UncannyGarlic said:
Oh come now, he pointed out exactly what he likes with the game and the only thing that this or Oblivion was any good at, being a wandering simulator.
If I recall my 2006 experiences correctly, it took me about 15 minutes to run from one end of Oblivion to another. Considering that Fallout 3 is smaller in size and that it doesn't really have the environmental diversity of its predecessor, I'm not even able to agree to this point. Oblivion had about 10 weather types (about 50 with Natural Environments) and differently looking climatic zones full of lush vegetation obscuring the player's view. Fallout 3 seems to have about 3 rather similarly looking cloud types, no forms of precipitation, and an immediately viewable wandering field that is filled with
1) hundreds of identically looking rocks
2) about 4 types of grass
3) about 4 types of dead trees that all look like broomsticks
4) dozens of similarly looking desolated houses
5) roughly 10 types of bad looking monsters and raiders all sharing a single not-so-intelligent AI
6) discarded and mostly unusable objects (couches, broken cellphones and dirty teddy bears come to mind)
This is why I compared it to a garbage dump in the first place. Say what you want about Oblivion, but I doubt it had a similar effect on people.
Yes, me and Vince and all the other people (probably well over million) underwent lobotomy.
Appeal to popularity is a logical fallacy. Besides, about 58,000,000 of American adults voted for Senator McCain a week ago. Assuming that at least some of them were lobotomized at one point of their life seems to the only way give some sort of rationale to their otherwise injudicious actions...
Taste in games, music, movies and just about everything is always subjective.
Naturally. That's why we have music, film and literary criticism. You may be entitled to your personal views, but as soon as you open up and share them with other individuals, your taste becomes a sociological construct that can be evaluated by others in a perfectly objective fashion. I think one can safely say that J.K. Rowling is not as good of a writer as W. Shakespeare, don't you?
P.S. I kid the McCain voters, of course.