A review is a subjective thing, Yahtzee is an amusingly angry man but that doesn't make him the voice of God. The fact that your opinions of something coincide does not make either of you 'right'.Ragdrazi post=9.74419.860357 said:No. Yahtzee is right.
Think I'll go with a goody-two-shoes specializing in small guns, speech and repair. Not sure how the stat system is going to work this time around but my favourite/easiest build in the originals was strength of 5, agility 9 and the rest varying from 6-8. With the gifted and finesse traits.waffletaco said:What kind of characters are you guys going to make?
This game, I have yet to encounter.Ragdrazi post=9.74419.849801 said:I don't want to play a game that I can win just by virtue of turning it on and playing it.
You can let them die and continue on, if that's anything.JMeganSnow said:This game, I have yet to encounter.Ragdrazi post=9.74419.849801 said:I don't want to play a game that I can win just by virtue of turning it on and playing it.
The thing that soured me on Fallout and Fallout II was the fact that EVERY fight was this long-drawn-out miserable resource-chewing grind. Sometimes I'd luck out and my character would get reasonable gear early on . . . and sometimes I wouldn't. It didn't help in 2 that by the time I actually got to the point where I was feeling semi-proficient, I started getting "you're running out of time!!!!!!!!" messages. I was like, what the hell? I've only seen three cities already and you're telling me I'm taking too long?! Screw that, I don't need deadline pressure out of a video game.
Jumplion post=9.74419.835752 said:True, but Fallout's 'BFG' shoots fucking nukes. NUKES! Bite size nukes, but nontheless, NUKES!Indigo_Dingo post=9.74419.835745 said:Yeah, the Peace Makers 2nd modification - the Super Nova.Jumplion post=9.74419.835633 said:I don't recall that...Indigo_Dingo post=9.74419.835624 said:Didn't Jak 3 have that too?CrafterMan post=9.74419.833084 said:Fallout 3 has a portable nuke launcher.
With that in mind I pre-ordered this game in a second.
There's a BFG9000 sort of weapon in every game nowadays.
I didn't know what the time limit was, so it was pretty frustrating. I agree about Arcanum being buggy and unbalanced, but I enjoyed the steampunk/magic thing quite a lot, and the world was definitely unusual and well-done.Log Dropper M.D. said:Fallout 2 has a 13 year time limit, which is plenty of time to do everything in the game and then finish the final quest. It just sends you those messages so you still keep the main goal in mind. I played Arcanum and liked it a lot, but it had an even worse interface than Fallout and was much more buggy as well. Not to mention that the skill set was extremely easy to exploit, my character was an unstoppable force 1/3 of the way through the game.
I played Arcanum, it was quite good. I still favor Fallout, however.JMeganSnow said:P.S. Has anyone that played the original games played Arcanum or Lionheart? Both games were made on a similar *plan* to Fallout (although Lionheart was a flop). What did you think of *those* games? I actually preferred Arcanum to Fallout, but it may not have helped that I played it first. Nostalgia games can be a letdown if you've already played a more modern version.
If you want to get technical. "Oblivion with guns! And a fallout fanservice!(Which we know your going to all buy it because its fallout!)Ragdrazi post=9.74419.863837 said:No. I'm not that shallow. I'm taking the phrase "Oblivion with guns" from the Swedish review of Fallout 3, and from the what I've seen in the previews. I had thought that was understood. Apparently it wasn't.JayCro post=9.74419.861391 said:People are only calling Fallout 3 "Oblivion with guns" because it is developed by Bethesda-the same company that made Oblivion.
There is no difficultly curb besides carrying limit, Quests with only one way to beat it. You can't win the game by killing everybody. No stupid path. Need I say more?Ragdrazi said:Well, don't just say it. Tell me why. How.Bulletinmybrain said:Bethesda just took a piss on the fallout name.
In fallout 1 and 2 you could forgo intelligence and your character coudn't talk. And then you could still win the game though.(It added more incentive for replayability.) And yeah. Your intelligence could be 1 in this game and the only thing you would miss out on is perks.(Eh. Skill points to.)Ragdrazi said:What's no stupid path mean?
Well story-wise, hard to say. I haven't gone through the main quest line very much, so I can't really compare it to the other games. Yes I did play the first two. I do enjoy the VATS like in the previous games.(though not having to account walking in AP really helps out) I do wish my speech skill would come up more often. It would've been nice to have speech abilities in a non-quest connotations; I would've liked to extort doctors for discounted/free radiation healing. I suppose it does help for quests though. It does not help against regulators who are on a shoot-to-kill basis unfortunately. Sometimes, I do feel like I'm being punished for not being very proficient with guns. I didn't really have that feeling in the other fallouts.Ragdrazi said:Well, that's the first encouraging thing I've read about this. Did you ever play the first two? How's it stacking up?waffletaco said:Maybe I'm just being too inefficient with my guns,(almost no real skill in any gun skill) but I'm almost running on the bare minimum. I just used the last of my rockets on those damn regulators. (1 rocket for 3 guys down to 25% health is good though I guess). I'm actually having a hard time with money and ammo and stimpaks. I love that in a game.