Fallout 1, 2 vs Fallout 3, NV (Fallout: New Vegas)
New vs OldFor me, the new ones have sucked in all respects.
I like everyone.
Fallout 1:
Not a bad old RPG for a couple of days - the game is not suitable for more because of the limited territories and the banal lack of a lot of interesting things. But the music, the characters, the places are very well tuned to the post-apocalyptic wave.
Fallout 2:
The same first Fallout, but without the main disadvantage. Increased the number of locations, quests, characters and items. Everything was elevated to the third degree without touching the essence.
Fallout 3:
Modernized Fallout. Still, F3 is good, because it is very difficult to revive and modernize such a series. And so almost the first Fallout - the territories are large, but empty and monotonous, there are few interesting places. Quests also don't catch on.
Fallout: New Vegas:
The same as the second Fallout compared to the first. We have increased the number of quests, interesting places and objects, now it has become well, just a huge amount, worked out every detail and presented an excellent plot. Unless the territory was somewhat reduced.
Differences between combat and role-playing systems of old and new Fallouts are, IMHO, minimal. The same perks, the same parameters. Combat also depends almost entirely on pumping. Only the position of the camera has changed.
in the first 2 did not play, the third is better than the fourth, but the fallout in the form of a turn-based game? no, I probably will not download.
A step-by-step foul ..
Unthinkable, right?)
That's what we got to ... 4 years ago, everyone was shocked that a fucking arbor was trying to remove our native isometry and step-by-step from a foul ... and now ..
Passed the first two again recently. Blurred the patch and ran it in HD. It went perfectly.
Ironsword Let
's say I don't like the whole TES series.
Ololo. Considering your previous stuffing, you with such a flawed taste - cattle - have a place at the bucket. Merged.
Now buy a cream and be silent. Look, do not stoop to the level of your interlocutors, answering in kind! : D
-VN-
** Let 's say I don't like the whole TES series **
Me too.
Oh, one more)) There too. Your flawed opinions - the opinions of heretics - are of no use to anyone)
Oh, one more)) There too. Your flawed opinions - the opinions of heretics - are of no use to anyone)
Is your chtol burnt out? I haven't written anything bad about TEC. So the drain is counted. You can pay.
[TSVETOTYPE]
Plus. To say that New Vegas, for example, is worse or better than Folich 1/2, is at least not correct, because the games are different times, it is silly to compare them.
Fallout 3 is an excellent game, but worse than the first ones, because the gazebo changed everything correctly, except for one thing, if in the first the emphasis is on the role-playing component, and battles are almost unnecessary, then in 3 there are some battles that cannot be avoided, because of this in the third part 85-90% are skirmishes, and not a role-playing game about the apocalypse, and New Vegas is generally more reminiscent of a spaghetti western (in the style of the game, of course, and not in the gameplay). I hope in fallout 4 there will be no emphasis on battles so big, if there is a small level of battles, and more will be about life in the wasteland, as it should be rpg, then the game may well become better than the first.
Valeran12
Comrade, you at least played in FNV, there you can even play a pacifist without killing anyone, with rare exceptions where it is problematic.
What a strange topic.
I don’t understand at all how you can compare turn-based battles with battles in real time.
Again, no matter how good the first two parts of F3 and FNV are, it is much more atmospheric due to the fact that the graphics are three-dimensional and the view from the eyes or from the third person, and it's much more interesting for me to play when the outcome of the battle depends not only on stats and tactics, but also on straight lines hands, when you yourself can take part in this, turn-based battles unfortunately do not give such freedom.
Fallout New Vegas is a Pindossian Western, not a post-core, unlike previous installments. That atmosphere is gone. Shit in general, complete. The first part is the best. The third one is also suitable as a variety for the series, but for one time only.
and not post-cores
What then? You must be an idiot. The game takes place in a post-nuclear setting, i.e. for absolutely idiotic idiots I will explain. Post-Nuclear World, i.e. the world in which the actions of F 1/2/3 / NV take place is the world that survived a nuclear catastrophe. Since the world of new vegas cannot be a post-core if the game takes place in a post-nuclear war ??!?!?!
Shkolota97
Fallout New Vegas is a Pindossian western, not a post-core
A mixture of a post-core with a western. There is nothing wrong with that.
Westerns are shit, there was nothing to do with them in the canonical (in the past already) post-nuclear world. It turned out to be some kind of outrage over the series.
Perversion over the game. Cowboys)
A mixture of post-core with western. There is nothing wrong with that.
And what are these similar genres. Even the cosmo-opera is more in tune with the western. Colonization of new planets is in many ways similar to the development of new lands. And in post-apocalypticism, disaster is at the heart of it. Neither in the new fouls nor in the raga, there is a sense of the event that changed the life of mankind. only metro 2033 has such a feeling, for all the curvature and shoveliness of the game.