Halsy Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 Loved it and it was all super duper but lets move on to newer and greener pastures shall we. How abou NYC that'd be a natural for Fallout! Midget soothsayer robs bank. Small medium at large!
NerdBoner Posted February 12, 2013 Posted February 12, 2013 i'm going to go out on a limb and say Fallout 3 was the first you ever even heard of the series. 1
Farks Posted February 13, 2013 Posted February 13, 2013 I think it has been made pretty clear that a new Obsidian Fallout would stick to the american west coast area. And I don't think "New Vegas 2" literally means it will take place in Vegas again.
licketysplit Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Liked Fallout 3 myself. New Vegas seemed so bland and outdated, I didn't even pick it up. So yeah, I vote letting Bethesda continue the Fallout franchise and allow Obsidian to focus on Q&A, art design and good combat. Things their games seem to be lacking. ...and keep Fallout on the east coast please...no more deserts.
Aoyagi Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) As a person who spent over 300 hours in Fallout 2, 25 hours in Fallout 3 and 228 hours (so far) in FNV, I say don't listen to these infidels. And East coast is oh so boring. Now, Seattle, LA, San Francisco (with many references to F2) or even Utah/Colorado...!!! Texas and Chicago would please me too. Whatever would Obsidian choose (or will choose or did choose) for a new Fallout setting, it would be no doubt addictive (for Fallout fans) again. Edited February 17, 2013 by Aoyagi 3
kirottu Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 (edited) Liked Fallout 3 myself.[iNTELLIGENCE] You like Fallout 3. Edited February 17, 2013 by kirottu 10 This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
sorophx Posted February 17, 2013 Posted February 17, 2013 Liked Fallout 3 myself. New Vegas seemed so bland and outdated, I didn't even pick it up. So yeah, I vote letting Bethesda continue the Fallout franchise and allow Obsidian to focus on Q&A, art design and good combat. Things their games seem to be lacking. ...and keep Fallout on the east coast please...no more deserts. how can you live with yourself? 8 Walsingham said: I was struggling to understand ths until I noticed you are from Finland. And having been educated solely by mkreku in this respect I am convinced that Finland essentially IS the wh40k universe.
mkreku Posted February 21, 2013 Posted February 21, 2013 Omg someone has another taste in games than you!! QUICK, UP ON YOUR HIGH HORSES AND WRITE DEROGATORY POSTS ABOUT IT BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!! 3 Swedes, go to: Spel2, for the latest game reviews in swedish!
licketysplit Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 (edited) Liked Fallout 3 myself. [iNTELLIGENCE] You like Fallout 3. No, I 'liked' because I'm done with it. Past tense, look it up. And let me know when Obsidian does art design or gameplay on par with anyone else. So far, I've yet to be impressed. Alpha Protocol looks like they hired a pre-schooler for character design, and New Vegas is ugly as hell. Edited February 24, 2013 by licketysplit
Oerwinde Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 Liked Fallout 3 myself. [iNTELLIGENCE] You like Fallout 3. No, I 'liked' because I'm done with it. Past tense, look it up. And let me know when Obsidian does art design or gameplay on par with anyone else. So far, I've yet to be impressed. Alpha Protocol looks like they hired a pre-schooler for character design, and New Vegas is ugly as hell. Alpha Protocol's character design was spot on for the setting. http://alpha-protocol.deviantart.com/favourites/48427753 Hardly Pre-Schooler work there. Now if you want to poo poo Neverwinter Nights 2's character models, go right ahead, those were awful, but the design work they have done has never been bad. New Vegas wasn't any uglier than Fallout 3. The problems with New Vegas were almost entirely related to the garbage engine they used. I say bring on NV2, but set it further north. Oregon, Washington, British Columbia. The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
AGX-17 Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 I say bring on NV2, but set it further north. Oregon, Washington, British Columbia.Not really New Vegas anymore, then. Obviously the title should be different if the setting isn't centered on/directly adjacent to the New Vegas area.
Oerwinde Posted February 24, 2013 Posted February 24, 2013 I say bring on NV2, but set it further north. Oregon, Washington, British Columbia. Not really New Vegas anymore, then. Obviously the title should be different if the setting isn't centered on/directly adjacent to the New Vegas area. Well yeah, what I mean is I would like to see more Fallout games from Obsidian rather than Bethesda. I mean I liked FO3, but I thought NV was a lot better. 1 The area between the balls and the butt is a hotbed of terrorist activity.
maggotheart Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV were both good games, though I found NV to be a general improvement over 3 in many ways. The only thing that sucked is we didn't get any more games in the style of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. These are the games we got instead of the isometric style games, and that's never sit well with me. I don't think the newer Fallouts would have received half the hate they did if the isometric fans had been served as well.
Malekith Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) Fallout 3 and Fallout: NV were both good games, though I found NV to be a general improvement over 3 in many ways. The only thing that sucked is we didn't get any more games in the style of Fallout 1 and Fallout 2. These are the games we got instead of the isometric style games, and that's never sit well with me. I don't think the newer Fallouts would have received half the hate they did if the isometric fans had been served as well. Fair enough. But even as an isometric fan, New Vegas WAS a good enough game. Fallout 3 was Oblivion with guns. As someone who found all TES games crap(yes, even Morrowind) Fallout 3 was a disapointment. Whereas I found New Vegas gameplay bad, but the rest of the game was really good. If New Vegas was in the style of the first two fallouts would be easily on par with them. If Fallout 3 was isometric it would still be boring. But maybe my problem is with Bethseda. I never liked a single game that company made. Edited March 3, 2013 by Malekith 2
Malekith Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 (edited) You like buying crap, then? Who said i bought them? What the friends are for if not for borrowing their games? I only buy games that i know i will like, but i generally play a few hours in every RPG/Strategy with the hope i will find a hidden gem or a company i don't know about yet. Edited March 3, 2013 by Malekith
SunBroSolaire Posted March 3, 2013 Posted March 3, 2013 In that RPS interview, didn't Feargus talk about setting the game in LA? Seriously doubt we'll see another game in the Mojave any time soon. New Vegas 2 = another Obsidian Fallout. Don't have much hope for Fallout 4. I expect it to be better than Skyrim, and probably an improvement on Fallout 3, but let's be honest: the writing will suck, the character progression will suck, the quest design will suck, the combat will suck, and the balance will most definitely suck. My only hope is that after F4, BethSoft will let Obsidian take another crack at it. 1
licketysplit Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Fallout 3 was crap Then New Vegas was worse, because I have no desire to explore the **** brown, empty desert with trade mark **** Obsidian gameplay. And Obsidian knows ****ty gameplay. I've tried Alpha Protocol... Edited March 9, 2013 by Gorth L:anguage
Malekith Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) Fallout 3 was crap Then New Vegas was worse, because I have no desire to explore the **** brown, empty desert with trade mark **** Obsidian gameplay. And Obsidian knows ****ty gameplay. I've tried Alpha Protocol... Yes the gameplay was ****ty in both New Vegas and Alpha Protocol... No dispute here. Obsidian can not into gameplay. The diffirence is that the rest of the game (writting, quest structure, story,etc.) are very good whereas Bethesda's games have equally ****y gameplay with terrible writting, crap quest design. Read the post above your's.In fact Bethesda's games are terrible except ONE thing. Excploration. If you can play their hiking simulators base solelly on the sense of excploration more power to you. But except that i can't see what else they do good. Fallout New Vegas would be equal to the first two Fallouts if it was isometric and turn based. Fallout 3 would be terrible either way. Edited March 9, 2013 by Malekith
Aoyagi Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 Fallout 3 was crap Then New Vegas was worse, because I have no desire to explore the **** brown, empty desert with trade mark **** Obsidian gameplay. And Obsidian knows ****ty gameplay. I've tried Alpha Protocol... I'm surprised you've registered here then.What's your purpose here? I'm pretty sure I already know the answer. 1
babaganoosh13 Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 I liked Fallout 3. It was a really good game. I'm not an Elder Scrolls fan. I've tried to be. I just can't get into them. But it just really seemed to work for me with the whole post-apocolyptic setting. The Pitt, and Point Lookout were my favorite parts of it. There was enough questing to keep me interested. Of course, Fallout is not TES. They hopefully won't go all willy-nilly and lazy with the lore their next go around. Poor Harold. F Mothership Zeta. Even with the gap I had between playing 1 & 2 back in the day to 3, those two things ticked me off the most the first time I played 3. Hopefully they learned a lot from New Vegas. Except for the tunnelers. Hopefully they're not immune to e-coli, and they drink some tainted water underground and die there so noone sees or hears from them again. Superman never should have saved the mole people. Yeah, I said it. You see, ever since the whole Doritos Locos Tacos thing, Taco Bell thinks they can do whatever they want.
Tigranes Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 F3 and FNV have virtually identical gameplay. It's disingenious to like one and not like another on that front. Where they diverge is, primarily, the quality of the writing, the setting choice, the design of environments. 2 Let's Play: Icewind Dale Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Icewind Dale II Ironman (Complete) Let's Play: Divinity II (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG1 (Complete) Let's Play: Baldur's Gate Trilogy Ironman - BG2 (In Progress)
C2B Posted March 9, 2013 Posted March 9, 2013 (edited) F3 and FNV have virtually identical gameplay. It's disingenious to like one and not like another on that front. Where they diverge is, primarily, the quality of the writing, the setting choice, the design of environments. No, it wasn't. At least not the finetuning which did make quite a difference, especially in the gunplay outside of Vats. I'm not saying it was great though, but thats in how the system is build up. If I'm *disingenious* for saying that, so be it. Edited March 9, 2013 by C2B
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now