago
        A funding campaign for Wasteland 3 recently completed successfully! https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland-3 https://www.fig.co/campaigns/wasteland-3
    • Chathamization 10y ago
      Age of Decadence and UnderRail are two modern games that were pretty heavily influenced by Fallout. AoD in particular has a lot of content that you won't see in a single playthrough.
      • eropple 10y ago
        UnderRail seems like it should be so, so cool, but the interface is rough and nothing quite feels right. I was pretty disappointed.
    • mattchew 10y ago
      Underrail. Shadowrun Dragonfall is reasonably close. From one angle, Fallout New Vegas.
  • madshiva 10y ago
    It's exactly what I'm trying to say to people that like fallout3/4 but don't know nothing about the FO1 and FO2. Thumb up! I still play both of them too! and I will give a try to this 1.5 :) this made my day.
  • mattmanser 10y ago
    FO3 + NV have massive replayability, especially when combined with mods. People played those games over and over again, role playing totally different characters. Your gut-feeling about Bethesda games lacking replay value is at odds with objective stats. Skyrim is even still in the top 10 played games today on Steam 5 years after release (and was a stubborn fixture in the top 10 even before the remaster)[1]. Fallout 3 + NV stayed there for years. Admittedly, FO4 dropped out quicker than usual, but a lot of people blame the constricting nature of a voiced protagonist. FO4 is nevertheless still in the top 20 for most players today a year after release. So their games have definitely got replay value, they really get replay value. Their worlds are full of unique locations. I do admit they got something a bit wrong with FO4, but I think even they must realise that at this point given the player feedback. [1] http://store.steampowered.com/stats/ http://store.steampowered.com/stats/
    • drspacemonkey 10y ago
      To be fair, I'm positive that Skyrim's top 10 spot is due to mods. The modding community has done some crazy impressive stuff, up to and including complete gameplay overhauls.
      • mattmanser 10y ago
        Doesn't invalidate the point that Bethesda know how to make a game replayable, even if the answer is make it moddable.
        • drspacemonkey 10y ago
          Fair point. Far too few developers understand the value of an engaged, active community extending their game.
    • Thimothy 10y ago
      I wonder if the next Bethesda games will ever see such success after The Witcher 3. That game is so high above Fallout 4, in terms of quests, characters, and anything you could think about, that I seriously doubt Bethesda is capable of producing something that could even be compared.
  • pvdebbe 10y ago
    Bethesda sure fucked something up with Fallout 4, but let's not go there. Instead I thank you for encouraging to get back to the 1 & 2. I've bought the games off of GoG -- in several occasions mind you -- but never really got into them. Each generation of games is made easier and now it shows when you're supposed to get into the good ones. :( But I think I'll surrender myself to the spoilers and get Fo2 going.
  • heroprotagonist 10y ago
    I agree with the point about the grindy nature of Fallout 4. They seemed to think I would get excited to run through randomly generated side quests from unnamed NPCs that they couldn't even be bothered to create unique dialogue for. Then they put in a little sting of failing some of these side quests if you don't play by their rules and jump on them before an undisclosed amount of time elapses. At that point, if you want go back to avoid the quest failure you need to revert to earlier save and lose some of your progress.
• eponeponepon 10y ago
  > You really should try. I know, I know! I really have tried, but apparently I have to adult more than I used to these days :( I'm fully expecting it to be worth it when I get there - I missed Planescape at the time for much the same reasons, and ever since I finally played it about 10 years back (was unemployed for a while! :) ) I've been happily calling it the greatest game ever. Good to know that Nuka-World delivers though - I've been saving it for the christmas break. As far as "mediocre base - great DLC" goes, I'd guess it's a result of the modern DLC culture - where it used to be that if a game sold well enough there'd be a mission disk later down the line, most studios are already hard at work on the DLCs before the base game is even released, so the DLC teams (in as much as they're separate from the main team) get all the lessons, bug reports and player reaction from the trunk development, and longer deadlines to boot. Oblivion and Skyrim's expansions definitely reaped some benefit that way, imho - Shivering Isles in particular was an absolute masterpiece, for my money.
  • facorreia 10y ago
    I definitely agree with you. Planescape: Torment is the best game I ever played. A superb, engaging work of art.
    • RealityVoid 10y ago
      I am very glad I found a reference to Planescape here. I'm relatively "young" to have played P:T, I played it when it was already an old game, but the story really stuck with me. The best story I've ever seen in a video game.
  • pnutjam 10y ago
    The nice thing about the original Fallouts, they are turn based and low requirements. Slap them in a VM and you can just pause the whole machine instead of worrying about save points and such nonsense. I beat Prince of Persia way, years ago. I did start to sweat when I realized the whole game had a time that doesn't show up until the end. Save state and pause state made me less worried about doing things quickly...
• Chathamization 10y ago
  They're not really clunky, though. The two are pretty different as well. I enjoyed the first one a lot, but couldn't finish the second (weak writing, too many pop culture references, some poorly designed areas, etc.).
  • the_af 10y ago
    The original Fallout is the best, but second one is pretty good too, even though it indeed suffers from too many pop culture references. Also, too many glitches and broken quests. But when it worked, it worked -- I still prefer its opening intro to the original Fallout's. It was grim and sad. For me -- who to my eternal shame wasn't aware of Wasteland, its spiritual parent -- Fallout was the first truly great RPG, a wonderful post-apocalyptic game in a world of Tolkien-wannabe copycats. No Elves, Orcs or magic -- mutants, ghouls and radiation instead!
    • SerLava 10y ago
      > Also, too many glitches and broken quests. I have been playing Fallout 2 Restoration project, and it is amazing. Tons of cut content restored, bugs fixed, and the random encounters often include little huts and farms to pick through. Just don't add the extra talking head during installation. The modders had to do their own voice acting and it is sadly not good.
  • Bartweiss 10y ago
    I think for some people, "clunky" means "Temple of Trials". It's still infamous as a horrible failure of game design, and puts a significant number of people off the game without ever seeing the part where diverse builds are actually viable. It's a bit liking firing up the original XCOM - it might be perfectly good, but the very beginning is so bizarrely hostile and underexplained that a modern player would never know.
    • SerLava 10y ago
      Yeah the best advice there is to run away from everything. It seems to me that the developers wanted to push players towards role playing a tribal who molds themselves to the wasteland. They wanted to discourage people from rolling a charming doctorate student with a Gatling laser. I still think it's bad game design. It does make it less fun.
• Baeocystin 10y ago
  It actually is pretty common (look how much better Mass Effect 3 is with The Citadel & Leviathan DLC, or Dragon Age Inquisition with the Trespasser DLC, or Deus Ex: Human Revolution with The Missing Link, for example) but it isn't a for any nefarious reason. For the most part, it's just the plain fact that DLC is made at the end of the cycle, after all the creative people working on it have had the most time to get the feel for the worlds they create. And this experience translates in to better worldbuilding.
• khedoros1 10y ago
  > Is this typical of games these days? Do a crappy "main" game but "fix it" with DLCs? Or is it just Bethesda and possibly even just Fallout? That reminds me of Neverwinter Nights. The main game's quest was straightforward and unimaginative, but a lot of the community-built quests and the expansions were great. Of course, this was BioWare and close to 15 years ago, so it certainly isn't just Bethesda, and it's also not just "games these days".
  • deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
• trobertson 10y ago
  > Is this typical of games these days? Do a crappy "main" game but "fix it" with DLCs? A lot of AAA devs have started using games as a platform for DLC. Valve, for example, just launched glove skins [0] - 300 USD for a texture. DLC is far more profitable than games, nowadays. As for Bethesda, long-time fans have a general understanding that Bethesda games get worse with each iteration. Their DLCs are usually better than the main games, but not by much. [0]: https://steamcommunity.com/market/search?q=&category_730_ItemSet%5B%5D=any&category_730_ProPlayer%5B%5D=any&category_730_StickerCapsule%5B%5D=any&category_730_TournamentTeam%5B%5D=any&category_730_Weapon%5B%5D=any&category_730_Type%5B%5D=tag_Type_Hands&appid=730 https://steamcommunity.com/market/search?q=&category_730_Ite...
  • ohyoutravel 10y ago
    Maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I clicked on that link. What exactly is going on there? It looks like people are paying hundreds of dollars for a different skins for the gloves for their characters? Is that USD or some sort of in-universe currency?
    • trobertson 10y ago
      You have fully understood the absurdity. People are paying hundreds of real life USD for a new texture for their gloves.
      • Retra 10y ago
        How is that really any more absurd than say... buying a boat? Or cigarettes? Or the game itself?
    • kbenson 10y ago
      It's a free market for special item "drops" that you get in game, that have specific drop rates (rare items end up being worth something to collectors). It's no different than people paying for Diablo inventory back in the day, except that a) Valve controls it all so they get a cut of the market, and b) they are purely cosmetic, so people can't pay to be better, breaking the game mechanics. It actually has very little to do with the question at hand because the wow factor in this case, the price, is user defined, and also doesn't really affect gameplay at all (AFAIK).
• carc1n0gen 10y ago
  I for one thought the main quest, and the base game in general to be great. Didn't enjoy nuka-world very much, but really liked far harbor.