|
On November 11 2015 22:49 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2015 22:45 Plansix wrote:On November 11 2015 21:58 -Archangel- wrote:On November 11 2015 21:03 RagequitBM wrote:On November 11 2015 18:47 -Archangel- wrote:On November 11 2015 13:09 DannyJ wrote:
I went into it knowing the game will only get better in the future. Kind of dumb that fans have to make bethesda games good, but in a way it's also kind of awesome...
Anyway, I'm liking it. UI is absolutely hideous, hopefully someone fixes that soon.
Anyone else really irked that this is all 200 years fater the fact? it should be like 30 years judging by the state of things... Do you really expect a Bethesda game to make sense? Their game are for tools. The most hilarious tool is the guy above that mentions name Fallout but ignores F1 and F2 which are the games that set the lore and the world. Fo3 and Fo4 are like hilariously bad fan made stories. Calling people tools for liking a game that you don't like. Classic. Loving it so far. Always a big fan of sitting down with a cup of coffee and just exploring. The combat feels way better this time around I am forbidden to have an option about people playing shitty games? No, you can have them. But we are allowed to have opinions about your desire to express them. Or to put it another way, people are allowed to have opinions about what music they like and dislike. But when someone takes that to the next level and actively insults people who like music they do not, that person is generally perceived as an asshole. So yes, you are allowed to express your asshole opinions. As a self proclaimed social justice warrior how do you feel about encouraging free speech? Recent events must surely sway you against that?
Madmax.that'sthebait.gif
|
Why can't everyone be nice to each other?
As far as I know (never played FO1/2), the gameplay of FO1/2 is entirely different to that of the more recent Fallout titles, which only really follow the same lore. Fallout 4 is a different type of game for a different type of audience (aimed primarily at people who like FO3/NV and Skyrim as opposed to fans of the older games). People who enjoyed FO3/NV will probably enjoy Fallout 4 and people who disliked the direction that Fallout has taken since FO3 will probably continue to dislike the direction Bethesda has taken with Fallout.
It's fine to be disappointed that the game isn't going in the direction that you like, but it doesn't really justify judging a game to be bad for that alone (instead it should be judged based on comparison with games of a more similar nature), nor does it make it okay to insult people who do enjoy the game.
|
sorry m8, in the internet you must accept that im 100% right and you are wrong
|
On November 11 2015 22:42 Deathstar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2015 22:33 HotShizz wrote:On November 11 2015 21:58 -Archangel- wrote:On November 11 2015 21:03 RagequitBM wrote:On November 11 2015 18:47 -Archangel- wrote:On November 11 2015 13:09 DannyJ wrote:
I went into it knowing the game will only get better in the future. Kind of dumb that fans have to make bethesda games good, but in a way it's also kind of awesome...
Anyway, I'm liking it. UI is absolutely hideous, hopefully someone fixes that soon.
Anyone else really irked that this is all 200 years fater the fact? it should be like 30 years judging by the state of things... Do you really expect a Bethesda game to make sense? Their game are for tools. The most hilarious tool is the guy above that mentions name Fallout but ignores F1 and F2 which are the games that set the lore and the world. Fo3 and Fo4 are like hilariously bad fan made stories. Calling people tools for liking a game that you don't like. Classic. Loving it so far. Always a big fan of sitting down with a cup of coffee and just exploring. The combat feels way better this time around I am forbidden to have an option about people playing shitty games? You are allowed to have whatever opinion you would like, but to the outside world you look like an ignorant ass for making such assumptions about both a game that I would assume, given your sweeping generalizations, that you have not played as well as every person who plays those games. You take it upon yourself to crusade, shouting into the blackness as if your one voice will open up people's eyes and realize that they are wrong in every way that they disagree with you; perhaps you see yourself as some infallible genius who, repeating endlessly the chant you heard sweeping across the internet, is now above the normal man because you were quick to drink the kool-aid. In reality, when you say such asinine baseless things, people see you as a disabused child crying for his bottle because he doesn't have the new shiny toy, so he wants no one to have it. You look, frankly, like a joke; a sad, sad little man too ignorant to bother speaking properly, and thus quickly ignored. If you have an actual argument to make, and want to be heard, take the time to speak to specific points and not just flame everyone with ignorant generalizations. Your opinion is valid, as are all opinions, but don't be so quick to speak it without taking the time to think if the impression you are giving is really the one you want. 'Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.' Did your feelings get hurt or something? What's the matter with you lol
Nope. Honestly, I haven't played the game. Seems fine, but not necessarily something I'd buy at 60€ just because I don't think I'd play it enough to make it value. I enjoyed 3 and NV for a few hours, but never completed either, so any opinion about the game doesn't affect me. I just find it ridiculous to say things like "Everyone who likes X is a Y!" Then say "What I'm not allowed to have an opinion?"
"I really dislike Jazz music; I can see that it is appealing to some people, but I don't personally enjoy listening to it." <-- OK People can agree or disagree, but your point is inarguable fact FOR YOU (an OPINION).
"Man the only people who like Jazz music are pretentious, self-important, hipster douche bags." <-- Not OK. People can agree or disagree but that is not an opinion; you are stating blatantly incorrect generalizations as if they are fact. You should be called out on this. I don't dislike the person that said it, and I don't take offense to it, I just think it shows a lack of thought and intelligence. Thus, think what you want but know you will be judged based upon what you say. That's all I was trying to get across ^^
|
In free speech society you should be allowed to speak your opinion about other people as well.
And you have done that HotShizz and made it much more personal than what I have done.
Welcome to the club, I am proud of you.
As for the topic, yes Fo1 and Fo2 are still a pinnacle of Fallout series while from everything I seen and read Fo4 is the worst one so far.
And to the some guy before, no not even the lore is same, Bethesda took lore established in Fo1 and Fo2 and made is a retardo version. Just moving the timeline forward made the whole world make no sense.
|
You are entitle to believe that Fo1 and Fo2 are the pinnacle of the series. Personally, I never found them that compelling and found their writing to be serviceable at best and overly reliant on references to Monty Python/other geek culture of the era. And the game play was pretty also serviceable, but did not compel me.
|
Fo3 and Fo4 has no writing to speak of, just retarded Bethesda stuff. FNV was 2x better but I could not suffer that terrible Fo3 engine. Fo4 engine seems better but it seems it lacks Obsidian level writing instead of retarded Bethesda level.
|
On November 12 2015 00:23 Plansix wrote:
You are entitle to believe that Fo1 and Fo2 are the pinnacle of the series. Personally, I never found them that compelling and found their writing to be serviceable at best and overly reliant on references to Monty Python/other geek culture of the era. And the game play was pretty also serviceable, but did not compel me.
This makes me feel like you didn't play the games and only read superstartran's rants about FO2 earlier in the thread, because while that's true of FO2, it isn't really true of FO1 at all.
Regardless, nobody should ever be comparing FO1/2 to FO3/4. They're far enough apart to be considered different genres, and well, Bethesda's never going to make an isometric RPG.
The benchmark for any Bethesda-Fallout should be the two games that are actually *good* among Bethesda/Bethesda-like first person RPGs--Morrowind and New Vegas.
|
As for the topic, yes Fo1 and Fo2 are still a pinnacle of Fallout series while from everything I seen and read Fo4 is the worst one so far.
And to the some guy before, no not even the lore is same, Bethesda took lore established in Fo1 and Fo2 and made is a retardo version. Just moving the timeline forward made the whole world make no sense.
Wait, so you're insulting people who like a game that you judged based on other peoples reviews? Really? That makes me wonder if you actually even played the original Fallout games, because storywise, they're as bad as it gets. Like, even worse than Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Who gives a shit about your opinion (in fact, you don't even have one, you're just blabbering stuff that other people said) if you don't even know what you're talking about?
Lore has nothing to do with timeline either, but feel free to point out inconsistencies that came through because of that. I'm thoroughly interested.
edit: and lol for "Fallout 2 pinnacle". It literally was Fallout 1 with a worse story and worse jokes.
|
I have not played fall out 4 yet, but I found Fall Out 3 writing was acceptable with its own moments. I enjoyed my time finding a violin for that one lady and then listening to her play as I wandered the wasteland. The side missions and little stories and weird events that happened in the waste were the most enjoyable part of the game. My quest for the legendary “fisto” hammer fist that resulted in the death of dog meat will live in my memory. And that robot yelling shit about communist while throwing nukes like baseballs.
I didn’t find the writing any worse than the previous two fall outs, with the expection that I didn’t feel like they were nudging me in the ribs every 5 minutes going “Hey, Monty Python/other geek thing. That shit was funny right? You like that, right?”
And the games are janky as fuck. But they are also the only game that lets me build a house and fill it with all the stolen farming equipment I can find(skyrim).
Yango: To be completely fair, I played those games almost 2 decades ago when they first came out.
|
*sigh*
Discussing the story in FO1/2 isn't even really an argument to be had, because the strength of those games is executing on a concept that by nature sacrifices quality of writing for a linear plot.
Fallout 1/2 represent an actually successful execution of the concept of nonlinear gameplay to a degree that's better than "linear plot with set branch points" or "linear plot with a bunch of meaningless extra shit to distract you". There are <5 games in the history of CRPG development that have actually executed on concept as well as Fallout did (and only one that is unequivocally superior), which is why Fallout 1/2 are unique, groundbreaking, and timeless.
Again, I feel both sides of the argument are missing the point by even trying to make the comparison to FO1/2. Comparing to Morrowind and NV are much more fruitful comparisons.
|
On November 12 2015 00:26 -Archangel- wrote:
Fo3 and Fo4 has no writing to speak of, just retarded Bethesda stuff. FNV was 2x better but I could not suffer that terrible Fo3 engine. Fo4 engine seems better but it seems it lacks Obsidian level writing instead if retarded Bethesda level.
Again you're making assumptions on a game you have not even played, and instead of elaborating on your points you just decide to simply insult everything you dislike, you're allowed free speech of course but you must expect people to call you out if you choose to post like that, and so far most people have questioned your intelligence which if i'm honest, seems way below average.
FO1 and FO2 were good games of course, but did not stand the test of time (combat system was painfully slow and would not work in todays world). While I didn't like Elder Scrolls games Bethesda took fallout and changed it in a way it would work and in doing so, sold more than they would of if they kept it with the old system. You're still entitled to think what you like though, but I guarantee its mainly the nostalgia speaking.
No matter how good FO4 is, even if it was the best game ever made, you'll still find ways to trash talk it, plenty of people like you on here, gets a bit tiring having to read through your bullshit incoherent posts every few pages though.
|
On November 12 2015 00:19 -Archangel- wrote:
In free speech society you should be allowed to speak your opinion about other people as well.
And you have done that HotShizz and made it much more personal than what I have done.
Welcome to the club, I am proud of you.
As for the topic, yes Fo1 and Fo2 are still a pinnacle of Fallout series while from everything I seen and read Fo4 is the worst one so far.
And to the some guy before, no not even the lore is same, Bethesda took lore established in Fo1 and Fo2 and made is a retardo version. Just moving the timeline forward made the whole world make no sense.
In a free speech society the government cannot keep you from speaking your opinions. It doesn't mean that society has to accept your opinions if they are bad opinions. And bad opinions definitely exist, although when they're about video games (instead of say race or homophobia) the amount of harm they can actually cause is pretty insignificant.
I've played about 10 hours of Fallout 4 so far, and I like it a lot. The combat and controls are much improved over previous Bethesda titles, which in my opinion has always been the weakest part of their open-world games. That alone is enough to elevate Fallout 4 to the likes of Fallout 3 and New Vegas for me. So far the story is relatively uninteresting, but I enjoy exploring the world so that isn't really a concern for me. My biggest gripe is the dialogue system, I don't feel that the ME style dialogue wheel is really suited for Fallout and preferred when I could select from a range of options that didn't need to be voice acted.
But this is what people have been waiting for since 2010...another Fallout game. And that is exactly what we got. People like Archangel will always argue from the position of opportunity cost. In his fantasy world, Bethesda decides to scrap the open-world model they have used for the last 7 years and goes with something more like Fallout 1 or 2 for Fallout 4. That didn't happen, and was never going to happen, so why get riled up about it now?
Be happy that the isometric RPG is coming back after a long hiatus, even if none of them may be to your lofty standards. Based on its reception, Fallout 4 is exactly what a great many people wanted, even if it isn't your cup of tea.
|
On November 12 2015 00:36 TheYango wrote:
*sigh*
Discussing the story in FO1/2 isn't even really an argument to be had, because the strength of those games is executing on a concept that by nature sacrifices quality of writing for a linear plot.
Fallout 1/2 represent an actually successful execution of the concept of nonlinear gameplay to a degree that's better than "linear plot with set branch points" or "linear plot with a bunch of meaningless extra shit to distract you". There are <5 games in the history of CRPG development that have actually executed on concept as well as Fallout did (and only one that is unequivocally superior), which is why Fallout 1/2 are unique, groundbreaking, and timeless.
Again, I feel both sides of the argument are missing the point by even trying to make the comparison to FO1/2. Comparing to Morrowind and NV are much more fruitful comparisons.
Yango: I agree that the games were ground breaking and did a lot of things that developers are struggling to replicate to this day. But that doesn’t mean I personally enjoy playing those games. You will note that all of my statements about Fallout 1 and 2 are prefaced by me clearly stating that.
There are a lot of thing in the world that I can respect as ground breaking and ahead of their time while also not enjoying interacting with them.
|
My post wasn't directed at you, but rather generally toward the notion of comparing Beth-Fallout's writing to Interplay-Fallout's writing.
You posted between me starting that post and me submitting it. 
|
|
|
Everybody is hyped and playing F4 and I'm sitting here, recently installed Fallout Tactics and wondering how better Fallout 3 could be if Black Isle somehow finished Van Buren. 
Didn't play F4, not planning to tbh - art style quite often looks more like a mix between Rage/Borderlands, UI from what I hear is as bad as expected and as for the "motivation", finding son would be in no way motivating me to do anything in that direction. Dunno, maybe story gets better than this *shrug* just a bit of rambling. Gonna probably watch a bit more of gameplay and cringe all the way.
Wish bitchsoft could just create their own series, like Slightly Wasteland Shooter instead of Fallout. Now I read posts from people who never played original Fallouts and for them the current dev vision "is da best". Sad as fuck.
|
On November 12 2015 00:49 TheYango wrote:My post wasn't directed at you, but rather generally toward the notion of comparing Beth-Fallout's writing to BI-Fallout's writing. You posted between me starting that post and me submitting it.
Especially considering that what Black Isle did with FO1/2 wouldn't even be possible nowadays anymore - not in a 3D engine with shooter-elements.
edit: which they btw tried and failed.
|
I don't know why some of my fellow "old school" Fallout fans get so hung up on trying to shit on Fallout 4 and even more so the people who enjoy it. Admittedly, the game DOES look awful to me but fuck it life goes on, right? Much as I wish that was the case, not everything is made to appeal to me. Fortunately Wasteland 2 serves as a wonderful alternative, for instance.
|
On November 12 2015 01:01 OsaX Nymloth wrote:Everybody is hyped and playing F4 and I'm sitting here, recently installed Fallout Tactics and wondering how better Fallout 3 could be if Black Isle somehow finished Van Buren.
Well, for one most ideas for Van Buren were put into New Vegas, actually. So in a way, I guess it was sorta finished? If that's not good enough for you though, Brian Fargo, the man behind Wasteland 2, picked up the Van Buren license not long ago. So hey, we might still see Van Buren in one shape or another!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
