Maria Caliban Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 You mean real life is open for abuse? If you practice something over and over, you're bound to get better.. I'd suggest that in real life, there's a limit to how much better you can get. Also, if you train daily with a skill, become great with it, and then train daily in a second skill, you'll lose a certain amount of ability with the first skill. "When is this out. I can't wait to play it so I can talk at length about how bad it is." - Gorgon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Also, memory deteriorates in a reverse-exponential / asymptotic degeneration, so key plot factors could be forgotten ..! (Well, maybe not the major ones, but critical minor ones. It's not like the PC would forget their name.) OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 You mean real life is open for abuse? If you practice something over and over, you're bound to get better.. I'd suggest that in real life, there's a limit to how much better you can get. Also, if you train daily with a skill, become great with it, and then train daily in a second skill, you'll lose a certain amount of ability with the first skill. Also, some things just aren't learned or improved through repetition but by experimentation, intuition or observation - or a combination of those. A boxeur will not be able to best his opponents by training the same way every single day - new moves, new ways to block or dodge and so on require he learn new things that he can incorporate into his training. If only I became godlike at sex by just doing it everyday... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Well, your right arm is certainly approaching the next world ... " OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenghuang Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I was hoping Bioware or Obsidian would end up with Fallout. Bethesda has never made a smart and funny game like Fallout and I am sure they will fail. The nooby scores big points. Unfortunately DR Points have depreciated in value greatly in recent months. The Fallouts, while good games for their time and still fun to play, were never the godlike things you've all put on a pedestal. BIS and Interplay are dead, Beth has the rights to an all but dead franchise and it's more than likely they're going to reinvent it. Be glad you're getting anything. RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I rather have no Fallout than a bad Fallout. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 And in that, you are alone. But, fortunately, you may just pretend that there isn't any Fallout apart from the one(s) you like. See? Living in a pretend world can be advantageous, sometimes! OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I rather live in the harsh uncaring reality that wants to chew you up then spit you out. Much more cheery than my fantasies. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diogo Ribeiro Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 And in that, you are alone. I'm sure he's not, actually: witness the similar comments from the more hardcore Fallout fanatics. A niche within a niche, eh. And while I certainly don't share his opinion, I personally don't care much for Fallout at this point. I very much enjoyed the first game, had some fun with the second but have moved on. There were only two games I could ever consider to be its successor, and one of them - Van Buren - got canned. This isn't to say I won't foam a bit at the mouth when I get my hands on Bethesda's take on the series, but I'm mostly uncaring about the next Fallout. It's not a "I don't want a new Fallout", it's a "I don't care about a new Fallout". The game's context is wasted on today's market and gamers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sand Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 You make a good point, RP. I just think that Bethesda would have been better served to make their own PA CRPG than try to make Fallout relevant in today's gaming market. Murphy's Law of Computer Gaming: The listed minimum specifications written on the box by the publisher are not the minimum specifications of the game set by the developer. @\NightandtheShape/@ - "Because you're a bizzare strange deranged human?" Walsingham- "Sand - always rushing around, stirring up apathy." Joseph Bulock - "Another headache, courtesy of Sand" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorian Drake Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 I rather have no Fallout than a bad Fallout. I rather have ANY Fallout than a dead Fallout. Because even if Fallout 3 might not go the right way, Bethesda has enough enthusianism and money (also paid a lot for the name) to make Fallout 4 what would have none/less of the failures of the predecessor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xard Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 The game's context is wasted on today's market and gamers. Now now, let's not be elitists Fallouts are godlike Fenghuang, first one too. And I don't have "fanboy points" like many others have. Oh, and some weeks ago was the very first time when I played F1. I'm in The Hub currently (other gaming makes progressing bit slow). How can it be a no ob build. It has PROVEN effective. I dare you to show your builds and I will tear you apart in an arugment about how these builds will won them. - OverPowered Godzilla (OPG) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I rather have no Fallout than a bad Fallout. I agree. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I rather have no Fallout than a bad Fallout. I agree. Just put your fingers in your ears and sing "lalalalalalalala". OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 The Fallout fanatics shall prevail! Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 What colour is the sky in your world? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I rather have no Fallout than a bad Fallout. I agree. I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llyranor Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Goth black (Approved by Fio, so feel free to use it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark_Raven Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 What colour is the sky in your world? Blood red. Hades was the life of the party. RIP You'll be missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I like you guys, you're silly. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 So people would rather have a game that sucks and carries the name "Fallout" to try and sell a few extra copies than no Fallout? So you guys are all for games like FO:BOS? The question isn't asking if I think Beth or Iply has the right to make such games, just what I would prefer. I think the only rational answer for a FO fan is to say I rather have no FO than a bad FO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 (edited) I disagree with all these agreements. Fallout is not a mormon girl, Fallout is a game. Fallout does not need to be protected from the big bad world. Fallout does not have an "honor" that needs to be protected. If Fallout wants to shack up with bland, dim Bethesda and pop out a few middling sequels, that does not make Fallout any less of a great game, or a great franchise. We shouldn't hate on Fallout for that just as we shouldn't hate on Fallout for converting to judaism, or dating a black man. *edit - <3 Edited April 17, 2007 by Pop Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tale Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I think bad games in the Fallout franchise would make Fallout less a great franchise. Though Fallout and Fallout 2 would not be diminished. "Show me a man who "plays fair" and I'll show you a very talented cheater." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fenghuang Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I disagree with all these agreements. Fallout is not a mormon girl, Fallout is a game. Fallout does not need to be protected from the big bad world. Fallout does not have an "honor" that needs to be protected. If Fallout wants to shack up with bland, dim Bethesda and pop out a few middling sequels, that does not make Fallout any less of a great game, or a great franchise. We shouldn't hate on Fallout for that just as we shouldn't hate on Fallout for converting to judaism, or dating a black man. *edit - <3 This post has changed my life. Sigged. RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kumquatq3 Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 I think bad games in the Fallout franchise would make Fallout less a great franchise. Though Fallout and Fallout 2 would not be diminished. Yep. Clearly our little Mormon girl didn't understand how to franchise herself properly. There is no real argument here. There is little reason not to agree with the line "I rather have no FO then a bad one" if you're a FO fan and you want to see a FO4-5-6 after a FO3. Or hell, if your a fan of PC RPGs period. I mean, who really wants a bad RPG? I think people are just having problems coming to terms with Doomy (Sand for you with short memories) being right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.ce846aae50e732dc4985eb712252381f.jpg)
Recommended Posts