gameart3d said:
The Dark Brotherhood and the Theives Guild weren't the only high points, for me.
Go you. You're must be very special.
While I did find the side quests more enjoyable than the main story, it was much more than simply those 2 guilds, for me and since the side quests were considerabley more content than the main story, then it doesn't speak as poorly about the game as you would like to make it out to be.
Yeah, nothing like being able to fuck off on unrelated shit when there's a sense of urgency to the main and useless story line. Whereas in Fallout, everything was connected in good design.
Oblivion, however, falls apart when looked at too closely.
If the most enjoyment you take out of a game is the main story, then I could definitely see being dissapointed with Oblivion. Fortunately, that is not the case for me.
Again, you must be very special, but your personal feelings are beside the point.
Oblivion is an RPG and no, it is not one in the traditional CRPG mold. It is a sandbox RPG. That doesn't preclude it from being a good game, in my opinion.
No, it's Action-Adventure, not CRPG, since a CRPG relies on character ability instead of user ability. That is the defining line, along with choice and consequences. Versus Bethesda's preference for action.
Actually, you ignorant little rat-felcher, I am not equating my opinion as fact at all, and numerous times through my statements I pointed out that it was just a matter of me personally, finding enjoyment in the game. I never said anywhere that anyone else would, or should have to find that same enjoyment. I even started my post off by saying that I knew it would be a minority opinion here. I sometimes forget just how much differing opinions are disliked here.
Still, I chose to post mine.
And then you tried to equate it as fact. You are saying it doesn't matter because YOU don't think so, and because YOU found the game fun. That is fine, but on a technical design level, both games are leagues apart in design, and for Bethesda to offer the depth of what the general Fallout audience expects when they think of Fallout, they are going to have to do some serious work for once.
"But, the idea that the "Fallout method" is the ONLY way to have fun in a game is clearly a fallacy." also points it out quite clearly. It's also quite ironic that you claim a fallacy within another fallacy.
You are talking about your own definition of fun, as the general Fallout fan's idea of fun with Fallout obviously wasn't along the lines of a cheap console sell-out, as F
OS proved. Nor was it a shallow cash-in spin-off as FOT proved. So you don't care that Bethesda might make another F
OS and doctor it up with a few token Oblivion widgets.
That's fine, but don't try to dictate to Fallout fans what constitutes fun about the series based upon your feelings and opinion.
Terminator is not important, canonicaly, to me so you chose a bad example.
Wrong, dumbshit. It's also Bethesda's, and Todd Howard's, work. Pay attenshun, stupid. Your personal feelings about canon are also irrelevant. I was discussing factual examples, not your personal feelings.
However, if you want to talk straw man, ""At least there are exploshuns!" as a comment would fit the bill.
No, it wouldn't. You don't seem to care what happens to a game, as long as it has the name and is personally fun for you, so that makes you a shallow little goldfish. Then you make contradictory statements full of even more straw man arguments.
It would certainly be possible to make a quality movie (independant of special effects and "exploshuns") that didn't stick to canon as much as I would have liked. If they announced a new Matrix movie and when I got there I saw Dark City I could still think it was a good movie.
Yeah, and then try to imagine if they billed Dark City as something from The Matrix. or vice-versa. Doesn't fit too well, and doesn't have the same kind of appeal, and therefore it makes a poor sequel. Trust me, child, I have far more knowledge of series failures in the industry over the >20 years that I have been in and around it, than you with your IGNorant ass believes any turd with the name of Fallout would suffice.
Army of Darkness was nothing like Evil Dead, but I enjoyed it far more.
Really? It would seem to offer the same kind of cheesy camp, hence why people enjoyed it. It was what people expected of a sequel, and hence why it earned itself and the previous titles a cult following. Now imagine if some other director turned the sequel into a poor facsimile of the previous titles, and it completely lost the style, maybe turned a bit too serious. Yet you're trying to say that the established formula doesn't make the series fun or enjoyable, when the opposite of your brainshit has been proven by series that have lost what made them fun to those who liked the original.
Amusing that it is you that picks the piss-poor examples.
I, personally, dislike FPS games and really never play them. It's not me calling Oblivion's combat "modern", and the combat isn't what I would chose if I were to make a game. I'll take the Bard's Tale's lines of combat dialogue over any kind of action RPG any day. I'll take the Gold Box D&D games over the Black Isle D&D games for the same reason.
And then you'll see no problem in Black Isle coining their games "Gold Box II" to cash in the name, but otherwise not offer anything akin to what the original games offered. Hey, it fits your whorish "logic". So spread them for Todd, he's going to make you his bitch.
Again, that is why you're part of the cattle problem in the industry. You're a spineless apologist, accepting what the industry dictates to you instead of speaking out.
But the fact is that isn't the kind of combat we are getting these days.
That's true only if you have no spine to fight for that to be put into a game, or are totally clueless. As I pointed out, due to the mainstream ignorance in chasing trends, it has left a fairly lucrative market of the old-school to which only a few developers develop for. Much like in Japan, with their recognized markets.
And personally (once again, my own opinion, you can have your own) I'd still rather play with real time combat, than play nothing at all, or play Japanese RPGs, which are the only turn based combat games created anymore, but I can't stand the games.
Actually, I'd rather save my money and not play overhyped generic shit made just like every other vapid shit title out there. Again, that is what made Fallout famous back in 1997, by NOT being like the mass of garbage that cheaply was ripping off the CRPG genre but failing to deliver true CRPG gameplay. Amusing that you fail to understand this example of what Fallout meant back then, when it could serve the same now, and persistently ignore that.
I don't know, why don't you " go back to IGNorance" and ask them.
You first, ban bait.
A problem? hmm. Like I said in my original post, I am optimistic that the game might actually be fun. It really has nothing to do with being idealistic. I was very unhappy when I heard that Betheseda aquired the license, and more optimistic after I played Oblivion. It's nothing more than that.
Then you're a goldfish, because "fun" doesn't accurately describe the feeling of buying a sequel and find it's been raped. Funny, for a "dead" game, Bethesda has interest in it, as does much of the media, and in particular the fans. Most of the industry knows what goes along with it, and most publishers don't have the cojones to build a good CRPG like Interplay did.
Again, that's what made Fallout so good and noteworthy.
Would I rather have a Fallout 3 that was on par with the orignial? Yeah, of course.
Would I rather have Fallout just die out and not be heard of than have Betheseda make this game?
No.
Funny, I thought you had just said that someone else would make a Fallout to Fallout as Wasteland.
So instead of it being whored out some more, someone else comes along and makes a logical style sequel. Which was partly your point in a previous post. Interesting that you seem to bounce from one argument to another, your time's about up, troll-boy.
Short of the original team getting back together to make it, a Fallout on par with the original just isn't going to happen, and there has been zero initiative, and money, to get that happening.
So then why do you want to see a crappy Fallout sequel made, other than it might be fun for you? I don't count that as a reason, goldfish.
I didn't play Fallout BOS, which just looked like a crappy game, and I didn't finish Fallout tactics because it didn't hold my interest enough. However, neither was an affront to me, personally.
But it might have given you a clue that people don't really like nor buy what doesn't befit the name. Then you come up with this bit of idiocy:
"But, the idea that the "Fallout method" is the ONLY way to have fun in a game is clearly a fallacy."
Which equates your opinion as fact, as you infer that it doesn't matter how the game turns out, only that it doesn't matter how it's designed, only that it's fun for you. Which makes you a selfish little goldfish.
It might make you one, for still being in love with it.
Well, if Fallout is dead, then let me help you bury your own seeming obsession in putting on a clown suit and raping the franchise as well.
However, there are no needs for goodbyes, because in spite of your blood pressure, I have no intentions of taking my, infrequent, postings elsewhere. I don't feel I've said or done anything ban-worthy, so it's safe to assume you will see another post from me at some point.
Nope. That many straw man arguments, goodbye for trolling. Again, what you FEEL doesn't have anything to do with reality.
See how that works, kid?
