Makta said:
Earth said:
Good point. New Vegas doesn't have DAT ATMOSPHERE or SETTING they keep bringing up. How making the screen darker and greener makes it better I have no idea.
(I don't hate Fallout 3, but it infuriates me whenever I see fans writing off New Vegas as throwaway crap, saying the crappy story for 3 was somehow better. I guess I hate the fanboiz more than the game)
You hate people for exaggerating and saying things that makes no sense yet you are dumb enough to do use the same logic?
"The game is green therefor the atmospher is not better!" I'm not sure if i should hit you with a dictionary or if you are trolling or just a bit slow.
NV has better writing story and RPG but F3 has a far better world if you are going by athestics! There is close to no great looking/awesome areas in NV where F3 has several places that looks quite amazing.
Seriously i understand why F3 fanboys cling to their "wrong" beliefs since most of them have't played F1-2 or just don't care so much about the lore but the NV fanboys like yourselfs are in all honnestly worse and there is no excuse for that.
Thank god this board has users like Walpknut that actually uses their brain before posting or i might just have spent most of my time here calling people idiots etc.
Earth doesn't need to labeled "slow" or "troll", nor slapped with a dictionary. It WOULD appear that you need to be slapped across the head until you comprehend situational hypocrisy, however... Maybe you just quoted the wrong post when you began your tirade about exaggeration and such? Either way, he was saying that fanboys (by definition, renowned for placing blind loyalty at all costs above reasonable and faithful loyalty, and incapable of making concessions) would make poor excuses for a game, which is absolutely TRUE, and you followed that up with making poor excuses and screaming and shouting and calling HIM a fanboy. Quite frankly, the hypocrisy is palpable, and disgusting.
I've known for a long time that you're just stuck in your ways in preferring FO3, and that's genuinely perfectly fine. Like what you wanna like. But you're also a FO3 apologist which is one of the more mild qualities of fanboys, but one that still needs to be addressed. It was a bad game, and sure, you can like it, but you're simply in denial when you try to suggest otherwise. I don't know of ANY community of "FONV fanboys", but almost ALL of FO3 fans are fanboys, so the statement that "NV fanboys are worse" is just absurd.
"That atmosphere!" really is a shallow compliment, and what's infuriating about it is that it relies entirely on an intangible aesthetic, and asserts that it's somehow a quality. There's only so far you can go with asserting that "They make delicious burgers" about some favored restaurant of yours before your argument falls apart as nothing more than preference. Tastes will very, and as they say, there is NO accounting for taste. It's not a tangible quality. By contrast, pointing out "They don't rely entirely on mouth-watering food" is a GOOD, quantitative point you can make, because you're displaying that preference isn't everything. Going on about the "good" atmosphere and storytelling is short-sighted, but criticizing over-reliance towards it isn't (so long as you're being consistent), and you're really disregarding this, right now.
If atmosphere is all you care about in FO3, and that's its only solid pro, it's the same as saying "It's better because we like it more", and that's bullshit. It's circular and self-fulfilling. It's a sentiment with no reason for existing...
Josan said:
I honestly don't understand how anyone can prefer Bethesda's game over Fallout New Vegas. I simply don't understand the worship Bethesda gets.
To some degree, I feel like I CAN understand it... if only a tiny shadow of it. I believe it's the same as Blizzard gets for their..... "efforts".
I LOVED Blizzard for the majority of a decade, because I was such a huge fan of
Warcraft II: Tides of Darkness and
Starcraft. Those were pretty revolutionary games, both as far as their function for pioneering the genre, as well as their efforts in storytelling. BOTH games either portrayed or followed up in the portrayal of "The good guys lose", which was a concept very absent from stories in the 90s. Stories weren't as ridiculously "Justice will prevail!!!!! Just kidding!" (my hats off if you know the reference) in the 90s as those from the 80s, but showcasing full-blown "evil" prevailing was pretty remarkable. The Orcs won. Azeroth fell. The Zerg won. The Queen of Blades is the most powerful, nefarious, dangerous power in the entire sector, and even Earth's forces fell to her wrath. The bad guys won, and won handily. Blizzard was more interested in weaving cohesive, emotionally powerful (I seriously tear up when I recall the fall of Anduin Lothar; dude was a badass) stories than quick pay-offs for the sake of money.
But
Starcraft (particularly it's viral success in South Korea, establishing itself as a key cog in an industry) left Blizzard in such an influential and powerful state, that I felt like their works from then on suffered from being "too pardonable". Oh, from the same company that made that awesome game? Then it must be good!
Warcraft III: Reign of Chaos was a mess, but that went so strongly overlooked because memories of Blizzard's accomplishments were still too strong and overriding basic logic. Blizzard COULDN'T be responsible for a title that betrayed its series canon! The Orcs weren't always evil, they were corrupted! That's not retconning, and it's good storytelling! I won't say that WC3 was a shitty game, but it had serious issues, not the least of which was that it was a stepping stone in the creation of Blizzard fanboys that would pardon Blizzard for anything, and it was those fanboys that gave WoW the momentum it needed to become a gaming juggernaut. WoW came out during a period of MANY great MMORPGs, and it was completely outclassed in almost every category by its contenders. WoW had shameful graphics, bested by L2, by CoH, by SWG, and so on and so on. WoW was tiny compared to the likes of EQ and EQ2. WoW had laughable PVP compared to L2 and CoH. WoW was not a great MMORPG by any stretch, but Blizzard had enough loyal fans that it was destined to do well. Gamers who had NEVER played MMORPGs before were introduced to the genre BY WoW, so WoW became their measuring stick; not titles who had done everything else better.
Now, riding on the unstoppable success of WoW, Blizzard can do anything they want, and it'll sell well.
Starcraft II was a disaster, but it sold extremely well. The multiplayer was atrocious and broken (Terran OP!) for years, but that didn't affect its sales. The story demolished all of the remarkable and original canon of the first game, retconning it into oblivion, and ending on a cheesy note of the good guys winning, just because.... Well that's good storytelling? They'd forgotten what made SC such a remarkable title. They just remembered what it took to be successful; pretty cinematics and cathartic gameplay.
Diablo III followed in that tradition, and that's recent enough of a blunder that I don't need to point out exactly what it did wrong. Suffice it to say, "Error 37" is enough of a warcry.
I feel like Bethesda just gets the same treatment as Blizzard, although I didn't have AT ALL the same history with their earlier titles as I did with Blizzard, but I keep hearing from those that have that they used to make some really awesome games... but now no longer. It's growing up feeling like they can do no wrong that's perhaps at the heart of Bethesda having such a loyal, blind fanbase. At least that's certainly how Blizzard gets away with their butchery.
------------------
As per the ORIGINAL topic question... Hypothetically, if FONV (exactly as it is now, exactly as it was released) came out before FO3 (exactly as it is now, exactly as it was released), what would that change? I feel like all that would do is change the PROPORTIONS of fanboyism towards FO3. Right now, as many people have pointed out, the FO3/NV player community is almost entirely divided between players that love Bethesda games, and therefore love FO3 more, and players that loved the original FO titles and love FONV more. If their introduction was switched, but FONV was still the product of Obsidian's efforts and FO3 was still Bethesda's baby, I feel like the fanboys would still cling to it, but they would have had the roadblock that is FONV to stop as many from forming. The fans of both games would still primarily be split between fans of the originals and fans of
Elder Scrolls. It wouldn't change much, I don't think...
