Arcanum Or Fallout 2?

The team of troika games were involved in both of the games, where do u think they did a better job?

 

bugs wise, they should get burned at the stake.
if they didn't make fallout2 I would personally make sure they did

 

Just a little FYI: the three Troika founders (Tim Cain, Jason Anderson, Leonard Boyarsky) left Interplay shortly after drawing up the initial design ideas behind Fallout 2. Their involvement in the development of that game was very, very limited.

 

if it is so, these people really were a made from the same material, since the amount of bugs is almost the same expect it's higher.
looks like they have the same way of "testing" the game. Loosers

 

At first I though Fallout 2 was better- better quests, better load times, better sound effects, better characters, better face animations, better locales- but for some reason Arcanum has been growing on me. I've played F2 all the way through several times, but with Arcanum I can just play through the BMC and STILL be happy.

 

well.

i really love fo2 but arcanum is much more playble after u finished him! u can play so many kind of games!

 

Fallout 2 for me

For me it has to be Fallout 2, I'm afraid. Sorry to the Arcanum team, but Fallout 2 is the best RPG I have ever played.

It had plot, characters, gameplay, character development, ethos and atmosphere. I'm not saying Arcanum falls down in any of these areas, but I don't believe it excels quite the Fallout 2 did.

I have to say, though, this may not be a completely fair comparison; Arcanum is trying to break open a new genre, where Fallout 2 was using an established one AND had the benefit of learning from the original Fallout project.

I'll be interested to find how I feel if we ever get to a point where we're comparing Fallout 2 to Arcanum 2 ...

 

ehh...

well i fell that too, but fallout tactics was a true FART! i REALLY hope that they will do fallout 3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

yes it was fallout:TACTICS!!!!
it was never intened to be anything exept raw action! It's like asking a cat to bark!
Ridiculus! or going to titanic wanting to see a vietnam war movie.

 

arcanum imo is better then fallout 2, the real question is if its better then fallout 1.

i'm not sure.

 

well!

You said it my friend!

and made me smile!
:smile:

 

was arcanum better than fallout 2?are you saying it was better than fallout2!?
youre a loon!

 

no

i quoted u , but for some reason it hasnt work!
i meant ot say that what u wrote made me lough!!!!

excuse me

 

Fallout 1 was half as big as part 2! And there was a time limit to play!
how can part 2 be worse?
A loon I tell you a loon! A mutant!

 

ahhh u dont get me

when u said:

"yes it was fallout:TACTICS!!!!
it was never intened to be anything exept raw action! It's like asking a cat to bark!
Ridiculus! or going to titanic wanting to see a vietnam war movie. "

i laughed!

what is the problem?

 

I'm not talking about yer post it was calis who said part 2 was worser than part 1. okyu!

 

The originally Fallout is probably the best game conceptually of the 3. Sooo much freedom. There are like a dozen ways to do everything, and 90% of the game is optional. The fact that you can play through it completely nonviolently is testament. Unfortunately, it's also shorter than a lengthy belch.

Between F2 and Arcanum, I'll give the nod to the current game. The plot is better, the setting's more original, and there are more options for different ways to play. About the only area I'd give the nod to Fallout in his freedom of movement. The plotting of Arcanum tends to railroad you, while there are still numerous optional areas in Fallout 2. I also hate, hate, hate the "experience by blow" method used in Arcanum, but this is a minor quibble.

Where all three games suffer is characterization. The only remotely memorable character in any of three is the scientist who invented jet.

 

ha?

ha? i thought that experience by blow was in fo2 too?

 

Personally, I prefered Fallout 2. It had everything the original did, but with longer gameplay and more bells and whistles (i LOVED the car).

I don't agree about the lack of characters. Personally, I found the characters in all three games (i.e. not including the monstrous Fallout Cactits) very engaging and apt.

Arcanum is great: it is deep, has a worthwhile plot, chracters as mentioned above, and good character development. The novel genre is refreshing, although 20 years of reading formulaic fantasy and sf are causing my brain to rebel in the face of a new idea. However, I still prefer Falout 2.

Maybe one of the areas where Arcanum comes of worse is the UI mechanisms. Fallout 2 had a admirably transparent interface, probably because Black Isle pretty much took the original Fallout interface and modified it according to the feedback they'd received.

This compares to Arcanum, where many users tasks are harder than they should be. How many times do I have to shuffle around pieces of equipment when walking into a shop or arriving back at my stash? Why do I have to go through a huge rigmerole when I want to travel between towns? Why is it so difficult to manage/see information on my party members?

Anyway, like I said before, I'll be interested to see how Fallout 2 stands up to Arcanum 2.

I hope and pray that comparing Fallout Tactics to some kind of Arcanum Tactics is never on the cards.

 

I dont get it?

I really dont get it? what wrong with black isle? after the AWSOME succses of fo2 i thought that black isle MUST do fo3 and not changing even a small concept!
and than like in a bad dream they realased that horrible fallout tactics! and i ask u WHY? why black didnt do fallout 3?