Fallout 1, 2 vs Fallout 3, NV (Fallout: New Vegas)
New vs OldFor me, the new ones have sucked in all respects.
Naked man
Even the cosmo-opera is more compatible with the western Come
on! The post-apocalypse goes well with the western. Vegas shows us this perfectly.
Post-apocalyptic is based on catastrophe.
You confuse apocalyptic with post-apocalyptic. It is at the root of the apocalyptic disaster.
Westerns and cowboys are fucking shit designed for fat, stupid Americans staring at the screen through their 3cm lenses, munching on popcorn. This shit cannot be combined with either post-apocalyptic or space-opera. And the Obsidians of some fucking thought of shoving this cowboy trash into the once mesmerizing Fallout universe, which is now destroyed thanks to them. I wish them bankruptcy and graze cows and sheep on some cheap ranch for the rest of their days.
-VN-
In the Apocalyptic, the catastrophe is the culmination, in the post-apocalyptic - the fact underlying everything that happens
-VN-
Didn't understand the question. Westerns are shit for stupid Americans, I say. They ruined Fallout's universe.
Fallout 1 - 8.5 out of 10.
Fallout 2 - 9.5 out of 10.
Fallout 3 - 7 out of 10
New Vegas - 8 out of 10
There are Western elements in Fallout 2, and I don't understand what can prevent the mixing of these genres. It turned out cool, with humor, in the spirit of Fall (rather the second part, of course).
Sprats95
> Westerns are shit, there was nothing to do with them in the canonical (in the past already) post-nuclear world.
It (Western) was still in the previous parts and is an integral part of the fallout atmosphere.
The clearest example is the reference to the spaghetti western "good, bad, ugly" in fallout 2: in some quest in New Reno, GG issues a replica "in this world there are two types of people: those who dig and those who have cannon. You dig, I have a cannon. "
at one time I really did not like Fallout 1 and 2. Yes, there were interesting ideas. But I just don’t digest and don’t understand step-by-step RPGs. Strategy is still the norm, but turn-based RPG never! But the third part I liked, quite a successful game, but the truth is not a masterpiece.
I didn’t play the old fallout .... maybe they’re better .... But about 6 years ago I thought the fallout was complete crap ... But after playing it ... and completing every quest to the last one licking the entire wasteland in both new falachak .. .. I am currently replaying the third one and with all the dls .... so I think the fallout in general deserves respect ... I'm looking forward to the new game ...
Fallout: 8 - 10.
Fallout 2: 10 - 10.
Fallout Tackticks: 7 - 10
Fallout Van Buren: 8 - 10 (I liked the alpha version, it's a pity that it never came out = ()
Fallout 3: 7 - 10 (if did not play in the 1st and 2nd, then I would put all 9)
Fallout New Vegas: 9 - 10 (well, it does not reach the 2nd)
A.Soldier of Light
There is also Fallout Tactics. A full-fledged game, the graphics are slightly better than in the second part, the principle of the game is almost the same. It's just too linear, this is its main disadvantage. Even so, the FT is better than the F3.
And for me FT is Fallout 3 ... In any case, it would not be a shame to call Fallout Tactics the third game in the series.
Two tea for you.
I like Fallout 3 and NV But something in them is irretrievably lost, some kind of savagery, rudeness and cruelty, but in the last parts there is a dismemberment and so on, but there is some kind of raid of crazy savagery and we can say that brutality is gone, the first two parts were much more aggressive and tougher, it manifested itself in everything, in quests, in characters, even in the music, this had a completely different atmosphere to which the last parts could not reach
The third part is a shame on the entire series. Vegas turned out to be pretty good, contrary to expectations.
The first post by Comrade Screw It is just a copy of my thoughts.
I can't call myself a fan of the series, I went through the first fall only a few times, once the second. This is from the old ones. Actually, I started and played a lot of times, but that was a year or two ago, and on new computers / OSes, the follys are great at quenching the save. Backups? No, I haven’t heard :)
crazy savagery and we can say that there is no brutality.
Yeah, that feeling when you crawl out of a cave with rats for the FIRST TIME :). Here it is - an open and cruel world and in general it is not known what is next there. You can't even imagine. As if he himself only crawled out of the shelter with only one knife! The graph is ancient, but the fantasy itself finalizes everything without photorealism. For me, the first and last parts are the best. The rest did not snag.
people do not want to poke my nose at anyone, but before starting the topic, you would at least for reference look at who developed these games.
Black Isle is best known for developing Planescape: Torment and Fallout 1 and 2. After bankruptcy, Black Isle employees moved to Obsidian Entertainment.
So it makes no sense to compare Fallout 1.2 and Fallout New Vegas, since they were made by the same people (in the Fallout New Vegas game there are even Persians from Fallout, for example, the mutant Markus who will talk about the hero from part 2). Remains for comparison only Fallout 3 which was made by Bethesda.
You can even compare two loaves of white bread from the same batch and the same factory. And NV is not at all like the first two Falls, even the fanservice in the person of the 2nd part did not help. This is how performances are now being staged "in a new reading", it seems to be similar, but not fucking wrong. In this Wasteland there is no Wasteland, sheer geeky cowboys and crowds of enemies around every corner, generously seasoned with engine bugs. Plus the Obrygion pumping from the series "I didn't pump up the skill - you won't even be able to shoot yourself from a shotgun" will spoil an already not very masterpiece product.
Monk from Hell
That is, if one director made two parts of one film, it makes no sense to compare these parts? one and the same person did.
New Vegas, I liked the quests, of course not as varied as in the first two, but better than in the third, at the same time this part seemed to me the most, bright, one might say, there is almost no oppressive atmosphere in it. When in the second or first part, at night you accidentally stumble upon a wrecked van with cola cannonballs, in the middle of a miraculously survived intersection with a couple of dilapidated houses, it hooked, the fantasy instantly painted the events of the pre-war time, and the first Fallout screensaver still clings to the soul when the TV starts stutter on and off and you pay attention to the destroyed world and the noise of this empty world, it becomes uncomfortable. Well, there is no something like that in NV, there is no atmosphere of ruin, there is no oppressive feeling (now I'm going to pass Dead Money, it may appear there), even Fall3 seemed to me gloomier than NV