I come here to stay sane...

CthuluIsSpy said:
So this is how a dalek feels...
Click to expand...

Daleks have anti gravity to overcome this problem.

There is your solution; invent anti gravity so you can reach Walpknut and get him, and afterwards announce how you revolutionized science and make a killing of the patents.
 
It's sort of both ways for me.

I get annoyed by the amount of comments talking about how great the older games were to the newer ones and vice versa.

I love New Vegas, and I also love Fallout 1 and 2. (I'm sorta neutral on 3 as I haven't played it in a very long time)

Can't we all just get along?
 
X12 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.
Click to expand...

That's kind of one of the reasons why I haven't been on the internet in general for a while. I just got sick of hearing hundreds of different irrelevant opinions all the time. This thread was started at a time, when:

a) I was feeling kinda depressed,
b) reading lots of general internet discussions and comment pages (a and b are the worst things you can mix together)and...
c) bored.
 
I came here originally cause I must have googled the hate on either FPOS or F3. All I remember was how mad I was that they were simplifying a game unnecessarily when there were so many alternatives out there that could have been fucked with instead.

What constitues a good RPG is different and comes down to the individual player. Now with that said, this is a Fallout original fansite. That also means a lot of folks here do not have a high tolerance for a society who basically encourages the game developers to put out simplified RPGs because its the best way to garner the lions share of the market.

My problem is what I have talked about before with others, the kind of games the majority of NMAers want, have been made obsolete or forgotten. Most of it is due to gaming going 'mainstream', and most of that audience isn't looking for something deep and meaningful but some cheap fun. I was actually proud to be called a nerd and gamer once before everyone and their mama thought it would be cool to call themselves a gamer.
 
Isn't that what games were doing back in the 90s? Those commercials were pretty impressive. Or were you talking about pre-rendered cinematics that promised what the finished product couldn't deliver? If I got those mixed up, it's because I wouldn't call those "commercials". <_<

But some people keep foretelling of a gaming bubble bursting "like it did in the 80s", and I just wonder about that speculation. On the one hand, will it really explode like they suggest? Yes, I see prices going out of control without a justifiable correlation to increase in quality (because the quality doesn't increase all that much, ESPECIALLY in this last generation, which has been pretty stagnant and full of repetition and rip-offs) and I'm seeing tons of discontent with the state of today's gaming. But I'm also seeing business as usual. I'm seeing "bad" games sell very well, because that's just how this works. I don't really see a scenario where the bubble bursts, nor do I like to think on what that would mean for me until the gaming industry gets back on its feet again. Secondly I wonder... what burst from the 80s? I was born in the 80s, and although I can remember playing games as early as I was walking, I only really recalled becoming a true "gamer" back when I was 7, in 1992. I wasn't around to see some kind of implosion of the gaming industry, so I don't really know what that's all about. But I am a student of history, and I've learned that there's no shortage of truth in the saying "History will inevitably repeat itself", so I'm really curious exactly what this inevitable implosion will be repeating. If we see a second golden age, theoretically I'm all for it. But what Great Gaming Recession will I have to slog through to get there?
 
I mean things like this:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vebkNoMJVQg[/youtube]

Kind of an exception in the ad world too, I guess.

Ah, everywhere is shit. . .

I suppose all we can do is hold on to the few things rising above the degeneracy.
 
Hey, ODST kicked ass, man.

Those dark nights investigating the empty city as a slow, jazzy soundtrack fills the air?
Firefight? The Engineers? Everything Sgt. Johnson? The dead soldiers you find, the cars, the audio tapes that tell the story of Mombasa...

Dude, it was competently-composed game. That trailer doesn't exceed it in the least.
 
I don't like F3. It's so boring in so many ways. NV is ok by being better than F3. But for me, a Fallout game doesn't fit in this type of openworld. Running in some minutes from on edge of the map to another doesn't feel like being in "the harsh wastelands".
A 3D Fallout Game in an openworld would need some elements from action racing games like Interstate 76. And if your car gets irreversibly damaged, you have to travel by foot for days or weeks with encounters, like in F1&2.

I think, sometimes it's a curse knowing to much about the old games with their creative mechanics. ;)
 
no, Fo1,2 itself was openworld.
But I understand what you mean.
you mean Fallout itself isn't fit well with Beth's method doesn't it?
 
You are right. The way they did it, an area of a fallout game can't be covered. It's too limited by the players travelling speed. It makes the wasteland so "familiar". :)
 
QuFu said:
I don't like F3. It's so boring in so many ways. NV is ok by being better than F3. But for me, a Fallout game doesn't fit in this type of openworld. Running in some minutes from on edge of the map to another doesn't feel like being in "the harsh wastelands".
Click to expand...

I agree so much with this. The FO3 desert is like a big themepark. Even in travel time, go to a big themepark, jog around it, probably gonna take you a similar ammount of time as if you were running around FO3 :D
Every last direction you look, youll see something interesting, that catches your eye.
I wanna see wastes! Golden, horrible, death-dealing wastes! :D
 
Indeed. I always feel that several OTHER games more properly grasped the sense of vastness and danger that FO3 missed, and those games are usually COMPLETELY different in setting and tone. If you get stuck in the middle of Los Santos in GTAV, walking anywhere feels MUCH more discouraging and foreboding than any Capital Wasteland trek. Yet GTAV does't have even have (or need) radiation hotspots to worry about and avoid to pull this off. Just being caught out in the wilderness without any means of travel because of the consequences of running out of stamina feels far more isolating than what FO3 gives us. FONV was really only marginally better in that regard because its map had many obstructing land barriers, so traveling from one end to another is more of an ordeal. Still, the entire model of "TES open world" just does the Fallout setting a disservice. That much is certain.
 
The themepark comparison hits the nail right on the head! :D

I am also not amused about the ego-shooter system. Outside, it can be really nice to look around, but especially inside vaults it's sometimes ugly for me. I often loose direction after some doom-like action, collecting stuff, searching mission objectives and reading terminals. Ok, it's not, that i can't handle this... but it's a bit strange, feels more like a punishing maze.
 
Actually, beth even did not well with their great tool to make best TES. my be this sentence would be wrong but anyway.
they got great tool time schedualing, can interact with lots of things, radiant AI etc.
but with this tools, what they made is POS.

Those great tools are waste to make GTA with medieval or PA setting. or game the make player chore with tasks called "quest".
what they supposed to make is great RPG.
not a GTA kind of game.

Actually, GTA is better since I can ride cars, bikes or even air planes. :lol:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top