Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by R.Graves, Oct 1, 2017.
BotW did need more variety in dungeons though.
Dark Souls>Demon's Souls
If you ignore the half waypoint in the game where it kind of becomes mix of good to awful (I love Tomb of Giants, New London Ruins was meh but Four Kings as a boss is my favorite in the series but fuck Lost Izalith and Duke's Archives)
Personsly I felt it vastely improved the gameplay in terms of balance to where is as completely not game breaking like it was in some parts of Demon's Souls don't get me wrong pvp is still a mess but at least is somewhat durable with how you can not be infintly stunlocked to death by the smallest of weapons like curved swords even though it still does happen sometimes.
Fallout New Vegas>Fallout 3
Don't get me wrong is still got lots of Fallout 3's god awful gameplay and shooting but at least Obsidian gave us iron sights?
Seriously though I'm amazed with what they managed to do with what little time they had in terms of the story and freedom of choice (Not even talking about the 4 dlc's since is my favorite part about the game.)
Dead Space 2>Dead Space
It felt odd at first with seeing Isaac talk but I think Gunner Wright (The actor) did a good job of portraying a man who's seen some terrible shit, his crew getting murded and one even betraying him and is unwilling to let go of his dead girlfriend till the ending.
Gameplay was very much improved especially with using stasis to grab projectiles and shooting them back at enemies I remember it being very wonky and inconsistent in Dead Space but that was back in 2008 so I might be fuzzy on details.
Only thing I think Dead Space holds up is the atmosphere of being inside a literal dead space station feeling more like Alone In The Dark or Resident Evil compared to the very action oriented vibe from Dead Space 2 which I still like even if is different.
WarCraft franchise a showcase of each sequel being a superior game to the previous title - in other words WarCraft 3 and its expansion being the pinnacle of the series.
Of course, that is without the travesty that is WoW.
The Gunplay in New Vegas also feels meatier because the guns weren't just huge airsoft toys, even if it was only aesthetic the change to reload animations and speed between guns was always a present concern, specially early game, I remember getting a COwboy Repeater off a Dead Raider, and then getting all trigger happy because of the DPS, then quickly get killed in a real fight because I didn't factor in the reload loop.
it doesnt take much to be better than fallout 3. hell skyrim is better than fallout 3. still i'd say that new vegas debatably even surpasses the original. its definitley a better sequel than 2 was thats for sure.
This is perhaps true in every sense except for gameplay, which obviously has little to no connection to the original.
And given that this is a video game series, where the way the game is played is what actually matters the most, FNV is not and cannot be a better sequel to FO than FO2. It is, at the end of the day, closer in its DNA to TES than FO. Sadly.
Storywise I think it's superior to FO2, but let's be honest, it's not that hard to surpass the disjointed mess of FO2's plot.
wrong. here's why. i look at fallout more as a setting than a video game. its got its own rules, lore and tone. fallout 2 fails so hard at tone that its almost a parody of the original. new vegas is more in line with the originals vision for themes, tone, and story concepts. fallout goes way beyond just "how it plays" besides outside of combat new vegas did an amazing job at emulating an rpg. and besides combat was always fallouts weakest link.
Is probably my favorite aspact of the guns and even some of the energy/explosive weapons is due to the interchangable ammo types and the fire/reload animation's probably my favorite is either the hunting shotgun or anti matrial rifle, the sounds just feel lot more meaty as you say compared to fallout 3's sound effects.
Not to mention there are more perks that have intresting effects like And Stay Back! Sending Deathclaw's flying in the air always feels good with dinner bell.
I never played the orginals so I couldn't say much on that subject but I can say Fallout New Vegas is at least more of a rpg then anything Bethestard could ever make again since Daggerfall or Morrowind.
This is the part where you are wrong, the core of the issue upon which your logic is built and broken.
Fallout was, is and forever will be a video game, first and foremost. It was intended as such and created as such.
The setting in it is devised to support the game, not vice-versa (or rather, they were created simultaneously, but bear with me). That doesn't mean the setting is without value, far from it, but it is, along with the story, art, music etc. the secondary aspect. Primary aspect in video games is gameplay. That's why they are called games.
You can go on and create a game with an idea to support a very specific narrative and that is fine, but unless that game has good gameplay, it cannot be considered a fun game. And game with no fun is a bad game (in 99,9% of cases).
If you are analyzing and comparing games from a narrative standpoint (and setting, lore, characters etc. would fall into this category), that is fair and in that regard I do agree that FNV is better than FO2, but the problem is, as I've pointed out, is that narrative and setting are never as important as actual gameplay.
Besides, it is unfair to video games as medium to be primarily judged by their narrative qualities rather than gaming qualities. Games are a unique medium because unlike other art forms (I do consider games to be art, but that is irrelevant at the moment) they require the interaction and urgency of the player in order to fulfill their role - unlike a book or a film where you, while reading, are still a passive observer of a completed work.
Games are meant to be played. Not read, not listened to, not gazed at - played.
To use colloquialism from PnP/wargaming communities, there is "crunch" and there is "fluff".
Crunch is the central aspect and mechanics of the game - that is how the game is played. Fluff, on the other hand, is what "fills the spaces" - lore and setting, characters, events etc.
Crunch also includes the basic elements of the setting - in this case a post-apocalyptic world (or a high/low fantasy, sci-fi etc.) and certain core elements of it (such as Mutants, Vaults etc.) but the finesse and detail fall in the realm of fluff.
Nonetheless, the core of the crunch, and therefore of the actual game, are its mechanics. And when it comes to mechanics and the core of the game, Fallout set a standard which FO2 followed. No other game in the series did. Some of the marginal, superficial stuff - that is, fluff - were done (way) better in other games than in FO2, but no other game was a proper sequel in its core.
You can play a game, including a (good) RPG without fluff, but you cannot play it without crunch.
And you, Graves, are focusing on fluff rather than crunch. And therein lies the error.