https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5pj_z60PH4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFIggfnUb4A

Watch the video and tell me what is the most glaring thing missing in these videos?


....Not one mention of Fallout 1 and 2 :(

Peoples' opinions about nuking Megaton is my litmus test.

People are missing out so much on 1/2. Sure it looks dated, but man it's so much better than the clunky bethesday versions.

Meaning?

As in how poorly done the story was for the fate of Megaton? Or how stupidly Black and White the story is?

Why does the Enclave want to Nuke Megaton again?

Anyone who says nuking megaton is awesome is unfit to be my friend or talk about games within earshot. It is not elitism, it is just that I cannot possibly relate to or trust someone who will settle for so little and something so very, very stupid.

Demand more from the games you play. Demand not to be treated like a dumb dudebro. Demand real and intelligent writing.

20 minutes into the game you are whisked to the side and more or less asked "So, do you want to be a good guy and disable the bomb with no effort, or do you want to become a bad ass evil dude with a shit ton of bad karma points and set off the nuke? I guess you could just walk away too, which substitutes a neutral alternative. See, we told you this game is open ended and free form. YOU decide what happens. It's awesome, yeeeaaaah".

And so many people swallowed it whole. I'm ashamed to be a gamer.

Fascinating.

Want to know how morally grey choices done well that scene in Star Trek 5 Final Frontier where McCoy admits to Mercy killing his father because he was infected with a diesease that has no cure. Weeks After his death McCoy finds out that a cure for his illness has just been developed. So McCoy contemplates whether he should have Mercy killed his father or not. Even though he did not know that cure came soon.

I never could get into these games. They were just too hard.

The Enclave didn't. It was some rich ass who wanted it nuked because he thought it looked ugly from his balcony view. My issue with the first two games, the heavy reliance on guns. Why give me the option to raise my Hand-to-hand skill if an enemy is filling me with bullets every other turn, and by the time I get close enough to punch him once I'm already half dead. And usually I end up fighting 4 or 5 guys with guns at once. Forcing me to use a gun against them, if I want any chance of winning.

3 and New Vegas made this much more balanced.

You're doing it wrong. Hand to hand is perfectly viable in both Fallout games, as is melee.

Please explain. I mean, I don't "hate" 1 and 2, but the fact I seem to not know how to play them, makes it harder to enjoy the games.

True.

Fallout 2 kinda screws over people who starts with high in Small Guns because you start out completely naked.

No mention of Fallout 2 because the modern console generation have never even seen them. Nothing to be sad about. The old games are irrelevant (though still my favourites) compared to the last two games (which I also enjoyed.)

Seeing as no-one wants to give me advice on how to correctly play said games :( I'm giving up on Fallout 1 and 2.

I'm sticking with the newer entries in the series, besides, I refuse to give the elitist snobs who outright attack 3,4 and New Vegas the satisfaction.

how do you mean advice? I'll happily give you some pointers if you want.