111 réponses à ce sujet

[Megaton_Hope]

I feel like the age is showing for the first two Fallout games.

[Chromie]

android654 wrote...
No love for Fallout 3?

None at all.

android654 wrote...
New Vegas is similar in it's playstyle, but does everything else so much better. I just happen to like D.C. more than the wasteland of Nevada. My only fear is that the original two would be too hardcore for me and would scare me off from finishing it. I'm going to check those out though.

 

I'm just waiting for the Steam Summer sale to pick up for like $10.

You could always try playing with the combat set to well a lower difficulty. It's really not bad you just have to read how the S.P.E.C.I.A.L system works in the two games since they change things up a bit.

Megaton_Hope wrote...

I feel like the age is showing for the first two Fallout games.

 

Well they are what 14 years old? It's still doesn't look bad once widescreen has been patched in and besides everyone should experience Fallout and 2 at least once.

Modifié par Skelter192, 17 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[slimgrin]

Fallout 3 is great, a step up from Oblivion in leveling mechanics. It has good humor and some very engaging side quests. Skelter will kill me, but I can't comment on the earlier games due to the turn-based combat.

I'd try expanding your criteria, Android, and include older games as well. You just aren't going to find what you're looking for otherwise.

Modifié par slimgrin, 17 juin 2012 - 05:42 .

[wizardryforever]

horacethegrey wrote...

Are you into comic books? You could always try the Marvel RPG's by Raven Software.

X-Men Legends
X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse
Marvel Ultimate Alliance

Yeah, those are good games, but they're more arcadey than most RPGs.  They've got a leveling system and loot, but not much in the way of interactivity with the story or character personalization.

Well, I thought I'd add Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura to the mix.  I don't know if you've played it.  Yeah, I know you said no fantasy, but this is not your typical fantasy.  It takes place in your typical fantasy world that is undergoing an industrial revolution, so you have Victorian era technology competing with the existing magick.  It's a cool concept, and the world is fairly well fleshed out.  The story flows beautifully, and really explores the setting.  The gameplay can be a little frustrating at times, and the graphics aren't too hot, but I think it's good enough to recommend regardless.

[Chromie]

wizardryforever wrote...

horacethegrey wrote...

Are you into comic books? You could always try the Marvel RPG's by Raven Software.

X-Men Legends
X-Men Legends II: Rise of Apocalypse
Marvel Ultimate Alliance

Yeah, those are good games, but they're more arcadey than most RPGs.  They've got a leveling system and loot, but not much in the way of interactivity with the story or character personalization.

Well, I thought I'd add Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura to the mix.  I don't know if you've played it.  Yeah, I know you said no fantasy, but this is not your typical fantasy.  

This game is awesome. It was developed by the guys from Fallout 1 and 2. 

Although it has magic it's considered steampunk.

Modifié par Skelter192, 17 juin 2012 - 06:42 .

[android654]

slimgrin wrote...

Fallout 3 is great, a step up from Oblivion in leveling mechanics. It has good humor and some very engaging side quests. Skelter will kill me, but I can't comment on the earlier games due to the turn-based combat.

I'd try expanding your criteria, Android, and include older games as well. You just aren't going to find what you're looking for otherwise.

I was being pretty broad already. Just wanted an RPG that doesn't have a medieval setting. It seems that 99.9% of all RPGs fall into medieval fantasy.

[Megaton_Hope]

Oh, Earthbound. Baseball bats and ESP, man.

[DarkDragon777]

slimgrin wrote...

Fallout 3 is great, a step up from Oblivion in leveling mechanics. It has good humor and some very engaging side quests. Skelter will kill me, but I can't comment on the earlier games due to the turn-based combat.

I'd try expanding your criteria, Android, and include older games as well. You just aren't going to find what you're looking for otherwise.

Something being "a step up from Oblivion" isn't saying much. Oblivion was pretty horrid.
The quests in Fallout 3 have potential but are pretty one-sided. I'm not really interested in humor, so I won't comment there....

[termokanden]

FO3 may not have been perfect, but it was sure better than Oblivion. It may indeed have a misleading title, but that won't keep me from enjoying it.

NV is still better though.

[android654]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Oh, Earthbound. Baseball bats and ESP, man.

That seems pretty ok, but where in the world would I find a Super Nintendo? I had no idea games were this stale in terms of variety. I'm a little surprised.

Modifié par android654, 17 juin 2012 - 10:37 .

[Nameless one7]

android654 wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Oh, Earthbound. Baseball bats and ESP, man.

That seems pretty ok, but where in the world would I find a Super Nintendo? I had no idea games were this stale in terms of variety. I'm a little surprised.

www.nintendorepairshop.com/products/79-Super-Nintendo-SNES-System/

This is where I got my super nintendo, and it works fine.

[wsandista]

termokanden wrote...

FO3 may not have been perfect, but it was sure better than Oblivion. It may indeed have a misleading title, but that won't keep me from enjoying it.

"Step up from Oblivion" is sort of like "Not as bad as DA2"

Not really the best compliment for a game.

NV is still better though.

Only because of Chris Avellone, still too close to a Bethesda sandbox for comfort though.

[M2S SOLID JOSH]

if u dont mind jrpg' then i highly recommend kingdom hearts series. its actually much more deeper and f***ed up then people give it credit for
edit- everything else i could recommend has been said.

Modifié par M2S SOLID JOSH, 18 juin 2012 - 12:13 .

[termokanden]

wsandista wrote...

"Step up from Oblivion" is sort of like "Not as bad as DA2"

Those were not my words, so I don't know why you're quoting me here.

I consider FO3 a good game. I realize that it was probably disappointing to some people, particularly fans of the two first ones, but I enjoyed it and think it gets a bit too much flak for not being Fallout 2.5. Oblivion on the other hand was a bitter disappointment to me.

Only because of Chris Avellone, still too close to a Bethesda sandbox for comfort though.

Hey, it's your business if you don't like that sandbox style. I love it when it's done right, and it is in New Vegas.

[wsandista]

termokanden wrote...

Those were not my words, so I don't know why you're quoting me here.

"FO3 may not have been perfect, but it was sure better than Oblivion"

That statement sounds similar to "Step up from Oblivion"

I consider FO3 a good game. I realize that it was probably disappointing to some people, particularly fans of the two first ones, but I enjoyed it and think it gets a bit too much flak for not being Fallout 2.5. Oblivion on the other hand was a bitter disappointment to me.

The flak is quite well deserved, just like DA2 gets flak for not being like DAO. If you market a game as a sequel and it is not extremely similar to it's predecessors, it will be hammered.

Hey, it's your business if you don't like that sandbox style. I love it when it's done right, and it is in New Vegas.

Why does every Bethesda game have to be a sandbox though? I like some, but I don't want every game I play to turn into a sandbox with action combat. Fallout(2) were some of the best games I've ever played. Very few recent games come close, and the new releases are looking bleak with a few gleaming exceptions(Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns). Fallout was not improved by the shift to sandbox.

[Chromie]

wsandista wrote...

Why does every Bethesda game have to be a sandbox though? I like some, but I don't want every game I play to turn into a sandbox with action combat. Fallout(2) were some of the best games I've ever played. Very few recent games come close, and the new releases are looking bleak with a few gleaming exceptions(Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns). Fallout was not improved by the shift to sandbox.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both sandbox rpgs. It was always a sandbox franchise Bethesda just clearly didn't understand what makes Fallout well Fallout. 

[wsandista]

Skelter192 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Why does every Bethesda game have to be a sandbox though? I like some, but I don't want every game I play to turn into a sandbox with action combat. Fallout(2) were some of the best games I've ever played. Very few recent games come close, and the new releases are looking bleak with a few gleaming exceptions(Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns). Fallout was not improved by the shift to sandbox.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both sandbox rpgs. It was always a sandbox franchise Bethesda just clearly didn't understand what makes Fallout well Fallout. 

Damn forgot to clarify Bethesda sandbox.
Original Fallout(and 2) were turn based, while 3 and NV use action combat. That is my main problem with the recent Fallout.

[Zanallen]

I've always been partial to Final Fantasy Tactics and the Disgaea series.

[wizardryforever]

wsandista wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Why does every Bethesda game have to be a sandbox though? I like some, but I don't want every game I play to turn into a sandbox with action combat. Fallout(2) were some of the best games I've ever played. Very few recent games come close, and the new releases are looking bleak with a few gleaming exceptions(Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns). Fallout was not improved by the shift to sandbox.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both sandbox rpgs. It was always a sandbox franchise Bethesda just clearly didn't understand what makes Fallout well Fallout. 

Damn forgot to clarify Bethesda sandbox.
Original Fallout(and 2) were turn based, while 3 and NV use action combat. That is my main problem with the recent Fallout.

Well F3 used VATS, which was meant to simulate turn based.  It does okay, and makes the game super easy if you take VATS related perks.  Haven't played NV, but I'd assume that it does the same.

[wsandista]

wizardryforever wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Skelter192 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Why does every Bethesda game have to be a sandbox though? I like some, but I don't want every game I play to turn into a sandbox with action combat. Fallout(2) were some of the best games I've ever played. Very few recent games come close, and the new releases are looking bleak with a few gleaming exceptions(Wasteland 2 and Shadowrun Returns). Fallout was not improved by the shift to sandbox.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both sandbox rpgs. It was always a sandbox franchise Bethesda just clearly didn't understand what makes Fallout well Fallout. 

Damn forgot to clarify Bethesda sandbox.
Original Fallout(and 2) were turn based, while 3 and NV use action combat. That is my main problem with the recent Fallout.

Well F3 used VATS, which was meant to simulate turn based.  It does okay, and makes the game super easy if you take VATS related perks.  Haven't played NV, but I'd assume that it does the same.

VATS is the one thing that made F3 even playable for me (NV has it as well). But it isn't really turn based, like you said it is a simulation. Bethesda turned Fallout into post-apocalyptic TES by making it first-person and removing turn-based. Fallout should be turn-based and use an isometric view, IMO. Fallout 3 was a major disappointment.

[Rockworm503]

So much hate for Oblivion. I loved it.
Also loved Fallout 3

[hangmans tree]

well, you must wait for Cyberpunk (cRPG) then. It will be out in 2014 I think

[Jozape]

wsandista wrote...

VATS is the one thing that made F3 even playable for me (NV has it as well).

VATS is a great idea that should be expanded on. It'd like it to not use action points and to work in real-time as well, so I
don't have to manually aim at enemies(but rather let my character do
it) and be on a more even playing field with the rest of the game's inhabitants. But the implentation in Fallout 3 was enough to convince me to
continue playing the game. Hope Bethesda brings it back in their next game.

Bethesda turned Fallout into post-apocalyptic TES by making it first-person

You can play in third-person for large portions of the game. I think it goes first person in dialog though.

and removing turn-based. Fallout should be turn-based and use an isometric view, IMO.

Fallout is not a turn-based RPG though. Combat situations are turn-based, but all else is real-time. That
matters because not all action is combat. True turn-based is Ultima 4/5/6, which would be fantastic. But if you're not too worried about clear positioning and timing(Fallout isn't known for strategically and tactically deep combat), real-time with pause works as well.

Fallout 3 was a major disappointment.

I don't think any Fallout fan can rationally consider Fallout 3 a disappointment.
Everyone should've known by Fallout 3's release how Bethesda builds their games and that they are not Interplay games. For
me, Fallout 3 was a big surprise and is still the only Bethesda game
I've enjoyed.

[Chromie]

So this is something I saw over at RPS. Underrail looks similar to Fallout.

[wsandista]

Jozape wrote...



VATS is a great idea that should be expanded on. It'd like it to not use action points and to work in real-time as well, so I
don't have to manually aim at enemies(but rather let my character do
it) and be on a more even playing field with the rest of the game's inhabitants. But the implentation in Fallout 3 was enough to convince me to
continue playing the game. Hope Bethesda brings it back in their next game.

I agree, they should have also implemented something similar for Skyrim.

You can play in third-person for large portions of the game. I think it goes first person in dialog though.

No isometric view though.

Fallout is not a turn-based RPG though. Combat situations are turn-based, but all else is real-time. That
matters because not all action is combat. True turn-based is Ultima 4/5/6, which would be fantastic. But if you're not too worried about clear positioning and timing(Fallout isn't known for strategically and tactically deep combat), real-time with pause works as well.

RTw/P does work quite well yes, but I do remember FO(2) being turn-based. There is also TOEE for turn-based combat, but it can be pretty buggy.

I don't think any Fallout fan can rationally consider Fallout 3 a disappointment.
Everyone should've known by Fallout 3's release how Bethesda builds their games and that they are not Interplay games. For
me, Fallout 3 was a big surprise and is still the only Bethesda game
I've enjoyed.

I can and do consider Fallout 3 to be a disappointment.

I wanted Fallout 3, instead I got TES: post-apocalyptic.