Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im wondering which one is better, my frriends saying just cause 2 is better, im saying Fallout 3 is better, even though we havent played the others game. What does dakka think?

Just Cause 2.

Fallout 3, while fun, is also boring after the first playthrough. Just Cause 2 maintains the fun factor.

how is fallout 3 boring? you can always find new places pretty much anywhere

Fallout 3 without a doubt.

Nulipuli2 wrote:how is fallout 3 boring? you can always find new places pretty much anywhere

...No, you can't.

Not if you do a full, 100% playthrough and take the 'World Explorer' perk along the way.

Kanluwen wrote:

Nulipuli2 wrote:how is fallout 3 boring? you can always find new places pretty much anywhere

...No, you can't.

Not if you do a full, 100% playthrough and take the 'World Explorer' perk along the way.

You're talking about hundreds of hours there...

I didn't care for Just Cause 2, we simply didn't hit it off.

I vote Fallout 3 GoTY edition.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Nulipuli2 wrote:how is fallout 3 boring? you can always find new places pretty much anywhere

...No, you can't.

Not if you do a full, 100% playthrough and take the 'World Explorer' perk along the way.

You're talking about hundreds of hours there...

I didn't care for Just Cause 2, we simply didn't hit it off.

It still doesn't change the point that after the first 'competionist' playthrough--you literally cannot do anything that will still be enjoyable, unless you're a glutton for punishment.

Kanluwen wrote:

Ma55ter_fett wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:

Nulipuli2 wrote:how is fallout 3 boring? you can always find new places pretty much anywhere

...No, you can't.

Not if you do a full, 100% playthrough and take the 'World Explorer' perk along the way.

You're talking about hundreds of hours there...

I didn't care for Just Cause 2, we simply didn't hit it off.

It still doesn't change the point that after the first 'competionist' playthrough--you literally cannot do anything that will still be enjoyable, unless you're a glutton for punishment.

We will have to agree to disagree I think.

Kanluwen wrote:It still doesn't change the point that after the first 'competionist' playthrough--you literally cannot do anything that will still be enjoyable, unless you're a glutton for punishment.

How many hours does it take JC2 to stop being enjoyable? Is it less than hundreds?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It still doesn't change the point that after the first 'competionist' playthrough--you literally cannot do anything that will still be enjoyable, unless you're a glutton for punishment.

How many hours does it take JC2 to stop being enjoyable? Is it less than hundreds?

For me it was 3

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:It still doesn't change the point that after the first 'competionist' playthrough--you literally cannot do anything that will still be enjoyable, unless you're a glutton for punishment.

How many hours does it take JC2 to stop being enjoyable? Is it less than hundreds?

Oh look. Someone's getting upset that their precious Fallout game isn't liked by someone else. The nerve!


Let me put it bluntly:
JC2 is fine in small doses, even for replay value. It's not a game that you're going to be playing for the storyline to begin with.

You're playing it to blow crap up and play Grand Spy Automatic.

This entire line of comparison is flawed, because the games are not targeted towards the same audience, they don't play the same way, and what's more: they've got different emphasis on the game itself.

See, this is why I hate "Which game is better?" threads. The games in them are usually different genres, and this is no different.

JC2 is an action-adventure game (Think of the GTA series)

FO3 is a first-person RPG

Which one is better? That depends on which genre you prefer. Some folks find RPGs to be too slow-paced and plot-heavy for them to have fun. They don't want to talk to people and save the world - they just want to steal cars and raise hell. Others find action-adventure games to be too shallow and wanting for a storyline and interaction with NPCs.

If you were to say "Which is better, GTA4 or JC2?", that would be a far better comparison. But as it stands, what you're asking is silly.

Kanluwen wrote:stuff that's right there above this post

You're targetting the wrong person. I have no particular affection for either game. What I'm doing is wondering why you're saying that JC2 is more enjoyable for longer than FO3 and using a completionist run as the metric for comparison.

How long is a 100% completionist run through JC2, compared to FO3? Is it a tenth of the time? A fifth? If they're not roughly the same, it's a ridiculous point of comparison.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:stuff that's right there above this post

You're targetting the wrong person. I have no particular affection for either game. What I'm doing is wondering why you're saying that JC2 is more enjoyable for longer than FO3 and using a completionist run as the metric for comparison.

How long is a 100% completionist run through JC2, compared to FO3? Is it a tenth of the time? A fifth? If they're not roughly the same, it's a ridiculous point of comparison.

A 100% competionist run through JC2 is actually going to be around the same time as one for FO3.

However, you're still completely missing my point.

JC2 isn't a game that people are playing to do a '100% competionist run' or for some grand, overarching storyline.

It's for blowing crap up and acting like a jerk using all kinds of vehicles.

They both have thier ups and downs.

Fallout 3 has better gameplay and karma story desicions that make the game more interesting.

But Just Cause 2 has better replay value and the factor of doing whatever you want thats very fun and enjoyable.

So both are good games but if I had to choose I would say Fallout 3.

I've played both and am a little biased towards saying Fallout 3 because i prefer that type of game.

Ive played though it 2 times and started it a third lol. Although the missions are the same you can go about them a different way, good karma, bad or neutral i suppose. So there is some replay value for those that persist with it.

Kanluwen wrote:Just Cause 2.

Fallout 3, while fun, is also boring after the first playthrough. Just Cause 2 maintains the fun factor.

I Haven't played Just Cause 2, but I know that Fallout 3 just Never. Gets. Old. I have 190 hours of gameplay, all on the same playthrough, and still haven't done everything or discovered all locations. What is the point of starting another playthrough when a game is that huge?

GalacticDefender wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Just Cause 2.

Fallout 3, while fun, is also boring after the first playthrough. Just Cause 2 maintains the fun factor.

I Haven't played Just Cause 2, but I know that Fallout 3 just Never. Gets. Old. I have 190 hours of gameplay, all on the same playthrough, and still haven't done everything or discovered all locations. What is the point of starting another playthrough when a game is that huge?

perhaps to try out a different type of character?

Fallout is better if you want to be immersed in a world whereas Just cause 2 is better for general hilarity.