Akratus
Bleep bloop.
X12 said:Akratus said:
i dont get it, screenshot of OA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI[/youtube]
I come here to stay sane...
- Thread starter Earth
- Start date
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI[/youtube]
Akratus said:X12 said:Akratus said:
i dont get it, screenshot of OA
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI[/youtube]
Ok, I really hate when people do this, they post something without any context to the main topic, and then look down upon anyone who doesnt get it. All i got from that is, logically, the Lone Wanderer put two and two together, and figured out that the Outcasts needed him/ her for something.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
How is that dialogue not fucking terrible?
They are not perceptive, not intelligent and not good!
That is not how people talk
They are not perceptive, not intelligent and not good!
That is not how people talk
Akratus said:
Yes, its very bad. Perhaps not the worse, but very bad. But you werent saying you were sharing it because its terrible, you just shared it. I didnt get the context of what you were saying.
Yes, however (at least with Elder Scrolls) its been said that a Nord can do almost anything a Altmer can, and there are still certain species limits. For example, Nords have resistance to Frost, Dunmer have resistance to Fire, Bretons have (lesser) resistance to all magic effects, Altmer start with extra magicka, Bosmer and Argonians have more disease resistance, Kajiht have extra unarmed damage, etc. Plus all the species have certain "Tag" skills that give you a 5 point head start, raising them to 20 (except for one which has a 10 point head start and raises it to 25, eg, Two Handed for Nords)Oppen said:
Anyway, as for the main topic of this thread....why bother? Who cares if someone thinks Fallout 3 is a great game? They just have different tastes. Not bad, just different. Different priorities. Different ideas of what should be in a game. Opinions are opinions. Most people who say "(x game) is the greatest game ever" mean in their opinion it is. Remember, the natural language of the internet is hyperbole.
Wumbology
Actually a sentient CRT
X12 said:
Yes, this is true. I personally don't care. I presume most people don't.
It's when people start saying, or even worse, forcing it down your throat that Fallout 3 is a good game. Fallout 3 is not a good RPG or a good Fallout game. This is usually what NMA (usually) says. It's simple statement of fact.
Wumbology said:
While i dont agree it should be forced down peoples throats, to some, it IS a good game and a good rpg. Because some people have different tastes. "Fallout 3 isnt a good rpg" is not fact, its opinion as much as "Fallout 3 is the best". People should have the right to say what games they like. You know....if people stopped worrying about "which games are better" and instead just enjoy the games they like playing and ignore the ones they dont, we might have a better time.
Fallout 1 and 2 are ISO-TURN-RPGs, made for hardcore gamers. Fallout 3 and New Vegas are 3/FPS-RPGs, made for casual gamers. Trying to compare them is like trying to compare Pasta to Pizza. Pasta (F1 & F2) is refined food, for refined eaters. Pizza (F3 & FNV) is for casual get togethers. Similar, but not the same.
Besides, nothing can be worse than FailOff: Bombs of Sex.
Surf Solar
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
X12 said:
Languorous_Maiar
A Smooth-Skin
X12, you're must be teenager or so.
In old times, every games was hard as Fallout. (I would say, Fallout wasn't even hard so...)
In old times, every games was hard as Fallout. (I would say, Fallout wasn't even hard so...)
Languorous_Maiar said:
Im actually 20, but since Fallout came out when i was young, I didnt get to play it when it was out. The first game i played was Spyro The Dragon.
Also by "hardcore" i dont mean "difficult" i mean "takes time to learn". As in a game you cant just sit down and learn how to do it right from the first few minute, the opposite of casual.
No it's not just oblivion with gun both prototype of skyrim with gun. since it's prototype, there aren't many quests in fo3. yes it's my opinion but nothing different between oblivion, skyrim and fo3 as a basic aspect of rpg.
only different thing is PA setting or fantasy setting and gun or bow that's all.
only different thing is PA setting or fantasy setting and gun or bow that's all.
Akratus
Bleep bloop.
X12 said:
Only slightly different shaders, same walking system and lack of sideways animation, same first and third person views, same melee system, same terrible quest structure, same terrible writing, same terrible characters, same focus on dungeons, also broken rpg systems (eg stats and skills).
The biggest difference is the art styles.
Because when the masses, who most of the time just don't know any better due to lack of exposure to quality RPG's, respond to LARP-fests with dumbed-down mechanics like FO3 and TES to the point that that's the only kind of crap developers make because the marketing department says so, the rest of us that want something with more going on in the mechanics department are left with shit to pick from.X12 said:
Because Bethesda games tend to allow too much direct-player-influence (i.e. FPS or button-mashing mechanics), which means large portions of the RPG-elements become redundant or meaningless. The point of an RPG isn't to do whatever you want whenever you want, and have what you do only mean as much as the color of the cape you chose for your character to wear... that's a LARPing simulator.
The point of an RPG is to creatively manipulate the characters within their defined abilities within the context of the game to accomplish objectives while minimizing significant limitations, while also reducing or eliminating the direct influence of the player's actions through the interface, and then have the game-world present a meaningful reaction to those choices/actions (the last point there being the most difficult part of designing a quality RPG, and a lack of it is the main reason why a considerable portion of RPG's made in the last 10 years or so are considered shit by so many)
if you let the player bypass statistical character building or other RPG-aspects of the game, or make it so it doesn't really matter what choices you make (either because the character building system is badly designed, the game is designed so there are too many ways to do the exact same thing making it impossible to fail, or because the player can just use interface manipulation--i.e. FPS mechanics/save-skumming/etc.-- to compensate for a lack of character ability), it ceases to be an RPG and instead becomes a half-assed version of whatever other type of game it's supposed to be a RPG-hybrid of.
Case in point. if one race/class/build/whatever plays almost exactly the same as another in an RPG, then it's not really role-playing, but rather virtual LARPing.
apparently you didnt' pay attention through FO1 and 2 and into NV then... FO3 is a spinoff, as it's content is only loosely related to the previously-established franchise lore, while NV grew directly out of FO2 the same way FO2 grew directly out of FO1.X12 said: