It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I'm trying to work up the enthusiasm to play Fallout 2 again, I played a hundred times as a kid but I just can't get past the beginning dungeon crawl tutorial areas.

The temple of trials is a chore to get through. The devs were forced to include it for players who may have not played F1 and it really doesn't fit into the game. Endless missed attacks and getting poisoned. Arroyo is at least as a nice break but then you get to Klamath where you have to deal with 3 more grind areas. The rat caves are extremely repetitive but needed for experience and loot so you can free Sulik and buy better armour. Then you have the gecko hunting grounds. Then the toxic calves which is a cool area but you've spent most of the beginning of the game in combat. All the while trying to loot as much as you can from Klamath and doing small quests.

Then you get to the Den and the game really opens up. Not including encounters you don't have many combat focussed grind areas after that for a long time. Just the crops in Modoc, raiders beneath Vault City, vault 15, Mariposa Military Base, the Tanker and Redding mines + abandoned side of town, Sierra Arms Depot. Some of these are avoidable and some depend on how you approach the quest or area.

It just seems strange to have so much emphasis on combat at the start of the game when the rest of the game is way more RPG dialogue driven and less emphasis on dungeon crawl combat and just small little fights.
avatar
Hesusio: -Not enough DLC
avatar
dtgreene: Fallout 4's 6 DLCs aren't enough for you?
If it has any less than a typical train simulator, it's nowhere near enough.
avatar
dtgreene: I haven't played the games myself, but here are some of mine based off what I've read:


Entire series:
* No spells. Remember the days when RPGs would be advertised with the number of spells in them (as well as monsters, items, and dungeon levels)? Well, Fallout fails on this front. (To be fair, this probably isn't objectively a fault, but more the fact that I prefer fantasy settings in games.)
Why would "no spells" be a negative in a post-apocalyptic game? I get that you like spells (so do we all) but isn't it a bit unfair to call something a "negative" in a genre that never would have "it" to begin with?
avatar
dtgreene: I haven't played the games myself, but here are some of mine based off what I've read:

Entire series:
* No spells. Remember the days when RPGs would be advertised with the number of spells in them (as well as monsters, items, and dungeon levels)? Well, Fallout fails on this front. (To be fair, this probably isn't objectively a fault, but more the fact that I prefer fantasy settings in games.)
avatar
jepsen1977: Why would "no spells" be a negative in a post-apocalyptic game? I get that you like spells (so do we all) but isn't it a bit unfair to call something a "negative" in a genre that never would have "it" to begin with?
I understand that spells would not fit in the game's setting, but I generally prefer to play games that have magic and spells. (See my parenthetical comment in what I posted.) In any case, it is, I think, rather that my preference for literary genre (as opposed to game genre) in games happens to not match the literary genre of the Fallout series.

Incidentally, post-apocalyptic with magic is certainly possible; look at the Dark Sun games for an example of this. The setting is post-apocalyptic, and there's definitely magic; in fact, in the setting lore, it is the over-use of a certain form of magic that caused the apocalypse!