|
This thread is pretty disgusting to read. The amount of game elitism and "objective" knowledge of what is good and bad is embarrassing. Are Fallout 1 and 2 amazing? Yes. But maybe people don't like turn based combat or reading a book of dialogue every few minutes. Maybe people prefer going first person.
Just because something is "worse" than its predecessors does not make it bad. Just because it is different does not make it bad. Just because all of your top ten games ever played/made were made before 2005 (pretty much the case for me) doesn't mean new games can't be great.
A game doesn't have to be an all time great to be fun. Fallout 3 and NV were a lot of fun for me. Skyrim and Oblivion (with some mods) were as well. Based on my experience with Bethesda games, I'm certain I will have fun with this game as well. You don't have to agree, but don't try and shove your opinion down other peoples throats with something as subjective as games.
Having said that, the graphics are disappointing. 
|
On June 04 2015 04:39 LaNague wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:21 Kickboxer wrote:
The correlation between graphics and fun is exactly 0
Many games are absolutely amazing and have shit graphics.
Countless games have amazing graphics and are utter shit. the correlation between big name dev reusing 10 year old engine and milking a cash cow is significantly higher than 0, though. You must look at the reason why they are using 5 year old graphics and animations, its certainly not lack of money, Skyrim was one of the best selling games ever and they had 3 expansions.
Imagine if Bethesda would have to create their own new engine for this game. Can you grasp how much work hours and money that would require? As said before, i would too, rather have 60 fps, good story, voice acting and everything else done with all those hours and money -- than have a next gen looking game -- possibly making the rest of the content worse.
But it's Bethesda. They are 'known' to do this with games like Fallout. Not to mention they most certainly started to make this game way before the next gen, so there's that.
I wouldn't be surprised if the trailer was a filmed on console though. So maybe there's some hope for slightly better graphics.
|
On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:This thread is pretty disgusting to read. The amount of game elitism and "objective" knowledge of what is good and bad is embarrassing. Are Fallout 1 and 2 amazing? Yes. But maybe people don't like turn based combat or reading a book of dialogue every few minutes. Maybe people prefer going first person. Just because something is "worse" than its predecessors does not make it bad. Just because it is different does not make it bad. Just because all of your top ten games ever played/made were made before 2005 (pretty much the case for me) doesn't mean new games can't be great. A game doesn't have to be an all time great to be fun. Fallout 3 and NV were a lot of fun for me. Skyrim and Oblivion (with some mods) were as well. Based on my experience with Bethesda games, I'm certain I will have fun with this game as well. You don't have to agree, but don't try and shove your opinion down other peoples throats with something as subjective as games. Having said that, the graphics are disappointing.
People just wanna re-live their illusional childhood memory's. I cannont play such a thing like fallout 1-2 atm.
Its just to ugly lol.
|
On June 04 2015 06:56 Grettin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 04:39 LaNague wrote:On June 04 2015 04:21 Kickboxer wrote:
The correlation between graphics and fun is exactly 0
Many games are absolutely amazing and have shit graphics.
Countless games have amazing graphics and are utter shit. the correlation between big name dev reusing 10 year old engine and milking a cash cow is significantly higher than 0, though. You must look at the reason why they are using 5 year old graphics and animations, its certainly not lack of money, Skyrim was one of the best selling games ever and they had 3 expansions. Imagine if Bethesda would have to create their own new engine for this game. Can you grasp how much work hours and money that would require? As said before, i would too, rather have 60 fps, good story, voice acting and everything else done with all those hours and money -- than have a next gen looking game -- possibly making the rest of the content worse. But it's Bethesda. They are 'known' to do this with games like Fallout. Not to mention they most certainly started to make this game way before the next gen, so there's that. I wouldn't be surprised if the trailer was a filmed on console though. So maybe there's some hope for slightly better graphics.
They could use UT4 engine. But they need to make an engine, That can Render a massive world dunno if UT4 engine can do that, Also they gonna pay alot % tot Epic games for that from the sales. So i gues they gonna milk as long as possible from the 10y engine . But They can tweak it heavy, If its big & a good story. I dont care that much about grapics. Fallout: new vegas i loved really amazing game. If u want nice grapics just get 100mods they will put steam workshop on this for sure.
|
On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:
This thread is pretty disgusting to read. The amount of game elitism and "objective" knowledge of what is good and bad is embarrassing. Are Fallout 1 and 2 amazing? Yes. But maybe people don't like turn based combat or reading a book of dialogue every few minutes. Maybe people prefer going first person.
Most of Fallout 3's flaws have very little to do with subjective design choices such as the combat mechanics or gameplay perspective. A lot of them have to do with poor writing. The vast majority of my complaints with FO3 actually have very little to do with comparisons to FO1/2 (I simply avoid the comparison because they're games in effectively different genres). However, even if you look purely within the sphere of Bethesda's 1st person exploration games with RPG elements, FO3 falls depressingly short of the benchmark set by Morrowind, or even the more realistically attainable modern benchmark of Skyrim.
On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Just because something is "worse" than its predecessors does not make it bad. Just because it is different does not make it bad. Just because all of your top ten games ever played/made were made before 2005 (pretty much the case for me) doesn't mean new games can't be great.
You're over-generalizing here, and being far more unreasonable than the people who you're flaming. It isn't just nostalgia goggles that lead people to hate on FO3. At least for me, I just legitimately don't think it's a good game. While it's true that my top 10 games ever played are probably all pre-2005, I have nothing against newer games--I can name plenty of good RPG games made recently (The Witcher series, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, NWN2: MotB, FO:NV, etc.). FO3 just simply isn't one of them.
I actually liked Morrowind, and I think Skyrim was alright (not amazing, but decently fun if you're into Bethesda's game design style). I just think that Oblivion and FO3 are the absolute low points of Bethesda's game development track record and are simply awful games, even compared to the rest of what Bethesda's made.
On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:
A game doesn't have to be an all time great to be fun. Fallout 3 and NV were a lot of fun for me. Skyrim and Oblivion (with some mods) were as well. Based on my experience with Bethesda games, I'm certain I will have fun with this game as well. You don't have to agree, but don't try and shove your opinion down other peoples throats with something as subjective as games.
It's a little funny how you lump FO3 and NV together, because a lot of FO3's detractors really like NV--largely because NV has much better writing, which is by far the weakest element of FO3. Particularly in the DLCs, Obsidian got to explore a lot of interesting RPG design that Bethesda really never attempted to do.
Also, again, I thought Skyrim was a massive improvement over Oblivion and FO3. Not an all time great by any means, but still a massively better game than either. If FO4 is to FO3 what Skyrim is to Oblivion, then it will be a massive improvement and be a pretty enjoyable game.
|
On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:This thread is pretty disgusting to read. The amount of game elitism and "objective" knowledge of what is good and bad is embarrassing. Are Fallout 1 and 2 amazing? Yes. But maybe people don't like turn based combat or reading a book of dialogue every few minutes. Maybe people prefer going first person. (...) A game doesn't have to be an all time great to be fun. Fallout 3 and NV were a lot of fun for me. Skyrim and Oblivion (with some mods) were as well. Based on my experience with Bethesda games, I'm certain I will have fun with this game as well. You don't have to agree, but don't try and shove your opinion down other peoples throats with something as subjective as games. Having said that, the graphics are disappointing.
Then they should create a game like this, create new IP. But no, better to milk some old KVLT franchize and destroy it.
I would have no problem if bitchsoft actually created something of their own, even if we could call it a Fallout rip-off. I would just not play it, nothing else. But seeing how they go with a lot of things, not only Fallouts, makes me just sad. And a bit angry.
F3 was a disaster. Reviewed it as 6/10 as a "game" and 4/10 as Fallout game. Awful, awful in a lot of way, that are distusting to me even now when I think about it. NV was way better, solid effort, but devs were clearly handicapped by old, crappy engine. Wooden doors to every cave, lolz.
Also lol at bad graphics in Fallout 1 and 2. Doesn't matter, both are way better than anything bitchsoft ever did.
Edit: TheYango +1. Totally agreeing with you, you also put my thoughts in way nicer shapes 
|
On June 04 2015 07:40 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:
This thread is pretty disgusting to read. The amount of game elitism and "objective" knowledge of what is good and bad is embarrassing. Are Fallout 1 and 2 amazing? Yes. But maybe people don't like turn based combat or reading a book of dialogue every few minutes. Maybe people prefer going first person. Most of Fallout 3's flaws have very little to do with subjective design choices such as the combat mechanics or gameplay perspective. A lot of them have to do with poor writing. The vast majority of my complaints with FO3 actually have very little to do with comparisons to FO1/2 (I simply avoid the comparison because they're games in effectively different genres). However, even if you look purely within the sphere of Bethesda's 1st person exploration games with RPG elements, FO3 falls depressingly short of the benchmark set by Morrowind, or even the more realistically attainable modern benchmark of Skyrim. Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:
Just because something is "worse" than its predecessors does not make it bad. Just because it is different does not make it bad. Just because all of your top ten games ever played/made were made before 2005 (pretty much the case for me) doesn't mean new games can't be great. You're over-generalizing here, and being far more unreasonable than the people who you're flaming. It isn't just nostalgia goggles that lead people to hate on FO3. At least for me, I just legitimately don't think it's a good game. While it's true that my top 10 games ever played are probably all pre-2005, I have nothing against newer games--I can name plenty of good RPG games made recently (The Witcher series, Pillars of Eternity, Divinity: Original Sin, NWN2: MotB, FO:NV, etc.). FO3 just simply isn't one of them. I actually liked Morrowind, and I think Skyrim was alright (not amazing, but decently fun if you're into Bethesda's game design style). I just think that Oblivion and FO3 are the absolute low points of Bethesda's game development track record and are simply awful games, even compared to the rest of what Bethesda's made. Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:
A game doesn't have to be an all time great to be fun. Fallout 3 and NV were a lot of fun for me. Skyrim and Oblivion (with some mods) were as well. Based on my experience with Bethesda games, I'm certain I will have fun with this game as well. You don't have to agree, but don't try and shove your opinion down other peoples throats with something as subjective as games. It's a little funny how you lump FO3 and NV together, because a lot of FO3's detractors really like NV--largely because NV has much better writing, which is by far the weakest element of FO3. Particularly in the DLCs, Obsidian got to explore a lot of interesting RPG design that Bethesda really never attempted to do. Also, again, I thought Skyrim was a massive improvement over Oblivion and FO3. Not an all time great by any means, but still a massively better game than either. If FO4 is to FO3 what Skyrim is to Oblivion, then it will be a massive improvement and be a very enjoyable game.
I had a Blast with New Vegas its just very funny. And very interesting encounters lol. Dint liked FO3 that much either. Vegas was really atmosphere. With some mods u could tune the grapics up. Get rain and storms (with very cool thunder sound effects) Mist in the night. Dark nights. I was in the middle of no where. It was so dark and i was looking with my binocular. Then i saw the Big Vegas buildings also improved. I played hunderds of hours on that games. Its so much fun :D
|
I actually very much agree with the general idea of creating new IP's rather than changing a well known one. I maintain among my friends that the original Super Mario Brothers movie would actually be a fun little movie rather than all time bad if not for attaching Mario to it. I also agree that new Vegas was more fun to play than fallout 3.
The problem I have with your argument though is that both Oblivion and Fallout 3 were really the first in the new generation of games of that style. It's easy to understand why they would have more flaws. You all said yourself that New Vegas and Skyrim are improvements. Since those are actually the two most recent games in the series, then it stands to reason, at least for me, that we can expect something closer to the those, if not better. That is reason enough to be optimistic in my opinion.
|
Well, NV is an Obsidian game, licensing Bethesda's engine and assets to make a Fallout game for them. It's flaws and strengths are entirely different because they're a different developer and given how writing has always been by far Bethesda's weakest point and Obsidian's strongest, it's not really so simple for Bethesda to replicate NV's strong points (even Skyrim doesn't do this well, it's just somewhat better than Oblivion and FO3).
If FO4 were another Bethesda/Obsidian collaboration I'd have much higher hopes for it than I do, especially given the massive success of Pillars of Eternity.
|
On June 04 2015 07:44 OsaX Nymloth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 06:53 On_Slaught wrote:This thread is pretty disgusting to read. The amount of game elitism and "objective" knowledge of what is good and bad is embarrassing. Are Fallout 1 and 2 amazing? Yes. But maybe people don't like turn based combat or reading a book of dialogue every few minutes. Maybe people prefer going first person. (...) A game doesn't have to be an all time great to be fun. Fallout 3 and NV were a lot of fun for me. Skyrim and Oblivion (with some mods) were as well. Based on my experience with Bethesda games, I'm certain I will have fun with this game as well. You don't have to agree, but don't try and shove your opinion down other peoples throats with something as subjective as games. Having said that, the graphics are disappointing. Then they should create a game like this, create new IP. But no, better to milk some old KVLT franchize and destroy it. I would have no problem if bitchsoft actually created something of their own, even if we could call it a Fallout rip-off. I would just not play it, nothing else. But seeing how they go with a lot of things, not only Fallouts, makes me just sad. And a bit angry. F3 was a disaster. Reviewed it as 6/10 as a "game" and 4/10 as Fallout game. Awful, awful in a lot of way, that are distusting to me even now when I think about it. NV was way better, solid effort, but devs were clearly handicapped by old, crappy engine. Wooden doors to every cave, lolz. Also lol at bad graphics in Fallout 1 and 2. Doesn't matter, both are way better than anything bitchsoft ever did. Edit: TheYango +1. Totally agreeing with you, you also put my thoughts in way nicer shapes
Eh, they made morrowind, which is by far there crowning achievement lol. Everything else they've made pales horribly in comparison really. Bit of a shame really, to have made a game that every other game in its series is judged upon, or to make a game when it has amazingly good predecessors.
|
People rate Morrowind way too highly based on Nostalgia. Compared to Oblivion and Skyrim that shit was borderline unplayable due to how fucked up the UI and controls were.
|
On June 04 2015 08:41 deth2munkies wrote:
People rate Morrowind way too highly based on Nostalgia. Compared to Oblivion and Skyrim that shit was borderline unplayable due to how fucked up the UI and controls were.
Wat, controls and ui are fine lol.
|
lol morrowind was years before oblivion and was top at everything when it was released there was nothing close to it at that time
|
People are far more fond of morrowwind than I ever was or will be apparently.
|
Well yeh, some where along the way you had to pass over an actual good game and get to being an apologist for utter shit. There's only so much time in the world after all
|
Greatest news I've heard since New Vegas.
|
On June 04 2015 08:41 deth2munkies wrote:
People rate Morrowind way too highly based on Nostalgia. Compared to Oblivion and Skyrim that shit was borderline unplayable due to how fucked up the UI and controls were.
Comments like these will never not be funny to me. 
|
On June 04 2015 09:23 Dysisa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 08:41 deth2munkies wrote:
People rate Morrowind way too highly based on Nostalgia. Compared to Oblivion and Skyrim that shit was borderline unplayable due to how fucked up the UI and controls were. Comments like these will never not be funny to me.
Meh, it's true, game hasn't aged well. Then again, we're talking about the minor innovations that come with every Bethseda title. Hopefully they go into making the actual gameplay of Fallout 4 enjoyable since they've never done combat well.
|
On June 04 2015 10:10 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +On June 04 2015 09:23 Dysisa wrote:On June 04 2015 08:41 deth2munkies wrote:
People rate Morrowind way too highly based on Nostalgia. Compared to Oblivion and Skyrim that shit was borderline unplayable due to how fucked up the UI and controls were. Comments like these will never not be funny to me. Meh, it's true, game hasn't aged well. Then again, we're talking about the minor innovations that come with every Bethseda title. Hopefully they go into making the actual gameplay of Fallout 4 enjoyable since they've never done combat well.
Lol
|
I'm going to play this game, and I'm going to like it. No need to dress it up any further
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
