finally beat this after it being in my backlog for like a decade.

What argument did you expect when your "point" is "NUH UH AND ALSO I HATE YOU LEAVE PLEASE LEAVE YOU SCARE ME!!!!"
Fricker, I've been around for long enough to know quite exactly what the discourse around both the original Fallouts was.
I know how things were, you know how they were too, that is why you are begging me to leave.

>Which is exactly why you have to watch youtube vids about Fallout, right zoomie?
What the frick are you even drooling about, child? When the frick did I ever mention anything about youtube? This isn't even projecting, this is your own insecurities and bullshit glowing like a fricking sun.

Here is me at end game of 1

That's what I did essentially, I have no recollection of some quest lines. I went to broken hills b ut fricked off pretty quickly.
I much preferred the tight story of fallout 1, in 2 eventually I was thinking "what am I doing here" .

Maybe it didn't help I played with restored content, but I did fallout fixt for 1 and that was good.

>not getting marcus and giving him a bozar so he oneshots deathclaws
ngmi

I usually play solo.

>Avallone admited to the complaints regarding 2
you made this all up because you watched an eceleb talk about FO2 instead of playing it, because the only thing Avellone said about FO2 was that it showed why projects need creative leads

see

>Avallone admited to the complaints regarding 2
you made this all up because you watched an eceleb talk about FO2 instead of playing it, because the only thing Avellone said about FO2 was that it showed why projects need creative leads

he doesn't agree with any of your complaints

you initially claimed fo2 was wacky themepark, he doesn't agree with your complaints, you are misrepresenting direct quotes because you never played the games and are repeating what Ganker says

see

see [...]

he doesn't agree with any of your complaints

see

see [...]

he doesn't agree with any of your complaints

& see

>Avallone admited to the complaints regarding 2
you made this all up because you watched an eceleb talk about FO2 instead of playing it, because the only thing Avellone said about FO2 was that it showed why projects need creative leads

you lost

man, this sperg is really looking for a 'gotcha'.

>I just think that people take it way too far and it's ultimately is very obvious that this entire rivalry it's more about Bethesda vs Obsidian fanboys than anything else.
Yeah. One thing that is telling how much unhealthy shit is involved is the fact that a LOT of people only started being hyper-polarized against Fo3 only AFTER NV came out.
Which to me suggests their reasons for hating that game may be more about tribalism than the game itself.
Before NV came out, Ganker was generally more lukewarm to Fo3. I was in a very small minority with my passionate spite towards it.
Only after NV came out, the negativity towards Fo3 started really brewing up. On one hand, it's understandable, many people who were very new to the RPG genre only got a solid frame of reference after playing NV. On the other hand, it feels like a lot of people just started claiming they hate Fo3 purely because NV was now the one that was cool to like, and well, tribalism kicked in.

New to modding NV, yes. It was the first time that I decided to try out NV mods and most likely fugged the installation of something. I still wanted to scratch the Fallout itch so I began a new FO2 game with the RPU mod, which is what I'm playing currently. When I'm done with that I'll see if I still feel like trying NV again.

have fun sperging out for the next 9 hours like you did last time, i'm out. see you when i check the thread in the morning i guess.

wow it felt like so much longer.. does it become less of an annoying memefest at 15 hours?

>zoomer alt tabs from the game while listening to his favorite eceleb talk about the game telling them what to think about it
>"posters show receipts"
I guarantee none of the morons ITT calling Fallout 2 a "wacky theme park" actually finished the game.

you admit you just alt tabbed in the game while listening to an eceleb talk about it so you could pretend on Ganker that you played the game?

many a such case, sadly

>i didn't acknowledge that scenario you invented because it was weird and made me feel uncomfortable honestly like i was talking to someone who was genuinely deranged
and I didn't make mention of how some attention prostitute on Ganker posting screenshots of Ganker approved 3x3 games as shortcuts on their desktop is looking for validation by playing games he clearly hates.

>validation?
yeah you're clearly just an epic troll posting your steam profile and pictures of your desktop with old, fairly well standing games to Ganker who hates new games, and not just looking for someone to give you a pat on the back and acknowleging that you own a copy of an old game Ganker likes

i am fairly sure calling fallout 2 a bad video game already makes any recommendation you have for me irrelevant, but thanks

also apparently you beat fallout 2 in 13 hours, i find that dubious unless you were using guides since my blind playthrough took 50hrs+

i am really unsure what you're doing in a thread discussing fallout 2 when the sum total of your posts is "fallout 2 is shit" and somehow you're still hanging around here, apparently you're not looking for validation, nor attention, but you're not trying to discuss the game either

and somehow through all this you've managed to call me mentally deficient, despite yourself showing actual signs of psychopathy

i dont care about your opinions because nothing you can add do this convo would be of interest to me

however, i just look at your posts and i imagined this is what a person that unironically thinks fo3 is better than nv is whenever they're not actively "playing the role", i gathered from your agonixing over not being able to finish fo2 but quickly finishing fo1 is that you're someone who got into fallout late and probably enjoyed 3 and 4 over NV and your only purpose for playing 2 was to confirm to yourself that fo1+3 is better than fo2+NV and this all links back to the post upthread where a different anon made a similar proposition

i know i'm probably reaching here but that's mainly the reason i kept replying to you

im not pretending to be anyone else in this thread but me, I am merely referencing this post

>what'll I be in for with 2?
Fair warning.
If people talk about Fallout 1/2 on Ganker, there is a 99.9% chance they are Beth drones that never actually played them. Seriously, it's completely absurd how much bullshit flies on this board about these particular games. Fallout 3 and it's rivalry with New Vegas made people go absolutely fricking mental, these are genuinely some of the hardest-to-discuss title on this board as a result.
The rule of thumb is - don't trust literally anyone when they share their "opinions" on these two.

most of the time I'm talking about another anon, I came into this thread thinking I'm going to have to call out the usual "fallout 2 wacky wacky reddit reddit" but I noticed a kindered spirit had already done so for me

for the record

fo3 vs nv isnt a feasible analogy for fo1 vs fo2, 3 is built on the general principle of regurgitating old ideas, nv is built on advancing and building up on the existing material, NV vs F3 has a lot of moronic ingrates screeching just to fit in but the bottom line is that Fo3 is a very different beast compared to NV, and BGS never really cared about trying to move the IP forwards, most likely out of respect and fear of backlash, meanwhile NV builds upon the remains of a cancelled game utilizing much of work that was already put into both van buren and the fallout bible as well, made by a dev team that actively wanted to make the game because they had a story to tell. fo3 is more of a dumbed down introduction to the IP in that regard

and much like 3 vs NV, 1 and 2 are more or less each their own thing, 1 does it own thing and 2 does its own thing, but 2 utilizes lore from 1 and also builds up on it, advancing it in a plausible and satisfying direction. NV doesn't build up on 3's ideas, instead it builds up on obsidian's existing ones

is my first post in this thread, at this point i never read the post I later referred to, but it more or less establishes my stance on 1, 2, 3 and NV and one could perhaps notice similarities in it vs. the "anon upthread" i kept referring to

wow you just assumed a lot of bullshit again and none of it is true. 3 and 4 fricking suck and i've played new vegas so much i literally can not bear to play it another minute. you should stop assuming shit so much and just debate the argument as it is presented to you instead of looking like a moron all the time.

>I'm not defending no one. I'm just offending man children like you. GROW UP. Your visual novel series is fricking dead you autistic ape.
Why do these games make you so insecure, child? If these games are, as you claim, dead, why are you pissing all over yourself right now?

Why do you need to lash out at them so desperately, to a point where you do not see any issue with lying about them?

Is it because there is this tiny, niggling doubt in your mind, that in reality, the issue may not be with these games, but rather, with your taste? That maybe you are a brain-dead zoomie child that literally does not have any shred of patience, curiosity, or any actual human virtue left. That maybe something is wrong with the fact that all you can consume now is insultingly dumb trash spewed by massive corporations that treat you like the brain-dead npc you are?

Where does that fear come from, child?

>you didn't address a single thing I said
Nothing you said is worth addressing. You are seething because the games filtered you. Your point is "it's slow and does not have instant gratification and epic scripted battles like Fallout 3 does, and I hate that it exists, I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE YOUUUUUUUU!"

I'm not really defending the games, child. They don't need that. I'm telling you what you really are. An obnoxious, moronic child literally angry that people before him had better toys to play. A person so insecure, so pathetic, so lacking in any dignity, that he literally believes it's his right to lie about games because they make you feel inadequate.

Fallout 1 and 2 are fine games. Classics. People who have the mental capacity to appreciate them, have played them a dozen times already.

The sole problem, and the sole focus here is you. The fact that you are literally a pest, a creature that has no human redeeming qualities anymore. A person purely reduced to endless seething insecurity, endlessly shitting on things because anything that is good reminds you of how shit you are.

You have nothing of worth to say. You will never have anything of worth to say. You will just dance the moron dance. Lie, screech, shit himself, annoy others.

And I do find that kinda funny, in a very morbid way. There is a point where something is so fricking grotesque all we have left is to laugh. And you reached that point.

>what makes them 'classics'?
The fact that they were at the time of their release, and remained for many years later, some of the best titles in their genre. Good enough to be enjoyable even after all that time. They are titles that remain worth experiencing if you have interest in cRPG's.

Is this the first time you encountered this word, "classic"? I wound lot expect that is something that needs to be explained.

>yeah. but why?
Numerous reasons. Do you expect an indepth analysis of these games in under 2000 letters? Things that stood out in particular are world-building, tone and atmosphere of these titles, especially the way they use classic fear of the bomb fiction, which they mix with dark humor. First game has great main story, with extremely memorable factions and villains. The second game has some of the best writing you can find in cRPG's - overal great world with ton of intricacy and depth to it, great and memorable characters, and just huge wealth of content.

On a gameplay level, the thing that makes them great - an an integral component of a cRPG, is the variety of gameplay options tied to your specific build and character choices. Playing characters with different properties lead to distinctly different experiences. Quests have many solutions, suited for different builds - and narrative choices suited for different personalities you adopt. This makes different playethroughs actually feel different, allowing you to explore completely different angles, different storylines, different problems and solutions.
This means that the game has depth, as depth is defined as the plurality of options that have meaningful (significant, gameplay and story-wise) outcomes. It also gives the game a decent skill celling to explore, as there is a lot of space for optimization should you desire. And of course, it gives the game great replay value.

They of course do have issues, no game is free of those. The combat was never the game's strongest side. There is a decent amount of options to it, and it does reward thinking ahead, but at times it does feel like you have less control than would be ideal, especially when companions are involved.
Also, the U.I. isn't great, especially the inventory.
And of course as you probably heard, Fo1 is short and the writing can be bland while Fo2 does have issues with main story (the side content is the start of the show) and with tone.

>what is the alternate paths for defending brahmin from radscorpions, anon?
The quest has three different outcomes, and also an entire hidden dialogue tree for low int build, child.

Are you of the mind porting table top rulesets into video games is a good idea?
That is not a widely held belief. It hasn't been since the late 90s early 00s.

>That is not a widely held belief. It hasn't been since the late 90s early 00s.
I know that gen7 morons can't cope with that idea. Widely held beliefs are more often wrong than not. cRPG are a fun genre.

In this case porting table top rulesets into video games is a bad idea. It takes the worst part of table top and holds back video games.

That is why it was abandoned as soon as it was feaydible.

Are you of the mind porting table top rulesets into video games is a good idea?
That is not a widely held belief. It hasn't been since the late 90s early 00s.

How is that working out for them?

Aren't they making the game about shrunk down kids trapped in the backyard?
Oh and that artsy fartsy medieval game.

I would say they have shown the value of porting table top rulesets into video games.

Adorable. You get a detailed answer, and yet you still screech in anger.
Why did you ask about something you did not want to hear an answer for, child? Why did you waste both ours times?

You want to hate the game, you are absolutely not interested in any qualities it may or may not have, so why did you ask?

Video games can do a hell of a lot more than tabletop systems can so porting tabletop rules to video games is a stupid idea

Hello, zoom-zoom. Shockingly, games can be a lot of things. I know the realization that not everything is designed for your moronic AAA-groomed tastes for endless instant gratification must hurt like hell.

>I'm 37
I am entirely confident that you are not. But on the very very slim chance they do - that just makes you look even worse.

You are literally crying because there is a genre of games that again - does not offer that generic, safe, AAA industry shaped gameplay, because for reasons we discussed, they make you feel bad about yourself.

If you are doing this at the age of 37, that is absolutely fricking pathetic.

>A video game rule system can be much more complex because the computer is doing all the mechanical work
Kid, this has nothing to do with complexity. And you have clearly never played ANY tabletops if your life.
Tabletop rules can be as simple or as complex as they need. Games like Fallout 1/2 feature far more complexity than games like Oblivion or Fallout 3. INCOMPARABLY more complexity.

You literally don't even know what a table-top rule-set is. That is how bad this discussion is.

In this case porting table top rulesets into video games is a bad idea. It takes the worst part of table top and holds back video games.

That is why it was abandoned as soon as it was feaydible.

>In this case porting table top rulesets into video games is a bad idea.
It's not AAA action slop that I'm used to so it's a BAD IDEA! GAMES THAT AREN'T EXACTLY SUITED TO MY BABY CASUAL TASTE ARE BAD IDEA! YOU CAN'T MAKE GAMES NOT SPECIFICALLY PANDERING TO MY moron TASTES!!!!!!!!!

Kid, you don't like them. That would be fine. Frick off, let people who play them discuss them, talk about games you do enjoy.

But you can't, can you? You NEED to be here, you need to shit on it because again - the existence of it makes you realize that your taste might be shit. And that is the only remaining cognitive force left in control of you.

>Tabletop rules can't be very complex because they'd bog the human players down, because humans have to play out all the mechanics
Kid.
You have NEVER played a tabletop game in your life. You literally do not know what that term means. Just stop.
How did you not at least intuitively figure out that different people enjoy different levels of complexity of systems, you absolute fricking MONKEY.
What one sees as bogging the game down, others see as the most fun they could ever have. There are rules light, there are rules heavy systems, there are insanely compelex tabletop rulesets calculating balistics of every projectile.
The fact that you failed to even consider this is telling me that you really aren't human anymore. You literally do not comprihend even basic of how humans work.

While you pretend to make educated claims on hobbies that you have never came into ANY contact with. ENTIRE. FRICKING. HOBBIES that you need to lie about.
How did you end up this way?

> REEEEE why are you trying to talk about video games on a board for discussing video games?
Perhaps a board with more moderation would provide the safe space you seek.

True, more moderation getting rid of zoomer c**ts talking about games they don't know would genuinely help.
But if you are trying to pretend there is anything defensible about idiotic children lying about games they never played because they hate the idea that they are aimed at older audience, you do not belong here.
You belong to /b/. General shitposting.

>I could create a rule system where it would take an hour to resolve the rules of a few turns of combat, whereas a computer could do it in a matter of milliseconds
Child. How did you end up like this?
You are continuing to talk about a hobby you have literally never engaged with.
And you were called out on that, you are not going to fool anyone, we know you have never played any tabletop in your life.

What makes a person this broken? What makes you go and continue lying, about something you provably have no understanding off?
How desperately broken and fragile is your ego, if this is something you need to do, consistently?

You talk about tabletops. Which you don't play. Never had, never will. Why? Why do you need to humiliate yourself this way? Why do you continue doing that if you know that the other person sees through your bullshit.

Child, fricking AURORA is originally a tabletop game. There is LITERALLY NO FRICKING LIMIT to how complex a tabletop system can be. Because people who - unlike you - play them, actually fricking play them, and actively explore all kind of strange variations and possibilities and niches.

Which is a concept that apparently deeply, proundly scares you.

So again. What happened to you? Do you have no self control what so ever?

>It's funny how you wrote all those words and said absolutely nothing
This is the most pathetic and cowardly response imaginable.
I asked you some basic questions, you cowardly piece of shit.
Why did you talk about tabletops, if you never ever engaged with that hobby?

>Your questions are stupid and you're just having a tantrum, not an argument, the other guy is right, you're like a fricking woman
Why do you lie? is not a stupid question, child.

You lie. Why do you lie?
Aurora exists as a tabletop system. It's considered one of the most complex videogames of all times.

You claims about nature of tabletop are provably wrong. They were PROVEN WRONG.

Why did you lie about it?

I don't have a link. Contact the creator if you want. Now answer the questions.

>I answered your quesiton, I have played tabletop games
You lied. I proved that you lied.
>If you can't provide any rules for this tabletop game then your claim cannot be proven
Kid, this is pathetic. Can you prove that there are no complex tabletop systems? Can you even name 5 different tabletop RPG systems?

Look up FATAL, or Phoenix King, or unabridged versions of GURPS, you fricking mongoloid. Exalted, Rulemaster.

Your claim is utterly and completely insane. You are insane. Genuinely, fundamentally mentally broken person.
You right now refuse to comprehend that tabletop is a huge fricking hobby with countless niches.
You cannot COMPREHEND THIS FACT. How the frick do you even live being this broken?

>You haven't proved anything. I'm giving you the chance right now to show me a tabletop ruleset
I gave them to you, you idiot. Even though I never had to. Also, if you are going to completely fricking move your goal-posts, at least do it coherently.
"Approaching what a computer can do" is completely fricking meaningless category.

You are an idiot. Your argument is that tabletop systems can't be complex. Again, something you literally cannot prove, literally cannot name ANY tabletop system, deliberately ignore examples when they are given to you.

What happened to you? Why did you lie about tabletop RPG's?

>My argument is that computer game rule systems can, practically, be much more complex than tabletop systems because computers calculate rules MUCH faster than humans can
This is literally nonsense at this point. Complexity of a system is determined - and we have already established - on the number of meaningful choices you can make. This has nothing to do with calculation speed. 99% of of which will go into visuals anyway.

You can make an insanely computer-taxing game where the rules are shallow. Most games do exactly that. Because again - rules a matter of DESIGN, your capacity to invent and define possible interactions.

You are raving about computer calculations which have literally nothing to do with this, acting like the fact that game can have the most hardcore modern graphics and super-advanced physics engine - none of which by the way contradicts the game being based on a table-top rules anyway - automatically makes it a more complex game.

Again. YOU ARE INSANE. And the fact that you tell others that they don't understand games is beyond fricking INSANE - you literally don't understand the difference between rules/states, and processing power you CRETIN.

This is the dumbest shit I have ever seen in my life. Holy SHIT were you lobotomized? What is this absolute bullshit?

>That's your definition of complexity, my defintion of complexity is the complexity of the rules system, which is more objective
Serious question.
How severe autism do you have diagnosed? You do realize you are also low-functioning, right?

>There's different types of complexity.
Not when it comes to game system design, autist. Your argument is also completely moronic because the form of processual complexity that that you cling to has no actual impact on the complexity of the percieved experience - it does not define how the game plays AT ALL (barring issue of hardware performance).

That is ignoring an endless fricking sea of absolutely moronic things you said. Like the fact that you are unaware of the fact that tabletops are often aided by computer programs to handle the process of calculation for them. Again - that is what Aurora is, or was originally. It was a software used to track and automate calculations for the tabletop system.

You are at this point completely raving, we are entirely disconnected from any of the original subjects, and digging through endless lines of autistic nonsense, inability to talk, inability to comprehend basic human behavior...

You are completely broken, holy shit. Is there any part of your brain that works? And why did you lie about the tabletops, you idiot?

>You can't really achieve this for tabletop RPGs, so they're not very deep
Fricking.
Stop.
For the love of god, STOP and fricking look at yourself. Are you even human?
WE HAVE PROVED YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A TABLETOP IS.
WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS SHIT WHEN YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT A TABLETOP IS?!

>If you post sane, on-topic arguments, I will reply
Kid. You have not said a single sane thing in this entire discussion.
I have just explained how your understanding of complexity is wrong. I have also repeatedly demonstrated that there is no cap on how complex a tabletop system can be.

You have never played ANY table top game in your life.
And you are saying that you know for a fact that none of the literally tens of thousands of tabletop systems, including the fricking Aurora, simply cannot have depth.

I've explained how complexity is a matter of design, not processing power. Your claim is "more calculation ALWAYS = more depth of a game" which is idiotic, and also, assisting software used for tabletops makes all computer processing power available to tabletops.

NOTHING YOU SAID MAKES SENSE. YOU ARE INSANE.

>No, you were talking about a different form of complexity
Kid, you aren't talking about any form of complexity, you are raving literal moronic nonsense.
You made up terms that you yourself do not even fricking adhere.
All to argue that an entire hobby that you have never came into contact with is bad because you are an autistic moron that likes to say shit without having any clue what it means.

Your argument boils down to "tabletop systems are bad and don't have complexity because computer can make more calculations."
THIS. IS. NONSENSE. AND PROVABLY WRONG. NOTHING about this statement even begins approaching sanity.
I have explained why. I have given you example of tabletop systems that have more depth, more complexity than 99.99999% of all existing videogames.
I have given you examples of table top games that use computers processing power.

You are a low-functioning autistic cretin.
Holy shit. How do you live?
Do you have a job? How the frick do you operate on daily basis if this is how your brain fricking works? What are you?

Yeah. And also tanble direct examples of tabletops having near-unlimited complexity.

But of course, that does not register with you.

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, CHILDREN. Why do you pretend to understand hobbies you never engaged with?

If you need a safe space the rpg codex or re**it are two places to look. If you get upset at others disagreeing with you this is not the place for you.

The fact that you just keep getting madder and madder is blood in the water attracting sharks.
Anons that may agree with you will join in just for the show.

>there's tons of empty space in these games
Holy shit.
You don't even understand words like "complexity".

Why do you think porting the worst part of table top is a good idea?
It is like attaching a horse to a Formula one race car. Sure it could work but it is not the best possible solution.

Tabletop rulesets held back the industry until men of vision imposed their will.

So I ask again why is porting tabletop rulesets into video games a good idea?
I truly hope you aren't one of the cowards afraid to defend their position.
If you are you will just attack something else to dodge answering a simple straight forward question.

>Why do you think porting the worst part of table top is a good idea?
What makes you, a mentally moronic mongoloid child with patience and intelligence of a fruit fly, capable of judging what is good or bad?

>Tabletop rulesets held back the industry until men of vision imposed their will.
You mean like Beth did?

>So you are a coward afraid to make a stand.
I wish you could appreciate the multiple levels of irony of what you just said.
You can't even fricking cite which part of the post you are replying, you fricking pussy.

>Yet you still have not answered why you think it is a good idea to port tabletop rulesets into videgames.
Because that question is beyond moronic, something that should not be needed to answer.
It's because tabletop systems allow for engaging interactions. I'm by the way completely ignoring the fact that you mistake table-tops for table-top RPG's - another example that you literally do not have the FAINTEST clue what we talk about.

But even in that framework, table-top RPG's are made to facilitate complex gameplay options. Some people enjoy that kind of stuff. The fact that you literally cannot comprehend this fact is fascinating.

The fact that you literally cannot comprehend why someone would enjoy a cRPG WHILE POSTING IN A FALLOUT 1/2 THREAD IS MINDBOGGLING.

Why are you here? Talking about games that you cannot begin to comprehend on the most fundamental level.
Why? Why do you need to lie about these games, why do you need to share your opinions on things you don't understand?

Not that anon but both the GM and ruleset work in conjunction to reach the ideal tabletop rpg experience. Also the idea that a genre that was so dead it only saw a renaissance through crowdfunding is holding back the industry is hilarious.

Again.
You DESPISE the concept of an RPG. On a fundamentally conceptual level.
Why are you in a Fallout 1/2 thread?

>hold back the hobby
It's crazy how people can say this about an entire genre. Imagine saying westerns are holding back the film industry, or mystery novels are holding back the book industry. It's OK if you don't like them but unless you can directly point out how EXACTLY a handful of CRPGs using tabletop rulesets makes like fricking Mario worse you're a massive fricking moron who should be rightfully mocked and ridiculed

>it was holding the hobby back
>how?
>it just was
Truly we've got an intellectual giant here. Watch out when you get up from your seat anon, don't want to rattle the rocks in your skull too hard now

You're the one who brought up how CRPGs were holding back the industry. You need to provide proof of this, in what ways was SOME CRPGS holding back the ENTIRE industry anon? This is your last chance before I just go back to mocking you

Mockery it is. Must be a sad existence to not be able to argue very well on Ganker of all places. Many such cases here

>this one very well received game held back the entire industry
I must've forgotten the saga of CoD Mario and Crash all breaking free from the constraints of tabletop rulesets lol. Truly it was a dark age, where every game ever made was using D&D rules lmao

Why should I entertain your bad attempt to deflect away from your inability to articulate why and how some games using tabletop rules was holding back the entire industry?

>I don't have to elaborate on my opinion because it's no longer doing the thing I cannot properly explain
Lmao
>he thinks there are right and wrong ways to make vidya
This is why I mock you. You have been tricked into thinking only things you like are valid. This is like saying that using red herrings in writing isn't valid and is holding back the written word. It's insane how only vidya is treated this way, you're so caught up in your dislike of a small genre that you've convinced yourself that it somehow held the ENTIRE industry back. Creating problems out of no where for no reason then acting incredulous that someone would poke fun at you for being such a bozo

>I never said better or worse
What are you even replying to in my post bro?
>I said holding back
Yes and I'm contesting that claim. You STILL have not provided any proof that the industry was being held back by these titles
>Nobody makes these games anymore except for the people making these games still
Lmao

Yes I am ignoring your bad argument that does not prove anything. You should make an actual argument instead of trying to divert the argument to if morrowind was good or not. how did these games hold back the entire industry anon?

Nice fanfiction anon except first person action games have existed since before morrowind, you might have heard of this little indie game called fricking DOOM, or I guess Hexen would be quite closer approximation? CRPGs have not ever been holding devs back from making games not tied to tabletop rules, EVER. Fricking moron

No it didn't, which means tabletop rules was not holding them back. Which means every game not using table top rules was not being held back by games that do. Spoilers, there are more games that do not use these rules compared to the ones that do. Hope this helps, or makes you angry. Either works for me bozo

You said the entire industry, are shooters not the industry now?
>inb4 I didn't say that

It was holding back the industry. It got abandoned in the early 00s. Larian making nostalgiabait games is a solid niche for them .

The issue is there are still people that tjink porting tavbletop rules into video games is a good idea to thos day.
They need to be disabused of that notion

>>It was holding back the industry.

>when I said the hobby and the industry I actually only meant a singular genre in that hobby and industry
Maybe you should've said that instead of the thing you actually wrote moron. That said, tabletop rules STILL were not holding back the RPG genre as many RPGs existed outside of tabletop rules. So you're STILL wrong. Embarassing really, if I were you I'd stop posting now.

>You're illiterate because you read what I said correctly
Lmao

The context was we were talking about videogames and you said a mechanic from a few games was holding BOTH the hobby and industry back. You're coping so hard right now it's pathetic. Posting through getting owned online is a brave strategy, I'm sure you'll avoid further embarrassment this way

>no u
Lmao

>actually the industry and hobby only mean a singular aspect of the industry and hobby because context
Stay in school kids

Pretty sure 2 is fine vanilla. It does have a few known bugs, but it seems to be accepted that it's smoother than 1 is. There are mods that adds extra content, but it's not really necessary.

One smaller note. I'm not sure if this problem was in Fo1, but in Fo2 vanilla, and even in Restoration, saving in battle results frequently cause corruption of saves. DON'T DO IT.

It hasn't been an issue sincebthe early 2000s. Morrowind was the brwak point.
Do we want first/third person realtime combat or tabletop rulesets? Tabletop lost that fight.
You could be right in that tech limitations led to using tabletop rulesets and tech getting better meant they no longer had to use tabletop. I would by tech being the roadblock not design decisions.

I have yet to meet an anon that thinks porting tabletop into video games was a good idea.

can you gay nerds stop being so passionate about vg arguments
frick off

>Most of this thread are people who are here specifically because they hate cRPG's with a profound passion. They hate the idea of something that isn't based on real-time input because they start seizing when they don't get smash all the controller buttons every 2 seconds, they hate the idea that character stats determine your options because they hate being in any way restrained by their own decisions other than their capacity to smash those buttons really hard, and most of all, they absolutely hate the fact that others look down on them for it.

I enjoy all those things, they just don't translate into 1st/3rd person ARPGs very well.

Well Larian does. Niche would be a strong word for that audience.

>the people making the games don't count towards making the games because it's a niche genre
Is this the part where we pretend PC RPGs back then weren't also niche?

It would be like still using feather pens and inkwells in a modern office.

Well Larian does. Niche would be a strong word for that audience.

The fact that you don't realize that there is more to an RPG than complex is pretty fricking telling on you.
The fact that your argument is "this system is inherently better because I say so" is also pretty pathetic.

Why do you think porting the worst part of table top is a good idea?
It is like attaching a horse to a Formula one race car. Sure it could work but it is not the best possible solution.

Tabletop rulesets held back the industry until men of vision imposed their will.

So I ask again why is porting tabletop rulesets into video games a good idea?
I truly hope you aren't one of the cowards afraid to defend their position.
If you are you will just attack something else to dodge answering a simple straight forward question.

I've been around the turn-based RPG genre. I've played old megaten, nu-megaten, oldsona, nusona, etrian odyssey, Pokemon, fire emblem, final fantasy etc.
Fallout 2 has some of the worst, most grueling RPG combat I've ever experienced. There's a reason why most RPGs keep it to 6 people or less in a party. There's a reason why RPGs that have more enemies, have multi-target attacks that aren't reserved to one weapon type (or just chance). There's nothing deep or interesting about Fallout 2's combat system.
>it's his right to lie about games
What have I said that's a lie? Fallout 2 is filled with dialogue boxes. THIRTEEN TALKING HEADS DOWN FROM TWENTY ONE FROM THE PREVIOUS GAME.
Fallout 2 is a rushed mess of a "game"
>rant about insecurity
You're the one who pops into Fallout threads to seethe about bethesda.
You are the pest, the vermin, you go on about. You spout nothing but lies. You do nothing but complain about other people. You don't even argue about the merits of the games.
You'll write walls of text saying basically nothing but "I'm insecure that people don't like my favorite game. No, it can't be that the game I like isn't good, it has to be everyone else being wrong."

> the combat does not actually play itself.
considering you dont do much outside of repositioning your character, attack, and using VATS on occasion to hit a weak point. i think it does to a slight bit. you dont even control your own squadmates. and if you fail? just load the last quicksave. sincerely a step down for TBT games. even JA or FFT has more depth.

>Persona is a PC game. Way better than Fallout 2.
I played Persona games, and frankly, they are OK, I don't hate them. But they are nowhere near as interesting or complex as Fallouts. Firstly, they are ENTIRELY arbitrary, the systems barely at all interact with the world. Second of all, the actual fricking variety in builds is literally a matter of distributing different combat buffs and status effects to increase the spead of the combat.
They do not go outside of that. You do not create a character, you create a combat setup.
Which is fine. The combat itself then is as these games tend to be, massively held back by lack of things like positionality and terrain.

They are not turnbased however. You might want to check what the term "turn" means. They are real time, with long cool downs that give it a distinct rythm.

And if that is your thing, that would be fine. I don't go to Persona threads to shit on them either.

But the fact that you even consider comparing them to Fallout is fricking HILARIOUS. They are not even remotely close to being in the same school of genres.

>I've played all the way through both of those games.
No, you haven't, and the fact that you STILL need to lie about that is a perfect illustration of this problem.

>and that's why you won't talk about these games at all, and instead just b***h about people with different tastes than you? KWAB
How fricking pathetic child. You think this:

>yeah. but why?
Numerous reasons. Do you expect an indepth analysis of these games in under 2000 letters? Things that stood out in particular are world-building, tone and atmosphere of these titles, especially the way they use classic fear of the bomb fiction, which they mix with dark humor. First game has great main story, with extremely memorable factions and villains. The second game has some of the best writing you can find in cRPG's - overal great world with ton of intricacy and depth to it, great and memorable characters, and just huge wealth of content.

On a gameplay level, the thing that makes them great - an an integral component of a cRPG, is the variety of gameplay options tied to your specific build and character choices. Playing characters with different properties lead to distinctly different experiences. Quests have many solutions, suited for different builds - and narrative choices suited for different personalities you adopt. This makes different playethroughs actually feel different, allowing you to explore completely different angles, different storylines, different problems and solutions.
This means that the game has depth, as depth is defined as the plurality of options that have meaningful (significant, gameplay and story-wise) outcomes. It also gives the game a decent skill celling to explore, as there is a lot of space for optimization should you desire. And of course, it gives the game great replay value.

They of course do have issues, no game is free of those. The combat was never the game's strongest side. There is a decent amount of options to it, and it does reward thinking ahead, but at times it does feel like you have less control than would be ideal, especially when companions are involved.
Also, the U.I. isn't great, especially the inventory.
And of course as you probably heard, Fo1 is short and the writing can be bland while Fo2 does have issues with main story (the side content is the start of the show) and with tone.

is "not talking about the games", you absolute lying duplicitious FRICK?!

And I would love to talk about them more. But that would require shitstains, c**ts like you to FRICK OFF ALREADY. Stop. LYING. ABOUT GAMES YOU DO NOT PLAY.
Stop being a pest just because you are jealous of people who enjoy them. Stop trying to mislead people because you hate the idea of them discovering them and enjoying them. Your entire argument boils down to the fact that you can't deal with turn based combat, and basic cRPG tennants.

>This is the most egregious, dishonest thing you've said, however. It's blatantly false.
Kid, check the meaning of the term "turn".
There is no set order. Character can act when their cooldowns are off. There are no turns. Turns are discrete and symetric units of time.
You have simply never played a turn based game in your life.

>Not really, in SMT games you can build to use different spells.
Holy shit your are an idiot.

>Au contraire, I have.
What is the point of clinging to a lie if you know your opponent has seen through it hours ago, child?

>Oh you want to circlejerk the game.
No.
I want to talk about the games. The good, and the bad. There is plenty of both.
I just don't want to have to constantly correct people who lie about them.
LYING ABOUT A GAME is not "taking about a game". Lying about a game is shitposting.

>If you can't handle criticisms of your favorite game, frick off.
The only thing that even REMOTELY approaches a criticism so far from you is the lack of talking heads. Which literally is fricking irrelevant, a good sign of the fact that you can't read.

Everything else you said is just bullshit, coming from a person who does not know the game, but desperately hates it.

>More like I pity them, kek. Like I pity a kid banging two rocks together because his mom and dad can't afford to buy him legos.
Holy shit you literally have NO dignity what so ever, do you? You are too stupid to play a turn based game. You don't even know what a turn is.
And you pity others? For not having a mental breakdown when they have to wait their turn? For being able to read?

Fricking look at yourself, you absolute trainwreck of a human being.
You have to lie about a game you haven't played, to make yourself feel better because it filtered you. Obsessively, compulsively, systematically. You shake in anger when you see it discussed, you literally want to lie to people who never played it just to make sure they won't enjoy it, because you could not.

>Because it changes based on stats, you tard.
Did... did you think that is an argument?
>They are in Persona. You get one action per turn.
No, you don't. There is no turn. You get one action followed by cool down period for each character. This is far closer to what WoW combat is, than to anything in the realm of turn-based strategies.
The time is not discrete. It's real-time.

>Plus "action" points, lul. Fallout isn't turn based by your own definition.
We established that you don't know what "turnbased" means, why do you keep making random moronic statements like this? Are you 12?

>I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post because it's not really saying anything.
Kid, by saying this, you are literally drawing attention to the fact that the rest of my post scares you and you can't cope.

How are you OK with yourself having such irrational hatered for a game simply because it filtered you, that you need to compulsively invade and frick up any threads about them?

Why do you need to lie about the game?

>Did you think this was an argument?
No, you idiot. I can see why the lack of talking heads in Fo2 seems like such an unsurmauntable problem for you, you can't read or comprehend basic dialogue.

>I think I partly understand what you're getting at. It's annoying and foolish, pursuing this line of dialogue.
Kid. There is nothing foolish about using the definition for the term "turn" from the term turn based game. Also - "partly"? How the frick is that even possible?
Are you just now "partly" starting to understand the meaning of the word "discrete"? How is it even POSSIBLE to have "partial" understanding of the word "discrete"?
The frick are you on about?

>The phase where you set actions, then the phase where the animations play out and the action's effects are applied.
God what is it about this thread attracting actual, medical morons. The fact that you press a button an an animation plays is not fricking "turn-based" you absolute joke of a human being.

"DISCRETE AND SYMETRICAL DIVISION OF TIME". If you just don't understand those fricking words - admit that you don't fricking understand those words.

Don't fricking waste my time because you can't fricking google basic terminology.

You chortling on my balls after I imploded in your loose throat, what else?
There was a gay like you yesterday, claimed that the bridge keeper was both in FO1 and 2. Tourists like you always make me laugh.

based fellow northernlion enjoyer

Not even denying it, huh? I can smell the tourism on you, despite your pathetic larp it's obvious that, ironically, it's you who's only seen FO2 through videos and what ribit says about it.

I played FOs back when they released and replay them often, when you weren't even born. That's how I know FO2 is subpar to 1, pathetic wienersuck tourist zoomer.

actually yeah, it was harder to get nessicary items in FO3. on very hard, i switched to just using explosives, and sneak attacks to circumvent getting destroyed by groups of enemies, and it felt realistic in a sense. instead of running in with an assault rifle, i set traps, and broke formations by throwing grenades.

NV just has me running from point A - B using a revolver. some mechanics are really interesting and should have been fleshed out more, like the disguise mechanic.

do you know how bethesda games work anon? That's like saying the Frontier or Project Brazil is it's own spin-off game of Fallout New Vegas, lol.