Fallout 4 Wins Best Game at BAFTAs

Franchise- an authorization granted by a government or company to an individual or group enabling them to carry out specified commercial activities, for example acting as an agent for a company's products.
Fallout was very much a franchise and, either way I was talking about Fallout under Obsidian rather than Fallout under Black Isle, it's of little worth to tell people to criticise Fallout 4 in favor of games they've likely never played, much easier to get them to relate Fallout 4 to New Vegas then it is Fallout 4 to Fallout (2).
 
call "fallout"s from here on in "gamebryout" or something, please.

you'll feel better, you'll wake up earlier and more refreshed, colours will brighten, food will taste better.

---

fallout was never under obsidian. they were allowed to make one game using bethesda tech under a contract for which they were direly ripped off.

[fallout was only "under obsidian" except insofar as you could see black isle and obsidian as iterations of each other which is fairly accurate, but that's a fair amount of time to account for]
 
Look the only thing I think a good Fallout game requires is great writing and, RPG mechanics. I think the best example of this is New Vegas, it was built on a shitty, outdated engine and, was awfully under developed; it was still one of the best RPGs to ever grace the genre and, probably the second best Fallout game. Yes it had awful game breaking limitations but so did Fallout 1 & 2, your assumption that Gamebryo=death is incorrect, potato headed robots are easier to live with than bad writing.
 
Sigh. I was following the BAFTA's a little last night. This award's come out of nowhere and is absolutely absurd.

Clear case of corruption. Not that anyone cares of course.
 
I'm afraid you're wrong Earth. We all know that award ceremonies are never corrupt and most certainly are never used simply to curry favour with large corporation, such allegations could never be proved!
 
Batman: Arkham Knight winning Best British Game speaks volumes about how credible an award ceremony it is.
 
Izak said:
Arkham Knight has a shitty rating because it was buggy as fuck on PC (it also had a shitty story), this site should understand that criticism about bugs should be a secondary concern to the overall worth of the product, after all New Vegas had the same problem.
Click to expand...
I'll probably check out Metal Gear Solid 5 eventually, just haven't gotten around to it. I'm not a hardcore MGS fan though, but it looks good.

As for Arkham Knight, from what I understand that game wasn't just buggy, it was downright unplayable and a complete and total failure at launch to the point that retailers pulled the game from sales and issued refunds. If the release of a game is THAT bad, then the game itself deserves a low rating and is simply a bad game.
 
Yeah, was kinda talking out of my ass on that one, I played it on console.
EDIT: Actually fuck that, the PC port was made by another company. Rocksteady shouldn't be judged because some amateurish developers couldn't manage the thing.
 
Last edited:
The only awards show I follow is the VGA (Mostly to see what kind of fuck-ups occur and to get annoyed at the presenters and shit).
In all honesty, everything else I find is just "Oh look, well done, you get a gold star" so Bethesda can say they have a sticker.
A lot of people know how crap the game really is, and no award is going to change that fact.

Sadly, this just showcases how distractions are applauded over good writing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top