|
Arcanum's success is in that it follows the mode of nonlinear storytelling (more "storymaking" than storytelling, really) that was only really achieved before it by Fallout. It's Fallout's real spiritual successor--despite having less superficial similarities than FO3/NV/Wasteland 2 because it captures those elements that made the original Fallout so successful while building on them in a way that reflects Cain/Anderson/Boyarsky's lessons learned at Interplay.
It's weaker delivery due to having shit combat and being riddled with bugs make it a weaker title overall than FO, but it's still easily a top 5/10 CRPG for me, depending on how much you dock it for bugs that were fixed by fan patches later anyway (i.e. they were flaws of the original release but should never impact a modern playthrough).
On June 26 2015 23:11 superstartran wrote:
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.)
That's not really a good analogy, since "faithful reproduction of the 3.5e ruleset" is not a singular virtue that can single-handedly propel a cRPG to greatness the same way "successful implementation of nonlinear storytelling" is. It isn't even really a virtue given how 3.5e as a system isn't even all that good.
|
On June 26 2015 21:49 superstartran wrote:
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 .
dude stop it you're killing me :D
|
On June 26 2015 21:49 superstartran wrote:
Fallout 2's plot
What plot lmfao
It starts out with one goal and that's it. The plot is up to the player. Get it ? Damn.
|
On June 26 2015 23:38 Laserist wrote: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.
1) I never claimed F3 had a better story than F2, just that when you consider that there is no coherency to the plot of F2 that neither side really wins on plot structure. You can't tell me that chasing after a mystical GECK is somehow a better plotline than chasing after your dad. Overall, my claim has always been that both games are good, but that one side seems to prop Fallout 2 as some holy land game that is vastly superior. That's not the case at all, and anyone that actually objectively plays both knows it. Fallout 3 may be a much shallower game, but it certainly doesn't make you want to throw your monitor out the window in the first 10 minutes.
2) Core Fallout fans also unite on how F2 is a vastly inferior game than F1.
3) Arcanum has great story telling, great plot, etc. Excellent in the RPing/Plot/Writing departments. It's combat however is so fucking bad that it makes my eyes hurt every time I play it. If Arcanum was like Planescape where there wasn't as much combat this wouldn't be such a huge detractor, however Arcanum forces upon the player an unbelievable amount of combat considering how terrible the combat system is. And trust me, I've tried playing magic/tech multiple times, and tech is just ungodly bad, especially guns. Having to play inventory tetris as a tech character already made me wanted to jump out of a building.
4) None of you have still addressed any legitimate arguments that I have come up with. Your arguments boil down to ad homenin, shifting the burden of proof, appeal to populum (which if we're going to play the appeal to populum game I'm going to crush you here and you know it), etc.
|
"core fallout fans" wtf does that even mean. "This niche group of people i once assosciated with or read their posts on a forum somewhere"
|
4) None of you have still addressed any legitimate arguments that I have come up with. Your arguments boil down to ad homenin, shifting the burden of proof, appeal to populum (which if we're going to play the appeal to populum game I'm going to crush you here and you know it), etc.
Lmao, who the fuck you think you are again ? :D
|
On June 27 2015 03:48 Narw wrote:Show nested quote +4) None of you have still addressed any legitimate arguments that I have come up with. Your arguments boil down to ad homenin, shifting the burden of proof, appeal to populum (which if we're going to play the appeal to populum game I'm going to crush you here and you know it), etc. Lmao, who the fuck you think you are again ? :D
A person that presents his claim with arguments. Yeah I did ad homenin many of you earlier, but that's because none of you were responding nor reading any of my posts, just parroting the same claims as usual 'Bethesda made Fallout 3 dumber' 'Bethesda wrote bad plot' 'Bethesda did XYZ' and yet many of the same mistakes that Bethesda made, the F2 developers did the same things years ago. Yet the same group of fans never ever criticizes them for it.
|
Please stop shitting up this thread about an amazing franchise releasing a new game with your random, non-topic, unneccesary, shite.
As a fallout fan excited about F4, there is absolutely zero reason to poke my head in this thread because its just you spouting random crap.
|
But how you expect any discussion when your tone is "2) Core Fallout fans also unite on how F2 is a vastly inferior game than F1."
I loved Fallout 2, i never read any Interplay forums, so i'm not core Fallout 2 fan cause i don't find F1 vastly superior? How you expect any kind of discussion when you have constant tendency to present opinions as facts? And after bringing so many times those mysterious Interplay ancient forums oppinions you bring ad populum in next line. Do you want me to make a snarky remark that your discussion way is as integral as Fallout 3 lore?
|
4) None of you have still addressed any legitimate arguments that I have come up with. Your arguments boil down to ad homenin, shifting the burden of proof, appeal to populum (which if we're going to play the appeal to populum game I'm going to crush you here and you know it), etc.
What the actual fuck lol :D
|
superstartran man just chill down a little
nobody benefits from discussing like this
|
Lets try to get back on topic a little...
Fallout 4 will have no loading screens! Can walk into any building instantly.
|
On June 27 2015 06:58 solidbebe wrote:
superstartran man just chill down a little
nobody benefits from discussing like this
You mean like how they repeatedly refuse to address any arguments whatsoever and parrot the same general statements over and over without referencing the game as to why the game is bad, when I not only reference specific references, make connections to the canon universe of the original game, and then even bring in a statement from the original developer himself, and they still refuse to even address the argument? It's one thing to be a fan of the game and defend it, it's another to totally shit on another game for literally no reason other than 'It's Bethesda + Fallout, I hate it!'
I'm done with this discussion, it's clear and evident that those who want to hate on Bethesda and Fallout will continue to do so with zero objectivity. If you want to do that however, don't clutter up this thread. We've already dragged this way out, and there's no sense in continuing this discussion publicly. If you want to actually address any of my arguments with specific references/examples/sources then PM me. That being said, I will leave with this. Fallout 3 was a universally better received game from the critics than Fallout 2 was. The biggest and most major complaint was that Fallout 2 did not innovate, did not push the limits, and was too much like Fallout 1 graphical/UI/combat wise. Do we always agree with the critics? No. I'm not even going to claim Fallout 3 is a better game. I'm just going to point out that Fallout 3 can't really suck when universally (and by even the 'hipster pc gaming' review sites) it was well received among almost everyone.
|
Kyrgyz Republic1462 Posts
On June 27 2015 07:22 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2015 06:58 solidbebe wrote:
superstartran man just chill down a little
nobody benefits from discussing like this You mean like how they repeatedly refuse to address any arguments whatsoever and parrot the same general statements over and over without referencing the game as to why the game is bad, when I not only reference specific references, make connections to the canon universe of the original game, and then even bring in a statement from the original developer himself, and they still refuse to even address the argument? It's one thing to be a fan of the game and defend it, it's another to totally shit on another game for literally no reason other than 'It's Bethesda + Fallout, I hate it!' I'm done with this discussion, it's clear and evident that those who want to hate on Bethesda and Fallout will continue to do so with zero objectivity. If you want to do that however, don't clutter up this thread. We've already dragged this way out, and there's no sense in continuing this discussion publicly. If you want to actually address any of my arguments with specific references/examples/sources then PM me. That being said, I will leave with this. Fallout 3 was a universally better received game from the critics than Fallout 2 was. The biggest and most major complaint was that Fallout 2 did not innovate, did not push the limits, and was too much like Fallout 1 graphical/UI/combat wise. Do we always agree with the critics? No. I'm not even going to claim Fallout 3 is a better game. I'm just going to point out that Fallout 3 can't really suck when universally (and by even the 'hipster pc gaming' review sites) it was well received among almost everyone.
Just let it go man. You're not the only one who thinks that way. I have this really weird feeling that I am somehow privileged to have been able to enjoy both Fallout 3 and Fallout NV without having to hate them because they dared to be different from Fallout 1/2. If only more people who love this universe could see through their prejudices they would have enjoyed them too.
|
On June 27 2015 07:19 Reaps wrote:
Lets try to get back on topic a little...
Fallout 4 will have no loading screens! Can walk into any building instantly.
First interesting thing that's been said in this thread in a while, eh.
Anyway, that's cool. I just hope they don't have to sacrifice detail and expansiveness of interiors because of that. Like, Dragon Age: Inquisition had very few loading screens, effectively none in the big zones (Hinterlands > Valammar is the only one I can remember off the top of my head). but it also had very few interior areas and those it did have were small and simple.
|
I played Skyrim without a SSD and it's really an immersion breaker. Open world games that focus on exploration really benefit from not having any loading screens.
Do you guys think they'll go for perks at every level? I liked it it the way it was in NV. I also hope traits return, there's lots of potential for those in fallout games. They do have to diversify them a bit more, in NV it felt like 2-3 were good and wild wasteland was the only 'fun' one.
|
On June 27 2015 17:58 Andre wrote:
I played Skyrim without a SSD and it's really an immersion breaker. Open world games that focus on exploration really benefit from not having any loading screens.
Do you guys think they'll go for perks at every level? I liked it it the way it was in NV. I also hope traits return, there's lots of potential for those in fallout games. They do have to diversify them a bit more, in NV it felt like 2-3 were good and wild wasteland was the only 'fun' one.
I prefer the way NV did it, the only thing I am worried about is the game becoming too easy after a certain level, this happened in all Fallout games where you got your char to a certain point and everything became a walk over.
|
+1 for Bloody Mess trait.
|
Maybe they should throw in traits that make the game harder. But each Bethesda game had option to become really powerful. The old ones even at the start, if you know what you are doing. So you always need alot of self restraint to enjoy Bethesda games without the godmode you get at higher levels. Though Fallout 1 and 2 were no different in this regard.
Not sure which game had the Raider vs Trader random event ... where they basically kill each other and you get a pile of weapons and equipment for free. Took a while till the game left easy mode again.
I am actually really sad they remove this out of their games more and more.
|
my playthrough of fallout 2 always involves making a beeline for new reno and killing the shopkeeper with guard dogs there. free weapons, winning!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
