Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
Game Store. And I'm back... which means there must be new free games
on the Epic Game Store. What a coincidence! Let's see what new free
games on the Epic Game Store we get this week!

* Evoland Legendary Edition
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/evoland-legendary-edition-5753ec

What's Evoland? It's a Zelda-like console-RPG. But like which Zelda
game, you might ask? The answer is: all of them. The game starts with
old-school 8-bit visuals and 'evolves' to new visuals and gameplay as
you progress through your quest. It's a neat gimmick and one I'd be
more excited about if, you know, I enjoyed those games. But I don't,
so this is added to the "never gonna play list". Still, if that
particular niche is your thing, "Evoland" may be the game for you.
This "Legendary Edition" includes both the original "Evoland" and its
aptly named sequel, "Evoland 2".

* Fallout 3 GOTY
https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition

"Fallout 3" doesn't really need an introduction, does it? It's
"Obsidian with guns", with all the highs and lows of a Bethesda RPG.
Of the 3D Fallout games, "Fallout 3" probably remains my favorite, if
only because they hadn't descended as deeply into the pseudo-50s theme
as they would in the later games. The lack of superfluous gameplay
modes - crafting, base-building - is a plus too. Still, if you aren't
a fan of Bethesda's open-world games, "Fallout 3" isn't going to
convince you otherwise. I'm happy too see it on Epic (even if I've no
need of the game, for all the obvious reasons) but can understand if
this makes it on some people's 'skip-it' list.

Wasn't that fun! I can't wait until next week when I can tell you what
new free games on the Epic Games Store are available for free on the
Epic Games Store. But you'll have to wait a whole seven days for that
to happen!

Thanks. I took both! Now, will I play them? :P

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
> unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
> Game Store. And I'm back... which means there must be new free games
> on the Epic Game Store. What a coincidence! Let's see what new free
> games on the Epic Game Store we get this week!

> * Evoland Legendary Edition
> https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/evoland-legendary-edition-5753ec

> What's Evoland? It's a Zelda-like console-RPG. But like which Zelda
> game, you might ask? The answer is: all of them. The game starts with
> old-school 8-bit visuals and 'evolves' to new visuals and gameplay as
> you progress through your quest. It's a neat gimmick and one I'd be
> more excited about if, you know, I enjoyed those games. But I don't,
> so this is added to the "never gonna play list". Still, if that
> particular niche is your thing, "Evoland" may be the game for you.
> This "Legendary Edition" includes both the original "Evoland" and its
> aptly named sequel, "Evoland 2".

> * Fallout 3 GOTY
> https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition

> "Fallout 3" doesn't really need an introduction, does it? It's
> "Obsidian with guns", with all the highs and lows of a Bethesda RPG.
> Of the 3D Fallout games, "Fallout 3" probably remains my favorite, if
> only because they hadn't descended as deeply into the pseudo-50s theme
> as they would in the later games. The lack of superfluous gameplay
> modes - crafting, base-building - is a plus too. Still, if you aren't
> a fan of Bethesda's open-world games, "Fallout 3" isn't going to
> convince you otherwise. I'm happy too see it on Epic (even if I've no
> need of the game, for all the obvious reasons) but can understand if
> this makes it on some people's 'skip-it' list.

> Wasn't that fun! I can't wait until next week when I can tell you what
> new free games on the Epic Games Store are available for free on the
> Epic Games Store. But you'll have to wait a whole seven days for that
> to happen!

--
Too many medias on hump day. It's summer again! "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." --Psalm 37:4
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:00:15 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
>unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
>Game Store.

I assure you it is necessary. Thank you for the reminder.

Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:00:15 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> >Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
> >unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
> >Game Store.

> I assure you it is necessary. Thank you for the reminder.

Ditto. :)
--
Too many medias on hump day. It's summer again! "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." --Psalm 37:4
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On 10/20/2022 9:48 AM, Ant wrote:
> Thanks. I took both! Now, will I play them? :P
>
I bet 1 Quatloo "No".

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> writes:

> Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
> unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
> Game Store. And I'm back... which means there must be new free games
> on the Epic Game Store. What a coincidence! Let's see what new free
> games on the Epic Game Store we get this week!

Well, it's appreciated and this time it looks like games I might want to
play, at least a little.

> * Evoland Legendary Edition

I'm not sure if I'm going to like these or not but it's free so I'm
going to give it a quick whirl. Just made me think about the original
Wasteland. I got that but I had no idea how to play so just dropped it.

> * Fallout 3 GOTY

Wow, Fallout 3! I played it, I hated the bugs and the crooked guns, then
got some straight guns and fell in love with it. And never looked back
once I was done with the game and the DLCs. I have thought about it a
few times though.

On 20/10/2022 16:00, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> "Fallout 3" doesn't really need an introduction, does it? It's
> "Obsidian with guns", with all the highs and lows of a Bethesda RPG.
> Of the 3D Fallout games, "Fallout 3" probably remains my favorite, if
> only because they hadn't descended as deeply into the pseudo-50s theme
> as they would in the later games. The lack of superfluous gameplay
> modes - crafting, base-building - is a plus too. Still, if you aren't
> a fan of Bethesda's open-world games, "Fallout 3" isn't going to
> convince you otherwise. I'm happy too see it on Epic (even if I've no
> need of the game, for all the obvious reasons) but can understand if
> this makes it on some people's 'skip-it' list.

If I put then in order of how much I enjoyed them it would be.

- FO:3
- FO:NV
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
/that puts it far enough down the list/
- F0:4

Objectively though I think that FO:NV is a better game, it's just that
FO:3 was more enjoyable to play as it had the novelty value that FO:NV
didn't.

That reminds me, I must get around to installing the high resolution mod
for FO:2 to see if it can get the graphics to a level that doesn't make
my eyes bleed.

On 21/10/2022 08:53, Anssi Saari wrote:
> Wow, Fallout 3! I played it, I hated the bugs and the crooked guns, then
> got some straight guns and fell in love with it. And never looked back
> once I was done with the game and the DLCs. I have thought about it a
> few times though.

I've heard the same type of complaints about both FO:3 and FO:NV but I
can honestly say I just never noticed any real problems.

On 10/21/2022 2:28 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 20/10/2022 16:00, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> "Fallout 3" doesn't really need an introduction, does it? It's
>> "Obsidian with guns", with all the highs and lows of a Bethesda RPG.
>> Of the 3D Fallout games, "Fallout 3" probably remains my favorite, if
>> only because they hadn't descended as deeply into the pseudo-50s theme
>> as they would in the later games. The lack of superfluous gameplay
>> modes - crafting, base-building - is a plus too. Still, if you aren't
>> a fan of Bethesda's open-world games, "Fallout 3" isn't going to
>> convince you otherwise. I'm happy too see it on Epic (even if I've no
>> need of the game, for all the obvious reasons) but can understand if
>> this makes it on some people's 'skip-it' list.
>
> If I put then in order of how much I enjoyed them it would be.
>
> - FO:3
> - FO:NV
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
> /that puts it far enough down the list/
> - F0:4
>
> Objectively though I think that FO:NV is a better game, it's just that
> FO:3 was more enjoyable to play as it had the novelty value that FO:NV
> didn't.
>
> That reminds me, I must get around to installing the high resolution mod
> for FO:2 to see if it can get the graphics to a level that doesn't make
> my eyes bleed.
>
If your eye bleed that easily you really need to see a doctor!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 19:21:54 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
>Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:00:15 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
>> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>> >Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
>> >unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
>> >Game Store.

>> I assure you it is necessary. Thank you for the reminder.

>Ditto. :)

Well, somebody's gotta do it, seeing as Ant has vacated his post as
the previous announcer. At least, I assume he's abandoned his duties.
I mean, I waited a full 30 seconds after the games were released to
see if he had sent out his own alert before I posted my own. That's
surely enough time, right? ;-)

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:28:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>If I put then in order of how much I enjoyed them it would be.

>- FO:3
>- FO:NV
<snip long gap>
>/that puts it far enough down the list/
>- F0:4

>Objectively though I think that FO:NV is a better game, it's just that
>FO:3 was more enjoyable to play as it had the novelty value that FO:NV
>didn't.

But where do you put FO1 & FO2? That's the question. A lot of the
people who dislike the Bethesda games put the first two games on a
pedestal as high above FO3 as you put that game above FO4. When I
wrote that many put FO3 on their 'skip it' list, those were the sort
of people I was thinking of.

But I can't really disagree with your listing. Everyone tells me that
FO:NV was the better game, but I enjoyed FO3 far more. There's a
number of reasons for this - not least of which is that I've /no/
appreciation for the 'Rat Pack' era and themes that influenced so much
of FO:NV's story - but given the choice, I'd much rather play Fallout
3 than its semi-sequel.

I'm not sure I'd rank "Fallout 4" quite as lowly as you but I can
understand the distaste. At best, it was an average game, seemingly
designed not to offend anyone. But it's repetitive quests, unexciting
(and increasingly fantastical) setting, and annoying crafting /
base-building all made the game a lot less than it could have been.

>
>That reminds me, I must get around to installing the high resolution mod
>for FO:2 to see if it can get the graphics to a level that doesn't make
>my eyes bleed.

Try playing the original "Fallout" if you want some real ocular
abuse.* And that game really doesn't help itself by starting in its
worst setting, the caves, where the pixelated shadows do nothing
positive for its visuals.

============================
* why would anyone want that?

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 19:21:54 +0000, ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) wrote:
> >Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Oct 2022 11:00:15 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
> >> <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> >Hello boys and girls! Remember me? I'm the person who keeps
> >> >unnecessarily telling you about the free games you can get on Epic's
> >> >Game Store.

> >> I assure you it is necessary. Thank you for the reminder.

> >Ditto. :)

> Well, somebody's gotta do it, seeing as Ant has vacated his post as
> the previous announcer. At least, I assume he's abandoned his duties.
> I mean, I waited a full 30 seconds after the games were released to
> see if he had sent out his own alert before I posted my own. That's
> surely enough time, right? ;-)

Haha. No, you're too fast. I'm slow. I'll get you again though. :-)
--
"I desire to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart." --Psalm 40:8. Another death again. :~(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:28:07 +0100, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action, JAB
wrote:

>On 20/10/2022 16:00, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> "Fallout 3" doesn't really need an introduction, does it? It's
>> "Obsidian with guns", with all the highs and lows of a Bethesda RPG.
>> Of the 3D Fallout games, "Fallout 3" probably remains my favorite, if
>> only because they hadn't descended as deeply into the pseudo-50s theme
>> as they would in the later games. The lack of superfluous gameplay
>> modes - crafting, base-building - is a plus too. Still, if you aren't
>> a fan of Bethesda's open-world games, "Fallout 3" isn't going to
>> convince you otherwise. I'm happy too see it on Epic (even if I've no
>> need of the game, for all the obvious reasons) but can understand if
>> this makes it on some people's 'skip-it' list.
>
>Objectively though I think that FO:NV is a better game, it's just that
>FO:3 was more enjoyable to play as it had the novelty value that FO:NV
>didn't.
>
I found the constant karma death squads in FO:NV to be a lot more
annoying than FO3 for some reason. I think they were more frequent.
Almost made the game unplayable, since they were scaled to your level and
were the toughest combatants you faced.

Oh crap! Here comes the karma squad, better quicksave.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>But where do you put FO1 & FO2? That's the question. A lot of the
>people who dislike the Bethesda games put the first two games on a
>pedestal as high above FO3 as you put that game above FO4. When I
>wrote that many put FO3 on their 'skip it' list, those were the sort
>of people I was thinking of.

My ranking is Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: New Vegas, and then Fallout 3.
I haven't played Fallout 4. I wouldn't put the first two games far off
the last two, and I enjoyed playing all four of them. If I had to put
a Fallout game at a remote distance from the others it would be Fallout
Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, as I found the game ended up being more
a puzzle game as the game progressed and never finished it.

I rank Fallout 3 below New Vegas and the rest of the Fallout games
because I found its world less believable. Just too many aburdities
like tents errected in the days after the bombs dropped still standing
around in perfect condition 200 later when the game takes place.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On 21/10/2022 15:18, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:28:07 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>> If I put then in order of how much I enjoyed them it would be.
>
>> - FO:3
>> - FO:NV
> <snip long gap>
>> /that puts it far enough down the list/
>> - F0:4
>
>> Objectively though I think that FO:NV is a better game, it's just that
>> FO:3 was more enjoyable to play as it had the novelty value that FO:NV
>> didn't.
>
> But where do you put FO1 & FO2? That's the question. A lot of the
> people who dislike the Bethesda games put the first two games on a
> pedestal as high above FO3 as you put that game above FO4. When I
> wrote that many put FO3 on their 'skip it' list, those were the sort
> of people I was thinking of.
>

That's a bit complicated as I never played FO:1/2 when they came out*.
That's a bit strange as I had heard of them and they would seem to be
they type of game I liked. So I didn't get FO:2 until a couple of years
ago when it was in a Steam sale as I thought it's one of the games I
really should try. The problem is that I have tried it a few times but
ever time I quickly put it down and think I really must install the
high-res mod but never do.

So the answer to the question is I can't really compare them and indeed
they may share a name a setting but they seem to different to compare.

*The advantage of that was when I played FO:3 I didn't have any
expectations of what type of game it should be but instead enjoyed it
for the type of game it was.

> But I can't really disagree with your listing. Everyone tells me that
> FO:NV was the better game, but I enjoyed FO3 far more. There's a
> number of reasons for this - not least of which is that I've /no/
> appreciation for the 'Rat Pack' era and themes that influenced so much
> of FO:NV's story - but given the choice, I'd much rather play Fallout
> 3 than its semi-sequel.
>
> I'm not sure I'd rank "Fallout 4" quite as lowly as you but I can
> understand the distaste. At best, it was an average game, seemingly
> designed not to offend anyone. But it's repetitive quests, unexciting
> (and increasingly fantastical) setting, and annoying crafting /
> base-building all made the game a lot less than it could have been.
>

The base building I could just about put up with as you could
effectively ignore it. The two real low points to me are intertwined.

The first, as you say, the quests just weren't that interesting. Indeed
I remember how disappointed I was when doing a number of them for a
faction before realising that they were all cookie cutter go to location
A, kill everyone, get item B and then give it to person C. Completely
devoid of even a basic story.

Related to that is what I most enjoyed about FO:3/NV was just setting
out in a random direction and seeing what I could find. In FO:4 the
answer seemed to be not a lot.

The best thing about FO:4 is that at least it's not FO:1976!

>>
>> That reminds me, I must get around to installing the high resolution mod
>> for FO:2 to see if it can get the graphics to a level that doesn't make
>> my eyes bleed.
>
> Try playing the original "Fallout" if you want some real ocular
> abuse.* And that game really doesn't help itself by starting in its
> worst setting, the caves, where the pixelated shadows do nothing
> positive for its visuals.
>

I will install that high-res mod!

On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:47:31 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>My ranking is Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: New Vegas, and then Fallout 3.
>I haven't played Fallout 4. I wouldn't put the first two games far off
>the last two, and I enjoyed playing all four of them. If I had to put
>a Fallout game at a remote distance from the others it would be Fallout
>Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, as I found the game ended up being more
>a puzzle game as the game progressed and never finished it.

I hate it when a strategy game or a tactical game ends up feeling more
like a puzzle game. Some of the missions in a RTS game can feel like
that sometimes.

On Sat, 22 Oct 2022 07:45:35 -0400, Mike S. <Mike_S@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>I hate it when a strategy game or a tactical game ends up feeling more
>like a puzzle game. Some of the missions in a RTS game can feel like
>that sometimes.
I feel the same way about what I've taken to calling 'puzzle bosses'
in FPS games. You know the sort; the big baddies that can only be
downed with a specific sequence of attacks or environmental effects,
rather than just filling them full of lead. Cthon, the boss at the end
of the original "Quake's" shareware episode, was one of the first
examples of these in an FPS, and I hated the concept at first sight.

But the underlying problem is the same in both instances: it changes
game mechanics and/or removes agency from the player, and ultimately
destroys a game's immersion and realism. That's just bad design,
regardless of genre.

Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> writes:

> I found the constant karma death squads in FO:NV to be a lot more
> annoying than FO3 for some reason. I think they were more frequent.
> Almost made the game unplayable, since they were scaled to your level and
> were the toughest combatants you faced.

I actually welcomed those, for the XP and loot. Wasn't my first play
through when I got them a lot. In that playthrough I made an enemy of
the Legion early, in that first little town you see them. I killed them
all which took some doing and despite leaving no witnesses somehow
Legion knew. I wasn't really happy about that but I guess it's the point
of the karma system.

I think the death squads stopped at some point, maybe when you reached
NV? Not sure. No problem when using fast travel either.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 00:20:57 +0300, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Anssi Saari wrote:

>Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>> I found the constant karma death squads in FO:NV to be a lot more
>> annoying than FO3 for some reason. I think they were more frequent.
>> Almost made the game unplayable, since they were scaled to your level and
>> were the toughest combatants you faced.
>
>I actually welcomed those, for the XP and loot. Wasn't my first play
>through when I got them a lot. In that playthrough I made an enemy of
>the Legion early, in that first little town you see them. I killed them
>all which took some doing and despite leaving no witnesses somehow
>Legion knew. I wasn't really happy about that but I guess it's the point
>of the karma system.
>
>I think the death squads stopped at some point, maybe when you reached
>NV? Not sure. No problem when using fast travel either.

I think I killed Caesar, and he was easier than the death squads. LOL

I was damned surprised that the endgame didn't take this into account.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 22/10/2022 12:45, Mike S. wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 19:47:31 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
> (Ross Ridge) wrote:
>
>> My ranking is Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout: New Vegas, and then Fallout 3.
>> I haven't played Fallout 4. I wouldn't put the first two games far off
>> the last two, and I enjoyed playing all four of them. If I had to put
>> a Fallout game at a remote distance from the others it would be Fallout
>> Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel, as I found the game ended up being more
>> a puzzle game as the game progressed and never finished it.
>
> I hate it when a strategy game or a tactical game ends up feeling more
> like a puzzle game. Some of the missions in a RTS game can feel like
> that sometimes.

Unfortunately I think it's a common side-effect of the AI just not being
good enough. They can be quite good at the low level details which is
really messing around with numbers (I remember Korsun Pocket being
absolutely brutal at that) but they just aren't very good at seeing the
bigger picture.

On Friday, October 21, 2022 at 7:19:03 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Oct 2022 10:28:07 +0100, JAB <no...@nochance.com> wrote:
>
> >If I put then in order of how much I enjoyed them it would be.
>
> >- FO:3
> >- FO:NV
> <snip long gap>
> >/that puts it far enough down the list/
> >- F0:4
>
> >Objectively though I think that FO:NV is a better game, it's just that
> >FO:3 was more enjoyable to play as it had the novelty value that FO:NV
> >didn't.
> But where do you put FO1 & FO2? That's the question. A lot of the
> people who dislike the Bethesda games put the first two games on a
> pedestal as high above FO3 as you put that game above FO4. When I
> wrote that many put FO3 on their 'skip it' list, those were the sort
> of people I was thinking of.
>
> But I can't really disagree with your listing. Everyone tells me that
> FO:NV was the better game, but I enjoyed FO3 far more. There's a
> number of reasons for this - not least of which is that I've /no/
> appreciation for the 'Rat Pack' era and themes that influenced so much
> of FO:NV's story - but given the choice, I'd much rather play Fallout
> 3 than its semi-sequel.
>
> I'm not sure I'd rank "Fallout 4" quite as lowly as you but I can
> understand the distaste. At best, it was an average game, seemingly
> designed not to offend anyone. But it's repetitive quests, unexciting
> (and increasingly fantastical) setting, and annoying crafting /
> base-building all made the game a lot less than it could have been.
> >
> >That reminds me, I must get around to installing the high resolution mod
> >for FO:2 to see if it can get the graphics to a level that doesn't make
> >my eyes bleed.
> Try playing the original "Fallout" if you want some real ocular
> abuse.* And that game really doesn't help itself by starting in its
> worst setting, the caves, where the pixelated shadows do nothing
> positive for its visuals.

I did play FO 1, 2, BoS (both) before fallout 3. I did originally mock
and hate FO3, but with some mods and fixes I fell in love. It certainly
had more of a fallout feel to me than any of the following games.

Where would I rate them? At one time I'd have rated FO2 highest, but
it's a close race with FO3. I'm sure I played FO2 more, and FO2 was
far superior for story, but the last time I played it, I couldn't get into
it much, it's more aged out, and really I should probably put it at the
top, but currently I put it in this order, which may change if you asked
me tomorrow.

FO3
FO2
Outer Worlds*
FO1
FO76**
FO4
FOT:BoS
FO Shelter
FO:BoS
FONV***
Wasteland II****
Wasteland****

* Outer Worlds. O.K. it's technically not a Fallout game, but it's
by those who were involved, and it feels like Fallout universe in some
ways, it's much better than the majority of FO games in my opinion,
so I threw it in.

** 76 I played 2 years after release and from what I saw it was pretty
good, I got to end game. For a MMORPG that's what I'd consider
'finished'. It had changed a lot from what it was at the beginning,
and it's changed a lot since I hear, I assume it's improved more
since I last played it, but some people's improvements aren't to others.
Well worth playing now if you like fallout and haven't tried it yet in any
case. I'd barely call it an MMO, I rarely played with others in the world.
It did lack the ability to mod, which is one of the best features of
Bethesda games, on the other hand they've put effort into actually
making it playable unlike their offline endeavors. I actually found
the quests far more interesting than what was available in Fallout 4.

*** I did at least complete NV once, which still puts it above the majority
of others games that aren't fallout, but it had no replay value to me.
I hated it when I tried to replay it mainly the lack of ammo, and
ineffectiveness of explosives, which was what I was trying to use.
I might enjoy it more if I threw enough mods at it, but most of the
mods I could find at the time I played leaned toward making it
harder and more realistic which was the opposite of what I wanted.

**** Wasteland and Wasteland II. I couldn't get very far in the original
Wasteland. I came to it very late, and most games from that era that
I enjoyed I really can't get into, especially if I never played them and
have no nostalgia for them. It's just too much micro management
and tracking. I keep having passing thoughts of giving it another go
with a walkthrough that can help with that, but it doesn't excite me.
Wasteland II I did manage to finish, but it felt like a slog, and I've
no desire to ever try it again, nor to play III. I'm conflicted if I should
put at least II above NV, but at least with NV I occasionally have a
thought of playing it again.

- Justisaur

On Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 8:00:28 AM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> * Evoland Legendary Edition
> https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/evoland-legendary-edition-5753ec
>
> * Fallout 3 GOTY
> https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/p/fallout-3-game-of-the-year-edition

I have both on Steam (well some version of Evoland, I can't be bothered
to look and see right now.) I suppose I'll pick them up just as some form
of redundancy. This will actually make the 3rd Fallout 3, since I bought
GOTY long after I had bought 3 because it was cheaper than getting
the DLCs by themselves at the time, also because I had the physical disks
for 3 vs. having it on Steam. Then I only DLC I ever played was the first one
anyway and didn't enjoy it. I know I'd probably enjoy the other ones, but
I can't get excited about going through the rest of the game again.

Evoland - well I did enjoy it for a little bit, but it quickly waned. It's an
interesting idea at least. I played the original Zelda, but none of the
followups until OoT which I didn't get very far in, and BotW which I
got a lot further in, but still never finished, so I'm probably not quite
the right person to enjoy this much.

- Justisaur

On 24/10/2022 17:15, Justisaur wrote:
> * Outer Worlds. O.K. it's technically not a Fallout game, but it's
> by those who were involved, and it feels like Fallout universe in some
> ways, it's much better than the majority of FO games in my opinion,
> so I threw it in.

Weird, a lot of the negative reviews were because it wasn't FO:NV (the
rest were from the anti-woke brigade). Personally I rather enjoyed it
even if it didn't support the gameplay style (random exploration) that
FO:3/NV did. I put it in the same category as a Die Hard film, the early
ones at least. It's not a classic and nor is it going to form part of my
'gaming history'. What it is, an enjoyable romp!

I have got both expansions but I gave up on the first one as navigating
the map was just such a chore. Right so I'm here and I need to go here.
That shouldn't take long, oh there's a bloody great mountain in the way
that I can't seem to get past. Not fun at all.

On 10/25/2022 1:06 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 24/10/2022 17:15, Justisaur wrote:
>> * Outer Worlds.  O.K. it's technically not a Fallout game, but it's
>> by those who were involved, and it feels like Fallout universe in some
>> ways, it's much better than the majority of FO games in my opinion,
>> so I threw it in.
>
> Weird, a lot of the negative reviews were because it wasn't FO:NV (the
> rest were from the anti-woke brigade). Personally I rather enjoyed it
> even if it didn't support the gameplay style (random exploration) that
> FO:3/NV did. I put it in the same category as a Die Hard film, the early
> ones at least. It's not a classic and nor is it going to form part of my
> 'gaming history'. What it is, an enjoyable romp!
>
> I have got both expansions but I gave up on the first one as navigating
> the map was just such a chore. Right so I'm here and I need to go here.
> That shouldn't take long, oh there's a bloody great mountain in the way
> that I can't seem to get past. Not fun at all.

The first 'Die Hard' is generally considered a classic Christmas movie
now. :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.