|
On July 27 2013 03:05 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 03:03 claybones wrote:On July 25 2013 16:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Fallout 3 over Fallout:NV
In all honesty even though NV has better game mechanics I feel that Fallout 3 has a much better world to explore and is more interesting overall. What are you judging the game on? If it's story, writing quality, character development, the traditional facets of an RPG, then NV has FO3 beat. If it's encounter design/combat mechanics, the traditional facets of a shooter hybrid, then NV also has FO3 beat. If it's the exploration component that is the traditional selling point of a Bethesda game, then neither are better than Morrowind or Skyrim at this anyway. I'd be hard pressed to put either in a top 100 list though, because there are better RPGs, better shooter hybrids, and better Bethesda games.
Well yes there are better RPG's but that's aside from the point. On the basis of exploration NV is just not interesting. The world is tiny and extremely bland. In Fallout 3 you actually needed a variety or equipment to explore but in NV you can get by with just a sniper for like the entire game. The fact that energy weapons don't feel useful enough is also a gripe. I could say a ton of things but I think saying I liked it more is really the best justice I can do.
|
On July 27 2013 04:18 Capped wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 03:35 GreenGringo wrote:On July 27 2013 03:18 Talin wrote:
If Fallout NV had been made by a random group of people, it would have been called a mod.
It shouldn't get credit as its own game. Despite being a standalone release, it has been built entirely on top of Fallout 3 with minor Gamebryo facelift. It's the same engine, same concept, same setting, and mostly the same mechanics.
Fallout 3 should thus get credit for both the original game and New Vegas. Lol, pretty funny stuff. NV wasn't a "minor facelift" as you say, but it was one of the most complete RPGs of all time. It took a relatively bland game and gave it characters, good writing, political intrigue, a setting that's unparalleled in its immersiveness, and a story that really does depends on the player's choices. Even better, it provided numerous possible solutions for the player to almost every problem in the game, so that none of your character's skills would go to waste as they did in Fallout 3 and almost every RPG before NV. It's impossible to understate how simply awesome this last feature is in an RPG. NV was a glorified mod. Having played through them both and vastly prefering FO3 contrary to popular opinion. Playing through them again atm, the only good things about NV are its "facelift" features (wep modding, hardcore mode, healing over time) the rest of the game blows balls in comparison IMHO. Im spending alot more time on FO3 because of its better atmosphere and "open world" - with NV i feel like i HAVE to wander through primm, to the army base down south, then to Nipton / novac AND THEN and only then does the world feel a bit more open. You're immediately boxed in with super mutants and deathclaws from the get-go, try harder difficulty / mods and you get buttfucked. Thats why NV is just a glorified mod, because there are little to no differences between both of the games other then storyline / quests, which guess what, differ in mods / DLC too ^_^ Lowbrow stuff from someone who evidently thinks the purpose of video games is to blow up the enemy.
NV was better in every possible way except maybe the shoot shiny shit element. Which is so beaten to death as far as games are concerned that I can hardly believe there's still people who actually manage to derive enjoyment from that.
|
On July 27 2013 05:40 claybones wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 03:05 TheYango wrote:On July 27 2013 03:03 claybones wrote:On July 25 2013 16:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Fallout 3 over Fallout:NV
In all honesty even though NV has better game mechanics I feel that Fallout 3 has a much better world to explore and is more interesting overall. What are you judging the game on? If it's story, writing quality, character development, the traditional facets of an RPG, then NV has FO3 beat. If it's encounter design/combat mechanics, the traditional facets of a shooter hybrid, then NV also has FO3 beat. If it's the exploration component that is the traditional selling point of a Bethesda game, then neither are better than Morrowind or Skyrim at this anyway. I'd be hard pressed to put either in a top 100 list though, because there are better RPGs, better shooter hybrids, and better Bethesda games. Well yes there are better RPG's but that's aside from the point. On the basis of exploration NV is just not interesting. The world is tiny and extremely bland. In Fallout 3 you actually needed a variety or equipment to explore but in NV you can get by with just a sniper for like the entire game. The fact that energy weapons don't feel useful enough is also a gripe. I could say a ton of things but I think saying I liked it more is really the best justice I can do. Complete twaddle.
Saying that energy weapons were only necessary in a game where you can save a million instant-heal stimpacks is beyond absurd. Fallout New Vegas, especially on hardcore mode, was far more difficult and tactically interesting than Fallout 3.
|
United States47024 Posts
On July 27 2013 05:40 claybones wrote:
Well yes there are better RPG's but that's aside from the point. On the basis of exploration NV is just not interesting. The world is tiny and extremely bland. In Fallout 3 you actually needed a variety or equipment to explore but in NV you can get by with just a sniper for like the entire game. The fact that energy weapons don't feel useful enough is also a gripe. I could say a ton of things but I think saying I liked it more is really the best justice I can do.
Well that falls into my point of "there are better Bethesda games" (I use the term Bethesda game to describe Bethesda Softworks' specific brand of action-exploration game with RPG elements). NV is a stronger RPG and shooter-hybrid, but a weaker Bethesda game because Obsidian specifically tried to take the game away from the direction that Bethesda did. And the fact is that if you want a Bethesda-style exploration game (which is already fundamentally a more niche genre than RPG and shooter-hybrid), Skyrim and Morrowind do that better than FO3.
Basically any of the elements that you might have preferred in FO3 over NV are largely done better in the TES games because Bethesda was able to flesh those elements out better in a world that's entirely their own.
|
On July 27 2013 05:54 GreenGringo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 05:40 claybones wrote:On July 27 2013 03:05 TheYango wrote:On July 27 2013 03:03 claybones wrote:On July 25 2013 16:20 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Fallout 3 over Fallout:NV
In all honesty even though NV has better game mechanics I feel that Fallout 3 has a much better world to explore and is more interesting overall. What are you judging the game on? If it's story, writing quality, character development, the traditional facets of an RPG, then NV has FO3 beat. If it's encounter design/combat mechanics, the traditional facets of a shooter hybrid, then NV also has FO3 beat. If it's the exploration component that is the traditional selling point of a Bethesda game, then neither are better than Morrowind or Skyrim at this anyway. I'd be hard pressed to put either in a top 100 list though, because there are better RPGs, better shooter hybrids, and better Bethesda games. Well yes there are better RPG's but that's aside from the point. On the basis of exploration NV is just not interesting. The world is tiny and extremely bland. In Fallout 3 you actually needed a variety or equipment to explore but in NV you can get by with just a sniper for like the entire game. The fact that energy weapons don't feel useful enough is also a gripe. I could say a ton of things but I think saying I liked it more is really the best justice I can do. Complete twaddle. Saying that energy weapons were only necessary in a game where you can save a million instant-heal stimpacks is beyond absurd. Fallout New Vegas, especially on hardcore mode, was far more difficult and tactically interesting than Fallout 3.
Okay seriously that's not even close to what I was saying. Energy weapons are crap in NV, absolutely useless in comparison to all other weapon types. Simply comparing them to regular firearms they just aren't as useful because of how good guns are and how plentiful explosives are. Not only is the map for NV pitifully small, it lacks any character. There's nothing but open areas and when you do enter cities (I should probably say towns because there's only one place you can call a city)
they are closed off entirely meaning that you never see anything but poorly equipped people. You're also forced to go through each town from the direction the game designers want you to (yawn). I really don't find any enjoyment in walking to the top of a hill, spotting EVERY hostile and either sniping them or killing them in some other trivial manner because of how simple planning for the fight was, all before walking to the top of the next hill and doing it again. You almost never have cleverly placed hazards like land mines, exploding baby dolls or the awkwardly placed atomic powered car. Sure you have hardcore mode but people who want a challenge can tailor they way they play to create their own challenges. Not only does Fallout 3 have much more memorable locations (and not just the locations your were forced to explore like in NV) but they actually have some variety to the layouts and overall settings. Also the fact that humans are the present enemies almost everywhere is just a let down. They got rid of super mutant behemoths to add such uninspired enemies as lakelurks (or ones that are just poorly designed such as cazadors)
On July 27 2013 05:56 TheYango wrote:
Well that falls into my point of "there are better Bethesda games" (I use the term Bethesda game to describe Bethesda Softworks' specific brand of action-exploration game with RPG elements). NV is a stronger RPG and shooter-hybrid, but a weaker Bethesda game because Obsidian specifically tried to take the game away from the direction that Bethesda did. And the fact is that if you want a Bethesda-style exploration game (which is already fundamentally a more niche genre than RPG and shooter-hybrid), Skyrim and Morrowind do that better than FO3.
Basically any of the elements that you might have preferred in FO3 over NV are largely done better in the TES games because Bethesda was able to flesh those elements out better in a world that's entirely their own.
We were discussing FO3 and NV. Not every RPG, not even every Bethesda RPG. Also the idea that one is better than the other based on RPG elements is subjective and to be honest I just don't agree with you. I find nothing about NV memorable. Even though I have played NV more recently I can't think of many things about it that are memorable and when I try to come up with them I start thinking of things from FO3. I also had a bit of an issue with replay deja vu, I came to realize that I was doing the exact same things in different play throughs down to minor details (things so small as realizing I was approaching locations from the same angles even late into the game) with my reputation being the only motivation to do different things. In that respect I would say NV is not a good RPG because the experience it gives you is finite and nonunique. Even with a game so cut and dry (by today's standards) as FF6 I still feel that my play throughs are unique and that I'm not doing the exact same thing
|
No WC3? That's absurd. Not only was it single handedly responsible for the entire genre of MOBAs (they'll always be AoS games in my mind), it was a thriving esport title, had an amazing single player campaign, new and nifty hybridization of RTS/RPG elements, and an amazing world editor/custom game system. I understand that there's subjectivity among the rankings of any of these games (how do you compare the olden classics against recent blockbusters?), but to omit wc3 entirely is an epic fail.
|
On July 27 2013 13:06 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
No WC3? That's absurd. Not only was it single handedly responsible for the entire genre of MOBAs (they'll always be AoS games in my mind)
Aeon of Strife was a starcraft map  (I completely agree with the rest of your post)
|
Heavy bias towards newer games. The staff must be pretty young.
Or pander to their current readers
|
On July 27 2013 13:06 LlamaNamedOsama wrote:
No WC3? That's absurd. Not only was it single handedly responsible for the entire genre of MOBAs (they'll always be AoS games in my mind), it was a thriving esport title, had an amazing single player campaign, new and nifty hybridization of RTS/RPG elements, and an amazing world editor/custom game system. I understand that there's subjectivity among the rankings of any of these games (how do you compare the olden classics against recent blockbusters?), but to omit wc3 entirely is an epic fail.
Yeah, WC3 even set the story line for all of WoW's content until Cata came out. It was an awesome game, hard to believe it's not in this list.
|
I'm curious as to why they placed Skyrim over Morrowind since a lot of people who have played both say that Morrowind is better. But on the other hand, Morrowind's current followers might be a bit blinded by nostalgia (as I often am when comparing old with new).
|
On July 27 2013 09:12 claybones wrote:
Okay seriously that's not even close to what I was saying. Energy weapons are crap in NV, absolutely useless in comparison to all other weapon types. Simply comparing them to regular firearms they just aren't as useful because of how good guns are and how plentiful explosives are. First of all, you have some nerve to complain about energy weapons given that Fallout 3 had all kinds of glaring and fatal flaws in the gameplay...such as the fact that you could save unlimited instant-heal stimpacks which made you practically invincible, even on the highest difficulty, once you reached a critical mass.
You're not even accurate anyway. The point of energy weapons is that they use homogenous ammo supplies. The other weapons use more than 10 different ammo types, not including explosives. I've played NV through twice on hardcore mode and I remember all kinds of situations where energy weapons would be useful because I could guarantee being able to acquire the ammo. That's another reason why the gameplay in New Vegas is deeper: the difficulty forces you to use multiple weapons rather than relying on exlusively laser weapons as you could for the final third of Fallout 3.
On July 27 2013 09:12 claybones wrote:Not only is the map for NV pitifully small, it lacks any character. There's nothing but open areas and when you do enter cities (I should probably say towns because there's only one place you can call a city)
they are closed off entirely meaning that you never see anything but poorly equipped people. Well, they didn't have any cities in Fallout 3, so it's hardly a comparison. The truth is that most players would rather have more content in a smaller area than less content in a larger area. They don't want to have to walk through the desert for 20 minutes only to find an empty garage and a ton of areas whose purpose is only revealed later.
That's not even to mention that there's almost no incentive to explore in Fallout 3 except at the beginning of the game. You don't have to scavenge for food and water as you do in hardcore mode of New Vegas, and you soon reach the "critical mass" of inventory contents after which you've already won the game. The rest of the game is played out like "Dear Esther", because there's no challenge to the gameplay and you're only in it to see how the story pans out.
On July 27 2013 09:12 claybones wrote:Sure you have hardcore mode but people who want a challenge can tailor they way they play to create their own challenges. Double standards much? Fallout 3 is exempted from its facile gameplay because players want to "create their own challenges". But God forbid using any laser weapons in NV if you consider them to be underpowered.
As has already been pointed out to you...if your main attraction to Fallout 3 is the exploration and the "creating your own challenges", Skyrim and Oblivion do this a lot better than Fallout 3.
|
On July 27 2013 13:24 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'm curious as to why they placed Skyrim over Morrowind since a lot of people who have played both say that Morrowind is better. But on the other hand, Morrowind's current followers might be a bit blinded by nostalgia (as I often am when comparing old with new).
I actually only got Morrowind after playing Skyrim all the way through and I can attest to the fact that Morrowind is better than Skyrim. Skyrim is good if you want to go around a huge open world and do random shit, but that's not what RPG's are for in my opinion. If I wanted to go around and do random shit, I'd go play a game like GTA, Saint's Row, or any other open world game like those. Games like those are made purposely for doing random shit and, in my opinion, do it better than Skyrim does.
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
Skyrim aside, this is a really interesting list. I can agree with a lot of it.
Like for example: EVE over WoW is interesting. Bioshock over Infinite is interesting. Age of Empires over its sequel is interesting (and probably wrong).
They got some things absolutely right. UT2004 being the only Unreal game: yes. Max Payne 2 but not 1 or 3: yes. Freespace 2, but no Tie Fighter: yes. "Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth" inclusion: good. Day of the Tentacle way above Monkey Island: good. Mass Effect 2 being so high: good.
I mean, these aren't popular choices, but they're right in line with what I believe to be accurate.
|
On July 27 2013 13:38 Ettick wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2013 13:24 IntoTheheart wrote:
I'm curious as to why they placed Skyrim over Morrowind since a lot of people who have played both say that Morrowind is better. But on the other hand, Morrowind's current followers might be a bit blinded by nostalgia (as I often am when comparing old with new). I actually only got Morrowind after playing Skyrim all the way through and I can attest to the fact that Morrowind is better than Skyrim. Skyrim is good if you want to go around a huge open world and do random shit, but that's not what RPG's are for in my opinion. If I wanted to go around and do random shit, I'd go play a game like GTA, Saint's Row, or any other open world game like those. Games like those are made purposely for doing random shit and, in my opinion, do it better than Skyrim does.
Nice telepathy because I would've asked how people felt Skyrim compared to GTA.
Personal thought about GTA? In GTA there's no character progression (in the ones I've played) so you can just start from scratch and screw around. In Skyrim there are actually expectations. Eww.
|
On July 27 2013 13:43 motbob wrote:
Day of the Tentacle way above Monkey Island: good. Well, let's not forget that Monkey Island 2 really was the bee's knees. Who remembers the Largo LaGrande theme tune?
|
Not a terrible list.
If we aren't grading these games on multiplayer, which is the assumption I am making, and instead on the games strongest points then it makes PERFECT SENSE to have Starcraft 2 over BW, considering BW had 12 units selectable, no multi building selection, dreadfully boring single player (imo).
Also Skyrim is understandable at #1 considering how good the game can get from a few simple mods. I feel that must have been the reason the game was ranked the top spot. because you can change so much about it.
Day Z doesnt really deserve to be on this list, considering it is a multiplayer only game which is extremely buggy. Its not like its a well made game, its just a mod that is very very popular.
A lot of games on this list are rather terrible aswell, ie the PC port of dark souls which is kind of awful if you dont get the mod to fix it. and Thirty Flights of loving? also not a great game
But this is all in my opinion. I was never really into multiplayer broodwar so I can stay away from that bias
My top 10 list would differ quite a bit however, I am a very particular gamer!
|
On July 27 2013 13:34 GreenGringo wrote:
Well, they didn't have any cities in Fallout 3, so it's hardly a comparison.
Yeah apart from like 40% of the map. I'm really not sure you have played FO3 enough to judge it properly if you can't see the difference in level design between the two games. The entire map in NV feels like the same thing copy/pasted over and over. Nothing sees you first and if you feel like it you never have to put away your sniper rifle. I really don't have a problem with the instant healing of stim packs because you can choose not to use them. You can't choose a less shitty map for NV though so I can't really forgive that.
|
I still think lists like these are just completely opinion based. I could easily argue brood war should be much higher then SC 2 and was the better game overall then SC 2 yet many people would argue the opposite and neither of us can prove the other is wrong.
I would personally favor a lot of older games higher then newer ones because with the amount of time passed I have seen how many older games played out while newer ones are still unproven how they will be judged. I think newer games get rated higher just because its more fresh in everyone's mind and a lot of people have subtle biases towards better graphics. If you judged a game based on when it came out verses comparing it to today standards you might place them differently.
|
I didnt play fallout 3 or new vegas nearly as much as you guys did, but I liked new vegas more in terms of quests and areas. The quests felt more interesting and you could approach them in different ways. My major gripe with new vegas is the bugs.
|
On July 27 2013 02:22 Epx wrote:
LOL
the top should include:
TES:morrowind
WoW (classic-the burning crusade)
age of empires 2
counter-strike 1.5/1.6 (including the attached half-life game)
quake3
diablo2-LOD
warcraft 3:TFT
starcraft:BW
unreal tournament 99
knights of the old republic
would also add: dark souls (technically not a pc game and the pc-port was awful but after some fast fixes and played with gamepad a quality game to enjoy!)
Yeah I would agree with most of these. Its just hard to make a list like this because of the number of games deserving to be in this. I could easily drop knights of the old republic and stick in heroes of might and magic 2 or 3 or any number of other games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
