|
On June 25 2015 09:17 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 08:53 HeatEXTEND wrote:On June 23 2015 23:23 TheYango wrote:
Deus Ex and System Shock 2 are extremely highly regarded in the RPG community. Oh my, yes. edit: On June 25 2015 06:37 Lysteria wrote:On June 24 2015 08:02 superstartran wrote:
Really? Is that why the Interplay forums were blown up with how fucking atrocious Fallout 2 was compared to Fallout 1? Anyone old enough to remember that knows that Fallout 2 was not well received by the original Fallout 1 fans at all. Hell, if you pull up old newsgroup/usenet posts, you'll find that most hardcore CRPG fans hated Fallout 2. By no means was Fallout 2 was a bad game, but it is not some master piece that people make it out to be. In fact, the game was basically as incoherent and non-consistent as Fallout 3 is. Only point I'm making is that if you're going to criticize Bethesda for making an 'incoherent game' with 'sloppy gameplay' etc. etc., let's not pretend that the predecessor Fallout 2 was in anyway shape or form even close to perfect. This man is right, as much as I loved Fallout 2, it was badly received by a decent amount of people back in the day. Probably not a majority, but a really vocal minority at least. Also oh my, yes; but at least Fallout 2 didn't use the Unreal engine  I am very confused by that statement.
Lame joke, Unreal came out the same year FO 2 did
|
On June 26 2015 02:27 superstartran wrote:
Arcanum was 'meh' more than a great game. Combat system pretty much ruined the game for most people.
And this is the part where I go "this isn't worth my time lmfao" concerning the amount of utter crap you have been spouting the last few pages that I was going to reply to .
It's my personal and subjective opinion that your ideas on CRPGs are laughable and yet you manage to make them aggravating.
Good job I guess lol.
Now how about that day 1 cyberdog DLC huh ?
|
On June 26 2015 03:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 03:15 TheYango wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
The main argument is of course, read the manual or an online resource. A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. There's a reason why games like Fallout, Pool of a Radiant, and other cRPGs have all but died out. Ehh, I'm not sure I agree with that really. Even modern "hard" games that are well-received for their difficulty like Dark Souls are actually really poor at making the underlying mechanics or even "how to play the game" fully known to you. The difference is that they pace the content in a way where you can find ways to progress without being stuck on certain mechanics, so finding certain things out about the game later doesn't feel lame after the fact. The problem you're describing isn't the mechanics themselves being obscure or inaccessible, it's that the game isn't pacing you through the content in a way that allows you to make those mistakes. Even the old dungeon crawler genre which is known for this kind of shit has more recent revival entries like Grimrock or the Etrian Odyssey series that do a better job of this pacing even though the core mechanics and presentation are similar. Dark Souls at least teaches you the mechanics abit earlier, so if you fail you don't feel like you're an idiot. Oh I died to the boss? It's because I didn't do XYZ. Fallout 2 however just doesn't even make any sense. Remember the dynamite/cart scene? Yeah, good luck solving that one if you get stuck. Oh, I needed the stick! Except the entire game, I have never needed to do such a ridiculous combination not even once. Cool game huh? There are loads of instances of such things in the game, not to mention the ridiculously bad pacing of the combat as you said.
What's so bad about discovering certain mechanics or other elements of gameplay on your own? I don't have the feeling of exploration and the satisfaction of finding something on my own anymore. It's partially because of the internet and the spread of information, but also because every modern game holds your hand and practically spells out what to do on the screen.Map markers everywhere, intros showcasing the entire mechanics of the game in thirty minutes, constant visual reminders, etc.
Perhaps it's also the lack of patience people have nowadays. Playing through the old wizardry series for example required lots of notes. You had to type out the answers to riddles on your own etc.
Also many old games came packed with detailed manuals. If you think games are terrible if they require that then whatever. I like my games where I find new things after years of playing, like legacy of kain series for example.
|
On June 26 2015 03:38 HeatEXTEND wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 02:27 superstartran wrote:
Arcanum was 'meh' more than a great game. Combat system pretty much ruined the game for most people. And this is the part where I go "this isn't worth my time lmfao" concerning the amount of utter crap you have been spouting the last few pages that I was going to reply to . It's my personal and subjective opinion that your ideas on CRPGs are laughable and yet you manage to make them aggravating. Good job I guess lol. Now how about that day 1 cyberdog DLC huh ?
'Spouting crap'
Pull up any of the old newsgroups from 1990s. See what were the major complaints about Fallout 2 were. They are exactly in line with mine. How about you pull off the 'I'm a hippie' because you're not, you're a fucking false hippie that just hates Bethesda. Anyone that seriously liked Fallout 1 almost hated Fallout 2, because everything Fallout 2 did was the total antithesis of Fallout 1. It did a total 180 on everything that Fallout 1 was, and yet people here are like 'Fallout 2 great game best game ever shits all over Fallout 3' when that's not even remotely the case. Both games are good games in their own right, however both games have significant flaws that prevent them from being what most people would consider 'classics.' I'm sick of people shitting on Bethesda for all the wrong reasons. 'They dumbed down Fallout, they ruined the universe, the lore makes no sense, etc.' Anyone making those claims is an idiot as you don't even know what the Fallout lore is, since there has never been any consistent or coherent universe even between any of the games. If the developers couldn't agree on what the canon lore is between just 1 and 2, how can anyone even claim that Bethesda ruined anything?
And yes, Arcanum's combat system sucked balls. In a game that forces you to combat a tremendous amount, you cannot afford to have a combat system that blows as bad as Arcanum's. It makes Planescape Torment's combat system look good, and that's saying alot. I mean, I bet you even Yango can't even defend it, and he's a fan of the game.
On June 26 2015 04:02 Andre wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 03:22 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 03:15 TheYango wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
The main argument is of course, read the manual or an online resource. A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. There's a reason why games like Fallout, Pool of a Radiant, and other cRPGs have all but died out. Ehh, I'm not sure I agree with that really. Even modern "hard" games that are well-received for their difficulty like Dark Souls are actually really poor at making the underlying mechanics or even "how to play the game" fully known to you. The difference is that they pace the content in a way where you can find ways to progress without being stuck on certain mechanics, so finding certain things out about the game later doesn't feel lame after the fact. The problem you're describing isn't the mechanics themselves being obscure or inaccessible, it's that the game isn't pacing you through the content in a way that allows you to make those mistakes. Even the old dungeon crawler genre which is known for this kind of shit has more recent revival entries like Grimrock or the Etrian Odyssey series that do a better job of this pacing even though the core mechanics and presentation are similar. Dark Souls at least teaches you the mechanics abit earlier, so if you fail you don't feel like you're an idiot. Oh I died to the boss? It's because I didn't do XYZ. Fallout 2 however just doesn't even make any sense. Remember the dynamite/cart scene? Yeah, good luck solving that one if you get stuck. Oh, I needed the stick! Except the entire game, I have never needed to do such a ridiculous combination not even once. Cool game huh? There are loads of instances of such things in the game, not to mention the ridiculously bad pacing of the combat as you said. What's so bad about discovering certain mechanics or other elements of gameplay on your own? I don't have the feeling of exploration and the satisfaction of finding something on my own anymore. It's partially because of the internet and the spread of information, but also because every modern game holds your hand and practically spells out what to do on the screen.Map markers everywhere, intros showcasing the entire mechanics of the game in thirty minutes, constant visual reminders, etc. Perhaps it's also the lack of patience people have nowadays. Playing through the old wizardry series for example required lots of notes. You had to type out the answers to riddles on your own etc. Also many old games came packed with detailed manuals. If you think games are terrible if they require that then whatever. I like my games where I find new things after years of playing, like legacy of kain series for example.
Because suddenly forcing a random puzzle out of nowhere without any kind of clues/hints/etc. without any prior teaching of said puzzle mechanic is absolutely ridiculous?
|
On June 26 2015 04:02 Andre wrote:
What's so bad about discovering certain mechanics or other elements of gameplay on your own? I don't have the feeling of exploration and the satisfaction of finding something on my own anymore. It's partially because of the internet and the spread of information, but also because every modern game holds your hand and practically spells out what to do on the screen.Map markers everywhere, intros showcasing the entire mechanics of the game in thirty minutes, constant visual reminders, etc.
Discovery is a great thing in games, but how it fits into the pacing of the game is important, as well as how it interacts with the player experience. Again, a game like Dark Souls is relatively minimalistic in how much teaching and handholding it does, but it paces you through the game in a way where it doesn't slap your lack of knowledge in your face, forcing you into a situation where you outright can't progress without banging your head against the wall until you learn a very particular thing. The process of discovery has to be designed so that the player feels like he's doing something the whole way, not staring at a wall while doing nothing.
This sort of implicit teaching through encounter and level design has actually been a staple of platformer level design for years, but only really worked its way into being a conscious part of level design for other genres comparatively recently. You can't really blame Interplay for not being conscious of this when designing FO2, because no one else did it yet designing CRPGs either, but if we're objectively criticizing the game, it is a legitimate flaw.
On June 26 2015 04:02 Andre wrote:
Perhaps it's also the lack of patience people have nowadays. Playing through the old wizardry series for example required lots of notes. You had to type out the answers to riddles on your own etc.
As I mentioned, Dungeon Crawlers are a genre that have gotten a significant makeover in recent years with titles like Grimrock and Etrian Odyssey. The core gameplay is still the same, but a lot of the old game design has been re-tuned in a way that still appeals to older fans of the genre but is far more accessible.
Also, Wizardry's an interesting example here because even in CRPG circles, Wizardry 8 is generally regarded as the best game in the series, and it was released in 2001--on the cusp of the genre's shift into more accessible gameplay, and is definitely that has the best pacing and difficulty design of the entire series. The Wizardry series itself is a good exercise in showing how good pacing, UI design improvements, and accessibility changes can make the game as a whole better, rather than just "dumbing down" the experience for new players at the expense of the hardcore audience.
|
Can't wait for this! I loved all the fallout games, and I'm sure this one will be no exception.
|
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy!
|
On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game.
he says unironically on a starcraft forum
|
On June 26 2015 05:07 Narw wrote:
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy!
You're just repeating the same drivel as usual.
'Waaagh I hate Bethesda waaaaagh'
and have yet to address a single one of the many legitimate criticisms I have pointed out in Fallout 2. New Reno is an entire city that does not fit the entire lore/atmosphere/etc. of the universe created by Fallout 1 (and Tim Cain), and in fact was a totally new addition to the game once Tim Cain left the game pretty sure. I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no single overarching theme, no coherency to the plot, etc. and yet none of you address said issue. Even the original developer and man responsible for Fallout 1 and 2 himself had something to say
Given that you left Interplay midway through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.
But hey, keep up with your silly Bethesda hatred, even though Tim Cain himself criticisms of Fallout 2 himself. It's actually well documented on Usenet that Fallout 2 was not what Tim Cain wanted, and that it was actually not what alot of the original Fallout 1 fans wanted. But then again, do keep up with your nonsensical hatred of Fallout 3. Like I said, I don't believe Fallout 2 is a bad game at all, I just feel that people give Fallout 3 a hard time for literally no reason other than the fact that they want to be a fake hipster oldschool gamer when they really aren't. Because if you actually played video games and used the internet back then, you'd realize how many people actually hated Fallout 2, or had legitimate gripes about the game.
On June 26 2015 07:48 Mindcrime wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. he says unironically on a starcraft forum
And I wonder why Starcraft and Starcraft 2 never became truly mainstream? Games can be popular among niche crowds, but it's actually very bad game design to have a game that just thrusts you with a problem with no prior teaching on how to find the solutions to said problems. It's like a math teacher who just throws a calculus problem at you without telling you how to work derivatives or anti-derivatives, integrals, etc. I mean, you can shit all over Call of Duty all you want, but the game was and still is successful because it teaches you the basics very well, and teaches you the tools you need to solve every problem you come across.
|
You are nothing short of obnoxious and you don't even read what is written to you. Ye i hate Bethesda, thats why im currently playing Skyrim with 150 mods and Morrowind i just loved when it got relased.
Your theory of fake hipster is such fucking bullshit to read it actually hurts, im done, keep living in the world where your imagined hatred towards Bethesda dictates everything. It must be that, the hidden reason, not the Fallout 3 being absoultly medicore game. And the most funny thing is that you STILL defend Fallout 3 by attacking a game that got relased 10 years before it and try to apply current gaming standards to it. Defend Fallout 3 by pointing the brilliant and awesome elements it included, oh yeah, that will be actually difficult.
|
On June 25 2015 22:07 Elizar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2015 20:51 RapidTiger wrote:
I've never played a Fallout game and I don't see myself playing Fallout 4.
What is so enticing about Fallout games? All I see is a mediocre first person shooter/RPG type game with cartoony designs and characters. I can only talk out of my own perspective, other players might greatly divert from that. Fallout1 was the first post-apocalyptic RPG I played. It was sth. new. It didnt have the fantasy setting, and it was also somehow different from sci-fi (and by that I mean space and aliens). It had nice elements in character building and you could actually choose where you want to go and how you want to do quests (as far as i remember). As a fan of turn based combat the fighting mechanics the game suited me. I had a lot of fun at that time. The setting was cool: I actually got the feeling of the world went to hell and all the leftovers want to kill you. It was the time when giant radioactive rats were still a thing and radioactivity was a constant threat (different from F3). Humour was nice, fights were challenging most of the time (for me), not always of course. All in all, a great game I really enjoyed. Fallout2: Yeah, pretty much the same as Fallout1. Of course the story was different, but gameplaywise it felt the same. I can´t even remember any big differences in mechanics, graphics or anything else. It would have been a nice addon, but it didn´t feel new to me. Thats why I don´t like it too much in comparison to the original fallout1. It was okayish, more crazy, which some people liked, but I didn´t except the part of having potentially a deathclaw ally. That was really cool! Fallout3: Next gen fallout to me. Instead of an isometric perspective it was first person shooter style. Then there was VATS, which I liked at the time for the cinematic effects and that it gave some sense to the levelling of combat skills. At the same time it felt somehow out of place, because VATS effectively mixed FPS with turn based combat. It felt like they tried to mix both to create sth better but missed out on the strengths of either system. MAybe it would have been better they had relied on only one. I don´t know. Maybe they could have done it somehow better. Storywise F3 was OK. To me it was kinda similar to F1, since you were chasing something again (F1: GECK, F3: Father) And I don´t like too many similarities. I prefer to get sth new, when I spend money for a new game. F3 was also in a way different regarding "open world" stuff. Sure, in F1 you could choose the destination where you walk, but at that time I enjoyed it more because I had not done it so often in various games yet. In F3 you could also explore, but it felt more repetitive. Another tunnel, more ghouls, more raiders yadda yadda. I played F3 most of the time totally ignoring that I should search for my father and that made the story somehow meaningless. It was simply more boring than F1, but it was still fun to play. Not mindblowing, but fun. E.g. I really think the possibility to nuke Megaton was a nice thing. Fallout:NV: Better main story? More consistent? Better factions and playstyle rpg options? Yes, yes and yes. But it had exactly the same game mechanics, graphics etc. as F3. So again: A nice game as an addon. Also the replayability was better than F3. But as a stand alone title too expansive. If I had not played F3 before, I assume it would have felt much better to play it, as I did not enjoy the mechanics before and everything would have been new. But I had done so before  And then we have F4: I don´t think, that it will "feel new" to me. I might get it if it is on sale. But so far I have not seen a single thing that convinces me that I will enjoy it that much, that it is justified to spend 60€. Of course, people will have different views. Oppinions are subjective. Maybe I have nostalgia googles on or my memories are not that good as I think they are. But thats how I feel about the series right now.
Thanks for the explanation. Hmm alright, I might consider Fallout 4 now.
So it's more of an RPG, not really an FPS? I guess that's quite similar to Tom Clancy's Division, although that's more of a 3rd person shooter/MMORPG.
|
On June 26 2015 09:52 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 05:07 Narw wrote:
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy! You're just repeating the same drivel as usual. 'Waaagh I hate Bethesda waaaaagh' and have yet to address a single one of the many legitimate criticisms I have pointed out in Fallout 2. New Reno is an entire city that does not fit the entire lore/atmosphere/etc. of the universe created by Fallout 1 (and Tim Cain), and in fact was a totally new addition to the game once Tim Cain left the game pretty sure. I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no single overarching theme, no coherency to the plot, etc. and yet none of you address said issue. Even the original developer and man responsible for Fallout 1 and 2 himself had something to say Show nested quote + Given that you left Interplay midway through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.
But hey, keep up with your silly Bethesda hatred, even though Tim Cain himself criticisms of Fallout 2 himself. It's actually well documented on Usenet that Fallout 2 was not what Tim Cain wanted, and that it was actually not what alot of the original Fallout 1 fans wanted. But then again, do keep up with your nonsensical hatred of Fallout 3. Like I said, I don't believe Fallout 2 is a bad game at all, I just feel that people give Fallout 3 a hard time for literally no reason other than the fact that they want to be a fake hipster oldschool gamer when they really aren't. Because if you actually played video games and used the internet back then, you'd realize how many people actually hated Fallout 2, or had legitimate gripes about the game. Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 07:48 Mindcrime wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. he says unironically on a starcraft forum And I wonder why Starcraft and Starcraft 2 never became truly mainstream? Games can be popular among niche crowds, but it's actually very bad game design to have a game that just thrusts you with a problem with no prior teaching on how to find the solutions to said problems. It's like a math teacher who just throws a calculus problem at you without telling you how to work derivatives or anti-derivatives, integrals, etc. I mean, you can shit all over Call of Duty all you want, but the game was and still is successful because it teaches you the basics very well, and teaches you the tools you need to solve every problem you come across.
First of all I did prefer Fallout over the sequel, but a lot of what you are saying seems to be more personal hate you have on Fallout 2 than reality :p I can't really be bothered to get into, but go on codex or some other RPG neckbeard site as you seem to really like discussing and borderline raging points at readers, you would fit right in there :p Even though FO2 did not interest me as much as the first game I would still prefer to have the old Black Ilse team on the new Fallout rather than Bethesda, that's for sure.
|
On June 26 2015 11:37 RapidTiger wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Hmm alright, I might consider Fallout 4 now.
So it's more of an RPG, not really an FPS? I guess that's quite similar to Tom Clancy's Division, although that's more of a 3rd person shooter/MMORPG.
It's more of an exploration game than either.
|
On June 26 2015 12:26 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 11:37 RapidTiger wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Hmm alright, I might consider Fallout 4 now.
So it's more of an RPG, not really an FPS? I guess that's quite similar to Tom Clancy's Division, although that's more of a 3rd person shooter/MMORPG. It's more of an exploration game than either.
I have to agree. It combines elements of RPG and a FPS, but the exploration is the dominant element of the game.
On a side note:
The 15min gameplay at E3 looked like they adjusted VATS to a semi-bullettime mode. Time doesn´t seem to stay still but the chances to hit certain zones are still calculated by your waepon skills. I guess that´s a (minor) improvement to F3 and F:NV.
|
On June 26 2015 10:44 Narw wrote:
You are nothing short of obnoxious and you don't even read what is written to you. Ye i hate Bethesda, thats why im currently playing Skyrim with 150 mods and Morrowind i just loved when it got relased.
Your theory of fake hipster is such fucking bullshit to read it actually hurts, im done, keep living in the world where your imagined hatred towards Bethesda dictates everything. It must be that, the hidden reason, not the Fallout 3 being absoultly medicore game. And the most funny thing is that you STILL defend Fallout 3 by attacking a game that got relased 10 years before it and try to apply current gaming standards to it. Defend Fallout 3 by pointing the brilliant and awesome elements it included, oh yeah, that will be actually difficult.
Ah, the old 'Oh shit, I'm losing the argument so I should change the parameters of the argument because I can't win under the original conditions.'
Can't retort to the criticisms of Fallout 2 especially when I even reference the original creator of the Fallout Universe Tim Cain himself? Well, that only demonstrates that Fallout 2 isn't as good as you think it is from an objective standpoint.
On June 26 2015 12:04 KrOmander wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 09:52 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 05:07 Narw wrote:
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy! You're just repeating the same drivel as usual. 'Waaagh I hate Bethesda waaaaagh' and have yet to address a single one of the many legitimate criticisms I have pointed out in Fallout 2. New Reno is an entire city that does not fit the entire lore/atmosphere/etc. of the universe created by Fallout 1 (and Tim Cain), and in fact was a totally new addition to the game once Tim Cain left the game pretty sure. I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no single overarching theme, no coherency to the plot, etc. and yet none of you address said issue. Even the original developer and man responsible for Fallout 1 and 2 himself had something to say Given that you left Interplay midway through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.
But hey, keep up with your silly Bethesda hatred, even though Tim Cain himself criticisms of Fallout 2 himself. It's actually well documented on Usenet that Fallout 2 was not what Tim Cain wanted, and that it was actually not what alot of the original Fallout 1 fans wanted. But then again, do keep up with your nonsensical hatred of Fallout 3. Like I said, I don't believe Fallout 2 is a bad game at all, I just feel that people give Fallout 3 a hard time for literally no reason other than the fact that they want to be a fake hipster oldschool gamer when they really aren't. Because if you actually played video games and used the internet back then, you'd realize how many people actually hated Fallout 2, or had legitimate gripes about the game. On June 26 2015 07:48 Mindcrime wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. he says unironically on a starcraft forum And I wonder why Starcraft and Starcraft 2 never became truly mainstream? Games can be popular among niche crowds, but it's actually very bad game design to have a game that just thrusts you with a problem with no prior teaching on how to find the solutions to said problems. It's like a math teacher who just throws a calculus problem at you without telling you how to work derivatives or anti-derivatives, integrals, etc. I mean, you can shit all over Call of Duty all you want, but the game was and still is successful because it teaches you the basics very well, and teaches you the tools you need to solve every problem you come across. First of all I did prefer Fallout over the sequel, but a lot of what you are saying seems to be more personal hate you have on Fallout 2 than reality :p I can't really be bothered to get into, but go on codex or some other RPG neckbeard site as you seem to really like discussing and borderline raging points at readers, you would fit right in there :p Even though FO2 did not interest me as much as the first game I would still prefer to have the old Black Ilse team on the new Fallout rather than Bethesda, that's for sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Again, respond to the argument. Though I agree a few of my posts are borderline inflammatory/aggressive, the fact was that none of you ever responded to my argument that Fallout 2's plot itself is not that much more superior than Fallout 3's; in fact, it's actually just as weak. The major criticism is that the plot feels disconnected, no real overarching theme, no connection between each area, which even Tim Cain said himself. Feels like shit got thrown together, and when you consider the game was made in 9 months, yes, it probably did just get thrown together.
And before we get into 'Well Fallout 2's universe is canonically correct' let's remember that Fallout 2 also had things like talking Death Claws, enforced mandatory combat in a game that gave you diplomatic options, and introduced shit tons of characters/factions that essentially had no place in the original Fallout 1 universe. So you really can't criticize Bethesda for having things like the Brotherhood of Steel/Enclave/Super Mutants/etc. on the East Coast when alot of nonsense that contradicted Fallout 1's universe was also present in Fallout 2.
|
On June 26 2015 12:26 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 11:37 RapidTiger wrote:
Thanks for the explanation. Hmm alright, I might consider Fallout 4 now.
So it's more of an RPG, not really an FPS? I guess that's quite similar to Tom Clancy's Division, although that's more of a 3rd person shooter/MMORPG. It's more of an exploration game than either.
Hmm, so if I'm more into Rainbow 6, CS, Battlefield and COD, there's a high chance I won't like Fallout 4? I mean the game looks nice but the cartoony feel kinda ruins it for me.
I might have to try this game out before I buy it.
|
On June 26 2015 21:49 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 10:44 Narw wrote:
You are nothing short of obnoxious and you don't even read what is written to you. Ye i hate Bethesda, thats why im currently playing Skyrim with 150 mods and Morrowind i just loved when it got relased.
Your theory of fake hipster is such fucking bullshit to read it actually hurts, im done, keep living in the world where your imagined hatred towards Bethesda dictates everything. It must be that, the hidden reason, not the Fallout 3 being absoultly medicore game. And the most funny thing is that you STILL defend Fallout 3 by attacking a game that got relased 10 years before it and try to apply current gaming standards to it. Defend Fallout 3 by pointing the brilliant and awesome elements it included, oh yeah, that will be actually difficult. Ah, the old 'Oh shit, I'm losing the argument so I should change the parameters of the argument because I can't win under the original conditions.' Can't retort to the criticisms of Fallout 2 especially when I even reference the original creator of the Fallout Universe Tim Cain himself? Well, that only demonstrates that Fallout 2 isn't as good as you think it is from an objective standpoint. Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 12:04 KrOmander wrote:On June 26 2015 09:52 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 05:07 Narw wrote:
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy! You're just repeating the same drivel as usual. 'Waaagh I hate Bethesda waaaaagh' and have yet to address a single one of the many legitimate criticisms I have pointed out in Fallout 2. New Reno is an entire city that does not fit the entire lore/atmosphere/etc. of the universe created by Fallout 1 (and Tim Cain), and in fact was a totally new addition to the game once Tim Cain left the game pretty sure. I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no single overarching theme, no coherency to the plot, etc. and yet none of you address said issue. Even the original developer and man responsible for Fallout 1 and 2 himself had something to say Given that you left Interplay midway through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.
But hey, keep up with your silly Bethesda hatred, even though Tim Cain himself criticisms of Fallout 2 himself. It's actually well documented on Usenet that Fallout 2 was not what Tim Cain wanted, and that it was actually not what alot of the original Fallout 1 fans wanted. But then again, do keep up with your nonsensical hatred of Fallout 3. Like I said, I don't believe Fallout 2 is a bad game at all, I just feel that people give Fallout 3 a hard time for literally no reason other than the fact that they want to be a fake hipster oldschool gamer when they really aren't. Because if you actually played video games and used the internet back then, you'd realize how many people actually hated Fallout 2, or had legitimate gripes about the game. On June 26 2015 07:48 Mindcrime wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. he says unironically on a starcraft forum And I wonder why Starcraft and Starcraft 2 never became truly mainstream? Games can be popular among niche crowds, but it's actually very bad game design to have a game that just thrusts you with a problem with no prior teaching on how to find the solutions to said problems. It's like a math teacher who just throws a calculus problem at you without telling you how to work derivatives or anti-derivatives, integrals, etc. I mean, you can shit all over Call of Duty all you want, but the game was and still is successful because it teaches you the basics very well, and teaches you the tools you need to solve every problem you come across. First of all I did prefer Fallout over the sequel, but a lot of what you are saying seems to be more personal hate you have on Fallout 2 than reality :p I can't really be bothered to get into, but go on codex or some other RPG neckbeard site as you seem to really like discussing and borderline raging points at readers, you would fit right in there :p Even though FO2 did not interest me as much as the first game I would still prefer to have the old Black Ilse team on the new Fallout rather than Bethesda, that's for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemAgain, respond to the argument. Though I agree a few of my posts are borderline inflammatory/aggressive, the fact was that none of you ever responded to my argument that Fallout 2's plot itself is not that much more superior than Fallout 3's; in fact, it's actually just as weak. The major criticism is that the plot feels disconnected, no real overarching theme, no connection between each area, which even Tim Cain said himself. Feels like shit got thrown together, and when you consider the game was made in 9 months, yes, it probably did just get thrown together. And before we get into 'Well Fallout 2's universe is canonically correct' let's remember that Fallout 2 also had things like talking Death Claws, enforced mandatory combat in a game that gave you diplomatic options, and introduced shit tons of characters/factions that essentially had no place in the original Fallout 1 universe. So you really can't criticize Bethesda for having things like the Brotherhood of Steel/Enclave/Super Mutants/etc. on the East Coast when alot of nonsense that contradicted Fallout 1's universe was also present in Fallout 2.
You forgot to mention Bethesda hate, getting tired or?
|
On June 26 2015 21:49 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 10:44 Narw wrote:
You are nothing short of obnoxious and you don't even read what is written to you. Ye i hate Bethesda, thats why im currently playing Skyrim with 150 mods and Morrowind i just loved when it got relased.
Your theory of fake hipster is such fucking bullshit to read it actually hurts, im done, keep living in the world where your imagined hatred towards Bethesda dictates everything. It must be that, the hidden reason, not the Fallout 3 being absoultly medicore game. And the most funny thing is that you STILL defend Fallout 3 by attacking a game that got relased 10 years before it and try to apply current gaming standards to it. Defend Fallout 3 by pointing the brilliant and awesome elements it included, oh yeah, that will be actually difficult. Ah, the old 'Oh shit, I'm losing the argument so I should change the parameters of the argument because I can't win under the original conditions.' Can't retort to the criticisms of Fallout 2 especially when I even reference the original creator of the Fallout Universe Tim Cain himself? Well, that only demonstrates that Fallout 2 isn't as good as you think it is from an objective standpoint. Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 12:04 KrOmander wrote:On June 26 2015 09:52 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 05:07 Narw wrote:
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy! You're just repeating the same drivel as usual. 'Waaagh I hate Bethesda waaaaagh' and have yet to address a single one of the many legitimate criticisms I have pointed out in Fallout 2. New Reno is an entire city that does not fit the entire lore/atmosphere/etc. of the universe created by Fallout 1 (and Tim Cain), and in fact was a totally new addition to the game once Tim Cain left the game pretty sure. I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no single overarching theme, no coherency to the plot, etc. and yet none of you address said issue. Even the original developer and man responsible for Fallout 1 and 2 himself had something to say Given that you left Interplay midway through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.
But hey, keep up with your silly Bethesda hatred, even though Tim Cain himself criticisms of Fallout 2 himself. It's actually well documented on Usenet that Fallout 2 was not what Tim Cain wanted, and that it was actually not what alot of the original Fallout 1 fans wanted. But then again, do keep up with your nonsensical hatred of Fallout 3. Like I said, I don't believe Fallout 2 is a bad game at all, I just feel that people give Fallout 3 a hard time for literally no reason other than the fact that they want to be a fake hipster oldschool gamer when they really aren't. Because if you actually played video games and used the internet back then, you'd realize how many people actually hated Fallout 2, or had legitimate gripes about the game. On June 26 2015 07:48 Mindcrime wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. he says unironically on a starcraft forum And I wonder why Starcraft and Starcraft 2 never became truly mainstream? Games can be popular among niche crowds, but it's actually very bad game design to have a game that just thrusts you with a problem with no prior teaching on how to find the solutions to said problems. It's like a math teacher who just throws a calculus problem at you without telling you how to work derivatives or anti-derivatives, integrals, etc. I mean, you can shit all over Call of Duty all you want, but the game was and still is successful because it teaches you the basics very well, and teaches you the tools you need to solve every problem you come across. First of all I did prefer Fallout over the sequel, but a lot of what you are saying seems to be more personal hate you have on Fallout 2 than reality :p I can't really be bothered to get into, but go on codex or some other RPG neckbeard site as you seem to really like discussing and borderline raging points at readers, you would fit right in there :p Even though FO2 did not interest me as much as the first game I would still prefer to have the old Black Ilse team on the new Fallout rather than Bethesda, that's for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemAgain, respond to the argument. Though I agree a few of my posts are borderline inflammatory/aggressive, the fact was that none of you ever responded to my argument that Fallout 2's plot itself is not that much more superior than Fallout 3's; in fact, it's actually just as weak. The major criticism is that the plot feels disconnected, no real overarching theme, no connection between each area, which even Tim Cain said himself. Feels like shit got thrown together, and when you consider the game was made in 9 months, yes, it probably did just get thrown together. And before we get into 'Well Fallout 2's universe is canonically correct' let's remember that Fallout 2 also had things like talking Death Claws, enforced mandatory combat in a game that gave you diplomatic options, and introduced shit tons of characters/factions that essentially had no place in the original Fallout 1 universe. So you really can't criticize Bethesda for having things like the Brotherhood of Steel/Enclave/Super Mutants/etc. on the East Coast when alot of nonsense that contradicted Fallout 1's universe was also present in Fallout 2.
Come on, don't accuse people of ad hominem when your argument is "if you liked it you have high school level of reading" or whatever you wrote. At first you told people they were haters, but now your posts are just that, hate.
Personally I enjoyed fallout 1, 2 and 3 =p Didn't play new vegas. Ho also loved Arcanum !
|
On June 26 2015 22:54 MrCon wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2015 21:49 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 10:44 Narw wrote:
You are nothing short of obnoxious and you don't even read what is written to you. Ye i hate Bethesda, thats why im currently playing Skyrim with 150 mods and Morrowind i just loved when it got relased.
Your theory of fake hipster is such fucking bullshit to read it actually hurts, im done, keep living in the world where your imagined hatred towards Bethesda dictates everything. It must be that, the hidden reason, not the Fallout 3 being absoultly medicore game. And the most funny thing is that you STILL defend Fallout 3 by attacking a game that got relased 10 years before it and try to apply current gaming standards to it. Defend Fallout 3 by pointing the brilliant and awesome elements it included, oh yeah, that will be actually difficult. Ah, the old 'Oh shit, I'm losing the argument so I should change the parameters of the argument because I can't win under the original conditions.' Can't retort to the criticisms of Fallout 2 especially when I even reference the original creator of the Fallout Universe Tim Cain himself? Well, that only demonstrates that Fallout 2 isn't as good as you think it is from an objective standpoint. On June 26 2015 12:04 KrOmander wrote:On June 26 2015 09:52 superstartran wrote:On June 26 2015 05:07 Narw wrote:
Hey, superstartan. Bethesda dumbed down Fallout, created not a RPG but open world exploration game, but opossed to the actually decent open world games (Morrowind and Skyrim) it was empty shell of a world. While doing that they actually managed to implement terrible ass sucking combat system that dosn't even knows what it wants to be and shat on the actual lore of the game which you still don't understand for whatever reason. The New Reno which you seem to hate oh so much is so much better than any settlement in F3 (i recal two, the funny ship and the funny city on bomb). Fallout 2 had different vision, world wasn't as dark as F1, but it had actual VISION, there were added less serious elements, which didn't diminish at all, for me and for many others, the overall expieriance of post nuclear wasteland world. It obviously did for you, couse you are oh so serious, oh so not high school humor and oh so not idiot!
I'm sure all the critic F3 got is unwarranted, im sure New Vegas being recievied so much better had nothing to do with Obsidian actually designing a world that fits the original concept so much more(how much you hated Old World Blues, i can't even imagine!), and im sure the F4 footage that shows population and city that isn't a waste shows how much Bethesda was proud of their open world dream of F3 emptyness and meaningless.
And remember, stay classy! You're just repeating the same drivel as usual. 'Waaagh I hate Bethesda waaaaagh' and have yet to address a single one of the many legitimate criticisms I have pointed out in Fallout 2. New Reno is an entire city that does not fit the entire lore/atmosphere/etc. of the universe created by Fallout 1 (and Tim Cain), and in fact was a totally new addition to the game once Tim Cain left the game pretty sure. I mean, I have repeatedly said in this thread that there is no single overarching theme, no coherency to the plot, etc. and yet none of you address said issue. Even the original developer and man responsible for Fallout 1 and 2 himself had something to say Given that you left Interplay midway through Fallout 2's development, how did the resulting game differ from the original design you had in mind for it?
I don't remember the specific details of my plans for Fallout 2, but I do remember playing the game and seeing it was different from the storyline I had proposed for it. I think my biggest disappointment with the game is that each area was made in almost complete isolation from the others. There was no over-arching theme and no attempt to make sure the different areas were cohesive. It felt like a lot of Fallout-y areas, placed adjacently and connected with a storyline. Those areas were individually well-done, but they suffered from the lack of a strong central design.
But hey, keep up with your silly Bethesda hatred, even though Tim Cain himself criticisms of Fallout 2 himself. It's actually well documented on Usenet that Fallout 2 was not what Tim Cain wanted, and that it was actually not what alot of the original Fallout 1 fans wanted. But then again, do keep up with your nonsensical hatred of Fallout 3. Like I said, I don't believe Fallout 2 is a bad game at all, I just feel that people give Fallout 3 a hard time for literally no reason other than the fact that they want to be a fake hipster oldschool gamer when they really aren't. Because if you actually played video games and used the internet back then, you'd realize how many people actually hated Fallout 2, or had legitimate gripes about the game. On June 26 2015 07:48 Mindcrime wrote:On June 26 2015 03:04 superstartran wrote:
A game is a terrible game when you are forced to read an outside source in order to learn how to actually play the game. he says unironically on a starcraft forum And I wonder why Starcraft and Starcraft 2 never became truly mainstream? Games can be popular among niche crowds, but it's actually very bad game design to have a game that just thrusts you with a problem with no prior teaching on how to find the solutions to said problems. It's like a math teacher who just throws a calculus problem at you without telling you how to work derivatives or anti-derivatives, integrals, etc. I mean, you can shit all over Call of Duty all you want, but the game was and still is successful because it teaches you the basics very well, and teaches you the tools you need to solve every problem you come across. First of all I did prefer Fallout over the sequel, but a lot of what you are saying seems to be more personal hate you have on Fallout 2 than reality :p I can't really be bothered to get into, but go on codex or some other RPG neckbeard site as you seem to really like discussing and borderline raging points at readers, you would fit right in there :p Even though FO2 did not interest me as much as the first game I would still prefer to have the old Black Ilse team on the new Fallout rather than Bethesda, that's for sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominemAgain, respond to the argument. Though I agree a few of my posts are borderline inflammatory/aggressive, the fact was that none of you ever responded to my argument that Fallout 2's plot itself is not that much more superior than Fallout 3's; in fact, it's actually just as weak. The major criticism is that the plot feels disconnected, no real overarching theme, no connection between each area, which even Tim Cain said himself. Feels like shit got thrown together, and when you consider the game was made in 9 months, yes, it probably did just get thrown together. And before we get into 'Well Fallout 2's universe is canonically correct' let's remember that Fallout 2 also had things like talking Death Claws, enforced mandatory combat in a game that gave you diplomatic options, and introduced shit tons of characters/factions that essentially had no place in the original Fallout 1 universe. So you really can't criticize Bethesda for having things like the Brotherhood of Steel/Enclave/Super Mutants/etc. on the East Coast when alot of nonsense that contradicted Fallout 1's universe was also present in Fallout 2. Come on, don't accuse people of ad hominem when your argument is "if you liked it you have high school level of reading" or whatever you wrote. At first you told people they were haters, but now your posts are just that, hate. Personally I enjoyed fallout 1, 2 and 3 =p Didn't play new vegas. Ho also loved Arcanum !
Only started to add inflammatory things when people refused to address the argument. Lost my temper because people simply don't want to respond, keep parroting the same bullshit about how 'FALLOUT 3 TERRIBAD GAME'. Doesn't change the fact that no one has legitimately addressed any of my arguments other than Yango really.
Arcanum in theory could have been great, but it was pretty obvious they rushed the living daylights out of the game. Combat system needed a huge overhaul though, as it was pretty much hot garbage. Tech was pretty much useless (or took way too much effort to make work), meanwhile you could use Magic and just annihilate the entire screen before anyone could do anything.
Again, I have never said Fallout 2 was bad. I'm just merely pointing out that Fallout 2 isn't a classic/masterpiece game that everyone with nostalgia makes it out to be. That's like calling Arcanum a type 5 cRPG. The game is entertaining sure, but objectively speaking it's not even close to being a top 5 cRPG. I mean shit, that's like me saying Temple of Elemental Evil shits on every cRPG because of how faithful it is to the 3.5 ruleset, but that doesn't mean it's a game for everyone, nor am I going to ignore it's significant flaws (such as shitcan AI pathing, ridiculous amount of bugs, bland plot, etc.)
|
It is not that people don;t have any points against what you write, it is people don't bother to respond you because of your attitude. You call people "not know/understand fallout 2", "high school level of reading" and another bunch of non-sense like "game is too hard and gate you to some skills because I couldn't beat it " so I personally don't bother to tell you how wrong you are.
Everyone has a unique understanding and expectations of cRPGs but most will come to some common denominators. Over aggressively defending F3 is better than F2 in terms of story and other "Fallout elements" is utter garbage.
Core Fallout fans almost unite on how F3(bethesda) shit on the overall Fallout setting and NV(Obsidian) did a decent job with the same engine with better story telling and elements. So we can count out the "nostalgia glass" factor out of it.
F3 is a decent game if you consider it as a FP-aRPG and terrible as a Fallout sequel.
Also stop shitting on Arcanum from RPG point of view. It is a sick sick game with a good blend of setting and story. I am not sure how many people share the same opinions with you on RPG pastures, I expect the number is very low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
