TwinkieGorilla

i'm neither reading nor responding to you about this subject after this point. i'm not interested. i shrugged my shoulders about the issue 3 pages ago, quite obviously. you missed the point about the spork, my take on the shield, and whatever else you might be talking about (sorry i'm not really reading your bawwws at this point). if you're trolling me in order to get me to continue talking about things i don't really care about, sorry...but the game's over.

A) i've revised nothing. only attempted to explain it for the hard of hearing reading. B) what part of "drop it" don't you get? here's another way i can phrase it to you: "i'm neither interested enough in this topic nor in explaining anything to you beyond what i already have, now shoo." C) alsoplustoo: you obviously missed the "spork" meme of Beth-boards circa '07 which is what i was referring to. i couldn't care less how much success you've had with either use of the aforementioned metaphoric vehicle.

yeah, it's hard to say "why", and to be honest...i'm not really concerned with the "why's". i started off with games like ME2 and DA:O thinking "oh, hey! this is pretty cool. seems like there's a lot to this!" and eventually realized that after my first hour i was just running around in what felt like a bowl of copy-pasta of either dungeon-grinding/fetch quests in DA or the rinse/repeat of ME2. i'm currently playing Call of Pripyat and amazingly, i haven't turned it off or gotten tired of it. so here's a modern game which obviously spent less time on voice-acting and next-gen-ifying everything and more time on atmosphere and story development. so, while it doesn't have much to offer as a traditional character-building RPG...for some strange reason it feels like a much less patronizing experience over-all. and that's a big part of what i feel the difference between the games i played back in the day and most of the games coming out now.

since pnp games are the mainstream root of RPG's as we know them (i.e. where most of us as kids were introduced to the concept), so add a c to rpg and you'd probably want something which gives you a similar feeling of depth, right? this: being more like a pnp game than previous cRPGs doesn't make any of those games innovative, it gives them greater...as you mentioned...scope and depth as an RPG. what made a game like Fallout or Daggerfall innovative wasn't one thing, it was a combination of many things. there really weren't games like them before-hand. so now...even if we disagreed on the word "innovative" the thing which i suppose i maybe should have emphasized instead of originality was scope and depth. the genre has nearly all but faded into watered-down, bite-sized pieces that are all too easy to swallow. i hate when people rag on the word "pop-a-mole" constantly...but that's really all Mass Effect is, with some added teenage fantasy relationship larping added in.

you realize you're reinforcing my original argument, yes? EDIT: (the one about current games sucking, in contrast, to the amount of depth of older games. i only put 2 games in that list, but i could have easily put Wasteland or Daggerfall in the same list. it was an example of older quality vs current vacuousness...i didn't feel i needed to list every single game which came out before 2003)

what games before these had the same cRPG depth? in game mechanics, quests, c&c, the way the systems affected the characters (saying the S.P.E.C.I.A.L., Traits, and Skills systems weren't original and innovative in the cRPG genre is...a bit silly, imo)?

agreed. when the best answers to "What RPG in the past 5 years is as original and innovative as Fallout or Baldur's Gate" are either "Mass Effect!!!" or "Dragon Age!!!" i think we're in an obvious state of decline.

then you're missing a very simple metaphor. a spork is a compromise of a spoon and a fork. it is great at neither job but ok at both. as to the rest of your bawwwing post, you obviously don't get it, so just drop it. what the **** does it matter to you what i'd prefer?

eh.

nope. didn't say they were better. i said, subjectively speaking, that they felt different aesthetically...to me. is this still confusing?

extending a silent "g" doesn't really work with what you're doing here. also, this applies to you: i stopped reading right here. let me explain something a few of you might be missing: i admitted that i misunderstood something and was being unfair and jumping to conclusions. i then went on to admit that i had a certain aesthetic bias which i couldn't explain fairly, said "meh, whatever" and then went on to lament how my vision of something that was and my vision of something that is most likely won't be rectified and such is life...and while it's unfortunate, it is what it is. all of the posts i made on 5/2/10 were said with an action of shoulders shrugging. i realize this is teh internetz! but trolling a guy shrugging his shoulders seems...ehhhh...not worth it? but hey, if it makes ye happy, who am i to judge. you're fighting pointless fights here, lads. and against a member who most likely already agrees with you.

not really. especially if you read my posts. which isn't really any different from what i said. congrats.

you misunderstanding the words which create meaning in my posts ≠ dishonesty/fibbing. read my post again. and as much as i'd like to personally suggest you mimic the act which the character in your avatar is about to take part in...i'll explain instead: * before i knew exactly what the "red shield" was all about it sounded like consolized hand-holding. * Josh explained exactly what the "red shield" was all about. * something still seemed a bit aesthetically cheap about it to me, but it didn't bother me as much...now that it had been explained in detail. * i defended the use of the text-box in FO1/2 as appearing to me to be not hand-holding, but representative of a different sort of aesthetic. * i then went on to lament and agree that this was probably about the best compromise we could get, albeit compromises are a dirty bastard inherently.

um. no. reading comprehension fail. do not pass go. do not collect $200.

oh, i know. like i said...my "before" and "after" impression of the red shield changed after Sawyer's explanation. it was a good explanation, and i love damage threshold (not to mention actually bringing back real Fallout rpg mechanics) but still...i dunno. the text box was like the dungeon master telling you what happened after you did something. the red shield is saying "hint: try something else!" i know it's a fine line, and it's more of an aesthetic and it's probably much more difficult to make an FPS feel like an RPG...but meh. this is what happens when you combine a spoon with a fork. you get a goddamn spork.

Hope that can be turned off. I wonder what they mean by that there are new camera modes during combat, or if that is just referring to being able to use the iron sights. yeah. i'd hope a consideration for hard-core mode will allow this option to be turned off. because while i like what Sawyer says here: i think i'd get the impression that my weapon isn't effective if the enemy simply isn't dying. admittedly, i went from raging to "meh, whatevs" after his explanation though. at first i was like "another ****ing consolized hand-holding goddamn mother****ing etc etc".

*groin-punch*

I'll be buying NV and likely any other Fallout game they might make (*unless this game is a complete ****ing joke) because I care more about the developers involved (and their corresponding reputation) than I do the company holding the strings. That said, I really hate that Beth via Zeni is holding the strings...and I hate that some of my $ is going to go to one of my least favorite gaming companies.

i've said it before and i'll say it again...if this game makes money ol' Zeni's gonna notice. that's about all there is to it, i'd imagine.

Oh certainly not! They brilliantly watered-down my favorite game of all time...and that couldn't have been easy!

Call of Pripyat. just started it. it can be confusing and difficult as **** and i love that about it.

and how far we've come since then! thank **** we'd been informed so early!

Well, sure. S'why I said it sounds dumb, not that it is dumb.

I honestly have no idea what you just said.