Thorton_AP

A lot of people (especially if you go onto boards like RPGCodex, NMA, and DAC, as well as even this board) do not think that Fallout 3 is a very good game, especially when compared to the other Fallout games. Unfair perhaps, but to them Fallout 3 would probably be rated a bit higher if it wasn't actually called a Fallout game.

Now they just need to make up for their performance in Game 2?

This was pretty cool. Facebook'd it for all to see

I think zkylon means that he disagrees with the score of 93% for Fallout 3.

One thing I enjoyed about Fallout 3 was the idea of roaming around and a feeling of a bit of alienation that that next corner may contain some scavenger/raider that is dead set on ruining my day, so he can live for another day. I think given the setting of Fallout 3, the idea of having to be a "survivor" could be interesting. I definitely will have to try out the Hardcore mode. If it's not for me, then I'll switch away

You are surprised it's being discussed here in a positive way?

Preordered the Steam version tonight too! \m/

I don't think "their Creator" has to imply anything non-secular. I think it's very telling that he used the word "their" and not "the"

Looking at it a bit closer, I think I'll side with Oblarg on this one as well.

I'm not saying it was a good idea for this guy to be the reviewer haha. I agree with you that this chap may be more representative of the gaming public, but I don't agree that it was a good idea

Just offensive firepower?

Yeah that's pretty much what I feel as well. It is what it is. But this makes my naive and arrogant I guess

I haven't even heard of Red Dead Redemption until a week ago.

I'd say you're probably better than the "average gamer." At least from the perception of game developers that add in a lot of hand holding and so forth. The funny thing is you seem to insist that I consider you to be a part of the faceless blob of "general public." And as a matter of fact, I do think that a lot of the gamers want things spoon fed to them. Game development seems to echo this, as they seem to be spoon feeding people. I don't know why you're getting so defensive about it all though. /shrug Or do you not feel games have a lot of hand holding?

Yes I can. You're not the target audience. People don't make decisions like "Mandatory internet access" and say "Well, hopefully we'll get some strong sales from the people that don't have internet access." The target audience for a game like Assassin's Creed for PC is people that own PC's with consistent internet connections (I could even go further, and state that it's also the subset of these people that are willing to agree with such a DRM). It is the same thing. I contend that, however, because you want the game, but are unwilling to agree to the restrictions the DRM which therefore impairs your ability to purchase the software, you become bitter about it (the "royal" you, not you specifically). I do not see it as being different at all. Especially given that games are a non-essential good. Really, all the "unfair" cries for something like this is the jaded response of someone that really wants something, but cannot have it.

I think loud people are loud too. This is a game that many compare to Mass Effect upon first glimpse, so you'll get people knocking it because it's a "Mass Effect ripoff" both because one group loves Mass Effect, and because the other side hates Mass Effect.

I don't believe they said "Hey we're gonna make it so you can change his face during the delay" so I'm not sure where the foundation of your gripe about the time extension lies. Well it's not like there weren't any gripes about Mr. Plastic prior to the delayed release either. On every message board I've been there's always several threads complaining about MT's face. They should have taken this into consideration. Loud people are loud. I have no issues for his face, and you all make it sound like adding in some type of face morph system at the end of the project should have been no big deal.

I disagree. Any business is free to determine their own target audience and market it however they want. I think the people that claim "no fair" are just being whiny because they really want to play the game, but have other reservations about the product (i.e. the DRM). Business is never fair. How "fair" was it that Glide was proprietary and the shiny ATI 3D Graphics card I got didn't support it. Didn't stop games from coming out that were Glide only, or Glide optimized. The PC gaming industry is littered with bull**** like this over the past 15 years or so (and perhaps even farther along). I never played Halo 2 because it required DirectX 10. I'm pretty sure that they could have done the game in DirectX 9 if they wanted, or surely supported a DirectX 9 rendering path (given the differences between it and Halo 1 were miniscule). Want to play a game but don't like the mandatory internet requirement? Then by all means do not buy it and play it. Stick to your principles! But don't cry that it's not "fair" because it's no different to you than if the game had never been made at all.

That actually begs the question... how representative is he of the general public's gaming skills at large? =/ speak for yourself Are you stating that you are an accurate representation of the general public's gaming skill then? Not sure why you felt compelled to respond when it's easy to infer that 213374U was not referring to you. I'm part of the general public, I'm I not? What is the general public? To be perfectly blunt, I definitely do consider myself to be a better gamer than the "general public." I'm the type of person that doesn't need all the hand holding that goes on in today's games. Do you need it?

The only thing I can think of is that somewhere they have data (valid or not) that concludes that the benefit of the DRM outweighs those that feel too restricted by it. To be perfectly honest, I don't even care about persistent online type DRM as a policy. If a company makes a decision like that, then I do not feel that people have much of a leg to stand on with respect to complaining about it because you they have bad internet, or inconsistent internet, or a laptop, or whatever. A company that chooses to go with a DRM like that is clearly stating that their target market are people that have consistent, stable internet. So I don't care for the "it's not fair" type comments. It's the same as it not being fair that a game requires DirectX 11 as far as I'm concerned. The issue is, of course, when the target market is ****ed over because the servers bomb out and whatnot. That part is inexcusable, and why I am not a fan of Ubisoft's DRM policy. At the same time, I obviously have no issue with people that feel this DRM is not for them and they skip out on a game that they would otherwise pick up.

That actually begs the question... how representative is he of the general public's gaming skills at large? =/ speak for yourself Are you stating that you are an accurate representation of the general public's gaming skill then? Not sure why you felt compelled to respond when it's easy to infer that 213374U was not referring to you.

I heard you can make minor differences to his face. This may include some stuff like nose shape and other structural appearances, but the base face is the same. I don't believe they said "Hey we're gonna make it so you can change his face during the delay" so I'm not sure where the foundation of your gripe about the time extension lies. The game clearly looks like it has been given a healthy amount of polish between October and now, plus the addition of information GUIs such as the item comparison screen and so forth that Oner mentioned.

Well, this loss is hardly because of the DRM method, as lame as it is. I doubt they'll see it that way. They could (hopefully not!) still conclude it worked based upon their PC sales targets for those games. But the console sales is where the $$$ is.

I'm pretty sure devs have stated the same thing on this forum as well.

Unless their DRM affects the consoles as well, I doubt that's a significant cause of their losses.