Fallout Tactics: Not that friggin bad!

[PsyckoSama]

Listen, you people are like Deus Ex fans who hated DX:IW. I don't care if you dislike a game, but saying someone is a moron for liking it when you didn't is just stupid.

A name that basically means "useless crap" plus an antognistic opening statement. I smell trolll.

Fallout: Tactics was actaully a decent game if you patched it, and it had many elements I hoped to see in Fallout 3. By that I mean is desructible enviorments, multi-layer levels, using cars and whatnot in game and the ability to run, go prone and crouch. The only real problem I had was the lack of conversations.

Agree for the most part, but Fallout did have running... you did look in the options, right? I figured that out three minutes into the game!

The game had a large arsenal, and realistic skill penalties when one had armor on. (You wanna try to pickpocket someone in full power armor?) Damage models were realistic, graphics were pretty alright and the new perks were usefull and served their purpose. The game makers finally made Kamikaze a usefull perk, and introduced a first in the Fallout line.. Racial choice, even if it was just a squad mate.

I actually found the arsenal to be somewhat obnoxious (too many modern guns) and they abandoned alot of fallouts 50s charm. Big loss IMHO

So friggin what if it wasn't Fallout 1 or 2? It was still an alright game, and it maintained some degree of the Fallout feel.. Unlike the horror of F:POS

True, but it was really a bastard hybrid. Its not a good tactics game (like say, JA2) nor is it a full fledged RPG.

When did anyone get called a moron for liking tactics? Recently that is, you're a few years too late with your rant.

And the people who called people morons for liking it were assclowns in '01
aswell...

And racial choice was first introduced in FO2, what with Lenny, Goris, Marcus and Skynet etc as available party members.

I think he meant for playable characters.

Actually FOT has less of a destructable environment than the rpgs, running was already available in Fallout (don't tell me you walked through the whole of Fallout?)

I'll have to blow some shit up to check that out...

Bazooka Luv!

As for maintaining some degree of the Fallout feel, haha no! You mention it yourself cars, totally bollocks the Fallout setting, not to mention the rape of the Brotherhood concept. I don't mind the lack of a speech tree, after all it's meant to be a tactical combat game not an rpg, it's just a pity it's so lacking in the simplest of tactical options.

first, I disagree with the cars and blame that more on engine limitations in the first two games. Just look at how much they took from Mad Max! If they could have had working cars, they would have.

In all honesty, people are lazy and hate to walk. You'd have every mechanic in Cali screwing with the old wrecks lieing around and those who managed not to blow themselves up in the process might actually come up with something (Steam Trucks anyone?). And the brotherhood would actually have the technological experence and knowhow to actually built new vehicles because damn, if they can manufacture high end firearms and other percision machines then a simple truck or buggy is sure as hell not beyond them and it sure beats walking...

As for the "rape" of the brotherhood concept, I thought they made it rather clear that this is the lunatic fringe of the BoS that was sent away by the Elders to become Someone Elses Problem.

Remember the Bad FO1 ending? The way I see it, these are the wanna-be Steel Plague motherf-ers who rather than take over the BoS proper, were told not to let the door hit them in the ass on the way out...

[Keserian]

See, I like FOT, but FOT is it's own game by far. Yes, it's part of the Fallout Universe, yes, I consider the stuff in FOT to be cannon (Where it conflicts completely with the Fallout 1&2 story I choose F1&2 as real), but no, I don't compare it to Fallout 1&2. Why? They're completely different games. It's like trying to compare Command and Conquer with Shogun: Total War.

FOT is for the more combat minded gamer, who went all the way through Fallout 1&2 blasting away everything that was in front of him. Metzger? Boom. No more slavers. But again, it is not an RPG. It is its own, separate, unique, completely different, game. So, I really don't see any point trying to say "Fallout 1 was better that Fallout Tactics!"

[Wolfman Walt]

Lesson is, you can't compare other things that are similar because they're different games. I'll remember this when someone compares X First Person Shooter with Halo (as that happens regularly enough) because then I get the chance to say "You can't do that =(. They're completely different games."

[PsychoSniper]

Fallout:Craptics is NOT Fallout.

The art butchers the setting.

The Dialouge is crappy and geared toward the lowest common demonanator.

All in all, the game sucks as a Fallout game.

As a stand alone game, its decent, but buggy and annoying.

[Keserian]

I wouldn't agree with that. I find FOT to be an interesting and quite frankly enjoyable game. Look, it's a bloody Tactical FPS. It has almost no RPG elements to it, as such, immerse dialog like in F1&2 would be completely wasted. Never mind that FOT is geared to a different audience. THe RTT (Real Time Tactics) crowd isn't too interested in deeply immerse story lines. Heck, I know people who skip the story lines, it gets in the way of the challenging tactical combat that they expect from a game. And personally, I find that FOT does deliver some fairly challenging puzzles. I do admit that it tends to guide you to one or two paths through each mission, but even then, I still go back to play it, to see if I can find any other interesting ways to get through that mission, or any way to streamline my combat team.

It's a fun game, but I think that Wolfman Walt summed up my opinions best, please, stop trying to compare these games. It doesn't work. Saying "Fallout 2 is better that Fallout: Tactics" does a disservice to both games. It's like comparing Starcraft with World of Warcraft, they are not the same.

[Slaughter_Manslaught]

Hey Keserian, do you want to play multi with us?

[PsychoSniper]

I wouldn't agree with that. I find FOT to be an interesting and quite frankly enjoyable game. Look, it's a bloody Tactical FPS. It has almost no RPG elements to it, as such, immerse dialog like in F1&2 would be completely wasted. Never mind that FOT is geared to a different audience. THe RTT (Real Time Tactics) crowd isn't too interested in deeply immerse story lines. Heck, I know people who skip the story lines, it gets in the way of the challenging tactical combat that they expect from a game. And personally, I find that FOT does deliver some fairly challenging puzzles. I do admit that it tends to guide you to one or two paths through each mission, but even then, I still go back to play it, to see if I can find any other interesting ways to get through that mission, or any way to streamline my combat team.

It's a fun game, but I think that Wolfman Walt summed up my opinions best, please, stop trying to compare these games. It doesn't work. Saying "Fallout 2 is better that Fallout: Tactics" does a disservice to both games. It's like comparing Starcraft with World of Warcraft, they are not the same.

First of all, FO:Craptics aint a tactical FPS as you call it.

FPS means first person shooter.

Yes, the tactical elements are alright, but its a FO game, that's what it fails as.

[LoneGunman]

Fallout:Craptics is NOT Fallout.

No it is not. But then again, no other games are so that argument is invalid

The art butchers the setting.

What art? Wtf are you talking about? Do you mean the concept art, or the fact that the characters look diffrent from the original fallout? If that is your angle towards saying the atmosphere have been butchered i have to disagree because its just not true. It is a post apoc setting, just like FO 1 & 2 and if the "art" as you put it kills it, well then i suspect you would have been unsatisfied with Van Buren aswell because it looks to me as if the graphics where diffrent in that game too.

The Dialouge is crappy and geared toward the lowest common demonanator.

Agreed, but then again, would it really have made the game any better? Its not really supposed to be deep RPG that requires you have to make difficult decisions and so on.

All in all, the game sucks as a Fallout game.

I thought you just said that it isnt a fallout game? so which is it? Fallout or not?

As a stand alone game, its decent, but buggy and annoying

Yeah but so was both fallout titles, so you fail with that argument too

[PsychoSniper]

What art? Wtf are you talking about? Do you mean the concept art, or the fact that the characters look diffrent from the original fallout? If that is your angle towards saying the atmosphere have been butchered i have to disagree because its just not true. It is a post apoc setting, just like FO 1 & 2 and if the "art" as you put it kills it, well then i suspect you would have been unsatisfied with Van Buren aswell because it looks to me as if the graphics where diffrent in that game too.

The characther sprites ingame, the inventory pics, the whole predator BOS armor look of the armor, plus many of the other things like vehicles and weapons.

The FO setting is more that post appoc, which iits obvious you're unable to grasp


The FO setting is a post appoc 50's themed RETRO future.

Things arnt supposed to be sleek and streamlined like the Power armor from the game.

They're suppsoed to be hi tech, while still looking bulky crude and low tech.

[LoneGunman]

So what youre saying is that because the power armor didnt look exactly like you wanted it to, its a crappy game?

I kinda liked it, but the linear plot did get tiresome, and it did become a clickfest in the end. But the graphics was an improvement from FO 1&2 even though the "art" apparently was a tad off. So let me ask you this, if the graphics looked and felt exactly like FO1&2, would you be pleased then?

What i am getting from you is that you really hate FOT because of the looks of it. Seems to me that an opinion like that is reserved for the younger crowd among console consumers.

[Krix]

God damn

This is my first post on this forum in this incarnation, yes I fell out of the fallout community, and I highly doubt anyone remembers me. Whatever, I have shit to say.

I really have to ask the people who are bitching non-stop about Fallout Tactics to 1: Stop referring it to Fallout: Craptics, the name isn't fitting, and I'm going to continue on that in a moment, 2: Open your fucking brains to perhaps other trains of thought. No, I will not have any qualms calling some of you dumbfucks.

Fallout Tactics, the "tactical" game released in 2001 after getting licensed out to MicroForte. Did it live up to the impressive world of Fallout? Not entirely, but it didn't fail miserably either. Fallout 2 as far as the world went sucked entirely, at least by the purist standards I'm hearing and seeing offered up.

What Fallout Tactics had:

1: An actual tactical simulation of a post apocolytic war
Anyone who says otherwise does have their heads stuck up their ass. What MicroForte and 14 Degrees East did when they made both turn based and real time possibilities was actually make a game for the entire genre's crowd. Did anyone here even play it through either squad based, or individual turn based? Do you know how greatly that changes all perspectives of the game? The screaming I'm hearing is that "They didn't make it right, wah wah wah, we can't have real time wah wah wah, not tactical because of real time wah wah wah."

2: A perspective of another part of the country, seeing that Fallout 1 and 2 were primarly east coast areas. I enjoyed fighting in the St. Louis area, even if the mission was a bitch when you didn't know mutants were coming.

3: Replayability: I know I've already read someone say they go back to replay it to see if they could make any other sort of maneuvers to finish off the various missions.

This is not to say that it didn't have bugs, I remember the bugs both single player and multiplayer quite well. I remember the douchebaggery that surrounded "10k one char no energy" bullshit of multiplayer, and the spray at a target with a burst gun, only to rip into 10 targets behind it killing them all.

My final statement before I wait for the flames to come, is that I am dissapointed in what the Fallout community has degenerated into.

[Wolfman Walt]

1. It was a tactical game, I dunno about a "Simulation." Simulation says to me that if you get shot with a bullet, stimpacks aren't gonna save you, you're probably dead. There's more but needless to say it was far from a simulation.

2. Did you even play Fallout 1 or 2? I mean, I dunno how good you are at geography, but California has always been the west coast.

3. Replayability? Egh I guess it has a small amount, but nothing compared to fallout.

I think I'm dissapointed in you honestly =(

[PsychoSniper]

1: Agreed. The tactics got boring after a short time. It quicly ebcomes a case of get everyone hunting riffles, and let them shoot at will. Get AKs, shoot at will, and repeat with more and more powerfil weapons as you get them.

2: Simple fuckup wolf, that said the said 'prespective' was kinda gay cause you basicly go, kill, repeat.

3: "I know I've already read someone say they go back to replay it"

Cmon man, ONE person.

FO:C primarily has it's replay value thri mutliplay and mods.

I myself have only completed it unmodded once.

With mods, I tend to play around for a while, get bored, uninstall.



And agreed wolf, he should have stayed gone.

[VasikkA]

Stop referring it to Fallout: Craptics

Do you prefer Fallout: Tictacs then? I've always referred it as FOT, the said Craptics term seems to be the invention of PsychoSniper. Dunno, perhaps Iraq changes the nature of man.

Did it live up to the impressive world of Fallout? Not entirely, but it didn't fail miserably either. Fallout 2 as far as the world went sucked entirely, at least by the purist standards I'm hearing and seeing offered up.

Fallout: Tactics did several things right; the artwork and maps were mostly of high quality, the gore and sound effects was reminiscent of the original games and the continuous turn-based system, although different, was decently executed. The SPECIAL character system was a nice touch. I can't comment on multiplayer, but apparently it was quite fun.

1: An actual tactical simulation of a post apocolytic war
Anyone who says otherwise does have their heads stuck up their ass. What MicroForte and 14 Degrees East did when they made both turn based and real time possibilities was actually make a game for the entire genre's crowd. Did anyone here even play it through either squad based, or individual turn based? Do you know how greatly that changes all perspectives of the game? The screaming I'm hearing is that "They didn't make it right, wah wah wah, we can't have real time wah wah wah, not tactical because of real time wah wah wah."

Combat in itself wasn't anything spectacular compared to other squad-based tactical combat games released during and before that time. The tactical possibilities were rather limited and the environment could've been exploited more creatively(taking cover, height differences). The action felt too 'automated', in my opinion.

2: A perspective of another part of the country, seeing that Fallout 1 and 2 were primarly east coast areas. I enjoyed fighting in the St. Louis area, even if the mission was a bitch when you didn't know mutants were coming.

I assume you misspelled west coast. Some of the story inaccuracies and over the top additions were a bit confusing and irritating if you liked the RPGs. I'm not talking about hairy deathclaws and modern car wrecks but rather fundamental parts of the Fallout gameverse such as how Brotherhood of Steel was depicted or the ludicrous Reaver faction. It showed merely lack of respect and background research from the developer's and publisher's side.

3: Replayability: I know I've already read someone say they go back to replay it to see if they could make any other sort of maneuvers to finish off the various missions.

I haven't felt the urge after completing it once. If I want some squad based tactical combat action I turn to other and better games.

My final statement before I wait for the flames to come, is that I am dissapointed in what the Fallout community has degenerated into.

The community doesn't entirely exist of Roshambo type purists and PsychosSniper type... erm, loudmouths. If you want normal discussion and opinion exchange, there are plenty of those here as well. Perhaps you should read more of the forums before you pass your judgment.

[jetbaby]

The fact that you specifically request flames and then point out how the WE have "degenerated" makes you an idiot. Just because you like something doesn't mean everyone else has to, just as their disliking it doesn't make you need to like it. This is America (to some of us), land of the free, home of the socially repressed. Get over your fear of the interne, by the way. If the forums hated you so much last time it will probably more of the same, so just post on your original name and man up.

And I am so confused by your brief bit about Fallout and Fallout 2 that I won't make further comment until you clarify what exactly in the hell you are talking about.

There is no replayability whatsoever. Missions are completely and utterly linear, save for which building you clear first in some of the more open maps. I find no joy in walking down a set path with impenetrable walls placed wherever the map makes did not want me to pass. Oooh. Generic corrigated fence number seventeen, my favorite.

One of the few things they did get right, as VasikkA pointed out, was the artwork.

That, however, does not make up for the complete butcher of numerous weak elements of the game. For instance. The Brotherhood. The Reavers. The Robots. Hairy deathclaws. Oh, and TB was a joke. CTB was very well done, for what it's worth. I would've preferred a functional and effective TB as well. The mission structure, uselessness of the worldmap other than to waste twenty seconds of your time, pathetic integration of vehicles into gameplay as anything other than a way to speed up said world map use, so on and so forth.

[Krix]

2. Did you even play Fallout 1 or 2? I mean, I dunno how good you are at geography, but California has always been the west coast.

Yeah call it a brain fart, mishap whatever you may call it. Yes I meant westcoast. Having a game set in the midwest where things could have been drastically different on the A: Tribal level, B: raider level, and C: how the entire world evolved, was quite worthwhile.

1: Agreed. The tactics got boring after a short time. It quicly ebcomes a case of get everyone hunting riffles, and let them shoot at will. Get AKs, shoot at will, and repeat with more and more powerfil weapons as you get them.

Sounds like a-typical CTB exclusive mode to me. When you play in ITB, you find out that some of the other weapons become quite useful when you can perform actual maneuvers, since the ITB does give you the control to do that.

Combat in itself wasn't anything spectacular compared to other squad-based tactical combat games released during and before that time. The tactical possibilities were rather limited and the environment could've been exploited more creatively(taking cover, height differences). The action felt too 'automated', in my opinion.

Now see I only agree that when you compare it to games like JA2/JA2UB that it's not anything great or spectacular. Quite honestly I get bored with JA2 UB and even all the various mods that one can play with it. So I turn to FOT every now and again. Probably played through it 8 or 9 times, only most recently deciding "hey, what would ITB be like.

3. Replayability? Egh I guess it has a small amount, but nothing compared to fallout.

You're holding Fallout 1 to have some grandoise amount of replayability. Fallout 1 was small, and while it allowed you to choose whatever the hell path you want, there's only so much you can do with that.

The mission structure, uselessness of the worldmap other than to waste twenty seconds of your time, pathetic integration of vehicles into gameplay as anything other than a way to speed up said world map use, so on and so forth.

Now call me crazy, but when I play most of my standard "build and rush" strategy games, IE Command & Conquer, Starcraft, AOE, RON, really it's only one type of play for the entirety of the game.

As for the useless mission structure, let's approach this from a couple different missions, uh last raider mission will be the first one I consider. Now the whole point of the mission is to quite literally, wipe the map. Which is all fine and good, it's a strategy game, you're supposed to secure the area. As I recall, there were three different entrances you could take into that base, all having three different significant strategies attached to them. (This applies both to CTB and ITB)

Also, the St. Louis mission offered you multiple paths on cleaning out the map, and while each path allowed you to "run and gun" there were better ways of handling it.

Now for the flame fest:

The fact that you specifically request flames and then point out how the WE have "degenerated" makes you an idiot.

*sigh* I said that they would come, not that I was requesting them. Learn to read.

[VasikkA]

Quite honestly I get bored with JA2 UB and even all the various mods that one can play with it. So I turn to FOT every now and again.

Call it matter of preference, then. Even you admit the combat in FOT is nothing spectacular. However, most of the criticism here concerning FOT is well grounded. I guess disagreeing with you means being degenerate.

Probably played through it 8 or 9 times

Sounds like you live a vivid and interesting life.

You're holding Fallout 1 to have some grandoise amount of replayability. Fallout 1 was small, and while it allowed you to choose whatever the hell path you want, there's only so much you can do with that.

Wow, this must be some new kind of logic because it makes no sense at all!

Now call me crazy, but when I play most of my standard "build and rush" strategy games, IE Command & Conquer, Starcraft, AOE, RON, really it's only one type of play for the entirety of the game.

And this is relevant how? FOT's genre suddenly changed to "build and rush" strategy?

As for the useless mission structure, let's approach this from a couple different missions, uh last raider mission will be the first one I consider. Now the whole point of the mission is to quite literally, wipe the map. Which is all fine and good, it's a strategy game, you're supposed to secure the area. As I recall, there were three different entrances you could take into that base, all having three different significant strategies attached to them. (This applies both to CTB and ITB)

Also, the St. Louis mission offered you multiple paths on cleaning out the map, and while each path allowed you to "run and gun" there were better ways of handling it.

So, FOT offered tactical variability in some of the missions? In a truly dynamic mission structure, you wouldn't have to search for such examples as they're integrated in the core of the game.

There's no denying that FOT's missions are linear. It might make the missions feel more compact, but offers little replay value.

[Krix]

Call it matter of preference, then. Even you admit the combat in FOT is nothing spectacular. However, most of the criticism here concerning FOT is well grounded. I guess disagreeing with you means being degenerate.

Tsk tsk, I could point out the many flaws in JA2's combat system, or the bugs in the game, doesn't detract from being hailed as some "grandmaster" of tactical gaming.

As for Fallout 1 and my "lack of logic", replayability will only go so far. RPG's have more replayability than most FPS's because RPG's generally offer more means for achieving your ends. Basically, replayability of any game is directly tied to how many means are offered to your ends. Fallout 1 really didn't have that many different means.

And this is relevant how? FOT's genre suddenly changed to "build and rush" strategy?

My apologies for being unclear. Build and rush is a specific type of strategy game, in which there is essentially only one method for completing the game. As life/game developers/fate have it, games like Jagged Alliance 2 also only have one real method for completing the game, and funnily enough it's very similar to FOT's wipe the map linear base.

[Thor Kaufman]

JA2 sure has flaws, still it is the best computer game of all time, period. If you disagree, you're wrong and dumb.

[Krix]

Well played sir, well played indeed.