RE: Some comments back.
>>BIS makes RPGs, ONLY RPGs.
>> Thus by definition the
>>game would be an RPG.
>
>But it's not an RPG, so
>why would Black Isle be
>involved? You're complaint is
>illogical, like most of what
>you write below.
No, you're the one being illogical. At once, it would have been said that BIS would have known what Fallout is about. But more recently, it proves to have been Troika. They would have been involved in a consulting capability.
>Yes, that would be more accurate
>
Unfortunately Black Isle
>is working on several other
>things at this time, as
>I'd rather have Fallout 3
>myself. You're inaccurate on
>a lot of other things
>below also, but accuracy doesn't
>seem to be one of
>your strong points.
Having a clue doesn't seem to be one of your strong points, either.
>That's what I don't get.
>WHO are you to say
>what should and shouldn't be
>in the universe? Who
>made you the Fallout God?
> You still haven't answered
>that question? Yours is
>just an opinion, and a
>pompous arrogant one at that.
It takes no genius to figure out that a lot of FOT didn't fit into the universe. Of course, given your cluelessness, I'm not surprised you didn't get that.
>>Oh wow, this will have about
>>as much plot depth as
>>selecting which map to go
>>into in Command and Conquer.
>> All this does is
>>change your SET path in
>>the game. Big whoop.
>
>Get over it, its a strat
>game, not an RPG.
>Given that fact, your argument
>is irrelevant and illogical.
No, you're proving yourself to be an inbred twit again. Plot depth and non-linearity are not exclusive to CRPGs. Your argument is flawed and irrelevent because you are clueless about game design.
>But of course, in the end,
>the game is combat based.
> It _is_ Fallout Tactics.
> It is a tactical
>game - not an RPG.
> So your criticism of
>the game because it does
>not have heavy RPG elements
>is silly. It's like
>me complaining that the original
>Fallout didn't have a flight
>sim mode.
>
>Say it with me - this
>game is a tactical battle
>game, this game is a
>tactical battle game . .
Say it with me, compared to games released 2 years previous, this is a shitty tactical battle game.
>Again, not true. Interactions with
>NPC's can affect whether you
>have to fight or not
>in certain areas like I
>said and you ignored.
>If you spent as much
>time learning about this game
>as bashing, you might get
>the facts correct sometimes.
>But it's just easier to
>not know any better.
You know, it's amusing to see how much of a complete fool you've made of yourself after all this time. After your shit at V13, I'd say it's safe to say you're still a moron.
>>Also, a mere 18 "optional" missions?
>> Is that all the
>>"dynamics" the game has to
>>offer?
>
>Wrong, as indicated above. But
>frankly, I don't care, it's
>not an RPG
>Dynamics are irrelevant for the
>most part in a strat
>game.
No, it isn't. Try playing JA2 sometime or another game like that and GET A CLUE.
>But then again, you keep treating
>it like it is an
>RPG, which is illogical and
>irrational.
No, he kept treating it like a QUALITY tactical game.
>>I take it the multiplayer capabilities
>>make up for this lack
>>right? If in doubt,
>>throw in multiplayer capabilities to
>>give the game a LITTLE
>>more replay value.
>
>LOL! When you don't have
>an argument, just belittle others
>in an attempt to confuse
>the issue. A lot
>of people have been asking
>for multiplayer, and here it
>is. That and the
>editor will help alot with
>replayability.
That's all it has going for it...multiplayer. In all else, it failed. Oh, hey...it's no longer on GameSpy anymore.
>And interesting enough, you can set
>up a multiplayer game between
>yourself and the AI.
>You don't actually have to
>find someone if you don't
>want to mess with that
>- you can play in
>teams with or against the
>AI. Nice trick -
>one I haven't seen in
>a game other than RTS
>before.
Still clueless. Wow, no surprise there.
>Of course, because the game isn't
>an RPG that last fact
>is totally irrelevant to you
>
No matter what
>I say, you won't like
>it or will belittle it
>because Fallout Tactics is not
>an RPG.
Of course it isn't a CRPG, dipshit. But it certainly wasn't a quality tactical game, either.
>It is quite clear that your
>arguments are based upon emotionalism,
>with very little logic.
And you've always based your arguments upon blind speculation, because your head was up your ass.
(snip the rest of the bullshit)
Of course it's not a CRPG. It wasn't a very good tactical game either, because of the points. Too bad you were too stupid that you couldn't come up with any other argument than "IT"S NOT AN ROPG!!!", when in fact our argument was that it wasn't going to be a good tactical game.
Thank you, Grifman. There are definitely some universal constants you've proven over this time. Like FOT being a sub-par tactical game, and that you've always been a clueless twit.
