Impressions thread for positive impressions

[midshipman01]

So far, I've really yet to see any counter to the argument that Fallout 3 does everything better than it's predecessors.

Instead, the self-proclaimed geniuses (whose minds can only be stimulated by the highest form of video game writing, obviously) can only point out things they don't like about Fo3. If you can't make a comparison to F1 or F2, and explain why it was better, then I guess you'll have to agree that they are even worse. I'd be fine with that because I think it's generally correct.

Oh, and anything that goes..."so, by your logic..." is a poor argument. Stop using it. Just makes you look silly when your misunderstanding of the original argument leads to some ridiculous extrapolation of a point that was never made. If you can't actually prove something incorrect on it's face, you've got nothing to say.

 

[ScottXeno]

This is a forum. It's all about pointing out the things that you dislike about something.

HOWEVER.


What are you reading? I've seen plenty of comparisons between the new fallout and the first two. Irregardless, it's always going to be a matter of opinion. There will always be people like you, who think the game is great, and wonderful, and don't mind overlooking the glaring flaws that show a negative trend in gaming as a whole, versus people like me, who do not accept it for the pile of shit that it is.

 

[Public]

Pointing out what is better in FO3 than in previous Fallouts is a matter of opinions not facts.

Example: Just because more people buy FPS games than RPGs, it doesn't mean RPGs shouldn't exist. It's a metter of opinions, people's tastes, and it's a fact, that people have different tastes and opinions.

That's why the fact is above the opinion.

 

[JJ86]

So far, I've really yet to see any counter to the argument that Fallout 3 does everything better than it's predecessors.

Try rereading the thread. I've read plenty of good arguments that see FO3 as inferior in most respects save for modern graphics.

 

[Buxbaum666]

So far, I've really yet to see any counter to the argument that Fallout 3 does everything better than it's predecessors.

I've really yet to see any proof of Fallout 3 doing "everything" better than it's predecessors.

 

[darkmoon303]

I think this can be broken down into a more simple equation.

FO3 is shallow. Its not only the writing, and not only the overuse of singular meshes, textures.

It's about life. About creating a gaming world which actually lives on its own. Having non clicheé NPCs. Sporting unique encounters, unique art.
FO3 fails there, big time. Dialogues... simple sentences on 5th-8th grade niveau (guess that's the target group). Bland and unimaginative enemies with horrible AI.

But the real deal is: if you use the same sprites multiple times in low resolution its actually not that bad... because you can't see it clearly and can imagine.
Doing the same in high-res FPS view leads to a feeling of blandness and boredom.

I can't stress it enough.... If you want to know how to do a really outstanding First person RPG, play VTMB or ARX FATALIS. Especially the latter is brimming with atmosphere and love of the creators.

This game was made ONLY for the money. nothing else.

 

[Ausdoerrt]

Maybe we could conjure up Set and have him pay them a visit

"Bethesssda... Makkesss my sssshadow... groooowww.... Kill!.."

Would be awesome. They'd piss their pants. And maybe scat them too =))

 

[tekhedd]

Re: This section is disheartening

The real kicker here, is that no matter how much more content I add to this static box pile, it WILL NEVER BE BETTER than the live action title. Watching a character's facial and hand expressions will always create a more immersive storyline than a picture of their face next to text. ...

^ Does not read for pleasure.

edit: I think his argument would be more convincing if he'd made a little podcast and uploaded it to youtube, instead of typing it as a bunch of boring old text.

 

[M-26-7]

So far, I've really yet to see any counter to the argument that Fallout 3 does everything better than it's predecessors.

Instead, the self-proclaimed geniuses (whose minds can only be stimulated by the highest form of video game writing, obviously) can only point out things they don't like about Fo3. If you can't make a comparison to F1 or F2, and explain why it was better, then I guess you'll have to agree that they are even worse. I'd be fine with that because I think it's generally correct.

Oh, and anything that goes..."so, by your logic..." is a poor argument. Stop using it. Just makes you look silly when your misunderstanding of the original argument leads to some ridiculous extrapolation of a point that was never made. If you can't actually prove something incorrect on it's face, you've got nothing to say.

The man who builds a throne of corpses and claims to be a man of peace. You started a thread to argue why this forum was bad, than you got ten hundred responses with most people admitting the game was anywhere from mediocre to pretty good, but almost all said that the game was not very fallout-y. You have a least a hundred arguments in front of you saying why this game is not 9/10 or 10/10 especially in the Fallout department which is our main complaint and yet you act like this page one and you're starting a brave new thread. It's a rediculous attitude.

 

[quant]

so he is still a VALID standard to be using when looking at what ghouls should look like.

No he isn't obviously. He looks cute and comic and not like a Ghoul, not at all.

Here is a Ghoul:

 

[Gooscar]

Today's graphics benchmark HATES asymmetry, and only tolerates it in texturing and special characters that are are infrequent.

 

[Public]

quant, is that You on the picture?

You look hilarious!

 

[quant]

Youre right. And yes: I look hilarious. Of course. Still better than that comic clown on the previous page.

I would eat his rotten balls after I had pulled out his strange excrescence growing out of his festered and stinking, partly demolished thingy called head.

 

[Buxbaum666]

Here is a Ghoul:

http://bohred.tripod.com/ghoul.JPG

Why on earth do you compare Fallout ghouls to "classic" ghouls? The only thing they share is the name.
But why am I even arguing with a troll.

 

[quant]

Jeeez, Bux.

Why on earth do you compare Fallout ghouls to "classic" ghouls?

Has to do with the origins. Why do you think they named them Ghouls?

Need more?

FO1 - 'Ghoul' IN-GAME!!! - That iks what we are talking. We are not talking talking heads or render videos!

FO3 - Ghoul

 

[Commiered]

You are a foolish child quant, the 'ghoul' in Fallout 3 is just a burns victim, not some human that was so irradiated that is basically a skeleton with some skin hanging off it!

 

[Gooscar]

Yeah, classic Fallout ghouls are a bit more over the top in their irradiated condition. Fallout 3's are a bit more conservative in their presentation.

I remember those ghouls being bigger on the computer screen... or was it me that changed?

 

[Deadman87]

FO1 - 'Ghoul' IN-GAME!!! - That iks what we are talking. We are not talking talking heads or render videos!

FO3 - Ghoul

As you can see on the images you linked yourself, the Fallout 1/2 ghoul is basically a skeleton compared to the Fallout 3 burn victim.

Harold and Set set (pun not intented) the standard of what a Fallout ghoul is, not you and your googling of the word "ghoul" in the image section.

 

[ScottXeno]

so he is still a VALID standard to be using when looking at what ghouls should look like.

No he isn't obviously. He looks cute and comic and not like a Ghoul, not at all.

Here is a Ghoul:

What is that, a ghoul from some fantasy movie or game? That is not what a ghoul is in the FALLOUT universe. I am sorry, but the ghouls in the game are what they are due to radiation poisoning, not some undead curse or spell or disease.

Set is exactly what a ghoul should look like.

 

[Roflcore]

Oh that human looks injured.. is he alright? Working at a bar? Maybe a little accident in the kitchen? Well it doesn't look that bad, should be a normal human in no time..