Quote:
Originally Posted by mineistaken
Did you find huge difference between 1/2 and 3? 3 had less of a character building and quest solving and more of a "shooter" action?
I just read some more reviews and some hardcore F1/2 fans were claiming that F3/4 were mostly just shooters with some rpg element. Not as much of a hardcore rpg/character as F1/2.
They said F3 was a decent game, but very different style  |
in the end the Fallout fandom had to know there was going to be some evolution of gameplay. The "eye in the sky" thing got us as far along as it could, and it was great, don't get me wrong. The first two instalments of the game, and FO Tactics as well, were all (and still are) incredibly awesome each in their own right. I also got plenty of added gametime with FO 2 thanks to Killap's Restoration Project mod.
But when Bethesda took up the reigns you just knew things were going to change. Yes, FO 3 was much more of a shooter, but still plenty of dialogue interaction, plenty of choices to make, plenty of quests and things to figure out and investigate.
I'm playing New Vegas right now and so far it seems to be a step up from 3 in all departments, including more character development. So far I like it. When I want that original feel experience I fire up one of the old originals on my old backup computer I keep for that very reason and 'relive' to my heart's content.
If FO 4 is a step up from NV it's going to be a great game. One of the biggest things about every Fallout version is the massive amount of game time you get for your money. These are not mere shooters you can race through in six hour blasting everything in sight. I love a game where some of your choices come with consequences, often dire ones.