IGN Fallout 3: Six Hours of Exploration

[PiCroft]

You appear not to have understood the difference between two different arguments.

And, had you bothered to look at my previous posts then you would already know that, as recently as yesterday, I suggested that the game will probably be a reasonable distraction. However, it seems that it won't be a particularly good sequel.

It seems I might have unfairly ascribed certain sentiments I felt were rife on this board to you which were not justified, in which case, I apologise.

People are forming judgements based on the information Bethesda chooses to release.

Sure, but when some of those judgements amount to complaining about someone paying you for chopping off the fingers of evil people somehow knowing it was an evil person, it gives the impression some people are actively searching for reasons to not like the game. That takes nitpicking to an art form.

I can name a litany of games off the top of my head that are pseudo-realistic but have silly contrivances as egregious, if not more so, but players put up with it because they don't already have a pre-conceived opinion of the game and are simply looking for mental reinforcement.

It also had meaningful and persistent consequences to non-binary moral choices.

Choosing the moral choice to blow up a town with a nuke, thereby wiping it off the face of the earth seems pretty permanent and meaningful. Are you assuming that is the only such choice within the game, or are you defining such a choice - and any others like it - to not be meaningful?

What would such a meaningful choice entail and can you describe how you arrived at the conclusion Fallout 3 will have none of these?

To be fair, I suppose that Bethesda have discussed good, bad, but also neutral as the cardinal points on their moral compass (even though they appear actually to be good, bad, and apathetic in the implementation). At best, trinary morality - not exactly the shades of grey we were promised.

Again, I can only comment on this when I experience it for myself. A handful of teasers designed to make the gamer community salivate is not exactly what I would call stellar source material for basing a concrete opinion on their morality system.

So, you want my opinion, unless it is opinion?

touché

The carefully crafted lore and mythos is very obviously illustrated by the attention to building believable detail into the universe; see the Fallout Bible.

That Bethesda is changing those details, or the ethic underlying those details, seems beyond doubt given their handling of the Brotherhood of Steel, for instance.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Fallout Bible was criticised by fans for being contradictory, and the Bible itself being a long Q&A session. You can never please fans who seize too tightly on a game concept, which is I think the problem we have here.

Also, can you provide in-game examples of lore significantly changed from the previous version and why you think they are inferior? I know the Brotherhood of steel is heavily expanded upon in Fallout 3 and I haven't played Brotherhood of Steel, the game. It has also been quite some time since I played the original two games.

Because you say so? Not likely! Your inability to understand what I meant doesn't equate to lack of meaning.

Your original words were meaningless as posted. I cannot read your mind. "Sequential, coherent, continuous development has been abandoned in favour of recycling and cooption of elements for purely branding purposes" means nothing without an explanation.

They have taken elements, removed them from the original established context, and transplanted them into a new locale - the Brotherhood, Supermutants, Jet, and so on. In many cases this doesn't make any sense, given their role and background in the original Fallout games. These things simply act as branding, rather than retaining their original currency.

Having read the backstory a wee while back of the Brotherhood as it stands in Fallout 3, and knowing only what I know of it from the first two games and an extremely limited helping of Tactics, I cannot really debate this point. I will have to agree to disagree.

Much better would have been to create new stories, factions, and characters within the Fallout universe, thereby avoiding any conflict with canon.

Doubtful. If they did that, they would probably face the angry hoardes whining that they abandoned what made Fallout, Fallout by not including the old factions and canon.

But what if scenarios are pointless.

Your opinion. I thought Fallout's character development system was pretty silly compared to Arcanums. I still like both.

Yes, mine. And others'. Fallout has consistently been voted into critics' and fans' top games lists, and very often SPECIAL is singled out for praise.

That had nothing to do with what I said. Your opinion was that the character system was "diluted via the poor implementation of combat, Perks, and Traits, all in the name of simplification and immersion". You said nothing about how these diluted it. I don't doubt Fallout's system was popular and rightly lauded.

What, exactly, did you find silly about it?

Having moved from the much more serious realm of Arcanum, I found myself with a cartoony system of traits, the majority of which were pre-chosen or chosen at whim during the course of the game as level-ups, as opposed to Arcanum's system of having new character traits almost exclusively bestowed by in-game events and choices.

Not that this made Fallout's system bad, it was different from what I was used and seemed silly and unsophisticated at first. I grew to like it and appreciate it on its own grounds.

Fallout 2 had similar "awards" as well, depending on what you did. If the Xbox Live awards were removed and replaced with the old system where you, and you alone saw you acheivements like in Fallout 2, would this greivance disappear?

Bobbleheads, cash for fingers, and post-apocalyptic bachelor pads were more what I had in mind...

???

I might have misinterpreted your post: I thought you were talking about Xbox Live Achievements

Well, not big deal, actually. However, what I was thinking of is the ability to commit mass murder without significant gameplay consequences.

This was the case with the previous games, as far as I am aware.

Dumb is a value judgment, of course it is. However, it is a judgement I have formed on the basis of information released by Bethesda.

Some of these judgements, as I have already pointed out, though maybe not exhibited by you personally, are simply asinine and infantile. Nitpicking a realism issue in a videogame series as staunchly tongue-in-cheek as Fallout seems little more than the proverbial torch-and-pitchfork treatment. Even if Bethesda state they want the game to be immersive, I don't think they meant "so close to real life, you will be unable to tell the difference".

So far, you have offered little except argumentation and naysaying. If you want to engage with points or opinions, then feel free to offer counterpoints. It makes it all much more interesting.

I have noticed that many people are jumping on the bandwagon of hatin' on Fallout 3 because they hate Bethesda. I have little more than cautious enthusiasm for a sequel to a couple of games that I love. It pisses me off as much as the idiots who pissed on Altar for bringing out a kind of spiritual sequel to XCOM, when they started nitpicking about "the character's cartoony graphics" (i'm not making this shit up, it was especially hilarious given the extreme comic-book type theme of XCOM).

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Invisible walls being hand-holding escapes me. I don't see how it holds anyone's hand any more than having a STALKER-esque waist-high farm fence to stop you going over that ridge over yonder.

Invisible walls aren't hand holding, they're shitty design. The difference between them and waist-high cyclone fencing is that the fence is a visible barrier that makes sense while an invisible wall isn't. Pretty much every game with invisible walls I've found to have at least one in an area which looks accessible but isn't and thus is frustrating (some more than others).

 

[PiCroft]

Since Aftermath wasn't even the first attempt to dumb down the combat in an Xcom game by adding realtime, and it wasn't even really a part of the franchise at all, I'll respond under the assumption that you're actually talking about Xcom Apocalypse.

Then your post is meaningless, as I am referring to Altar's series which I named specifically earlier. Also, what I said about nose-in-the-air? You have it in spades. I'm sick of being told real-time combat is dumbed down. Real Time has its place and just because it isn't what you wanted from the game, doesn't mean its inferior. If you hate the remakes so much, why not go back to the old games and play them over and over? No one is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to play them.

in that game a half assed hybrid realtime/turnbased system DID render the game easier than either of the 2 predecessors and it essentially broke the franchise because it led to more changes that ended up with a string of spinoffs instead of games that actually followed the established gameplay of the originals.

are we even talking about the same game? Apocalypse had the choice to use pure turn-based, and if you didn't like the other options, you could have stuck with turn based. Apocalypse had a litany of things about it I didn't like, but a lack of the option to stick with pure turn based was not one of them.

One could argue that the hybrid realtime system of Apocalypse is what started the downhill motion of the entire franchise until it was eventually sold to fucking HASBRO and the travesty that is called xcom enforcer was released while the next real Xcom strategy game died an untimely death.

One could argue. I argue it sounds stupid. I fail to see how the arrival of Enforcer was somehow related to the game having RTS in it.

it's not an interesting NEW take, it's a way to shoehorn easy shit into a game that it didn't need (so people who dont like turnbased will buy a copy)

Yes of course, everyone who wasn't a high-brow connaisseur of TBS games who bought it, did so because they hated TBS. And of course I'm sure the design documentation of the game stated "We need to appeal to dumber gamers, lets fling some easy shit in".

what can you do v

v

BTW, when you imply that Fallout had things in it that were actually only in the sequel (which we have repeatedly mentioned as not being 100% Fallout gospel) expect to have people jump down your neck for either being uninformed or intentionally skewing the facts.

I played Fallout once. I've played Fallout 2 multiple times. I am more familiar with Fallout 2 than with Fallout. And I sure as hell haven't stated that something in Fallout 2 isn't in Fallout 1 in an attempt to mislead. In fact I don't remember saying it at all. If something is in Fallout and Fallout 2 and I neglected to mention Fallout, then cry me a river.

If you entire argument hinges on such a false statement, people will definitely wonder if you've ever even played the games yourself.

I don't give a shit if you think I am Jack Thompson fucking with you for shits and giggles. If you want to demonstrate me being intentionally dishonest, go the fuck ahead and quote me doing it. Otherwise stow your accusatory shit.

 

[PiCroft]

Invisible walls being hand-holding escapes me. I don't see how it holds anyone's hand any more than having a STALKER-esque waist-high farm fence to stop you going over that ridge over yonder.

Invisible walls aren't hand holding, they're shitty design. The difference between them and waist-high cyclone fencing is that the fence is a visible barrier that makes sense while an invisible wall isn't. Pretty much every game with invisible walls I've found to have at least one in an area which looks accessible but isn't and thus is frustrating (some more than others).

I think this is going to be one of those love-it-or-hate it deals. Personally, I think having a waist-high fence stopping me from travelling further is more hand-holding than a pop-up. It kind of strikes me as a "Oh fuck it, just make an impenetrable barrier and leave it at that". Having a pop-up telling why I cannot go any further seems (imho) to be a bit more on-the-level. Like it wants me to know that I can't go any further in that direction.

 

[thefalloutfan]

I'm sick of being told real-time combat is dumbed down. Real Time has its place and just because it isn't what you wanted from the game, doesn't mean its inferior.

I very much agree with that, in fact I had written this following quote as a reply to "Turn Based, real time, or real time with pause? Which is better?"

->

Doesn't matter if it's turn based, real time with pause, or real time. I'll play a game any way it is as long as it's fun. I do want a game series to use the same gameplay though, so I wished Fallout 3 was turn based just because the series is turn based. The same way I wouldn't want the next TES game being turn based, as the rest of the series is in real time.

The only reason why I would like some more turn based games like AoD is shaping up to be is because it has been some time since I played a newer turn based game.

Turn based is not better than real time or real time with pause, anyone who wholeheartedly believes that 'turn based is the best, end of story' and tries to bring the argument forward as fact is naive.

 

[PiCroft]

Doesn't matter if it's turn based, real time with pause, or real time. I'll play a game any way it is as long as it's fun. I do want a game series to use the same gameplay though, so I wished Fallout 3 was turn based just because the series is turn based. The same way I wouldn't want the next TES game being turn based, as the rest of the series is in real time.

The only reason why I would like some more turn based games like AoD is shaping up to be is because it has been some time since I played a newer turn based game.

Turn based is not better than real time or real time with pause, anyone who wholeheartedly believes that 'turn based is the best, end of story' and tries to bring the argument forward as fact is naive.

This is probably going off topic, but I agree. I loved the tense nature of the turn-based games such as Chaos Gate and XCOM. Aftermath, Aftershock and Afterlight's hybrid system had its own charm as well.

 

[Brother None]

I don't give a shit if you think I am Jack Thompson fucking with you for shits and giggles. If you want to demonstrate me being intentionally dishonest, go the fuck ahead and quote me doing it. Otherwise stow your accusatory shit.

PiCroft, stop double posting, we have an edit button, and calm down already. You asked people a question, they're explaining it to you, but you're not exactly making an effort to absorb their points. Since you're new here, I suggest you cool off on insulting regulars and instead make a genuine effort to understand their points. In the meantime, have a strike for inflammatory behaviour and - again - calm down.

 

[PiCroft]

Edit: I apologise to whirlingdervish for flying off the handle

 

[JESUS]

You people who defend Real Time never get it through right. The main complaint about real time is that it's LESS tactic them turn base combat, and thus it is YOU that affects aim for instance and not your SKILL POINTS, got it?

I never saw anyone saying real time is dumber here as a argument to discredit it, i saw a lot of people saying that it is a gameplay option, and confronting the argument that the defenders of Bethesda and Fallout 3 came up with that turn base combat was old.

They did the same think with the iso view and then Diablo 3 was announced. It's a matter of gameplay choice, but for Tactic combat like in Fallout iso with turn based combat is better imo.

And the argument that "this is not a deal breaker it's a minor thing" is annoying too; because BS is changing a lot of those minor things, so try to look at the big picture.

You said that we nitpick the game and hate it only because BS is doing it, but i think it's much worse to defend a company that has lied to you before don't you think?

 

[Mrxknown]

The point is that the Bethesda PR has focussed heavily on somewhat inane violence and humour, and provided very little evidence of the wit and sophistication of the previous games being replicated in Fallout 3.

It cultivates the notion that this game is very likely to be, at best more casual, and at worst more infantile.

The caricature may be unfair, but there seems to be some truth in the idea that Bethesda have deliberately designed a game and publicity campaign targeting the lowest common denominator.

I have only played Morrowind, but I never beat it because when I had time to play I got lost trying to figure out what i should do and as someone mentioned earlier walking around all the time isn't that fun in a game where your character really has NO personality. I was curious why they even called in an RPG if I didn't even really interact with anyone.

Anyway, back on topic, How did Bethesda's PR advertise Oblivion? From what I remembered (never played the game, didn't get my 360 until after my video store stopped renting it), the videos talked about the new technology Oblivion had.

They talked about how the magic and sword combat could be at the same time. Also how modders will be able to do things with the tech they couldn't think of.

Whenever I hear someone talk about it, no one says "It made me sad", "It was a rollercoaster of a story". It seems Oblivion wasn't what i would call an RPG either. The player couldn't really relay a personality on their character through conversation.

So my hopes for Fallout 3 based on that is low. I went from "going to buy it" to "Going to rent it".

You (and others) are arguing that Fallout 3 is going to be dumbed down in comparison to the previous games.

In comparison to what, games that had toilet humour, over-the-top violence, tongue-in-cheek dialogue and the ability to do drugs and pimp hos?

Well, Fallout had the irony of using what destroyed the world to save it. It was never he's good or he's bad.

I can't quite remember Fallout 2, but having an overall karma system showing what I think as (your true self) vs. the town reputation system was great. I mean, one town could send you to it's rival, that you befriend, you come back with the mission still complete, but your standing with both isn't damaged by either.

Also, if you wanted you could stick to one set of rules from one town and stay the course in another and cause trouble. it's not like communication is very fast in a post-ap world.

Also, what attracted people to Fallout wasn't that it had blood, cursing, and drugs. They were just reflections of the deeper story.

Nothing is simple in the Fallout world, you want +10 intel you lose strength or whatnot. Also, the cursing wasn't every line (which I admit, Fallout 3 may or may not be, the Writer did say he did a read-through and removed some instances of cursing that wasn't good).

--

That Bethesda is changing those details, or the ethic underlying those details, seems beyond doubt given their handling of the Brotherhood of Steel, for instance.

Meaningless.

Because you say so? Not likely! Your inability to understand what I meant doesn't equate to lack of meaning.

They have taken elements, removed them from the original established context, and transplanted them into a new locale - the Brotherhood, Supermutants, Jet, and so on. In many cases this doesn't make any sense, given their role and background in the original Fallout games. These things simply act as branding, rather than retaining their original currency.

Much better would have been to create new stories, factions, and characters within the Fallout universe, thereby avoiding any conflict with canon.

This is not the entire BoS, this is only section of the BoS which is separate to do as they wish (fight the Supermutants), but still be apart of the organization.

I see Elder Owyn Lyons as going back to the roots of the Brotherhood. Roger Maxson seceded from the US because of inhumane testing. His actions were based on principles and not "care-bear love everyone", but a sense of responsibility to help people versus testing on them without their consent.

I see that Lyon's actions could start a king of "civil war" within the BoS. A clash between those who care only for securing technology and those that see a responsibility to use the technology to improve the world.

I always loved the BoS and I like seeing a more diverse mindset within the faction.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Dumb is a value judgment, of course it is. However, it is a judgement I have formed on the basis of information released by Bethesda.

Some of these judgements, as I have already pointed out, though maybe not exhibited by you personally, are simply asinine and infantile. Nitpicking a realism issue in a videogame series as staunchly tongue-in-cheek as Fallout seems little more than the proverbial torch-and-pitchfork treatment. Even if Bethesda state they want the game to be immersive, I don't think they meant "so close to real life, you will be unable to tell the difference".

Actually Emil recently said something along those very lines in one of the recent IGN previews...

I can talk to an old lady or an old guy and have them be a character and then I can kill them. And, you know, really feel like I killed a person. And then I can like you know, pick up their head and put it on a shelf and I look at and it's like "I was talking to that person five minute ago and now I'm not."

So far, you have offered little except argumentation and naysaying. If you want to engage with points or opinions, then feel free to offer counterpoints. It makes it all much more interesting.

I have noticed that many people are jumping on the bandwagon of hatin' on Fallout 3 because they hate Bethesda. I have little more than cautious enthusiasm for a sequel to a couple of games that I love. It pisses me off as much as the idiots who pissed on Altar for bringing out a kind of spiritual sequel to XCOM, when they started nitpicking about "the character's cartoony graphics" (i'm not making this shit up, it was especially hilarious given the extreme comic-book type theme of XCOM).

There is very little criticism of Fallout 3 or Bethesda that is bs that isn't called out and most people here don't criticize Fallout 3 because of their feelings towards Bethesda. Bethesda does have issues and it doesn't help anyone's view of the game but people aren't going to make up crap about them or their products because of that, at least not without being called out on it. That said, a developer and a product are two separate entities and can be judged independently. Just because someone hates a developer doesn't mean that they can't love their products and vice versa.

Yes, less important details of the game are discussed and criticized but a mistake is a mistake and there is no reason not to point them out. Any specific small problem isn't a deal breaker for people here and even the collection of the small problems, which is a rather large dent in the product, isn't the deal breaker for most people here. There are fundamental gameplay problems with the game as well as blatant disregard for canon which do it for most people. Now as for why these bigger problems aren't focused on in every preview is because they have been discussed to death and most folks don't like having the same conversation day-in and day-out. If you want to read those discussions then feel free, they're archived. If you have something new to contribute then feel free and it'll be discussed. Just remember that just because you haven't discussed it, doesn't mean that people here haven't.

Invisible walls being hand-holding escapes me. I don't see how it holds anyone's hand any more than having a STALKER-esque waist-high farm fence to stop you going over that ridge over yonder.

Invisible walls aren't hand holding, they're shitty design. The difference between them and waist-high cyclone fencing is that the fence is a visible barrier that makes sense while an invisible wall isn't. Pretty much every game with invisible walls I've found to have at least one in an area which looks accessible but isn't and thus is frustrating (some more than others).

I think this is going to be one of those love-it-or-hate it deals. Personally, I think having a waist-high fence stopping me from travelling further is more hand-holding than a pop-up. It kind of strikes me as a "Oh fuck it, just make an impenetrable barrier and leave it at that". Having a pop-up telling why I cannot go any further seems (imho) to be a bit more on-the-level. Like it wants me to know that I can't go any further in that direction.

As I said, invisible walls aren't hand holding, they're just bad design. Games operate by a set of rules, some must be discovered while others are told to you but invisible walls are not possible to detect (in most games) without attempting to go through them. This can lead to wasted time trying to bypass the barrier due to being unsure of it's existence or, in games like Oblivion and Fallout 3, prevent the player from knowing where the boundary of the world is without ramming into it repeatedly. I'd suggest reading at least the first article in the quote below (from earlier in this thread...) for a more in depth analysis and explanation.

There was a decent two part article in Gamasutra a while back on credible boundaries in games. The article presents some interesting ideas for contextual limits, and rightfully rejects invisible walls. An interesting read.

 

[mandrake776]

There is very little criticism of Fallout 3 or Bethesda that is bs that isn't called out and most people here don't criticize Fallout 3 because of their feelings towards Bethesda.

As I said, invisible walls aren't hand holding, they're just bad design. Games operate by a set of rules, some must be discovered while others are told to you but invisible walls are not possible to detect (in most games) without attempting to go through them.

First, your assertion that bs reasons for not liking fallout 3 are always called out is ridiculous, or you have a very different definition of bs.

Second, the link you posted refers mostly to invisible walls that don't tell you they're there. Oblivions map (which you always have access to) clearly shows the boundaries. Waist high impassable objects are much more frustrating.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

First, your assertion that bs reasons for not liking fallout 3 are always called out is ridiculous, or you have a very different definition of bs.

Then link it or quote it.

Second, the link you posted refers mostly to invisible walls that don't tell you they're there. Oblivions map (which you always have access to) clearly shows the boundaries. Waist high impassable objects are much more frustrating.

No, it doesn't matter if you get a pop-up or not, they are still horrible because they cannot be seen. Waist high barriers are bad too but if they are consistent then it at least informs the player that there is an unsurmountable wall there. Are barriers that are clear taller than jump height or unsurmountable (canyon, cliff, ect) better? Of course they are.

 

[ArmorB]

First, your assertion that bs reasons for not liking fallout 3 are always called out is ridiculous, or you have a very different definition of bs.

Then link it or quote it.

Second, the link you posted refers mostly to invisible walls that don't tell you they're there. Oblivions map (which you always have access to) clearly shows the boundaries. Waist high impassable objects are much more frustrating.

No, it doesn't matter if you get a pop-up or not, they are still horrible because they cannot be seen. Waist high barriers are bad too but if they are consistent then it at least informs the player that there is an unsurmountable wall there. Are barriers that are clear taller than jump height or unsurmountable (canyon, cliff, ect) better? Of course they are.

But we are forgetting one thing about all of this edge of the map thing...the map. If you run into an ivisible barrier and go to your map, I'd assume that you would see yourself at the edge of the map and go..duh and go back...

I could be wrong but this is what I'd assume...

EDIT: I'd also assume that you would have been using your map every once and a while and saw that you were heading towards the edge of the map, so it should have come as no surprise...

 

[mandrake776]

No, it doesn't matter if you get a pop-up or not, they are still horrible because they cannot be seen. Waist high barriers are bad too but if they are consistent then it at least informs the player that there is an unsurmountable wall there. Are barriers that are clear taller than jump height or unsurmountable (canyon, cliff, ect) better? Of course they are.

No, they're not invisible. They're clearly marked on your map. I just said this. You quoted it. Clear barriers are better... sometimes. You can't have the whole game world surrounded by canyons and mountains without it feeling ridiculous.

 

[shihonage]

You can't have the whole game world surrounded by canyons and mountains without it feeling ridiculous.

That's where Fallout's radiation premise fits perfectly. Coat the map with a buffer of irradiated zones. You can walk into them, but you will die quickly unless you turn back.

 

[Moving Target]

So what about sandstorms, or lethal radiation zones, or impassible swamps (DC is built in a low-lying former swampy area; I'd be surprised if it didn't revert, at least in places, after humans aren't around to upkeep everything)? Any of those could make more sense than invisible barriers. Or even canyons and huge rocks and such.

 

[mandrake776]

I really prefer the idea that if people are coming and going into the area we're in with some regularity, that there is a reasonable way in and out of the area we're in.

 

[Moving Target]

Right, which is a problem with the way that Bethseda's set up this Fallout game in the first place. It's set pretty much entirely in DC and some suburbs, yet somehow magically the protagonist can't leave the area. Compared to FO 1 and 2, that's just weird.

 

[whirlingdervish]

are we even talking about the same game? Apocalypse had the choice to use pure turn-based, and if you didn't like the other options, you could have stuck with turn based. Apocalypse had a litany of things about it I didn't like, but a lack of the option to stick with pure turn based was not one of them.

I didn't say anything about the game not having the choice to use pure turn based.

What I was talking about was that as a result of trying to stick a realtime option onto a turnbased game, they had to drastically change the way a lot of the weapons should have worked to make them less overpowering in the realtime mode.

Because the game was a hybrid, the weapons were nerfed (IOW made less powerful) IN BOTH MODES, effectively screwing the balance of the pure turnbased combat and making it less difficult than the combat of the first 2 which were filled with incredibly potent weapons, dangerous enemies to wield them and a lot less chances to screw up and have your extensively trained and expensive soldiers come out of combat alive.

I mentioned this because it is an example of things being dumbed down for the sake of realtime combat in a game based on a series the revolved around turnbased combat, and how it was detrimental to that franchise to do so.

They effectively undercut one of the favorite aspects of the game to pander to people who did not like that part, and in the end it made the whole thing less attractive to everyone.


as to the rest, Enforcer would never have happened if XCOM Apocalyse had been a worthy successor to the gameplay of the first 2, because apocalypse could have actually sold enough copies to make it seem worthwhile to continue making TBS sequels.

it had plenty of hype and XCOM had great name recognition at the time.

it was the neutered gameplay of apocalypse which didn't appeal to as many gamers as the first 2, and which hurt the sales to the point that the company's management didn't see the point in gambling on TBS again, because even the most hardcore Xcom fans had thought it wasn't worth buying.


btw, this made me giggle:

If you entire argument hinges on such a false statement, people will definitely wonder if you've ever even played the games yourself.

I don't give a shit if you think I am Jack Thompson fucking with you for shits and giggles. If you want to demonstrate me being intentionally dishonest, go the fuck ahead and quote me doing it. Otherwise stow your accusatory shit.

Notice how you are arguing with a statement that was made in an attempt to ellucidate the reasons for people's negative reactions to your earlier statement.

There were no accusations involved, and nobody wanting to demonstrate that you are being intentionally dishonest.

I just mentioned that it could appear that way to people, hoping that if you had something to say that had merit and weren't just another of the endless stream of trolls we get here, you would see the light and converse with the rest of us without making such statements and giving off such appearances which are generally detrimental to your ability to get a point across in this arena.



edit: thx for the apology. I didn't feel wronged, but it's refreshing to see someone with the balls to say sorry when they feel they've crossed a line.