Fallout 2 was always incline

[Alex]

People genuinely arguing that Fallout 2 is on par with the first game, nevermind better, never gets old.

 

[†††]

There should be a law a la Godwin's stating that every discussion about classic Fallout will eventually turn into an Arcanum one.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

People genuinely arguing that Fallout 2 is on par with the first game, nevermind better, never gets old.

significantly better because I don't consider tech demos to be full games

 

[Arbiter]

People genuinely arguing that Fallout 2 is on par with the first game, nevermind better, never gets old.

significantly better because I don't consider tech demos to be full games

I guess you haven't enjoyed most id Software games then.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

People genuinely arguing that Fallout 2 is on par with the first game, nevermind better, never gets old.

significantly better because I don't consider tech demos to be full games

I guess you haven't enjoyed most id Software games then.

correct

 

[Laz Sundays]

Fallouts are like Mad Max movies, quite literally. Even if the first Max holds special place in my heart, the second one was better. By the time we got to Fury road, it lost all aussie and went full murica.

 

[NecroLord]

Fallouts are like Mad Max movies, quite literally. Even if the first Max holds special place in my heart, the second one was better. By the time we got to Fury road, it lost all aussie and went full murica.

 

[antimeridian]

Also, I only played vanilla FO2, are restoration or any other mods worth a playthrough?

They aren't. Same goes for Fixt in the original, garbage that only makes things worse. All FO2 needs is available community patch and a simple ammo correction tweak made by some legend. Makes ammo types work as intended.

Man the first time I played FO1 I used Fixt and even though I was unfamiliar with the game some things just reeked of modder autism. Sure enough when I went back to the vanilla game, all the stuff I felt was a little off came from Fixt (the "purist" version no less).

At this point I usually take buggy games over fan patches. Modder retardation almost always wins out against restraint and good taste it seems. I can count the number of acceptable purist fan patches for classic games on one hand. I'll echo this advice and say FO1 is fine vanilla and FO2 just needs the basic stuff mentioned above.

 

[agris]

fo2>fo1
if you disagree you're wrong idc

a 20 hour long game is basically a tech demo

 

[luj1]

Fallout plot and aesthetics were wonky from the start, futuristic mish mash with fifties was weird as fuck already, why complain about "muh pop references in Fallout 2"? They were fun, i actually liked how the game would break the 4th wall (like when the player tries to justify to Mr Bishop that was other player character shagging his wife) and throw movie quotes out of nowhere.

it all makes sense once u realise fallout "wonky" tone and aesthetics were heavily inspired by Kubricks Dr Strangelove

 

[Davaris]

Tim Cain said half the people making Fallout didn't like the time limit, and they argued over it until it shipped. Later Tim had it taken out in the patch. I liked it.

https://gdcvault.com/play/1015843/Classic-Game-Postmortem

Fallout 1 coming out at all, and turning out as good as it did was down to luck as much as skill. I wish they would release the source code to F1 (before some idiot loses it), so we can see how it was done.

Fallout was good because of its design, not technical merits so the source code is not that important. I also believe that game logic in Fallout is implemented in some compiled scripting language which could certainly be reverse engineered. Fallout modders should know more about it.

Its source code matters because of its historical significance. Even though I am not a Baldur's Gate fan, I was shocked to hear they lost all the art assets that were used to make it. I have heard of other games where the source code was lost, because the corporate owners of the code didn't care about the games as much as the fans do.

Regarding the design, its available for all the world to see, but no one before or after it, has made a game that affected me as much as the first time I played it.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Tim Cain said half the people making Fallout didn't like the time limit, and they argued over it until it shipped. Later Tim had it taken out in the patch. I liked it.

https://gdcvault.com/play/1015843/Classic-Game-Postmortem

Fallout 1 coming out at all, and turning out as good as it did was down to luck as much as skill. I wish they would release the source code to F1 (before some idiot loses it), so we can see how it was done.

Fallout was good because of its design, not technical merits so the source code is not that important. I also believe that game logic in Fallout is implemented in some compiled scripting language which could certainly be reverse engineered. Fallout modders should know more about it.

Its source code matters because of its historical significance. Even though I am not a Baldur's Gate fan, I was shocked to hear they lost all the art assets that were used to make it. I have heard of other games where the source code was lost, because the corporate owners of the code don't care about the games as much as the fans do. For all we know, Fallout 1's code could have already been lost.

Regarding the design, its available for all the world to see, but no one before or after it, has made a game that affected me as much as the first time I played it.

It's not the same but it's as close as we'll likely ever get, FO2's source code has been reconstructed.
https://github.com/alexbatalov/fallout2-re

 

[Davaris]

Tim Cain said half the people making Fallout didn't like the time limit, and they argued over it until it shipped. Later Tim had it taken out in the patch. I liked it.

https://gdcvault.com/play/1015843/Classic-Game-Postmortem

Fallout 1 coming out at all, and turning out as good as it did was down to luck as much as skill. I wish they would release the source code to F1 (before some idiot loses it), so we can see how it was done.

Fallout was good because of its design, not technical merits so the source code is not that important. I also believe that game logic in Fallout is implemented in some compiled scripting language which could certainly be reverse engineered. Fallout modders should know more about it.

Its source code matters because of its historical significance. Even though I am not a Baldur's Gate fan, I was shocked to hear they lost all the art assets that were used to make it. I have heard of other games where the source code was lost, because the corporate owners of the code don't care about the games as much as the fans do. For all we know, Fallout 1's code could have already been lost.

Regarding the design, its available for all the world to see, but no one before or after it, has made a game that affected me as much as the first time I played it.

It's not the same but it's as close as we'll likely ever get, FO2's source code has been reconstructed.
https://github.com/alexbatalov/fallout2-re

Edit:
Its decompiled C.

I still want the original Fallout code released, but that is excellent news.

 

[NecroLord]

 

[luj1]

Small gameplay improvements aren't enough to make up for the massive retardation of the setting and plot. People love to bash Bethesda for ruining the Fallout world, but Black Isle did that themselves with the talking deathclaw furries, the meme vaults, and a town literally covered in shit. That garbage drags down the good stuff (New Reno, Vault City etc.).

Fallout 2 was decline.

reminder that you are a retard who plays pokemon games and whose first fallout game was fallout 3

 

[Arbiter]

Its source code matters because of its historical significance. Even though I am not a Baldur's Gate fan, I was shocked to hear they lost all the art assets that were used to make it. I have heard of other games where the source code was lost, because the corporate owners of the code didn't care about the games as much as the fans do.

Before the cloud era it was not unheard of for IT companies to lose source code repositories stored on dusty old hard drives. Old computers need to eventually be decommissioned. I imagine a person responsible for that would simply turn off old servers, wait for a month to see if anyone complains about missing services and then get rid of old hardware.

Nowadays companies typically use external hosting services like GitHub or cloud storage directly for code repositories, so it is much harder to lose data, you would have to delete it deliberately.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

the real reason they lost the data was they weren't willing to shell out the money to buy some magnetic tapes to back it up on because the owners didn't give a shit

 

[Arbiter]

Its source code matters because of its historical significance. Even though I am not a Baldur's Gate fan, I was shocked to hear they lost all the art assets that were used to make it. I have heard of other games where the source code was lost, because the corporate owners of the code didn't care about the games as much as the fans do.

Before the cloud era it was not unheard of for IT companies to lose source code repositories stored on dusty old hard drives. Old computers need to eventually be decommissioned. I imagine a person responsible for that would simply turn off old servers, wait for a month to see if anyone complains about missing services and then get rid of old hardware.

Nowadays companies typically use external hosting services like GitHub or cloud storage directly for code repositories, so it is much harder to lose data, you would have to delete it deliberately.

Moreover, the lifetime of a game product was much shorter in 90s. Companies would release a game, then release a patch addressing major issues reported by players a few weeks later and call it a day. If any source code or assets had value for newer projects, they would simply be copied to those new projects and the original repository forgotten.

Blizzard was one of the first producers to offer long term support for their games, which I believe contributed to their success. Nowadays games can remain in early access alone for years, then you have balancing patches, DLCs, expansions so the importance of the code base is well understood by game producers.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Moreover, the lifetime of a game product was much shorter in 90s. Companies would release a game, then release a patch addressing major issues reported by players a few weeks later and call it a day. If any source code or assets had value for newer projects, they would simply be copied to those new projects and the original repository forgotten.

Blizzard was one of the first producers to offer long term support for their games, which I believe contributed to their success. Nowadays games can remain in early access alone for years, then you have balancing patches, DLCs, expansions so the importance of the code base is well understood by game producers.

all of the things you listed are bad
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/gq-was-right-i-am-a-proud-member-of-the-patch-hater-club.144162/

 

[Arbiter]

Moreover, the lifetime of a game product was much shorter in 90s. Companies would release a game, then release a patch addressing major issues reported by players a few weeks later and call it a day. If any source code or assets had value for newer projects, they would simply be copied to those new projects and the original repository forgotten.

Blizzard was one of the first producers to offer long term support for their games, which I believe contributed to their success. Nowadays games can remain in early access alone for years, then you have balancing patches, DLCs, expansions so the importance of the code base is well understood by game producers.

all of the things you listed are bad
https://rpgcodex.net/forums/threads/gq-was-right-i-am-a-proud-member-of-the-patch-hater-club.144162/

I agree that contemporary game developers are taking patching to the extreme and releasing unfinished games, but on the other hand you cannot get balancing of MP games perfect on release. Careful tuning must be based on statistics gathered across millions of matches over a period of weeks or months so that under- and over-utilized strategies/weapons/units are identified and tweaked. Quality assurance is never perfect, because video game companies can only hire so many testers, while customers testing the released product often number in millions and provide orders of magnitude more feedback than the test team.

With long lived games you also need to account for operating system and hardware changes. Games often require minor tweaks to make them work on newer versions of Windows or other OSes.

Look at the longevity of Doom and Quake - they still have active communities decades after release because of continous "patching" in the form of source ports that allow those games to run on modern hardware without the hassle of emulators and enhance modding capabilities. John Carmack was a visionary.

 

[Jasede]

Tim Cain said half the people making Fallout didn't like the time limit, and they argued over it until it shipped. Later Tim had it taken out in the patch. I liked it.

https://gdcvault.com/play/1015843/Classic-Game-Postmortem

Fallout 1 coming out at all, and turning out as good as it did was down to luck as much as skill. I wish they would release the source code to F1 (before some idiot loses it), so we can see how it was done.

Fallout was good because of its design, not technical merits so the source code is not that important. I also believe that game logic in Fallout is implemented in some compiled scripting language which could certainly be reverse engineered. Fallout modders should know more about it.

Its source code matters because of its historical significance. Even though I am not a Baldur's Gate fan, I was shocked to hear they lost all the art assets that were used to make it. I have heard of other games where the source code was lost, because the corporate owners of the code don't care about the games as much as the fans do. For all we know, Fallout 1's code could have already been lost.

Regarding the design, its available for all the world to see, but no one before or after it, has made a game that affected me as much as the first time I played it.

It's not the same but it's as close as we'll likely ever get, FO2's source code has been reconstructed.
https://github.com/alexbatalov/fallout2-re

Edit:
Its decompiled C.

I still want the original Fallout code released, but that is excellent news.

The language of the Gods! I love it.

 

[FriendlyMerchant]

What keeps Fallout 2 from being better than Fallout 1 is that you still don't control your companions in combat.

 

[Ryan muller]

What keeps Fallout 2 from being better than Fallout 1 is that you still don't control your companions in combat.

You dont actually need it, they arent useless anymore to the point you can even give most of them burst weapons and tell them to avoid using near you and it will work.

If they wanted to add it tho, they would need to rebalance combat since manual control makes combat way too easy (as you can see by playing restoration project)

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Being able to directly control party members is stupid and so are people who like it.
I don't want to play as a party of people, I don't have schizophrenia like you fucks.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

In Dungeons & Dragons, each player controls a single character, but it is expected that multiple players will participate and form a considerable party of player-characters. Since D&D stemmed from miniatures wargaming, the original expectations for party size, and therefore the number of PCs, was quite high, with 6 being a typical minimum party size of adventure modules into the early 80s --- not to mention henchmen, hirelings, and (for higher-level PCs) followers.

CRPGs substituted the computer for the Dungeon Master and had three possibilities for adapting the concept of players and PCs to the medium of a single-player game on a microcomputer:

• Treat the multi-character party as fundamental and grant the single player control over all party members.
• Treat the player-character as fundamental and eliminate the party, with the player controlling the one remaining PC.
• Preserve both the single character per player element and the party of PCs element, by giving the player control over a single PC but having other party members under the control of the computer as a substitute for other players.

All three of these are valid options for CRPGs but should be selected with consideration for other game elements. The first option is preferable for nearly any turn-based combat system, since option two reduces the possible complexity of combat via the reduction of the party to a single character (e.g. Age of Decadence versus Dungeon Rats) and option three removes decision-making from the player and grants it to an always-frustrating computer AI (e.g. Fallout). Unsurprisingly, early CRPGs on microcomputers overwhelmingly adopted turn-based combat with a party of PCs under the player's control, as the best means of emulating D&D. As time passed, some CRPG subgenres adopted real-time combat systems from a desire to avoid separating combat from real-time exploration, to the detriment of the former and the benefit of the latter. Dungeon Master-likes were able to retain a party (of limited size) under the player's control, but this became increasingly infrequent in the 90s with the move into 3D graphics and later became all-but-impossible in combat systems that were not only real-time but also action-based. Dragon's Dogma in 2012/2013/2016 was a breath of fresh air for action-based combat, since it restored a party (albeit limited to 4 members) with effective interactions between characters aided by relatively-competent AI, which was one factor moving the overall design more in the direction of being a proper RPG and less of an action game.