Fallout was da shiznit.
I apologize if this has been mentioned, (I just skimmed through), but fallout 1 has SOME easter eggs, and all of them out of the way/inobtrusive, etc. Just wanted to point out that F2 set a very different example. F2 attempted to ooze humor, (and I did find it funny), but all that oozing made the game a bit messy too imho. Most oppinions I've heard agree that F2 overdid the eastereggs. I just wanted to make the distinction.
Oh and I think DD scores pretty well with humor, but I think it misses a great many opportunities as well. (largely an issue with the somewhat spartan dialogue menus... When you do have dialogue choices they often seem meaningless, as you get the same/similar response with no change in reputation with the npc regardless of what you choose to say.)
I agree that more dialogue=more work, but it isn't much more programming, just more thoughtful/thorough scripting. (once the dialogue program is written it's simply a matter of making deeper scripts for the pc and npcs).
What I'd really like to see is consistency. I mentioned in the combat thread that I don't think DD is as deep a RPG as Fallout was. A big part of that is the unoriginal quests, (lots and lots of the basics), but more of it is the dialogue and the avenues your character can take. I chalk it up to consistency. Why can I bully so few characters? Why do I hear about completely different town issues from each neighbor, with no crossover? (not always but all too often) Imo thoroughly scripted dialogues, along with an enjoyable story, are what MAKE a role playing game. You just can't get immersed when your character never says what you want him to say, (obviously impossible to please everyone, but 3 options instead of 2 or 1 would go a long ways).
