Is it Superior to New Vegas?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_cultural_references
fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_cultural_references
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

In terms of Narrative, Themes, and Atmosphere Fallout 1 is the best

yes, becuase its an actual crpg. no shooting and jumping bullshit

by what measure?
to me it's worse because it's a pain to actually play it

it had an important influence on vidya and its story was interesting, but it aged badly and you faggots should stop wearing your nostalgia goggles.

Is not even a question...without even considering theme, story and ambient, the game have the advantage of not being a sub-project that tried to do the best with a bad engine...giving the conditions new vegas not being utter shit by itself is a giant win already

That's not a point in its favor.
>crpg gameplay

yes.
I hate that Fallout is now a FPS game. I love the tactical gameplay of F1 and F2 and I wish RPGs would return to isometric view again.

just because its top down doesnt make it tacticool.

even though the originals had great story and atmosphere, fallout would be a dead series if it didnt jump to fps/rpg. you and the 10 other people who still play this dead genre can fuck off for good please?

It's good but there are some bad design choices here and there, like dialog options that are placed first that initiate combat.

and that room full of hostiles in the hub that nobody warns you about.

and the timed quests.

I hate fallout because it isn't a fps...it's like they tried to change it but gave up half-way so it still have a lot of rpg elements tackled on...

But I would love a new fallout rpg too, is just that the new games could never be one

It's the best game in the series.

Coming from someone who recently played the games, I loved the first two Fallout games. I admit it takes a very patient person to sit through the shitty combat but the writing is was a surprising delightful treat that kept the experience engaging, the dialogue is crisp and the voice acting feels natural, interesting worldbuilding and has one of the best villians in gaming ever. TL DR the game has great writing unlike those hacks at Bioware.

>fallout would be a dead series
So, nothing changes?

Divinity series is still very popular and plays almost identical to old fallouts.

this

The combat is Fallout is bad, I love F1 and 2, but the combat drags them down immensely. It wouldn't be so bad if not for the fact that it's unbearably slow. Any fight inside a town is nightmarish because you have to sit there as ten NPCs take up their turn one after another just to move two spaces.

Max out game speed faggot

I'd rather the turn based combat of F1/2 than the abomination that was 3 with it's 100 meter sniper range and disappearing minigun bullets. I guess it was made bareable in NV, and in 4 it actually turned somewhat fun but point still stands

>full of archaic features like the shitty inventory, poorly thought out combat mechanics, and long animation speed
>isn't completely fucking broken and requires outside mods to fix

It's a tough call.

Those are both independent endings. At least try thinking before trying to spin things in your favor.

It's alright, but it often feels like you have to roll with a specific build otherwise you're setting yourself up failure. 2/3 of all skills are fucking worthless most of the time, most perks aren't even worth considering, and CHR is still a dump stat.

It's still too slow when you do that.

I'm not saying the combat of the recent ones is good either, I'm just saying that there's plenty of things F1 and 2 do that are worthy of praise and are done much better than stuff in the recent games, so to pick out the combat of all things to praise F1 and 2 for is strange.

Am i the only one that actually prefers the classics combat to the newer titles? They offer more tactics, especially in VATS. I feel like the people who always cry about the turnspeed never once openend the game options since there is a option to increase game speed.

>capitalizing the first letter of themes for no reason
Number one brainlet giveaway

>tactical gameplay
Retard

What tactics do you even think you an you use in fallout

>theme
>narrative
Elaborate

Fallout 1 only has a couple of things over 2 and NV. It has the best villain, and it has the most world consistency which I guess some people care a lot about.

stay alive thread

It's superior to every other entry in the series. As soon as they added real weapon names and memes in 2, the series took a fucking nosedive and never recovered.

>What tactics do you even think you an you use in fallout
What.

If you mean what tactics i mean, well i already mentioned VATS. Compared to the 3D games, you can do more than just headshot somebody or cripple limbs. You can blind them if you target their eyes,knock them out by targetting the groin, stop enemies from attacking with two-handed weapons by crippling a single arm or disarm them completely tho you can do that in the newer ones too. You also have to make good use of your action points per turn, while in the 3D ones you just have to shoot at enemies till they die and can heal whenever you want and how many times you want with no cooldown what so ever.

>You also have to make good use of your action points per turn,

>shoot twice, end turn
>shoot twice, end turn
>move away, reload

Please fuck off and stop sucking Back Isle's dick, the combat in Fallout has always been its weakest point.

>shoot twice, end turn
>shoot twice, end turn
>move away, reload
Ever tried turning the combat and game difficulty up? Oh right, you probably never even played the game longer than 2 hours but loves to complain about them.

>Please fuck off and stop sucking Back Isle's dick, the combat in Fallout has always been its weakest point.
What are you even doing in this thread? Maybe you should think about killing yourself instead.

I meant to imply that there are no tactics you can use in that game. Standing there and shooting them in the eyes is always the best option.

>just because its top down doesnt make it tacticool.
It's more tactical than the reboots. You at least have to weigh your odds between targeting body parts and manage your action point pool. There's no reason to ever do anything other than headshots in Beth's Fallouts.

Only if you want to constantly miss.

I'm not him but Fallout follows the theme "War never changes" quite a bit. You have factions competing one another for land, groups hoarding and developing new technology, and the supposed enemy. The Master didn't wish for the inevitable end to repeat itself, and it refrained from using the nuclear weaponry that killed off the previous civilization. Its attempt at rebuilding was immoral, but reasonable considering the harsh environments America exhibited.

In my opinion, Bethesda Fallouts felt off to me after they abused "muh nukes" and slapped in super weaponry with literally every faction. It avoids the theme of "Post-Post Apocalyptic", as Josh Sawyer put it. Civilizations are rebuilding, and governments/factions were beginning to repeat what previously destroyed their world.

>themes
What even are the themes of F1? My best guess would be that it's about holding onto your humanity in a monstrous world - the master's plan is to literally turn people into monsters so that they can survive the post apocalypse. Then there's also the idea of war being a natural part of human nature (war never changes), which the master wants to erase through unity. Then in the end you are deemed to have lost your humanity after being corrupted by the outside world, and exiled. In the end the master fails because the super mutants are infertile - sexuality is an essential part of humanity, so is the game saying that holding onto our flawed humanity is what allows us to survive? But in the end the protagonist is kicked out of the vault no matter what they do because they’ve lost their humanity after being corrupted by the outside, so what’s the actual message of the game? Most of the game isn’t really focused on these ideas either – are each of the areas you visit supposed to tell some story about humanity?
NV is about rebuilding the new world in the image of the old, and you basically have to choose how the world should be rebuilt by picking a side in the war. That’s much more original when it comes to post apocalypse stories, and it’s more focused because everywhere is affected by the conflict. I also liked how the game treats every option as equally valid, instead of in F1 where the master is objectively wrong and there’s no thinking to do after that. Because each option is valid, to choose one option you have to be ideologically opposed to the other choices, and therefore actually have to engage with the ideas of the game a lot more. In F1 you’re more led down the story that the writers wanted to tell you


Did we even play the same game? You just have to shoot the head/eyes as much as you can, then kite back. There are no tactics

In end-game sure, but if you try that at the beginning you will miss most of the time and the only way to sucessfully hit somebody is by moving as close to their face as possible, which also gives them a better chance to kill you.

No, but 2 is.

Why?

I remember in F2 I had to kill the entire slaver guild because I lost those radio parts you were supposed to give to the guy they captured there (or something, I don't remember), and the way I did it was just aggroing them, running around a corner and shooting them in the eyes with a sawed off as they turned the corner. Not exactly tacticool

New Vegas wins on the thematic fronts as well as being much better for player choice/agency.

Fallout is generally a much more polished and concise experience, not quite comparable to the sprawling open experience of New Vegas

2 and NV would be a more interesting and fair comparison.

2 improved on everything from 1. The only thing that could be argued is worse is the atmosphere, but everyone who calls 2 a meme game forgets that 1 had pop cultural references too (There's a fucking tardis in the desert). New vegas comes close to two, but ultimately the writing isn't quite as good. The combat is garbage in every fallout game.

Well if you play it like that then i guess it's no surprise. I'm not saying the games are completely "tacticool" or "the most tactical isometric rpgs", all i said is that they require more tactics then the modern fallouts and there's no denying that if you played them all.

>tfw your companions die no matter what in the Military Base or Cathedral

To add to this, I cut 1 some slack since it's the first game in the series, so it makes sense that they wanted to go the safe route. The later games build on the themes of 1 (depravity of humanity in the absence of law etc). Like in 2 they used the enclave's unmutated purity as an allegory for racial purity (and their champion is actually a mutie, so what does that tell you white man?)

>New vegas comes close to two, but ultimately the writing isn't quite as good
How?

>Well if you play it like that then i guess it's no surprise
What does this mean? Also it doesn't "require more tactics" because it requires zero thought.

Who else
>tried to start a campaign in Tactics three times only to quit over the slow-as-shit combat and clunkiness

overhere? Man I want to like that game but it does everything it can to make you hate it. People joke about missing in XCOM but you almost always will miss in Tactics because you don't get above 40% accuracy unless you are in front of some asshole.

yes but 2 is even better

I've never lasted more than 40 minutes in that game before uninstalling

Yes

>2 below 1

pop culture references brings it down a lot, the same goes for new vegas if you pick the Wild Wasteland trait

>wasteland best
>tactics in brainlet tier

The pop culture references barely bring 2 down. They can certainly go overboard at times, but they don't ruin the game by any means. What brings it down is the rushed, barebones endgame.

tactics belongs below brainlet tier

Is Wasteland unironically good? I might try it sometime.

There are tons of pop culture references in 1 as well.

>What does this mean? Also it doesn't "require more tactics" because it requires zero thought
I feel like you're just here to bait people, so this is going to be my last reply. If you play the game by tricking the ai into running around a corner so you can blast them away than its no surprise that you think that it requires zero thought to play the game(funnily enough tho that would classify as a tactic and you had to use your brain to figure this out). There alot of parts in 2 where you can't do something like that, like the wasteland encounters. Also are you actually implying that bethesda fallouts require just as much thought as the classic games? They don't and if they did i wouldn't see so many bethesdababbies complain about the difficulty in the older games.

Lol how is it bait to say that the ai is bad

fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_cultural_references
fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_cultural_references

People complain about the difficulty because of the broken special system and the interface

War never changes.

Still the best game in the series and probably my favorite game of all time.

The problem about pop culture references was that Fallout 2 wasnt subtle about it at all.

Tim Cain put it best. He had a rule for Fallou 1:

If you were going to include a pop culture reference and the player didnt 'get it' the player shouldnt know that reference was being made. Example: Some dev liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer and he wanted a reference in the game, hence the Slayer perk. If you never watched Buffy it woulnd matter because the reference makes sense in the context of the game.

Of course, Tim Cain retired from Fallout 2 development in the early stages, so the memesters left to finish it went overboard with it and didnt give a shit about the rule.

Fallout 2 is also more than twice as long as fallout 1.

still nowhere near the same ratio of references
no game should have 11 Star Wars references or 5 Monty Pythons

>You just have to shoot the head/eyes as much as you can, then kite back
And you'll be missing almost constantly until you're well on your way into the end game. Meanwhile, enemies will not be missing, and the original Fallout games are very lethal, if nothing else.

>Also it doesn't "require more tactics" because it requires zero thought.
You just described how you thought of a way to even the playing field between you and a large number of enemies. This situation would never come up in the new Fallouts because they are all easy as shit.

>This situation would never come up in the new Fallouts because they are all easy as shit.
What?

>run behind a wall to break los
>pop them in the head as they come out

So shoot them in the body until you've leveled enough. Basically no difference. And how does it take until endgame to get decent at small guns

Writing is slightly better than New Vegas, at least.

Neither is superior
If you prefer isometric turn based games, you should definitely play the earlier fallouts.
If you prefer first/third person shooter RPG's, NV is your game.

I couldn't believe it when I'd been hearing for years how good the writing in F1+2 was, then the first quest I ran into was that trash

>run behind a wall to break los
>pop them in the head as they come out
Things that are never ever necessary in the new Fallouts.

>enter fallout 1/2 thread
>entire thread is full of top-tier baits and people that never played the first two games at a higher difficulty

Everytime.

i wish people would stop falling for them. It's literally the same in every thread.

>So shoot them in the body until you've leveled enough
You could do that, you could also target limbs to slow melee enemies down or make them drop their weapons. Going straight for the eyes is a sure way to miss your shot.

Another tactic is to go for an easier shot on the groin, hoping they fall over, then target the eyes while they are lying on their back, as it's much easier.

These are all valid tactics that are encouraged by the game because it is lethal. If you can keep your enemy from being able to reach you or use their best weapon, this is a huge advantage. A single hit can crit and take a massive chunk out of your hitpoint pool. This isn't the case in new Fallouts. You simply pause the game, chug a fistful of your never ending supply of health potions, and continue shooting enemies in the head every single time.

This

Still better than F2
>t-they're not memes, i-it's pop-culture references
>COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

Storming the cathedral and the master's lair with some mercenaries from the Followers of the Apocalypse with the is the most kino thing I've ever experienced.

What? You can do it any FPS with a wall retard

By the time you can reliably hit people anywhere other than the body you can hit them in the head or eyes, and it'll always be the best option

>same preposition twice in the same relative clause
>"kino"
We have a dumbass over here

Who gives a shit? It isn't about what you can do, it's about what you need to do. You needed to do that to take out the slavers. If you'd have charged straight in, they would have eviscerated you. If you do it in any of Beth's Fallouts, you're just a pussy who inexplicably doesn't realize you're sitting on a mountain of instant heal potions.

Nope, you can have a 60 plus percent chance of a groin or limb shot straight out of the gate. Meanwhile, targeting the eyes or head will be low 20s or teens. Again, lethality is high, so taking the long shot is almost always not the best option.

Meanwhile, there is never, ever at any point in the entirety of any Bethesda Fallout game wherein you would even seriously consider the tactical value of not shooting something in the head.

>make a typo and use the word "kino" to describe an on-topic post
>grammar nazi shows up and tries to derail
I don't even know what to call you.

>It isn't about what you can do, it's about what you need to do.
Literall the opposite of what fallout is supposed to be holy shit

Actually, not if you're describing fallout 1. You have 3 objectives in fallout 1, and failing to do them will end game.

You're retarded. We're talking about tactics. Whatever singular quality you ascribe to the game is irrelevant. The original two Fallouts objectively demanded more from the player when in combat.

There is no point to playing the first two games on higher difficulties than normal, it just pushes you to min/max harder

Yes we're talking about tactics, not difficulty, and you have the effectively the same options in both games since both have vats. Only in both games vats is useless because there's always one obvious place you have to shoot

>Yes we're talking about tactics, not difficulty
I'm not talking about difficulty. I'm talking about lethality. Lethality doesn't mean a game is more difficult, but it absolutely means that mistakes are more costly. And by virtue of that, your decisions and how you manage the action economy of the game is that much more important.

>because there's always one obvious place you have to shoot
In Fallout 3? Sure. As has already been established, this is not the case in the first two games, your baseless insistence that the converse is true notwithstanding.

>by virtue of that, your decisions and how you manage the action economy of the game is that much more important.
Doesn't matter, the range of options you have is the same. In both games your stats affect your accuracy

>your baseless insistence that the converse is true notwithstanding.
Holy shit I'm actually talking to a real autist

Sup Forumsros, about to play New Vegas for the first time, any tips and starting stats you recommend?

>Fallout 4
>Enemies STILL have infinite ammo
>Enemies now have fat man launchers

Spend all 5 of your special points to intelligence for bonus skill points
Max speech and you get a free ride throughout a sizeable amount of quests, or increase quest rewards

>Enemies now have fat man launchers
What's the problem?