Aram

A guy was coming at me with a grenade near a cliff. I shot the grenade in his hand and the explosion threw him, still alive, off the cliff, and the fall killed him. That was probably my favorite kill in the game.

The sheer amount of buggy conversations, missing content, and utter bull**** (talking plants, constant breaking of the fourth wall, etc.) in Fallout 2 crippled the game, in my opinion. Fallout will always be the masterpiece. It's just the right length, has just the right amount of humor, and the atmosphere is maintained 100% the entire length of the game. Fallout 2 became a campy Hollywood sequel in comparison. Fallout 3 is a decent addition to the series and one of my favorite games of the last couple of years, but it's also very flawed. I think that's what I look for in an all time classic--it has to be consistently flawless at what it offers and Fallout is definitely that.

The people on the gun forums I browse all have their panties in a bunch, like the end of the world is nigh. I don't think it'll be so bad.

The biggest problem I have is

Avoid this one then:

What happens to Dogmeat when

The mechanics of the game are very, very similar to Oblivion. You can definitely tell it was made by the same people. The feel of Fallout is still there, however. Not in the interface, but in the feel of the setting and the story and even the quests--which I never would have expected the people who made Oblivion to pull off. The retro-fifties influence is still there, in fact even stronger than it was in Fallout 2. The writing is at least as good as Fallout 2, which frankly I thought was deeply flawed. Though you can tell the game was made by Oblivion designers, you can also tell that it was designed by real Fallout fans. The game is wildly different mechanically from the real Fallout games--I don't really consider it as much of a sequel as a spin-off like Tactics. It is however an extremely good spin off very deserving of the succeeding the Fallout series. Especially when you consider that there probably wouldn't be another Fallout at all if Bethesda hadn't been fans.

I'd like to find a way to tell my wife our baby isn't really hers. I'm such a whore!

The things I like to say but can't with words, I say through interpretive dance and ukulele solos.

Damn it. I'm giving you gold and you're giving me spite in return!

But imagine if you were the first to implement real pain in your game. The franchise rights alone will make you rich beyond your wildest dreams.

That would be SPORE. In FO 1/2, couldn

Do they still hurt?

I feel like I shouldn't have bothered to read either review.

There'd better be a 1911, and it had better be useful. That's all I'm saying.

I thought the point was to keep the flies out.

Isn't it also something like the most torrented game as well?

MMOs do suck. Especially Warcraft, which is total balls. hmm that's the reasoin why it has only 10 million subscribers then... Some people really like balls.

MMOs do suck. Especially Warcraft, which is total balls.

Or minesweeper. Click, click, DOH. Computer explodes.

Probably one of those old Black Isle RPGs or once more through Jagged Alliance 2 on hardmode.

You know, that's totally true. But my expectations for this game were so low, that it's all gravy to me. Overall, its a little too "gamey" for me to say to say its really great. If the devs had pushed a little bit harder toward making the world a tad more realistic, it could have been a pretty fabulous shooter. It's funny that they seem to push so far toward an immersive, realistic world and then just stopped at the last minute. My problem is they kept taunting us with things and then not following up on them. We get to choose our own character to play, but the character we choose has no real impact on gameplay. The characters we don't choose to play are in the game and have voices and personalities, yet the character we play does not, so if you like a character you have to choose not to play that character to even hear their voice. Of course there's no real reason to like any of these "buddy" characters because they don't actually help you in missions--they just add extra stages to missions that don't benefit you to complete. There are two sides you can work for, but you don't actually choose a side to favor. When the plot calls for you to do whichever mission for which side, you have to do it. They act like there's choice, but there isn't. All you can choose is when you want to do the next mission. Half way through, you're faced with this choice on who to "save," but it makes no difference at all which you choose. Even the ending pretends to offer a choice, but either way it's the exact same ending. Why couldn't you actually join a side--have one side's guard posts leave you alone or even help you if you're doing missions for that side? Would it really have been so hard to program? Every time you take a mission, they actually have the guy tell you as you're walking out "by the way, we're still going to try to kill you even though you're working for us" every single freaking time. Yeah, I think we would have figured it out by the 2nd mission. I don't know. The game just feels only 80% done to me. The constant repetition, when really there didn't need to be, constantly reminded me I was playing a console game. Assassin's Creed did the same thing. Huge sandbox world but the sandbox only has three or four toys in it, and the toys are incredibly monotonous. I liked the sort of Red Harvest meets Heart of Darkness plot the game was trying for, but they didn't use it to nearly the potential they could have.

This game could have been so much better than it is. That seems to be a big problem with games today. It's even more infuriating than simply buying a bad game.

Suicide bombing for no reason?

Stop spelling it like that. It's incorrect. It's spelled with a C. And that's not a word.