Arcanum Or Fallout 2?

A lot of people complain about the Arcanum interface, but it never bothered me overmuch. It's probably not as efficient as it could be, but it gets the job done in the long run.

As far as characters are concerned: Sulik, Geoffrey and a few others are fun but thoroughly forgettable. And they are all (accepting Virgil, who is rather annoying) kind of one-dimensional. Compare this to the characters in BG2 or Planescape, who have loads of interesting quirks and nuances. Even the best Troikaland characters are maybe comparable to those from the original Baldur's Gate.

 

that's so true..... i remember playing bauders gate (the original)and the npcs were great..... i mean the npcs u meet in arcanum has one main plotline, (the reason they join u) and thats about it. the depth of baulders gate npc is truly amazing.

yes, i am one of those people complaining about the the lack of visual depth of arcanum. ok guys, i love the game jsut as much as you all, but I seriously would've loved it even more if the character detail was higher. like you'll see your feet if you don't wear shoes. I know you guys would prob disagree but, to me, the most appealing thing about these games are character building. i get a kick out of getting something cool and actually seeing your character change in appearance. Thats why i loved everquest, the detail was astonding.

 

Wow.

in the last month i heard so mant time "Baldur's Gate" here, "Baldur's Gate" there,
is it that good? i heard that it was really nice but THAT good?
lets say, its better then arcanum or fallout 2?

 

x, have you played it? try it ..... the depth of the npc is amazing ..... the actually game, i think arcanum is better, but the npcs :smile: .... give it a try

 

yes!

Yes, but still arcanum needs a low pc to run on it, and bg need a really HEAVY pc!

i have a cheap celeron!
:sad:

 

1. why the hell do people have celerons?
buy durons they are mych better and cheaper!
2. How about the music in arcanum? at the begining it was an okay twist from the usual but now its: uke: no matter how many times I played fallout it never got boring.

 

Are you saying that there´s the same amount of bugs in Arcanum and Fallout 2? If so you HAVE to stop sniffing your socks!!! :smile: :smile:
I mean even after the end patch Fallout 2(and Fallout 1 for that matter) is FULL of bugs, to the point that it´s almost unplayable in some areas. Arcanum was very playable without the patches and after the latest patch seems almost perfect.(don´t know about multiplayer though as I don´t play it.)
As for which game is better, my vote goes for Fallout2. Because of the freedom in the game and the amazing "after the bomb feeling" that they managed to make the player experience. Arcanum lacks a bit of unique "feel", but is still a great game.

 

well!

i dont know , but fou2 and arcanum are the most good games i ever played!

 

this is kinda unfair question, don't u think? I'd say Arcanum, coz u can play as a bad guy... But Fallout2 is also a great game.

 

Do you know what the irony is? A big Fallout/2 site, No Mutants Allowed, did a poll about which users wanted more, FO3 or Fallout Cattits, and here's the results of the poll:

93% Fallout 3
4% Undecided
3% Fallout Tactics

 

Does anyone else think that the Fallout 2 graphics were more real and believable?

 

no

no dude, i think that the graphics are kinda the same in both of the games!

 

The artwork is great in both games, I think.

If we're talking about GRAPHICS instead of just artwork, I'd say Fallout wins. The terrible layering in Arcanum, causing me to be unable to see my char, followers or enemies in fairly frequent situations (e.g. all through the ancient maze) spoil the graphics a lot for me.

 

I'd say the artwork is pretty well awful in both games, by modern standards. Fallout is a little better off, because it's *supposed* to be depciting a barren landscape.

And the layering was *much* worse in the Fallout games. In Arcanum when you go behind a wall, it *usually* goes transparent so you can kind of see what you're doing. Granted, this doesn't always work perfectly, but in Fallout they didn't even attempt to layer, and it pissed me off royally. Also I *much* prefer "fog of war" to the "you can only scroll so far away from your character" method Troikaites use.

 

ha?

i dont get it!
what is difrrents between the graphics and the artwork?

 

On 2001-09-30 15:13, Soren The Wild wrote:

I see you probably did not experience the most painful bugs in the game. Fallout2 saves nevdr got corrupted as long as you kept multiple savegames it was okay
but arcanum has 2 ways to corrupt savegames
1 Naked in the middle of nowhere shopping
2 Are you sure you want to quit?
Now these made me stop playing the game for a week. I hate such lame shit I mean the designers

 

so

so now u play the game again, dont you!
u just cant ressist arcanum!

 

face it- Fallout 2 had *atmosphere*. It may have been significantly shorter, but at least there wasn't a place ANYWHERE you couldn't get through using sneaking or diplomacy. In Arcanum, though, long boring hac/slash dungeons seem to be the rule. Why couldn't these have been nonessential side quests? Why did Troika have to make them neccesary? Why oh why?

 

what?

does really fallout 2 is shorter than arcanum?
i thought that fo2 was longer! and harder to finish

 

Etalis, is the first sentence supposed to be related to the rest of the paragraph? I'll grant you Fallout had atmosphere, but I'd say Arcanum accomplishes much the same thing with its oh so Victorian speech patterns and incidental facts about the world.

To your second point, the only absolutely necessary dungeons are the Black Mountain Mines and the Vendrigoth Ruins.