What Was SS2's Original Ending?

[663facf29207bZygo]

Oh yeah, he's produced a pretty decent Wizardry-like demo just about solo, even if he is a bit, er, unique and took a long time about it. Shame the demo hates (or maybe hated, should check feedback again) Win7/64.

[663facf29241fslacker-in-denial]

Many Fallout fans are deranged lunatics who consider anything that isn't turn-based isometric to be an abomination.

I'm offended  . Honestly, Fallout 3 IS a wretched abomination for the most part, whereas Fallout NV is a pretty damn good game and 'the many fallout fans' you are referring to would agree with me.

[663facf292674ZylonBane]

Speaking as someone who played Fallout first, and loved it, and who player Fallout 2, and thought it was decent, and who then played Fallout 3, I've put far, far, far more gameplay hours into FO3. Maybe the plot isn't as good as FO1, but it succeeds exponentially better at creating a sense of place. I'll fire it up just to run around, see the sights, and hassle mutants. It's an experience that FO1 -- click whir wait bang wait wait wait wait wait click wait wait wait bang wait wait whir -- can never hope to reproduce. So in that respect, FO3 is the superior roleplaying game.

[663facf292769slacker-in-denial]

I get where your coming from there ZB, your more into interactive, real-time simulation type games than story-driven RPG's.

[663facf292a4cOlfred]

Actually I absolutely like the "nah" ending.
It gave me a big laugh. In my opinion it's a fitting ending. With some hollywood production you would probably see a big struggle in the protagonists head or somewhat like that, but this hero is so confident that he doesn't need to think about it and instantly gives an answer
I guess they added this *zoom* thing as a little mock-off as this quick answer was so unusal

[663facf292bbbKolya]

Nothing against comedy in games, but SS2 isn't a comic game in any other respect so the "nah" is just out of character. It doesn't help that Goggles is a mute protagonist in the rest of the game.
I laughed the first time too, but on consequent playthroughs it gets more grating.

[663facf292cb1Olfred]

My last playthrough has been a while. But SS2 does have comical elements. But most of them aren't that direct

[663facf292da4Viscera]

I laughed at how ridiculous it was.

That's not a good thing.

As for the subtler comical elements, I enjoyed those. When I first saw the big flashing "Sensual Stimulation Units" sign, I cracked a smile.

[663facf292f86Nameless Voice]

The problem with Fallout 3 was that its setting barely felt like the same setting as the other games.  It was a cool post-apocalyptic wasteland, with lots of nice rubble and rubbish and nice sights to see, but it had too many glaring issues that kept the world from feeling believable.  The fact that there's no food, no crops or livestock at all, and everyone presumably lives from scavenged food (which is all over 100 years old), the fact that the settlements are all so tiny and have very little to sustain them, the fact that the vast majority of the population seem to be raiders, etc..
The worlds of Fallouts 1, 2 and New Vegas felt so much more believable and real.  Fallout 3's characters, while entertaining, were often also rather shallow and uncomplicated.
I liked the game well enough, at least partly because I'm a huge fan of first-person games if nothing else, but I still feel that Fallout New Vegas is superior in very many ways.

[663facf293214icemann]

I've recently been playing through Fallout 3 + the DLC after my last play through many years ago. Firstly I have to say that I completely agree with New Vegas being the better game. It sticks to the formula of 1 & 2 alot more and does the shades of grey characters as well as choices even better than the originals (in my opinion). But I wouldn't say that Fallout 3 doesn't deserve any credit of its own. The storyline with the vault at the start as well as the ongoing story of your father and his life's work is quite unique and special to the game.

Hell the whole start of the game is my second favorite bit in the whole game (after the awesome battle for the Purifier with that huge robot). You can solo to a far greater extent in F3 which for me adds to the experience of immersion as well as fear factor at times. The majority of the DLC is excellent other than Mothership Zeta.

Getting to have your own house + being able to modify it (to an extent) to your liking is another thing I greatly enjoyed. The game is incredibly buggy which is my only real gripe with it. Setting the core to 2 in the config files fixes some of the crashes atleast.

[663facf2933e3GiggyTheEvil]

Fallout 3 is a good game, I just felt it wasn't really a Fallout game. The plot elements did not seem to connect to Fallout quite as well. I feel it would have been accepted better as a spiritual sequel rather than an actual one. The whole game would have worked just that little better if it didn't scrape against contradicting lore. Also, if all the plants are dead, where does the mutfruit come from, or the material for noodles, or anything? The only living plants are in Oasis. The opening part of the game, though, was good. Growing up in the vault before everything falls apart and you flee to the surface was good. Gives a back story to your character will allowing player choice.
Also, goddamn vampires. Why.


Fallout: NV felt very fallout-2 to me. More post-post apocalyptic than anything. I liked the fact there were the farms growing crops and rearing cattle to give a sense of it being a functioning world. FO3 had it's hunters, but very little of what they ate was meat, so the world itself didn't make much sense. The different groups were more interesting and in depth and the reputation system was better than mere good or evil like FO3. Also, Old World Blues was awesome DLC.