Posted August 12, 2010
I admit, I love Fallout and Fallout 2. And this game had the potential to become the third in this set, but it didn't, and here's why.
To make a Fallout-style game, the following things are absolutely needed: interesting and non-linear plot, lots of quests, lots of places to explore, excellent dialogs, turn-based combat that has at least some tactics in it, and multiple ways to develop a character.
Arcanum has excellent world, interesting plot where you don't know where you'll be going next and have no idea how it could turn out in the end, it also has excellent dialogs and many interesting quests. There is even more ways to develop a playable character than it is in Fallout. But it also has its own faults, some of which are just too much. First off, the combat is very tedious and repetitive. If you develop the right skills, it is easy and boring. You'll have to fight the same type of monsters again and again, and you can have so many action points that any enemy can hardly get a chance to attack. To add to this, while the main plot is interesting, it is also somewhat linear, leaving the player with few choices as where to go next. In Fallout 2, you were absolutely free after the Den and until you reach Vault 13. In Arcanum, you only have little freedom in the beginning. This greatly decreases its replay value. And the balance issues don't make it better, either. It is approximately 10 times easier to play as magic/melee character than a gunslinger or an archer. And, as a finishing touch, we have that level cap when you stop gaining experience in the mid-game at easy difficulty setting. Surely, both Fallouts have their own caps too, but you could hardly hit them when playing a normal game.
That being said, it is still one of the greatest RPGs of all time. It is definitely worth to play at least few times. The unique atmosphere alone makes up for a lot of faults and in-game texts are absolutely marvelous.
To make a Fallout-style game, the following things are absolutely needed: interesting and non-linear plot, lots of quests, lots of places to explore, excellent dialogs, turn-based combat that has at least some tactics in it, and multiple ways to develop a character.
Arcanum has excellent world, interesting plot where you don't know where you'll be going next and have no idea how it could turn out in the end, it also has excellent dialogs and many interesting quests. There is even more ways to develop a playable character than it is in Fallout. But it also has its own faults, some of which are just too much. First off, the combat is very tedious and repetitive. If you develop the right skills, it is easy and boring. You'll have to fight the same type of monsters again and again, and you can have so many action points that any enemy can hardly get a chance to attack. To add to this, while the main plot is interesting, it is also somewhat linear, leaving the player with few choices as where to go next. In Fallout 2, you were absolutely free after the Den and until you reach Vault 13. In Arcanum, you only have little freedom in the beginning. This greatly decreases its replay value. And the balance issues don't make it better, either. It is approximately 10 times easier to play as magic/melee character than a gunslinger or an archer. And, as a finishing touch, we have that level cap when you stop gaining experience in the mid-game at easy difficulty setting. Surely, both Fallouts have their own caps too, but you could hardly hit them when playing a normal game.
That being said, it is still one of the greatest RPGs of all time. It is definitely worth to play at least few times. The unique atmosphere alone makes up for a lot of faults and in-game texts are absolutely marvelous.