So you ahve no problem being regarded as a 'FO3' hater? If this is the case it will be very difficult for others to have discussions with you with regards to the game as your opinions are biased to the point of blindness. An intelligent man would be open to looking at something from many perspectives. You have only one. I don't actually think you are unintelligent, far from it. However your current attitude displays all the traits of a sulking child who has not got his own way. Harsh but its the way I see it.
First Review Drops : French Magazine PC Jeux
- Thread starter MrBumble
- Start date
Bernard Bumner
Still Mildly Glowing
Herr Mike said:
True, and that reason was that large developers decided to reinvent the cRPG genre. Unfortunately, in doing so they have neglected roleplaying mechanics.
Herr Mike said:
They do, but that isn't the point. This is about Fallout.
Herr Mike said:
But it would have been better if they'd left the Fallout franchise alone.
Herr Mike said:
I enjoyed The Elder Scrolls series, from Arena (which I was actually playing again last week) onwards. I've not played much of Oblivion.
Still, this doesn't help your case that they were right to stick to what they are good at, if you don't know whether they are or not...
Herr Mike said:
Herr Mike said:
I'm only 30.
Still, he is not better an example of a demographic than I am, being a single, solitary individual. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, I'm much more likely to have much disposable assets than him, and I would be buying a lot more games, if they were better suited to my tastes.
I also maintain that portraying this a generation schism is fallacious, given that the younger generation has never really been presented with the choice.
Herr Mike said:
It is a sequel to a game, why shouldn't I expect it to be somewhat like that game? I really don't see what the problem with that is.
Still, trying to paint me as an irrational member of the anti-crowd won't help your point in the slightest. I was a very vocal member of the wait and see crowd.
For a very long time I argued that perhaps Bethesda would be able to find a good method to integrate stats-based combat into a first-person perspective. (Actually, I even considered the idea that, until it was settled, they might produce a third-person game.) That there was still the possibility that compromised game mechanics might be compensated for by fidelity to the Fallout universe, by adherence to lore and good quality writing. I also suggested that the translocation to the east would provide an opportunity for Bethesda to create their own mythology, without having to slavishly integrate factions and objects from the earlier games.
I have been disappointed by every new announcement and preview, and have become more convinced that this will be a poor sequel.
Will it be a good game? It may be, but that doesn't make it a good sequel, and that is no kind of blustering dismissal, just true.
squinty said:
I do not enjoy Bethesda's gameplay style at all, and I think it will be a bad sequel. But I still don't count out there being some redeeming qualities in the storyline.
Or a customer who expects a sequel to a product he enjoyed to also be enjoyable to him?
Actually, I already do know the storyline, but I don't have the liberty to comment on whether I like it or not. 
Anyway, regardless of the story, I already know that I don't like FO3's gameplay style, and gameplay is more essential to a game than story, don't you think? If I want only a good story, I prefer to read a book or watch a movie rather than play a game with gameplay that I don't enjoy.
Anyway, regardless of the story, I already know that I don't like FO3's gameplay style, and gameplay is more essential to a game than story, don't you think? If I want only a good story, I prefer to read a book or watch a movie rather than play a game with gameplay that I don't enjoy.
yes thy are but would you describe them as a successful game developer ? How many people ever heard of Exile here? the 1000-2000 box games thy sell and half of it is shareware ? not do their titles appear on the media.
because thy have marketing departments and thy assert the risk factors and market values of a possible design concept. I hardly can belive a company would reject a gameplay concept like turn based if it was profitable and successful.
Agreed, but alas currently the market isn't in favour of pen and paper turn based games or better yet it ain't popular amids the game industry. And the last but lest there are plenty of us who would actual like to see Fallout as an fps/rpg.
not because i dont like it but if the majority of gamers prefer FPS style and it would be silly from any company to neglect that market share. As i said i belive hp & p turn based combat is a thing of the past there where none or a few games in the last decade to prove me elsewise and even Fallout stands more as an exception nowdays. I might be wrong , a game just that might be miracle realised and successful but till this day there are no factors other that speculation to point elsewhere.
And the company went downhill including Troika so its hard to tell if their development ideas where sound ones.
The Sims started its own sub genre and thy had its own clones because its success hence its already a filled market. Games are produced by popular demand thats why FPS ones are so present nowdays. I doubt that introducing a popular concept like that to Fallout was such a wrong move. But then im speculating, i haven't played the game hence o can not tell if the new gameplay is fulfilling, But i refuse to reject something by default just because of a change the company made to the franchise.
if you removed the Mad Max 60ties retro setting, Pip Boy, Vault Tech, Ghouls, mature content and the Wasteland theme as a spiritual successor to the same named game and keep the turn based core gameplay do you really think the game would got such a cult status?
you forgot the magic items
Fatman, exploding cars are a neglible game point that serves only as a fun factor, its like going to the cinema to see Hulk (as an example) and then complaining how the combat cgi effects aint done realistical. As if Fallout universe was a deep , realistical concept in the first place.
Its like people who argued about Mass Effect ifinite ammo thing. Quests, story, engine, combat , interface, game difficulty, environment, npc interaction, the overall concept...those are the factors that matter and tell the game value. And not how unrealisticly crabman look or that a protagonist has a yellowish touch to him.
Goral said:
dirtbag said:
These are examples of things we don't need.
Seymour the spore plant
Still Mildly Glowing
Herr Mike said:
How about debating this argument's merit instead of pointing out its existence or popularity as if that alone invalidates it?
This game is called Fallout, yet shares precious little with the series, not only in terms of gameplay - which is, according to its very creators, not me nor any other fan, its main raison d'être - but also in every aspect people can come up to justify why it belongs together with the originals. Not only does it play entirely different but its feel, lore and setting are all drastically changed as well. People accept that it might be a good game, but there is no reason whatsoever to call it Fallout.
squinty said:
This is not judging a game by its own merits, this is Stockholm Syndrome.
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
Those people get called trolls about half the time.Ausir said:
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
That's not quite what you said, but I get what you mean.Ausir said:
amazing how many people played the game already as thy are able to do an objective aserment of the game quality. Did i miss an early realise somewhere or do you judge the game based on the few hours of gameplay, previews and screenshots ?
Some alredy decided to hate this game from the moment Beth, bought the license becouse its not BI, iso and tb
mandrake776
Still Mildly Glowing
This is the silliest thing, butAusir said:
It doesn't say skeptics, and my experience bears out my comment.
It was in reply to squinty saying that those sceptical about the game hate every aspect of it regardless of whether it's good or bad, therefore it was referring to the sceptics by default.
It's definitely not too early to judge many of the aspects of the game, which have long been made public and have been advertised as selling points by Bethesda. If someone doesn't like most of the aspects that the publisher shows off in their marketing campaign for it, it's pretty reasonable to assume that they won't like the game itself.
It's definitely not too early to judge many of the aspects of the game, which have long been made public and have been advertised as selling points by Bethesda. If someone doesn't like most of the aspects that the publisher shows off in their marketing campaign for it, it's pretty reasonable to assume that they won't like the game itself.