Pop Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Lots of sites listing June as the release date all of a sudden. Seems like bull**** but I'm going to laugh if it's true and it turns out to be a 15 hour game or something like that. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyDogMeat Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 i love that n00btards are worried about Fallout being in the hands of people who worked on the originals. When it comes to Fallout, this may be one of the things we both whole-heartedly agree on. Its simultaneously hilarious and disgusting when I see people write about how Obsidian will ruin Fallout or make a worse story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radek Smektala Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Lots of sites listing June as the release date all of a sudden. Seems like bull**** but I'm going to laugh if it's true and it turns out to be a 15 hour game or something like that. Oh man, I would love a polished, 10-15 hour RPG with lots of reactivity. Personally, I don't have time for 50 hour epics anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailian Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 i love that n00btards are worried about Fallout being in the hands of people who worked on the originals. When it comes to Fallout, this may be one of the things we both whole-heartedly agree on. Its simultaneously hilarious and disgusting when I see people write about how Obsidian will ruin Fallout or make a worse story. I wouldn't mind giving these people the back of my hand a few times. But for all of us, there will come a point where it does matter, and it's gonna be like having a miniature suit-head shoving sticks up your butt all the time. - Tigranes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syraxis Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I wouldn't mind giving these people the back of my hand a few times. You're too soft, I'd go with a moderate duration of ECT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oner Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 The guy making the call was interestingly enough worried about New Vegas being in OEIs hands as he felt they'd been making a "media boo boo" with Alpha Protocol last year.He was worried NV will be delayed too? Yup, but also quoting themselves: We wanted to make fallout bad, so we said "What can we do to make it bad?" and we asked ourselves "What would you really hate to see in a Fallout game? More splosions, flat dialog, terrible animations?" We feel that we're the biggest fans evah, so it's the product of love. How can we make it bad? Wut? I'm pretty sure it's been established that the forum will be hosted by beth. But i'm not touching it with a ten foot pole.Aw come on, we'll head over and have a few big laughs over some kegs of virtual alcohol. i love that n00btards are worried about Fallout being in the hands of people who worked on the originals. When it comes to Fallout, this may be one of the things we both whole-heartedly agree on. Its simultaneously hilarious and disgusting when I see people write about how Obsidian will ruin Fallout or make a worse story. Haha. Giveaway list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1DgyQFpOJvyNASt8A12ipyV_iwpLXg_yltGG5mffvSwo/edit?usp=sharing What is glass but tortured sand?Never forget! '12.01.13. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikhailian Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 I wouldn't mind giving these people the back of my hand a few times. You're too soft, I'd go with a moderate duration of ECT. ...you haven't seen my hand... But for all of us, there will come a point where it does matter, and it's gonna be like having a miniature suit-head shoving sticks up your butt all the time. - Tigranes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Oh man, I would love a polished, 10-15 hour RPG with lots of reactivity. Personally, I don't have time for 50 hour epics anymore. So that means you either have 10-15 hours left to spend on gaming for the rest of your life and you will never, ever buy another game again because you just don't have any gaming time left.. or you're using the dumbest argument ever made by man. It's so dumb it's almost up there with "I'd rather have 10-15 hours of good gameplay than 50 hours of bad gameplay". Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radek Smektala Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 So that means you either have 10-15 hours left to spend on gaming for the rest of your life and you will never, ever buy another game again because you just don't have any gaming time left.. or you're using the dumbest argument ever made by man. Hm? What argument? I'm not arguing anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagon Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 The should release the damn teaser trailer already, so the wait till the february 11th will be much sweeter. And as far as I remember they did it this way with Fallout 3, first Trailer, and in about a month the details about the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoma Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) I prefer 15 - 20 hours of game with lots of reactivity(Like Alpha Protocol, if it lives up to its promise) than just a 50 or hundred hour game that consists only a slight difference in reactivity with a largely stay-the same main course of combat grinding. The former encourages more replayability and usually easier to get into second or third playthroughts while the latter is usually harder to get into it. For instance, I can't imagine myself playing Dragon Age sometime soon if I completed the game since the thought of tranversing through the Deep Roads again gives me second thoughts. My opinion of course, based on my current busy lifestyle. Edited January 7, 2010 by Zoma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jero cvmi Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 i prefer 10-15 hours that are interestingly replayable with 3 or 4 *different* characters than 50+ hours that are equally boring no matter what character build (fallout 3). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nepenthe Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It's so dumb it's almost up there with "I'd rather have 10-15 hours of good gameplay than 50 hours of bad gameplay". What? I fail to see what's dumb in rather playing a good game for 15 hours than a bad one for 50. Oh well, it must be a Swedish thing... You're a cheery wee bugger, Nep. Have I ever said that? Reapercussions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pop Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 30 is the sweet spot for me, really. 40 would be nice as well. 60 and above is excessive. Below 20 is kind of disappointing. Maybe it's not so bad if you're going through the critical path as fast as possible. Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkreku Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 It's so dumb it's almost up there with "I'd rather have 10-15 hours of good gameplay than 50 hours of bad gameplay". I fail to see what's dumb in rather playing a good game for 15 hours than a bad one for 50. The dumbness comes from comparing a good game to a bad game.. which they always do! How long a game is no longer has a relevance if you don't compare two games of equal quality. Of course everyone would rather take the short, good game than a bad game of any length! Just look at some of the responses in this thread though and you'll see what I mean: "I prefer 15 - 20 hours of game with lots of reactivity(Like Alpha Protocol, if it lives up to its promise) than just a 50 or hundred hour game that consists only a slight difference in reactivity with a largely stay-the same main course of combat grinding." and "i prefer 10-15 hours that are interestingly replayable with 3 or 4 *different* characters than 50+ hours that are equally boring no matter what character build (fallout 3)." Dumber than a bag of rocks. So you guys prefer a good game before a bad game? Gee, who'd have thunk? Here's an interesting thought/rephrase for you instead (watch out so your little heads don't explode though): "I prefer 15 - 20 hours of game with lots of reactivity(Like Alpha Protocol, if it lives up to its promise) than just a 50 or hundred hour game with lots of reactivity(Like Alpha Protocol, if it lives up to its promise)." or "i prefer 10-15 hours that are interestingly replayable with 3 or 4 *different* characters than 50+ that are interestingly replayable with 3 or 4 *different* characters." Now, when we're comparing games of similar quality (theoretically), does your statements still hold true, jero cvmi and Zoma? Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbjerg Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Cool down Mkreku.. no need to be nasty just because you want to make a point.. Fortune favors the bald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoma Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 That's my opinion along with possibly others who share the same. No matter how you are critical to other people's opinions, its the way they prefer to play a game whilst your opinion may not be our preference at all and vice versa. Can we just respect the point that each of us has our own preferences and opinion of how how a game is designed instead of attacking it? Of course, if a game that is 100 hours long which has similar quality and reactivity with minimal combat grinding in the middle of a game length of 20 - 30 hours, I'll play it. But theoratically (Or practically?) its not possible since such RPG would either take forever to be made or super buggy due to dozens and dozens of scenarios needed to be scripted based on the branching reactivity itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morgoth Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Personally I enjoy shorter gamelength as well. 15, max 20 hours is perfect for an RPG. I finsihed Mass Effect in 11 hours, and Fallout 3 in 18 hours, because there was no point to do all the rubbish side quests. Hopefully F:NV proves me wrong. Rain makes everything better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
entrerix Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 (edited) if a game is short it better have a ton of replay value. if a game is long it better be interesting throughout and not crammed with boring filler if the game meets these requirements then i dont care whether its long or short though, im an equal opportunity gamer Edited January 7, 2010 by entrerix Killing is kind of like playin' a basketball game. I am there. and the other player is there. and it's just the two of us. and I put the other player's body in my van. and I am the winner. - Nice Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pidesco Posted January 7, 2010 Share Posted January 7, 2010 Closed due to size. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian touristI am Dan Quayle of the Romans.I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.Heja Sverige!!Everyone should cuffawkle more.The wrench is your friend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts