Yay!

[HoonDing]

I remember myself throwing hissy fits when Revolution Software changed the 2D cartoony style in Broken Sword to 3D & removed the point-and-click, and when Prince of Persia franchise ended up in the hands of Ubisoft. But in hindsight, it was the best thing that happened to the series. Now, I am just mainly concerned with whether a game will be enjoyable or not.

 

EDIT: spelling

Edited May 21, 2009 by virumor

[Maria Caliban]

I remember myself throwing hissy fits when Revolution Software changed the 2D cartoony style in Broken Sword to 3D & removed the point-and-click, and when Prince of Persia franchise ended up in the hands of Ubisoft. But in hindsight, it was the best thing that happened to the series. Now, I am just mainly concerned with whether a game will be enjoyable or not.

 

EDIT: spelling

 

After Prince of Persia 3D, I'm not sure how fan could be unhappy about Ubisoft taking over.

[Meshugger]

'Lo and behold, another one like me. I have Fallout 1 & 2 and Tactics, and i haven't even tried or seen anyone play Fallout 3. I just don't have that interest, and i have moved on to other stuff instead.

 

This thread was misleading, i thought that it was about the original Fallout having a special edition coming out

 

Anyhoo, Fallout: New Vegas doesn't interest me either, unless they do some radical changes in the design.

[Nightshape]

Bioshock was woefully uninspired regardless of what it was called.

 

You know what CrashGirl, and this is a funny thing for me personally, because I wouldn't rate Bioshock highly, it's a fairly generic shooter. So yeah I'd totally agree with you in regards to the gameplay being uninspired.

 

On another note, Rapture, as a setting, and how it's been built, how feels etc... As a world, well that's certainly impressive, So the environment gets a thumbs up, in that respect it's certainly inspired. If I look at a game like STALKER for example, I see bad and bland artwork (All looks very rushed to me), and generic gameplay with some interesting tweaks I admit, but this is along side some, at times, horrific AI. Yet you have rated the game very highly in the past...

 

You say things like: "Oblivion may well be the worst crpg ever made", now I'm certain that isn't true, you may not like it, but it's certainly nowhere near as flawed as you say it is.

 

So, are you just overly bias? Just got plain terrible taste? It's absurd!

 

Hunny, all I can say is you leave me utterly bemused, and confused and I have no clue what you actually think is good because, you sometimes like something which is sub-par, slate things which are done exceptionally well, and hold crazy ass opinions of games which, while not to your liking, are infact extremely successful.

 

Maybe I'm just dumb?

[Slowtrain]

Maybe I'm just dumb?

 

Hell, no. You're a lot smarter than me.

 

I rate Oblivion so low not only because it bores me to tears, but also because there are a lot of parts to the game that either don't work or are poorly implemented.

 

 

Bioshock bores me as well, but the game is polished and works, though it is so inspired I can't be overly impressed especially in view of what levine has done before.

 

STALKER, while I concure is ugly in places and has bugs galore, an incomprehensible story, an a sometimes shoddy AI (though still better than other fine games like Deus Ex), does freeform shooter gameplay better than anything I have ever played and has an awesome feel/atmosphere.

 

It's all subjective of course.

[Hell Kitty]

If I look at a game like STALKER for example, I see bad and bland artwork (All looks very rushed to me)

 

Surely if there is one thing you can't accuse STALKER of, it's rushed artwork. Game was in development for a bazillion years. I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

 

You say things like: "Oblivion may well be the worst crpg ever made", now I'm certain that isn't true, you may not like it, but it's certainly nowhere near as flawed as you say it is.

 

Claims like that just make me think that people have very limited experience with the genre. Since when did Oblivion rank below Descent to Undermountain?

[alanschu]

I don't get it. You guys loved the original fallout games and praised BIS for it. And yet, you are all drooling over Fallout 3 whose only similarity is the title and the setting (but not the gameplay). I am not a fan of these games (I did like FOT though) but I would be pretty pissed off if people were telling me how great Fallout 3 is when I have already experienced the original fallout roleplaying experience. Beth's fallout game looks so bland to my eyes. Can someone explain to me what's so appealing about it? Souldn't guys be first among people to shout "blasphemy"?

 

 

Just because I loved Fallout 1 and 2 doesn't mean I can't enjoy Fallout 3 even though its gameplay is different.

[alanschu]

I don't get it. You guys loved the original fallout games and praised BIS for it. And yet, you are all drooling over Fallout 3 whose only similarity is the title and the setting (but not the gameplay). I am not a fan of these games (I did like FOT though) but I would be pretty pissed off if people were telling me how great Fallout 3 is when I have already experienced the original fallout roleplaying experience. Beth's fallout game looks so bland to my eyes. Can someone explain to me what's so appealing about it? Souldn't guys be first among people to shout "blasphemy"?

 

It's a good game in its own right. It just isn't Fallout. I just pretend I am playing a new franchise with suspicious similarities to the Fallout series. It would have been just as well if Bethesda just made the game a new series, and dropped all the Fallout art and pretenses it would have done just as well. I really don't understand why they decided to make it a sequel to Fallout 3 rather then a new IP since the the fallout fanbase is not big enough and mostly too elitist to drive sales vis a vis Halo or Gears of War, they must have known the NMA crowd would be foaming at the mouth over the game. I mean in the end all it was was the name itself and that isn't that important when the developer label is Bethesda.

 

Its sort of like Bioshock I think everyone who loved SS2 was expecting Bioshock to be like Christ descending from heaven instead they got a fps with some pretense of RPG elements, but since the whole thing was a new intellectual property nobody complained too much. If they had called it SS3 and set it on a spaceship there would probably be a lot more bitching and moaning.

 

 

I disagree on both counts. Calling it Fallout 3 is neat because you can incorporate parts of the universe without being called blatant ripoffs. It also helps with the creation of the game world since a lot of the history has happened already.

 

As for Bioshock, I found a lot of people still complained that it wasn't truly the spiritual successor to System Shock 2.

[Oner]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

alanschu: imho established history doesn't matter much when a, they didn't bother gathering every info there is, and b, they retcon it anyway.

Edited May 22, 2009 by Oner

[Hell Kitty]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

You're describing a location, not the graphics.

[Gorgon]

I kinda liked the atmosphere in stalker, take the bunker with the scientists and the factory next to it for instance.

 

There's lots that could have been better, especially NPC wise, but what was there was pretty decent. Towards the end the Zone got very menacing, and then kinda lost it's steam. You could tell lots of content had been cut, and the endings made very little sense at all.

[Oner]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

You're describing a location, not the graphics.

And aren't the locations made with the graphics?

[Mamoulian War]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

alanschu: imho established history doesn't matter much when a, they didn't bother gathering every info there is, and b, they retcon it anyway.

 

you are forgetting that FO3 is in different part of the world than FO1 and 2... Going very close to anything that happened long time ago and few hundred miles away would be ridiculous... Because most of the people in FO universe (the people in vaults namely) do not even know that there are any people living outside their vaults...

 

 

In other words... the games are in same universe but in different settings...

Edited May 22, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[alanschu]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

You're describing a location, not the graphics.

And aren't the locations made with the graphics?

 

 

It's possible to have different graphics levels of a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl.

 

 

For example, here's mine. The M is the mutant, P is you. The o's are ground zero. Bigger O's for bigger catastrophic damage!

 

xxxxxxxxxx

x\\||||//x

x--ooooP-x

x--oOOo--x

x--oOOo--x

x--oMoo--x

x//||||\\x

xxxxxxxxxx

[Oner]

you are forgetting that FO3 is in different part of the world than FO1 and 2... Going very close to anything that happened long time ago and few hundred miles away would be ridiculous...

People should read this stuff sometimes.

[Nightshape]

Surely if there is one thing you can't accuse STALKER of, it's rushed artwork. Game was in development for a bazillion years. I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

 

Just because a game has a long development cycle doesn't mean the Artwork isn't rushed, Stalkers strengths are in the gameplay. While they did some very impressive and useful work in rendering, the asset quality doesn't show the potential of deffered rendering engines.

 

It's a mixed bag, a poor quality product can be saved by design, and a high quality product can be successful and design by numbers.

[alanschu]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

alanschu: imho established history doesn't matter much when a, they didn't bother gathering every info there is, and b, they retcon it anyway.

 

 

I don't care about the minutiae presented in the Fallout Bible.

 

 

I feel as though the game benefited from the Fallout name and being set within the Fallout Universe. That's all there is to it.

 

 

I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of people have little to no knowledge of the existence of the Fallout Bible. I would even go further, and feel that an overwhelming majority of the people that loved the first two Fallouts have little to no knowledge of the existence of the Fallout Bible.

 

But you know all about it and feel it should be adhered to more strictly. You win a cookie. I've had this conversation several times and there's no point discussing it further IMO. We see things differently.

Edited May 23, 2009 by alanschu

[Oner]

I've tried to point out to you that FO 1-2 had more than just local history, but... oh well, why bother. At least I got a cookie for my troubles.

 

...

 

But seriously, the brand should do the product justice? Or the FO brand was just Werbung for FO 3?

 

What?

[Nightshape]

I kinda get what you mean though, the graphics are merely functional without trying to be anything special.

If a wrecked, derelict, mutant infested, radiation bathed sinkhole of human corpses that is Chernobyl isn't special, than nothing is.

 

alanschu: imho established history doesn't matter much when a, they didn't bother gathering every info there is, and b, they retcon it anyway.

 

 

I don't care about the minutiae presented in the Fallout Bible.

 

 

I feel as though the game benefited from the Fallout name and being set within the Fallout Universe. That's all there is to it.

 

 

I would suspect that the overwhelming majority of people have little to no knowledge of the existence of the Fallout Bible. I would even go further, and feel that an overwhelming majority of the people that loved the first two Fallouts have little to no knowledge of the existence of the Fallout Bible.

 

But you know all about it and feel it should be adhered to more strictly. You win a cookie. I've had this conversation several times and there's no point discussing it further IMO. We see things differently.

 

^ I agree with this statement!

[alanschu]

I've tried to point out to you that FO 1-2 had more than just local history, but... oh well, why bother. At least I got a cookie for my troubles.

 

...

 

But seriously, the brand should do the product justice? Or the FO brand was just Werbung for FO 3?

 

What?

 

 

I know Fallout 1-2 had more than local history.

 

Reading up on some of the Fallout Bible stuff, looks like some of it even made it into Fallout 3.

 

 

The brand did do the product justice.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I would even go further, and feel that an overwhelming majority of the people that loved the first two Fallouts have little to no knowledge of the existence of the Fallout Bible.

 

Considering the fact that GoG deemed it important enough to include as an added bonus with all of their Fallout games, I will have to disagree with you.

[alanschu]

GoG?

 

Good Old Games!?

 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

 

Good Old Games took something that was free and included it in hopes of it having some value added. It doesn't give any implication whatsoever that they feel it's "important" in any way. I'm sure that Relic software didn't consider the Max Payne mousepad I had to be "important enough" to include with my copy of Max Payne.

 

 

But, if anything but an overwhelming majority of the people that loved the first two Fallouts had more than little to no knowledge of the existence of the Fallout Bible, Good Old Games wouldn't bother including it since there'd be no reason to. The people would have already known about it and probably even read it! (Wow this is fun)

Edited May 27, 2009 by alanschu

[Hurlshort]

I actually never heard of the Fallout Bible before I read this thread.

[Slowtrain]

I've known about the Fallout bible for some time, but only vaguely and I don't care about it it one way or the other.

 

If any FO game deviates from the bible, well, I won't know and wouldn't care if I did.

[Purkake]

I've known of the Fallout Bible since it was released on the old Interplay boards. I think I still have it somewhere on my HDD.

 

You're not real fans!

Edited May 27, 2009 by Purkake