Fallout 2 gets a shitty review

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:12 pm

Take a look at this garbage. The review is covering the recently release Mac port of Fallout 2. The guy goes on and on about how crappy the graphics are. I believe "dated" and "clunky" were his exact words. Overall it gets a 6.8.

Jimbo san · Post by **Jimbo san** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:24 pm

Urgh. "Waaaah! I can't scroll very far without moving my character, so you have to explore, that makes the game shit. Waaaah! Warcraft could do it. Waaaah! It's so ugly you can't make anything out."

He seems to be one of these new breed of gamers where, as long as the game looks pretty they're satisfied, one of those people who can't recognise a good interface when it smacks them between the eyes. The comments seem to be by and large unjustified and I get the feeling the reviewer doesn't like RPGs much. :x

Mad Max RW · Post by **Mad Max RW** » Tue Dec 17, 2002 10:03 pm

He's just another example of how low websites' standards are in hiring writers.

Strap · Post by **Strap** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:15 am

he was comparing the world map to warcraft. and then he was compairing the normal view to diablo's. diablo's view sucks ass! your always in the middle, and cant move the screen at all. pretty anoying.

and anyway, if you TALK to people in the game, you can learn of any location on the world map so you dont have to "Explore" for 30 hours. jeez.

i also like fallout because you dont really have to "level up"
because thats a total pain in the ass waste of time... to me.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:36 am

What exactly do you mean, Strapon? Fallout has levels. Do you mean that you don't need to go around killing things for the specific purpose of gaining levels in order to be tough enough to face the endboss?

jerman999 · Post by **jerman999** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:52 am

The endboss wasn't that tough. :roll:

Strap · Post by **Strap** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:27 am

spazmo:

i mean, like in daiblo2, endless Cow/chaos sanctuary runs
just to ger your char better. in fallout, you gained levels at a very good pace, and didnt really have to "Go out and level up" if you didnt want to.
you might have to kill things for weapons, but not as often for levels on your char.

Tank · Post by **Tank** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 7:56 am

I quite agree. The two things that made me hate Diablo were all the XP-hunting, the hack'n slash and the storyline, or rather, the lack thereof. That was three. Nevermind.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:46 am

Well the guy reviewed it as it was released today and compared it to todays standards. He thinks the game is pretty decent if not counting the graphics, which drop the score quite a bit. I tend to agree on most of the points he brings up, but I think he should have emphasized his review more on the non-linearity, the deep story and the role-playing elements instead of comparing it to Diablo or some other bulk 'RPG', because in those areas Fallout 2 did a lot better than in most modern RPGs.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 1:44 pm

Yes, Strapon, that's entirely true. Levels in Fallout come naturally and you're usually about as tough as you need to be.

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 4:04 pm

Well, the whole game is actually finishable without gaining a level. Sure it`s a lot harder but it`s possible. So you never HAVE to run in the wild for random encounters to level up, instead it`s just cool doing it

Now as a note, he compared it to Diablo and Warcraft (I'm expecting he meant warcraft 2 here as the first installement would probably be too pixelated for him to bother with) Diablow came in 1997 and WC2 in 1996, so his comparisons aren't so out of line. However he still compared the graphics to something in today's standard, which is a bit weird.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:56 pm

Red wrote:Well, the whole game is actually finishable without gaining a level.

Nevermind that some of the required quests would level you automatically, I'm not really sure there's any way a level 1 character would have the skills necessary to complete everything that has to be done.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:06 pm

Getting the water chip alone would put you at level three or four, easy.

Red · Post by **Red** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:17 pm

First, we're talking about Fallout2, not 1. There is no water chip. Second, you don't need to return the water chip as far as I recall.

I have to admit that it's not true in FO2. You need at least ~5000xp for fixing up the tanker. Oh crap.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:38 pm

Bah, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, it's still true.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Wed Dec 18, 2002 11:59 pm

Yeah, even in Fallout 1 you get like 10k each for destroying the Master and the Vats.

Sir_Funkalot · Post by **Sir_Funkalot** » Thu Dec 19, 2002 4:06 pm

I think a Swedish Games Mag tested Fallout 2 again after so long time... it got a 7 in grade, which is good for being so old and based on the avarage scores of games in that magazine...

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:16 am

Red wrote:I have to admit that it's not true in FO2. You need at least ~5000xp for fixing up the tanker. Oh crap.

As a stupid character you don't need to fix it, but you still get a lvl up from getting the vertibird blueprints.

Red · Post by **Red** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:29 pm

Well, YOU don't fix it no, but it does get fixed...

And you don't need to retreive the blueprints if I recall correctly, which I might not

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:20 pm

Fallout 1 and 2 have both always collected over 90/100 points from every finnish gaming magazine I've read. But Fo:T instead got something like 70/100 from every mag