ChildServices
Banned
A bunch of facebook pages that post memes 24/7, most of which have nothing to do with Fallout, isn't a community.
Whats worse- Fallout 1 and 2 elitists or Fallout 3 fanboy kids?
- Thread starter helios1
- Start date
mef
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Fallout 1 > New Vegas, Fallout 2 > pile of shit > Failout 3 *
Am I an elitist?
Many people has suggested that oldschool fans hate F3 because it's "something new" and people don't like change. I agree that this is true in many cases, but I, personally, hate it because it's terrible. It's a terrible and dumb game. Sure, it may be cool to people who just want to shoot things and feel smart, because they play games with some dialogues (although shooting in vanilla is abhorrent) and if it was marked as shooter I would have no problem with that - just another mediocre fallout action game, pretty much like BoS. But F3 is pretending to be and RPG and it kinda is, but in that case it's a terrible RPG. The plot is inconsistend, lazy and simply dumb. The gameworld doesn't make sense, it's childish, lazy and dumb. The player is given an illusion of choices, but their actions don't bring any consequences - your character stats have absolutely no meaning aside from some checks during quests, which feel forced, and the only outcome of your "moral decisions" is what color of armor you get in reward. And maybe some bad karma points, which you can fix by paying money to guys in a church - sorry, I don't like fantasy in my Fallout.
New Vegas is also "new", it's nothing like old, isometric turn-based Fallouts and it's great, I put it on a par with F2*. How is that possible?
*mods included
Am I an elitist?
Many people has suggested that oldschool fans hate F3 because it's "something new" and people don't like change. I agree that this is true in many cases, but I, personally, hate it because it's terrible. It's a terrible and dumb game. Sure, it may be cool to people who just want to shoot things and feel smart, because they play games with some dialogues (although shooting in vanilla is abhorrent) and if it was marked as shooter I would have no problem with that - just another mediocre fallout action game, pretty much like BoS. But F3 is pretending to be and RPG and it kinda is, but in that case it's a terrible RPG. The plot is inconsistend, lazy and simply dumb. The gameworld doesn't make sense, it's childish, lazy and dumb. The player is given an illusion of choices, but their actions don't bring any consequences - your character stats have absolutely no meaning aside from some checks during quests, which feel forced, and the only outcome of your "moral decisions" is what color of armor you get in reward. And maybe some bad karma points, which you can fix by paying money to guys in a church - sorry, I don't like fantasy in my Fallout.
New Vegas is also "new", it's nothing like old, isometric turn-based Fallouts and it's great, I put it on a par with F2*. How is that possible?
*mods included
Last edited:
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I am mostly refering to some users of the publisher's website. Most of them are level-headed, but some others are quite phenomenal in their agressive stubborness. I doubt we have even half the equivalent of those guys here, these days at least. (i wasn't on NMA when Fo:Tactics was released)
People need enemies. And they need those enemies to be simple rather than complex.
fred2
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Yes a first person SHOOTER isn't an RPG, although it can have an RPG elements. However, RPG isn't defined by its perspective i.e. RPG can be played from a First Person Perspective (FPP). Hence not every FPP with guns is an FPS.
Yes, standard input devices for the PC games offer more options for hotkeys, however, you can play even the most complex PC game without them.** And UI has gone tremendous improvement since the days of endless static list of options, if you need to have more than 20 inputs\combinations to play then you probably doing something wrong..
**with few rare exceptions where speed is of the essence (e.g. starcraft online competitive) or you need to type a lot e.g. WOW chats i.e. games which are exclusive to PC and are irrelevant to our discussion.
In the previous paragraph you implied that modern games are less complex because of input limitation, as hinted above I think you made a logical leap, neglecting the more casual nature of gamers ever since gaming became mainstream. Also on topic of consolidation, JS (Pillars of eternity) has previously noted that the reason why they don't spam skills isn't about some silly input limitation, but the trouble of making each skill mater and the balancing act involved.
Last edited:
fred2
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I STRONGLY doubt that :rolleyes: unless maybe your definition of "gamers" is of people who were born before the 90's and play on the PC.
The idea that 'youngsters are the worse' seem to grow on us with age
Age difference maters, what I consider as priceless classics that comes with a lot of memories for me, would seem like a low budget, D rated, crap student project on youtube if only I were born a decade+ later. And those first impressions matter, where immersion is involved especially on topic that isn't close to heart as with many youngsters.So if I were introduced to the series with FO3, i'd probably read about the original (OLD) lore, but doubtfully that i'd play and or enjoy the original titles (especially if I had no PC or wasn't technically inclined to go beyond gog version). And I'd probably be irked by oldguards who dismiss my first and amazing experiences... pushing on me something completely different
Last edited:
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Fred2 >
I checked the sentence you quoted and it is awfully out of context. (and grammatically still can defend itself by the use of "had", not "have")
My point on that quoted post, that wasn't even about quality, was an emphasis of the huge gap of technology between 1988 and 2002, which provived a rich history of gaming, with technologies not only evolving, but being totally rethinked, genre being added, or redefined. I am not mentioning the quality of writting, which depends on... well... the writters, but the tools available. There is almost nothing in common (technologically speaking) between a game made in 1988 and another made in 2002. You could even notice some additionnal milestones in-between, like 1990 being very different than 1994, and 1997 very different than 1999.
That movement slowed a bit. You might find some counter-examples, but most modern additions seems to be online gaming (late 90s), continuous gameworld (late 90s-early 2000s), and lip-sync (early 2000s). (although my previous post was mostly about FPS) From 2004 to 2015 it seems that we only gained more polygon, but nothing that really changed the games themselves (tech wise). Although, the marketing/selling evolved with digital market, crowdfunding, DLC replacing addon, pre-order etc... The games themselves are the same blueprint with more definition.
About doom itself, the fact billions of gamers were born afterward, and billions are yet to be born, doesn't change anything about the statement about the success of that game on release and in the following years, nor the fact that it was playable on multiple plateforms.
And last, what age have to do with the quality of the product ? Are you that close-minded that you can only appreciate movies/books/games/series/people/events that were first discovered after you were born ? You never get to discover anything older ?
I checked the sentence you quoted and it is awfully out of context. (and grammatically still can defend itself by the use of "had", not "have")
My point on that quoted post, that wasn't even about quality, was an emphasis of the huge gap of technology between 1988 and 2002, which provived a rich history of gaming, with technologies not only evolving, but being totally rethinked, genre being added, or redefined. I am not mentioning the quality of writting, which depends on... well... the writters, but the tools available. There is almost nothing in common (technologically speaking) between a game made in 1988 and another made in 2002. You could even notice some additionnal milestones in-between, like 1990 being very different than 1994, and 1997 very different than 1999.
That movement slowed a bit. You might find some counter-examples, but most modern additions seems to be online gaming (late 90s), continuous gameworld (late 90s-early 2000s), and lip-sync (early 2000s). (although my previous post was mostly about FPS) From 2004 to 2015 it seems that we only gained more polygon, but nothing that really changed the games themselves (tech wise). Although, the marketing/selling evolved with digital market, crowdfunding, DLC replacing addon, pre-order etc... The games themselves are the same blueprint with more definition.
About doom itself, the fact billions of gamers were born afterward, and billions are yet to be born, doesn't change anything about the statement about the success of that game on release and in the following years, nor the fact that it was playable on multiple plateforms.
And last, what age have to do with the quality of the product ? Are you that close-minded that you can only appreciate movies/books/games/series/people/events that were first discovered after you were born ? You never get to discover anything older ?
Last edited:
fred2
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I think that if you supplement age with time, you'd be able to answer this for yourself. But just in case, quality is a subjective notion affected by our perception, and time effects our perspective of what is, was and will be. After all the later is main part of our theme ...
Yes, I am saying that our appreciation is usually affected by a host of things. Like with humor, in entertainment delivery is important. And while some works (usually books) has timeliness quality about them, most don't.
For example, a couple of years back I had nostalgia streak, replaying a lot of my golden years classics. Even with unofficial patches and mods, most of them had significant issue that today would be considered subpar design(especially in terms of UI), and on more than one occasion I had to grind my teeth in-order to finish them... If I had no nostalgia googles I doubt that I could ever fully appreciate most of them. (especially since now days, I have different time constrains)
Yes and no, while I used that sentence out of context, the idea I tried to relay is relevant to what I glimpsed from several of your post about what an RPG is.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You have to be a bit more specific about what you glimpsed.
On a more general sense, without invoking some percentage, we can indeed consider that some movies/books/video-games/etc, were bad on release, some were good at a time, but got overshadowed by subsequents titles, others seems outdated but still have value, others didn't have reknown at the time but were vindicated later, while others are, indeed still as relevant as they were in the first place.
We might disagree about which titles kept the most value overtime. IMO, those isometric games like Fo1-Fo2/Jagged Alliance 2/etc.. still retain their value because they still manage to provide what they were supposed to, and because they weren't many titles to take the torch, even at the time. With the current influx of isometric games, there might be some new references around the corner. On the other hand, i think the 90s FPS, with the exception of the late games like Half-Life, can hardly be considered amongs the top because of their total lack of narrative. I might have enjoyed killing scores of cultist/pigcop/cyberdemons in Blood/Duke Nukem/Doom, and i will still enjoy it because of nostalgia, but i can't consider them as better than the many narrative FPS that came the decades after. Games like Half-Life/Metro2033/Bioschock raised the standard to something those FPS can't achieve and manage to do "most" of what those did. Although, the emphasis on the "most" is still relevant. There was a lot of regression in term of gore and level design, with the modern FPS being more corridor-y than what they used too. On the other hand, i very recently finished my very first playthrough of Wasteland (i didn't want to play Wasteland 2 without prior knowledge of the series, no matter if necessary. I just can't see IP out of order), this is some kind of gameplay i wasn't very used too. I noticed what i would call some huge flaws. But, on the other hand, i also found some stuff that were terribly lacking in subsequent games. (the possibility to send all party members in different locations of the worldmap and have all of them fight at the same time, multiple challenge, almost no exposition, many envirronnemental statuses generated by where you travel on the worldmap, how they dealt with radiation, the diseases etc...) It is a shame that a game that can fit a single sloppy disk can have depth in so many areas where many more modern games fail to deliver it, and manage to get away with the critics. I don't have any nostalgia for that game i played only recently, and i have yet to decide i will play another game with that gameplay, but i can recognize some features that were good then and have no reason to not be there today. (to come back on the FPS genre, it is a shame that the improvement of Soldier Of Fortune's ghoul engine were mostly forgotten)
About UI and control, it isn't only a question of design, although it indeed matter, but also a question of the supported input. Most current games, being cross-plateforms, have to make sure everything can be controlled by a gamepad, which can be very detrimental to the depth of the interface, in which more things were possible through mouse or mouse+keyboard, which is kind of disapointing considering those are limits that have nothing to do with the plateform you use, if you are a computer user.
On a more general sense, without invoking some percentage, we can indeed consider that some movies/books/video-games/etc, were bad on release, some were good at a time, but got overshadowed by subsequents titles, others seems outdated but still have value, others didn't have reknown at the time but were vindicated later, while others are, indeed still as relevant as they were in the first place.
We might disagree about which titles kept the most value overtime. IMO, those isometric games like Fo1-Fo2/Jagged Alliance 2/etc.. still retain their value because they still manage to provide what they were supposed to, and because they weren't many titles to take the torch, even at the time. With the current influx of isometric games, there might be some new references around the corner. On the other hand, i think the 90s FPS, with the exception of the late games like Half-Life, can hardly be considered amongs the top because of their total lack of narrative. I might have enjoyed killing scores of cultist/pigcop/cyberdemons in Blood/Duke Nukem/Doom, and i will still enjoy it because of nostalgia, but i can't consider them as better than the many narrative FPS that came the decades after. Games like Half-Life/Metro2033/Bioschock raised the standard to something those FPS can't achieve and manage to do "most" of what those did. Although, the emphasis on the "most" is still relevant. There was a lot of regression in term of gore and level design, with the modern FPS being more corridor-y than what they used too. On the other hand, i very recently finished my very first playthrough of Wasteland (i didn't want to play Wasteland 2 without prior knowledge of the series, no matter if necessary. I just can't see IP out of order), this is some kind of gameplay i wasn't very used too. I noticed what i would call some huge flaws. But, on the other hand, i also found some stuff that were terribly lacking in subsequent games. (the possibility to send all party members in different locations of the worldmap and have all of them fight at the same time, multiple challenge, almost no exposition, many envirronnemental statuses generated by where you travel on the worldmap, how they dealt with radiation, the diseases etc...) It is a shame that a game that can fit a single sloppy disk can have depth in so many areas where many more modern games fail to deliver it, and manage to get away with the critics. I don't have any nostalgia for that game i played only recently, and i have yet to decide i will play another game with that gameplay, but i can recognize some features that were good then and have no reason to not be there today. (to come back on the FPS genre, it is a shame that the improvement of Soldier Of Fortune's ghoul engine were mostly forgotten)
About UI and control, it isn't only a question of design, although it indeed matter, but also a question of the supported input. Most current games, being cross-plateforms, have to make sure everything can be controlled by a gamepad, which can be very detrimental to the depth of the interface, in which more things were possible through mouse or mouse+keyboard, which is kind of disapointing considering those are limits that have nothing to do with the plateform you use, if you are a computer user.
Caeo
First time out of the vault
FO2 == FO:NV > FO1 > FO3
Haven't played Tactics or BOS. Was introduced to the series by FO:NV.
To answer OP's question, I think FO1&2 elitists are far better than FO3 fanboys because the former aren't completely stupid. I can't have a proper conversation with most FO3 fanboys, whereas FO1&2 elitists are quite conversational (if a bit cynical/pessimistic/etc.).
Haven't played Tactics or BOS. Was introduced to the series by FO:NV.
To answer OP's question, I think FO1&2 elitists are far better than FO3 fanboys because the former aren't completely stupid. I can't have a proper conversation with most FO3 fanboys, whereas FO1&2 elitists are quite conversational (if a bit cynical/pessimistic/etc.).
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Also, Fo3 haters mostly bash the product, while Fo3 mostly bash the hater.
I tend to think that bashing people for their taste is more unhealty & dangerous that saying that a product you actually tried is bad.
Also, the shittyness of the product is quite an offense of the IP and a crush of the hopes for the Fo3 hater. He felt betrayed and emotionally broken by an actual product. Regardless of how important you consider the issue, they actually suffered from it. On the other hand, the mere existance of Fo3 hater doesn't have any impact on the pleasure the Fo3 fanboy get in playing it. Even if everybody else think it is shit, if you like it, you will keep liking it.
One bash a product for a reason (albeit arguable) while the other bash a person for the sake of it.
I tend to think that bashing people for their taste is more unhealty & dangerous that saying that a product you actually tried is bad.
Also, the shittyness of the product is quite an offense of the IP and a crush of the hopes for the Fo3 hater. He felt betrayed and emotionally broken by an actual product. Regardless of how important you consider the issue, they actually suffered from it. On the other hand, the mere existance of Fo3 hater doesn't have any impact on the pleasure the Fo3 fanboy get in playing it. Even if everybody else think it is shit, if you like it, you will keep liking it.
One bash a product for a reason (albeit arguable) while the other bash a person for the sake of it.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I don't consider myself an elitist. After all, I watch Grey's Anatomy.
That said, I can't understand the notion of a Fallout 1 and 2 elitist. I mean, Fallout 1 and 2 are the only ones that have the input of the creators. They're the only ones that follow the original design principle (that of emulating the pen and paper experience in a post-apocalyptic world). They're the only ones that strictly adhere to the canon...
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that, while I believe in my position in this, and while I don't find anything interesting in Fallout 3, and very little in New Vegas, and while I don't think Fallout 3 and New Vegas are true Fallout games, I do think that everyone's entitled to their opinion, but most importantly, to their TASTES!
For example, you state, as a fact, that Fallout is a really good game with fun quests and a fun world to explore.
Fallout 3 bores me to tears, the level design is atrocious and the quest design is even worse. Fortunately, I play lots of RPGs, so I'm used to crappy quest design, but the level design is really terrible and spoils everything for me. That and the nonsensical world, idiotic dialogs, brainless and BORING combat system, and lack of interaction with the world.
So that's why it's so hard to like both, for me. I'm ok with people liking FOE or FONV, but I don't like them. It's my subjective opinion, based on my OBJECTIVE analysis of the quality of the game.
What I mean is we can't argue tastes, but we can argue opinions, and saying Fallout 3 is a terrible game is an opinion. Saying I don't like Fallout 3 is my taste.
Answering the question, for me, Fallout 3 fanboys are the worst because they have no idea what they're talking about.
The end.
Mercuryrises
First time out of the vault
I know I'm a lowly noob, so y'all probably don't really care:
I've loved fallout since the first Demo on the PC, I mean I played that demo ever which way you can imagine.
Fallouts 1 and 2 are my all time favourite games, played them both more times than I can count, and probably will continue to do so.
I also liked New Vegas, I've put more hours into it than I can state.
Fallout 3, to me felt like an interim, Bethesda making their mark taking over a franchise that already had a seriously hardcore following, it was a bit crap, there was a lot I didn't like, but still, I feel it has it's place.
To answer the thread question, They're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned. Hating on someone because the fist FO game they met was FO3 is stupid, not everyone was around and gaming in the late 90's, but similarly dismissing the originals is daft, that's where it all started, that is where FO3 and NV started.
Does it annoy me that the people creaming themselves over FO4 probably have no idea who Ian, Dogmeat, Sulik and Cassidy are? Yeah, a little. Does it really matter? Not a bit.
The point is that there still is a Fallout.
I've loved fallout since the first Demo on the PC, I mean I played that demo ever which way you can imagine.
Fallouts 1 and 2 are my all time favourite games, played them both more times than I can count, and probably will continue to do so.
I also liked New Vegas, I've put more hours into it than I can state.
Fallout 3, to me felt like an interim, Bethesda making their mark taking over a franchise that already had a seriously hardcore following, it was a bit crap, there was a lot I didn't like, but still, I feel it has it's place.
To answer the thread question, They're both as bad as each other as far as I'm concerned. Hating on someone because the fist FO game they met was FO3 is stupid, not everyone was around and gaming in the late 90's, but similarly dismissing the originals is daft, that's where it all started, that is where FO3 and NV started.
Does it annoy me that the people creaming themselves over FO4 probably have no idea who Ian, Dogmeat, Sulik and Cassidy are? Yeah, a little. Does it really matter? Not a bit.
The point is that there still is a Fallout.
Last edited:
fred2
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
I think Racists are far better than open-minded people because the former aren't completely stupid. I can't have a proper conversation with open-minded people, whereas Racists are quite conversational...
Context and logic matters... In my example, the Racists are few elderly people around the block, while the "open-minded" are common stock of the 'drunk on the kool aid' teenager on a forum. And obviously their conversational skills doesn't indicate anything about the validity of their opinions i.e. I can ind other forums with more conversational younger people
Anyway, I am tired of trying to offer some perspective on this silly animosity. I'll just sum up my opinion , [strike]FO3 "fanboys" who comment on the prequels without playing them[/strike] any person commenting on something they don't know is ignorant. FO1&2 "elitists" who try to convince FO3 "fanboys" that FO1&2 > FO3 should read this and possibly avoid this, because this endless wankery doesn't bode well as to your maturity.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
As mentionned earlier, there is nothing wrong is liking/hating both or one or another, and discussing about it.
The problems are when the extremes are involved.
The stubborn ignorant indeed exist, amongs other kind of fanboys, but IMO, this isn't the most extreme case. They can be annoying not beyond that. The worst are those. They just can't accept people having a different opinion of the medium and will consider the person itself, not his opinion, as the thing that should be fought agains't. Not only this lead more often than not in the offense/assault category (although with words) which can lead to disastrous effect, but it is also a totally fruitless effort, as if you can indeed destroy the person spirit by being so mean to it, you cannot actually remove the person idea/opinion/taste from them, by being so agressive. You might even enforce those opinion by creating a martyr syndrome.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen in all communities. Although it is a bit less active, (unfortunately) i don't have this issue with Fallout french communities, in which you would find members of both groups (those who love Fo1-Fo2 and hate Fo3, those who hate/didn't play Fo1-Fo2 and love Fo3) in both the staff and other members. You regularly see members from both groups expressing their opinion of hate/love of each episode, but rarelly see said group arguing with each other that much, and mostly never outright insulting each others. They are perfectly aware that people can have a widely different opinion, and still be sane/honest/nice/etc. (On the other hand there is a lot of infighting a lot in the Fonline sections, about which team/player is the best, although those guys kill/rape/steal/backstab each other ingame, which explain the hate)
The problems are when the extremes are involved.
The stubborn ignorant indeed exist, amongs other kind of fanboys, but IMO, this isn't the most extreme case. They can be annoying not beyond that. The worst are those. They just can't accept people having a different opinion of the medium and will consider the person itself, not his opinion, as the thing that should be fought agains't. Not only this lead more often than not in the offense/assault category (although with words) which can lead to disastrous effect, but it is also a totally fruitless effort, as if you can indeed destroy the person spirit by being so mean to it, you cannot actually remove the person idea/opinion/taste from them, by being so agressive. You might even enforce those opinion by creating a martyr syndrome.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen in all communities. Although it is a bit less active, (unfortunately) i don't have this issue with Fallout french communities, in which you would find members of both groups (those who love Fo1-Fo2 and hate Fo3, those who hate/didn't play Fo1-Fo2 and love Fo3) in both the staff and other members. You regularly see members from both groups expressing their opinion of hate/love of each episode, but rarelly see said group arguing with each other that much, and mostly never outright insulting each others. They are perfectly aware that people can have a widely different opinion, and still be sane/honest/nice/etc. (On the other hand there is a lot of infighting a lot in the Fonline sections, about which team/player is the best, although those guys kill/rape/steal/backstab each other ingame, which explain the hate)
Last edited:
ToddIsMyHeroTESRulez
Banned
Fallout 3 is straight up horse-shit. there is absolutely no excuse to give any excuses on why, how, etc on it. it's fucking garbage.
There is absolutely no "fanboying" or "hatering" for calling Fallout 3 the Horse-shit it really is..
There is absolutely no "elitism" either.
If you need to make excuses like "mods" and cant just say awesome game without saying...well it's okay but blah blah.. then it sucks. and you're in denial of the actual truth.
Although those guys bitching about the fallout bible ruining the lore are kinda stupid.(bet those guys feel really really fucking stupid after how bethesda treat lore and dismiss the bible anyways" LOL
people that say shit like "it's a good game for what it is" are full of shit! that's just sorry excuse.
Too many Liberal people afraid to speak up on something being garbage without being scolded and cast out as being negative troll hater.
and Too many Autistic gamers...
Fallout Tactics was not that bad and it was at least fun...I remember seeing it at store when it came out telling my
friend wtf is this so we bought it and played it..wondering why not like fallout 1+2 but its still 100X better than Fallout 3
GTA San Andreas is still the best Grand Theft Auto... #4 was lifeless city and boring. #5 is really cool looking but so many things funny and cool to do in San andreas are gone. all because of Stupid online gta....and IT sucks...boring GTA online = Skyrim = TES/GTAonline BORING
thief was a cool fun/game till fanboys and console messed it up.
Ghost Recon was good game when it was on the pc before the N00bs ruined it
I was super excited for never winter nights 1 because it was all different view and 3d stuff.
but then after playing it ...it was a total dead world.
I don't care if it was "good" multiplayer. I already know....but the story sucked.
I played Morrowwind .....man that game is BORING. lifeless and dull.
my ex-gf played Skyrim and wow it's so boring. how anyone with any common sense and brains can play that game for more than 40hours is crazy.
I don't believe "RPG" has to be any style... it has to evolve as long as keeps core concepts
But some "roleplayers" are crazy.....
it just needs a dedicated team of guys making the game.
the biggest problem with pillars of eternity and others like that now is too much worrying about feedback from "audience" and trying to "please" everyone. just make a fucking hardcore story with awesome gameplay. let people figure out how to play.
There is absolutely no "fanboying" or "hatering" for calling Fallout 3 the Horse-shit it really is..
There is absolutely no "elitism" either.
If you need to make excuses like "mods" and cant just say awesome game without saying...well it's okay but blah blah.. then it sucks. and you're in denial of the actual truth.
Although those guys bitching about the fallout bible ruining the lore are kinda stupid.(bet those guys feel really really fucking stupid after how bethesda treat lore and dismiss the bible anyways" LOL
people that say shit like "it's a good game for what it is" are full of shit! that's just sorry excuse.
Too many Liberal people afraid to speak up on something being garbage without being scolded and cast out as being negative troll hater.
and Too many Autistic gamers...
Fallout Tactics was not that bad and it was at least fun...I remember seeing it at store when it came out telling my
friend wtf is this so we bought it and played it..wondering why not like fallout 1+2 but its still 100X better than Fallout 3
GTA San Andreas is still the best Grand Theft Auto... #4 was lifeless city and boring. #5 is really cool looking but so many things funny and cool to do in San andreas are gone. all because of Stupid online gta....and IT sucks...boring GTA online = Skyrim = TES/GTAonline BORING
thief was a cool fun/game till fanboys and console messed it up.
Ghost Recon was good game when it was on the pc before the N00bs ruined it
I was super excited for never winter nights 1 because it was all different view and 3d stuff.
but then after playing it ...it was a total dead world.
I don't care if it was "good" multiplayer. I already know....but the story sucked.
I played Morrowwind .....man that game is BORING. lifeless and dull.
my ex-gf played Skyrim and wow it's so boring. how anyone with any common sense and brains can play that game for more than 40hours is crazy.
I don't believe "RPG" has to be any style... it has to evolve as long as keeps core concepts
But some "roleplayers" are crazy.....
it just needs a dedicated team of guys making the game.
the biggest problem with pillars of eternity and others like that now is too much worrying about feedback from "audience" and trying to "please" everyone. just make a fucking hardcore story with awesome gameplay. let people figure out how to play.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
The story in GTA IV was pretty damn good I think, a fair amount of people at GTAForums thinks so too. GTAO is bad because of Zentorno abusers, money grinding, glitchers, glitches and little kids immigrating from CoD.
Presumably play it as a "Hack n Slash" which it does better at anyway.
The Doctor
Veteran of The Divide
"Having an opinion is like having a penis. It's fine to have one, but please don't take it out in public and ram it down our throats."
-
If people are going into asinine rants about games, that's when I pack up my stuff and depart
Why can't you enjoy all the games for what makes them unique?
My attraction to Fallout comes from the story more than the gameplay
-
If people are going into asinine rants about games, that's when I pack up my stuff and depart
Why can't you enjoy all the games for what makes them unique?
My attraction to Fallout comes from the story more than the gameplay
Aurilen
First time out of the vault
It would be cool if the guys who liked the isometric Fallouts could play those on a fps/tps engine. Then guys who liked the newer Fallouts could play those on an isometric engine.
Caeo
First time out of the vault
Eh, that's a poor analogy. FO1&2 elitists =/= racists and FO3 fanboys =/= open-minded people.
I prefer FO1&2 elitists to FO3 fanboys because they tend to offer in-depth discussion, whereas FO3 fanboys do not. I came here to NMA from /r/Fallout because after FO4 was announced everyone just started posting the words "hype train" in all caps with this image attached. It's a hivemind, no one thinks for themselves. If you're at all familiar with reddit then you know much much of an echo chamber that site can be. I much prefer reading bitter critiques written by thinking people than reading mindless deification of a game that really doesn't deserve it.
I agree with this sentiment.
I also agree with this sentiment. Preferring FO1&2 elitists to FO3 fanboys doesn't necessarily mean I agree with them. FO3 has its place in the series and rejecting the reality of that fact is grounds for fruitless discussion.