Yeah, how many of these supposed F3 lovers are still in love with F3 (without the DLCs). If these people can honestly say that F3 (by itself) is just so amazing and will continue to be so for years to come without any mods or DLCs then I'd be shocked. How many DLCs did F1 & F2 need?zippy1 said:
Holocausto said:
The Fallout 3 modding community is plenty healthy, and the game still gets mainstream attention. As far as the console community, Microsoft doesn't really share numbers of how much playtime some games get, but I don't see any reason why that matters so much. Is a game only really good if you obsessively play it for 10 years? Because I'm pretty sure that says something more about the player than it does about the game.Holocausto said:
Patton89 said:
That's because they were good games. They had some issues - GTAIV had a really rough start but the issues were mostly patched, and Far Cry 2 has those annoying respawning outposts and the characters talk way too fast but the action is solid and the visuals and atmosphere are unparalleled.
All of the "user scores" you see out there are full of idiot fanboys giving their favorite games a 10 and their un-favorites a zero. Half the people rating GTAIV didn't even seem to meet the system requirements. Just to prove how skewed and unrealistic user scores on the internet are, here you go: The Godfather (the movie) got an 8.2/10 user score. (it has 9.1/10 on IMDB)
I never played F1 or F2 (except F1 demo). You are missing the point. I'm talking about staying power which is the real achievement. Why can I go back to most all of my old games...re install and STILL enjoy them? A game that needs mods & DLCs to keep people interested (especially after such a relatively short time) fails IMO. As far as marketing and making money goes though...oh shit, it's nearly diabolical to release a game which is fun for the short term but compels most people to KEEP PURCHASING expansions to maintain interest.zippy1 said:
Yes plenty of people will replay it...largely because of mods & DLCS! Proving my point.zippy1 said:
zippy1 said:
zippy1 said:
I said read the USER Score.zippy1 said:
Is your rhetorical question silly?Public said:
Most video games that are greenlit do not become moneymakers. And everyone can come up with nitpicks about the game design, but many here seem to believe that Fallout 3 - Bethesda's body of work in its entirety, in some cases - is almost completely worthless and without merit.
Yet many, many people got hundreds of hours of fun, each, out of this game without any DLC.Holocausto said:
Remember back before the GECK was released? People still played then, on their second, third, and fourth playthroughs. Unless you think Bethesda somehow would have been better off NOT releasing it, and not releasing DLC that you're not required to buy.
Most of the reviews you see today for games do not have this concern, unless you only read PC Gamer, GameSpot, and IGN.Patton89 said:
The deviations being talked about on this forum - isometric view, turn-based combat, all-text dialogue - IS a recipe for some pretty mediocre sales right now. And a lot of it comes from those ideas not taking root on consoles anymore, where a majority of even the most staunch of turn-based RPG franchises have turned to real-time action. And plus, those are Japanese games.
No, I didn't. That'd be stupid. What I said was that if we're measuring how good a game is, I'm going to take sales and critical response over the most curmudgeonly of forum denizens.
When did I divert from that? And where are you refuting my claim that fanboys completely ruin user scores by voting 0 on some games and 10 on others?
I disagree. And yes, I played System Shock back in the day.
That endings thing was a little disingenuous, but how does it make the game worse? Most consider Fable to be a great game even though it didn't deliver on half the shit Molyneux promised. I played the game entirely on the merits of what was in front of me, and while I didn't like the game, I can admit that it's still a good game - just not one I enjoyed. Some people in this forum could probably do well to think about that for a bit.
Though you attempted to avoid the question, you failed. Let's have your answer.zippy1 said:
Yep, which is why he never said that most games become money makers. He said that most major games (AAA) are successes nowadays and it's true, especially with game journalism being how it is.zippy1 said:
People aren't picking nits with Fallout 3 and Oblivion, they're pointing out major flaws in the game design. For example, the RT FPS gunplay sucks balls when compared to any serious FPS game on the market. Sure, the game claims to be an ARPG first but does that change the fact that it sucks at something that it does? Stats have a minimal impact on the game, other than intelligence, are never directly used in game. Another example, every skill can be maxed out before level twenty with a few different builds, further reducing the importance off skills which are already pretty worthless due to drugs. Drugs and magic clothing give you massive stat/skill bonuses without any significant penalty (oh no, you have to sleep, go to a doctor, or buff your doctor skill enough that you can cure it). With the stats and skills problems you have a game which sucks when compared to other RPGs. Sure, the game's a hybrid but does that change the fact that it sucks at something that it does? VATS forces the player to watch slow-mo scenes every time, a "feature" which cannot be turned off. The enemy AI is god awful. The pathfinding is terrible and solved by allowing NPCs to walk through walls when you aren't looking at them/when they are far enough away from you (I'm not sure what the conditions on this are exactly). The writing is atrocious. The voiceacting runs the gambit from average to horrible. Etc.zippy1 said:
Some sites and magazines to lesser degree, but the issue does exist. Mainly the reader part though. But the CRITICS keep constantly praising almost every big release. Ignoring any faults in the game, they ignored OBVIOUS bugs in GTAIV and fallout 3. Overscoring is a problem.zippy1 said:
Isometric like view resulting in bad sales is a lie, or atleast exaggeration. Diablo 3 for example showes this, i doubt it will sell badly. And if you had read some of the peoples posts, RT combat would have been included, and many have wanted just better wriitng and tweaked gameplay. So i dont get how you assume you can wrap induviduals as a group demanding TB only with iso.zippy1 said:
Okay, so you will take sales, that have NOTHING to do with games quality in the launch and read reviews that do overscore and want to sell their opinions.zippy1 said:
I think i missread. But you referred to the comments,as a basis to assume that they are screwing the score, as the only way to see the given score is to read the comments, that are optional, so many people wont comment. And PROVE to me that fanboys are screwing the score,what i see is a minority. main group just gives a score, and doesnt comment. It is a possibility, but i doubt that.zippy1 said:
zippy1 said:
zippy1 said:
That's a good argument but to me F3 wasn't "great". With DLCs it won't be great to me. With mods still, no.zippy1 said:
Steam is a pile of shit DRM with a nice shopping, patching, and quicklaunch software to hide it. Steam that didn't require the user to have it running or installed in order to play games would be good.Holocausto said:
Games before Morrowind were made by an entirely different company and thus really cannot be used as an example. Morrowind was widely criticized for the features that it was missing and Daggerfall had but is arguable. Oblivion is trash and Fallout 3 is arguably a step up from Oblivion but still below Morrowind in quality. Sales figures and critical reactions from the gaming media are worthless as they are simply indicators of how well the game's marketing and PR was handled.zippy1 said:
All depends on how you define success. Still KotR2 fits that and NWN2 did what it was supposed to.zippy1 said:
"Critics" are in no way objective and they and their employers depend on game developers in order to stay in business. The higher the scores on the reviews and the more positive their articles about that company/game are, the more money they make. The group is fucked and the only way that's going to change is if their finacial wellbeing isn't directly tied to specific game developers, like movie, TV, and literary critics. Sales is a measure of how well a game sold which is the result of marketing, availabillity, and good press.lugaru said:
Oh yeah man, it totally sucks to miss. Man, why can't every shot hit in XCom? That would make the game so much more awesome! Controls don't have to be simple but they should be logical and easy to use. The Fallout games had both of these things when they were made but the lack of mouse wheel support is the only major control issue. The inventory was a flaw in the UI and companion options were not fleshed out enough (poor and rushed design).lugaru said:
Writing is a different beast than gameplay and by suggesting that shitty writing should excuse shitty gameplay, you're making an invalid argument.lugaru said:
No, all skills are used but they are pointless as they can all be maxed out easily and drugs and magic clothing can be used to compensate in the mean time.lugaru said:
