Steam and GOG sales

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm ... well, I see that the Fallout series is on sale at GOG. I also know that Bethesda worked on it for a good long while.

What is Fallout? GOG describes it as an RPG, but it doesn't look like a traditional fantasy RPG - more like a shoot-'em-up, like Doom or Quake, but with RPG "elements", like stats etc. Is that right?

[Tawmis]

Looks like an RPG... just during a nuclear fall out... (and probably, thus the name...)

[Collector]

You don't know about the Fallout games?

[DeadPoolX]

What is Fallout? GOG describes it as an RPG, but it doesn't look like a traditional fantasy RPG - more like a shoot-'em-up, like Doom or Quake, but with RPG "elements", like stats etc. Is that right?

Okay, first of all, there's a big difference between the genres of First-Person Shooter and a Shoot 'Em Up (aka "Schmup"). An FPS is like Call of Duty, Doom, and Quake whereas a "Schmup" is more like R-Type, Gradius, or 1942.

Anyway... the Fallout games are an RPG series (with tons of stats, skills, specializations, abilities, etc.) set in an alternate timeline where nuclear war happened in the mid-20th century. This is the only RPG series I've ever seen that doesn't have magic or something analogous to magic (i.e. biotics, the Force, psionics, plasmids, etc), so if you're like me and generally dislike magic, this is a refreshing change.

Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are 3D isometric RPGs that play in real-time until you go into combat, where the game becomes turn-based. These two games, in my opinion, are the best in the entire series. The ability to make choices and roleplay are amazing, especially the second game which lets you do some really bizarre stuff. The downside is because they were released in the late 90s, the graphics and interface both look and feel dated. That doesn't bother me, but some of that might be due to nostalgia.

Fallout 3 changed things up a but, becoming an RPG that initially plays like an FPS, but lets you enable VATS (aka "Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting System") at anytime in combat so you can effectively stop time. This allows you to shoot what and where you want at your leisure. In other words, you CAN handle combat in Fallout 3 like a traditional FPS, but you don't need to and in fact the game is better if you use VATS to stop time since you have better targeting options.

Fallout New Vegas handles exactly like Fallout 3, but it's generally considered better in a lot of ways. So aside from taking place in a different part of the US, the game plays exactly the same.

Fallout 4 changes the formula slightly. Instead of letting you stop time entirely, like you could in Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, VATS now slows down time. Overall, most people didn't like this and a mod to change VATS to the older "time-stopping" version was released on Steam and Nexus Mods. Fallout 4 is also considered less complicated than Fallout 3 or Fallout New Vegas, becoming less of an RPG and more action-oriented.

I haven't played Fallout 76, so I have no idea how that plays. All I know is there was a lot of bad press surrounding this game at launch.

Another game in the Fallout universe is called Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel. This is a turn-based tactics game with a light story, and while it's very good in its own right, it's not an RPG at all.

[MusicallyInspired]

It's worth noting that Bethesda bought the Fallout IP years after the first 3 Fallout games (1, 2, and Tactics) which were produced by Interplay in the late 90s (Tactics was actually 2001). When Bethesda took it over and developed Fallout 3 in 2008 they turned it into a first person RPG more like The Elder Scrolls (it actually uses the same Gamebryo engine that Oblivion uses).

Fallout 76 is an online game. It was incredibly buggy on launch. The idea was that every character in the game would be a real person. However, this turned into a whole lot of trolling and basically a boring empty world because there were no interesting characters for story developments. So they later added NPCs. I haven't played it either but I guess it's gotten better over time.

[DeadPoolX]

The idea was that every character in the game would be a real person. However, this turned into a whole lot of trolling and basically a boring empty world because there were no interesting characters for story developments. So they later added NPCs. I haven't played it either but I guess it's gotten better over time.

A lot of game ideas sound good on paper and would, in fact, be great if people could actually roleplay and not be complete asshats online.

There are some multiplayer games I've seen gameplay of on YouTube that look like a lot of fun (e.g. Squad, Holdfast: Nations at War, Chivalry II, Nemesis: Distress, Grounded, etc). The trick, however, is having a good group of people to play alongside.

Most of the YouTubers who do videos on there have a group ranging in size from three to six people and that makes a world of difference. If you have to solely rely on random players, you'll find the dregs of society and they'll inevitably ruin what should've been a great experience.

It's really sad, because if gamers could actually group together and work as a team, some of these games would be absolutely awesome. And sometimes you do get lucky and find some good people, but more often than not you're left with toxic 13 year-olds who just learned a staggering combination of foul language and have been dying to use it.

[Rath Darkblade]

You don't know about the Fallout games?

Know about it? Absolutely. Played it? No. So, just wondering what it's like.

Thank you for explaining it, DPX. It sounds interesting, but I never played it because I prefer traditional fantasy RPGs to sci-fi ones.

*looks at Tawm's video* Yeesh ... it looks (graphically, at least) dreadful. But hey, the graphics are quite dated. RPG-wise, it reminds me a little of Neverwinter Nights 1 (stats display) or Baldur's Gate 1 (graphics). Does that sound about right?

A lot of game ideas sound good on paper and would, in fact, be great if people could actually roleplay and not be complete asshats online...

Most of the YouTubers who do videos on there have a group ranging in size from three to six people and that makes a world of difference. If you have to solely rely on random players, you'll find the dregs of society and they'll inevitably ruin what should've been a great experience.

It's really sad, because if gamers could actually group together and work as a team, some of these games would be absolutely awesome. And sometimes you do get lucky and find some good people, but more often than not you're left with toxic 13 year-olds who just learned a staggering combination of foul language and have been dying to use it.

Sounds like ... my Team Fortress 2 experience, in a nutshell.

[DeadPoolX]

It sounds interesting, but I never played it because I prefer traditional fantasy RPGs to sci-fi ones.

Yes, we know. We've all tried to get you to go outside your comfort zone and try some sci-fi RPGs.

I'd say the best description for the Fallout games would be "post-apocalyptic" with an "atompunk retrofuturistic" style reminiscent of the 1950s.

So while it's definitely more sci-fi than fantasy, it's not the same kind of sci-fi you might find with the Mass Effect series (which is what people usually think of when they talk about sci-fi RPGs).

RPG-wise, it reminds me a little of Neverwinter Nights 1 (stats display) or Baldur's Gate 1 (graphics). Does that sound about right?

I assume you're talking about the first Fallout game?

The stats display doesn't remind me of NWN1; in fact, the Fallout games's stats screen always seemed more concise and intuitive to use.

As for graphics, Fallout 1 came out in 1997, whereas Baldur's Gate was released in 1998, so yeah, the graphical style would be similar. I actually prefer the style of Fallout 1 & 2's graphics to either Baldur's Gate 1 or 2.

One area where the first two Fallout games were really clunky was when you were buying and selling stuff, but maybe that was just me having issues with it.

[Tawmis]

*looks at Tawm's video* Yeesh ... it looks (graphically, at least) dreadful. But hey, the graphics are quite dated.

Graphics being quite dated... did you forget you're on a forum about Sierra games? Talk about dated!

[MusicallyInspired]

The original Fallouts always reminded me more of Diablo and Crusader: No Remorse (at least how they looked and somewhat controlled: SVGA isometric. Obviously they're all quite different games).

And as far as games looking ugly goes...what Tawm said lol. All of our favourite Sierra and LucasArts games are even lower resolution than that. (don't judge a game by its looks)

[DeadPoolX]

The original Fallouts always reminded me more of Diablo and Crusader: No Remorse (at least how they looked and somewhat controlled: SVGA isometric. Obviously they're all quite different games).

They may look similar, but the Fallout games are full RPGs and don't play like more action-oriented titles, such as Diablo or Crusader: No Remorse.

(MI, I know you know this, but I thought I'd mention it just in case Rath thought you meant that the Fallout games are the same genre or play like Diablo or C:NR).

[Rath Darkblade]

I have played Diablo (well, the 2nd one), and the Fallout stats screen looks nothing like it.

Well ... the GOG sale seems to be finished on Fallout. So ... which Fallout game is it best to start with? Fallout 1? 2? 3? Etc.?

[Tawmis]

Dreamfall on sale for 36 hours:

https://www.gog.com/en/game/dreamfall_t ... st_journey


Pillars of Eternity II on sale for 36 hours:


https://www.gog.com/en/game/pillars_of_eternity_2_game

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm, I've had a look at Dreamfall, and I have a question or two:

1. Do I need to have played TLJ 1 to understand what's going on?

2. Some of the reviews are quite negative. Do I have to pay attention to them?

[DeadPoolX]

Hmm, I've had a look at Dreamfall, and I have a question or two:

1. Do I need to have played TLJ 1 to understand what's going on?

2. Some of the reviews are quite negative. Do I have to pay attention to them?

Okay, I'm going to assume you're talking about Dreamfall: The Longest Journey, not Dreamfall Chapters since the names of both games could be shortened to "Dreamfall."

1. Like most games that have sequels with characters who reappear, it'd probably make more sense having played the first one. That said, from personal experience I don't think you need to play TLJ1 to understand Dreamfall.

I know I didn't play TLJ1 and I tried playing Dreamfall. Overall, I understood the game just fine. You could also get a summary from Wikipedia if you want to know TLJ1's story without playing it. In my case, I asked Maia about certain details.

BTW, the reason I say I "tried" to play Dreamfall is because I lost interest. This wasn't the game's fault as it was enjoyable enough, I just have the attention span of a gnat. I think you have a better attention span than that, so you probably won't lose interest unless you really dislike the game.

One thing to note is that Dreamfall is a fully-3D adventure game, so the controls work in a similar fashion to Grim Fandango as opposed to a traditional parser-based or point-and-click adventure game. Maia had no problem using the mouse and keyboard to control characters, but I personally found mouse and keyboard control to be a bit awkward, so I used a controller (which was weird because I never use controllers with adventure games).

2. It depends what those negative reviews are saying.

Some people care more about gameplay, others about story, while for other people controls and other game mechanics are more important. This means someone might write a negative review about something you don't have a problem with or actively like, so you need to read the reviews before deciding that those negative critiques mean anything to you.