Ignorance rears its ugly head again.
Amusing enough, sequels fail when they aren't what the fans want. Sad, but true. To those who have a clue, deviating from a formula is what kills off most game series. Of course, I'd lay money on the fact that you're too young to remember most of them.
This is by far the most asinine and idiotic part of anything you've said in your previous post. PC RPGs are around, you just need to know where to look. Oh, I'm sorry, were you expecting just the mainstream RPGs and wouldn't touch anything past 5 years old? It certainly would explain why you're gushing over KotOR, despite the fact that people have done better before (except in terms of graphics and the Star Wars license), and without the BioWare brand ego. Just because the game might seem gold to you becauseit is one of a few games you've played in the genre, that doesn't mean the game is exceptional to the genre. Check out RPGDot and RPGCodex for some accurate remarks about the game.
There you start to touch upon the subject. Fallout isn't "RPG lite, mass market". It certainly didn't get popular because of someone's hype machine and vapid gameplay.
Pardon if you've heard this one before, but I wouldn't trust Lockheed to perform brain surgery.
It just isn't their thing. That parallel goes the same for BioWare and Fallout. I've already said this before. BioWare isn't interested in anything remotely turn-based or like Fallout. It would only be a big-name franchise for them to exploit, and their only work that isn't licensed is, guess what, real-time combat. It doesn't take much imagination to see how it would turn out.
And then for you to insist Fallout should be put into their hands, despite all that, well, that is where I call you a liar again for claiming to be a Fallout fan, as you're wanting to add further insult to the license. You're expecting people to accept Fallout being turned into something that would hardly resemble Fallout, just because a developer is good at what they do and not because they would be someone who treats the titlw well. Now's the time for you to get it through your thick skull that Fallout's design is nowhere near what BioWare does. If you're saying that Fallout should be like what BioWare does, do humanity a favor by castrating yourself with a wrecking ball and depart from these forums now.
So I state again, you're going to have to try a lot harder for anyone here to accept that BioWare is in any way, shape, or form a good choice as developer for Fallout. If you're just going to fanboy for BioWare, then this is by far the wrong place to do so. Go onto their forums, where such Romero idolization would be appreciated.
Bootcut said:I would never be so ignorant to say that any game is great because it sold well. But Bioware achieved a total package, critical acclaim, sales, etc, and I can hardly blame them for not wanting to toy with the formula. Every company is in business to make money first, and make people happy second. Sad, but true.
Amusing enough, sequels fail when they aren't what the fans want. Sad, but true. To those who have a clue, deviating from a formula is what kills off most game series. Of course, I'd lay money on the fact that you're too young to remember most of them.
And honestly, PC RPGs are not all that common (thankfully, I like FPSes too). I take a good RPG where I can get it. And god, I loved KOTOR. That was a compelling game.
This is by far the most asinine and idiotic part of anything you've said in your previous post. PC RPGs are around, you just need to know where to look. Oh, I'm sorry, were you expecting just the mainstream RPGs and wouldn't touch anything past 5 years old? It certainly would explain why you're gushing over KotOR, despite the fact that people have done better before (except in terms of graphics and the Star Wars license), and without the BioWare brand ego. Just because the game might seem gold to you becauseit is one of a few games you've played in the genre, that doesn't mean the game is exceptional to the genre. Check out RPGDot and RPGCodex for some accurate remarks about the game.
Heck, I like console RPGs too. I liked Morrowind. I thought Anachronox was great. I dunno, I just think that you guys are kinda rough on these developers. I dunno, maybe I'm too tolerant of the so called RPG lite, mass market driven (Anachronox very much excluded) RPGs, but I think you could do a lot worse.
There you start to touch upon the subject. Fallout isn't "RPG lite, mass market". It certainly didn't get popular because of someone's hype machine and vapid gameplay.
Pardon if you've heard this one before, but I wouldn't trust Lockheed to perform brain surgery.
It just isn't their thing. That parallel goes the same for BioWare and Fallout. I've already said this before. BioWare isn't interested in anything remotely turn-based or like Fallout. It would only be a big-name franchise for them to exploit, and their only work that isn't licensed is, guess what, real-time combat. It doesn't take much imagination to see how it would turn out.
And then for you to insist Fallout should be put into their hands, despite all that, well, that is where I call you a liar again for claiming to be a Fallout fan, as you're wanting to add further insult to the license. You're expecting people to accept Fallout being turned into something that would hardly resemble Fallout, just because a developer is good at what they do and not because they would be someone who treats the titlw well. Now's the time for you to get it through your thick skull that Fallout's design is nowhere near what BioWare does. If you're saying that Fallout should be like what BioWare does, do humanity a favor by castrating yourself with a wrecking ball and depart from these forums now.
So I state again, you're going to have to try a lot harder for anyone here to accept that BioWare is in any way, shape, or form a good choice as developer for Fallout. If you're just going to fanboy for BioWare, then this is by far the wrong place to do so. Go onto their forums, where such Romero idolization would be appreciated.