The Official FALLOUT 3 Hype-Thread | (56k warning)

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#201 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ironcreed"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Nothing would please their hardcore "fans", unless it was almost a complete replica of the last game, ala StarCraft. I'm glad they've given up on the whiners and are opening up the franchise to a larger market. You can't please everyone, but the mainstream looks a hell of a lot better and more profitable than the small hardcore crew.

BioShockOwnz

"Hey, let's stay broke as convicts, and lose money on the game just so our small, but oh so dedicated mini-legion of die hard fans will stay loyal and refrain from labeling us as sell outs. Screw you, Bethesda, we are going to keep the series and do it up right for the true fans. How dare you propose to offer us a fair price for the Fallout series, and threaten to progress the game and make it more accessible for broader audiences beyond what it was in the early 1990's."

"Uhh...by the way, could we get a loan so we can actually make the game for those impatient, but true fans who are getting tired of waiting?":D

YAH LETZ TURN IT INTO A SHOOTAA THEN WE GETZ LOTS O MONEEEYZ

Seems to be the logic these days.

I love how these "gamers" are perfectly okay with a compromised game if it means more money for the developer. :lol:

It'll still be a great game in its own right. "Gamers" don't cry and moan when something changes. If gamers are so emo, then I can't consider myself one, I guess.

Ruined Sequal? So you will crying tears of joy

People moan when nothing changes - look at Halo 3, almost identical to its 2001 predacessor, people moan, people love it.

Avatar image for death919
death919

4724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 92

User Lists: 0

#202 death919
Member since 2004 • 4724 Posts
[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="ironcreed"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

Nothing would please their hardcore "fans", unless it was almost a complete replica of the last game, ala StarCraft. I'm glad they've given up on the whiners and are opening up the franchise to a larger market. You can't please everyone, but the mainstream looks a hell of a lot better and more profitable than the small hardcore crew.

BioShockOwnz

"Hey, let's stay broke as convicts, and lose money on the game just so our small, but oh so dedicated mini-legion of die hard fans will stay loyal and refrain from labeling us as sell outs. Screw you, Bethesda, we are going to keep the series and do it up right for the true fans. How dare you propose to offer us a fair price for the Fallout series, and threaten to progress the game and make it more accessible for broader audiences beyond what it was in the early 1990's."

"Uhh...by the way, could we get a loan so we can actually make the game for those impatient, but true fans who are getting tired of waiting?":D

YAH LETZ TURN IT INTO A SHOOTAA THEN WE GETZ LOTS O MONEEEYZ

Seems to be the logic these days.

I love how these "gamers" are perfectly okay with a compromised game if it means more money for the developer. :lol:

It'll still be a great game in its own right. "Gamers" don't cry and moan when something changes. If gamers are so emo, then I can't consider myself one, I guess.

Yes quite the opposite, most gamers cry and moan when things stay the same from one game to the next in a series.
Avatar image for ironcreed
ironcreed

14195

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 46

User Lists: 0

#203 ironcreed
Member since 2005 • 14195 Posts

YAH LETZ TURN IT INTO A SHOOTAA THEN WE GETZ LOTS O MONEEEYZ

Seems to be the logic these days.

skrat_01

LOL, depnds on your perspective, I suppose. If that's how you see it, then good for you, I guess.:P

Anyway, If a game sells well, people obviously dig it and are having fun with it....which is kind of the point of gaming actually. Just because the gamers who are actually excited for how the game is progressing do not share your particular viewpoints on what makes a game worthy, it in no way suggests that we are all just a bunch of mindless drones. Besides, it is not going to be a FPS anyway, it is going to be a FPRPG, despite your lingering reluctance to let go of where you think the series should have stayed.

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#204 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts

Ruined Sequal? So you will crying tears of joy
skrat_01

First, you haven't played it, so that "opinion" doesn't hold much weight.

Second, the gaming journalists who have played it, have been blown away by it. I think their opinion is more believable. Sorry.

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#205 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Ruined Sequal? So you will crying tears of joy
BioShockOwnz

First, you haven't played it, so that "opinion" doesn't hold much weight.

Second, the gaming journalists who have played it, have been blown away by it. I think their opinion is more believable. Sorry.

Eh not all of them...

Avatar image for death919
death919

4724

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 92

User Lists: 0

#206 death919
Member since 2004 • 4724 Posts

I remember when everyone was crying about Metroid being turned 3D. Then Metroid Prime comes out, BOOM one of the top 5 games of last gen. >_>

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#207 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Ruined Sequal? So you will crying tears of joy
jangojay

First, you haven't played it, so that "opinion" doesn't hold much weight.

Second, the gaming journalists who have played it, have been blown away by it. I think their opinion is more believable. Sorry.

Eh not all of them...

Post please...

Most of the previews I've seen from major websites have been positive. I guess some gaming journalists could be one of the 50 Fallout fanboys, though.

Avatar image for Zeliard9
Zeliard9

6030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#208 Zeliard9
Member since 2007 • 6030 Posts
[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

That's my only real worry. The switch to first-person from iso, bothersome, but I can understand and deal with it. It could even potentially offer a more immersive and visceral experience, by its first-person design, though I doubt Bethesda will hit that right atmosphere. The switch to real-time, more annoying, but again basically understandable and I can deal with it if it's entertaining enough and controls properly.

It's the whole vibe, really, that worries me. As I noted before, I don't feel Bethesda's ever been good at the entire writing aspect of video games, from the plot and characters to the humor and dialogue. These were all particularly poor in Oblivion, their latest game. All of these are extremely critical and particularly well-done aspects of Fallout, moreso than even the gameplay, and they're also very important in any RPG (especially WRPG).

Judging from what I've seen so far in pics and trailers, from what I've read from hands-on previews, and from what I've heard from Bethesda themselves, it looks like war isn't the only thing that never changes.

sts9kid

Yeah.

While Oblivion was very cool the writing and characters were quite bland. I didn't care about any of the NPCs. Not quite the same when Dogmeat or Vic would die.

I am under the impression that the game is not entirely real time. I've read that you will be able to "pause" the game and give tactical commands to your squads. I think you will even be able to use AP in this mode to play out all the action.

Isn't the game also going to be FP/TP view like Oblivion?

There's a turn-based pause variant called V.A.T.S., but that's only used to target certain body parts and requires AP points. It's not a true replacement for an entire system governed on turn-based play, but like I said, that's not the big issue for me.

Though I gotta say, the entire real-time/first-person aspect is particularly silly when it's still based on dice rolls. So you can miss even if you aim perfectly. What's the point of real-time, then? Dice roll systems should stay turn-based.

I think going third-person is only for when you're walking around. I think it was confirmed that combat is first-person only, but I'm not 100% sure about that.

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#209 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts

I remember when everyone was crying about Metroid being turned 3D. Then Metroid Prime comes out, BOOM one of the top 5 games of last gen. >_>

death919

Yet there's still a lot of hardcore Metroid fanboys who dislike Prime.

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#210 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts
[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]Ruined Sequal? So you will crying tears of joy
BioShockOwnz

First, you haven't played it, so that "opinion" doesn't hold much weight.

Second, the gaming journalists who have played it, have been blown away by it. I think their opinion is more believable. Sorry.

Eh not all of them...

Post please...

Most of the previews I've seen from major websites have been positive. I guess some gaming journalists could be one of the 50 Fallout fanboys, though.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38620

And why do you keep saying 50 fallout out fans? Those 50 fans were the ones who appreciated the game and recognised it for what it was. They were the ones who also encouraged interplay to make a second one. I seriously don't understand why you are are ragging on those *50 fans* seriously.

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#211 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38620

And why do you keep saying 50 fallout out fans? Those 50 fans were the ones who appreciated the game and recognised it for what it was. They were the ones who also encouraged interplay to make a second one. I seriously don't understand why you are are ragging on those *50 fans* seriously.

jangojay

Oh man, a full site dedicated to Fallout.:lol: Thanks for the chuckle, seriously.

Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#212 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts

LOL, depnds on your perspective, I suppose. If that's how you see it, then good for you, I guess.:P

Anyway, If a game sells well, people obviously dig it and are having fun with it....which is kind of the point of gaming actually. Just because the gamers who are actually excited for how the game is progressing do not share your particular viewpoints on what makes a game worthy, it in no way suggests that we are all just a bunch of mindless drones. Besides, it is not going to be FPS anyway, it is going to be a FPS RPG, despite your lingering reluctance to let go of what where you think the series should have stayed.

ironcreed

Well Fallout has always been a roleplaying game and it has always had a very strong universe

Now I dont mind progressive changes. 3D - you would be stupid not to, change of perspective - to third person, why not, quasi real time and tbs combat - ok, but butchering the Fallout universe, and making the game into more of an action shooter than role playing game, limiting the players options. Now that isnt right.

Im sure if the game wasent pitched as a sequal, rather a spinoff like Tactics or Brotherhood of Steel, no one would really mind.

And no it wont be an FPS RPG from the looks of things. Deus Ex = FPS RPG - you have plenty of choices, can complete objectives in a huge variety of ways, and you are not limited to shooting stuff. Fallout 3 looks to be primarily focused on combat, just like Oblivion was - and RPG that wasent.

Im all for game series evolving. Im not for game series getting turned into somthing that distances itself from what made its predacessors such fantastic, landmark games.

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#213 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts
[QUOTE="jangojay"]http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38620

And why do you keep saying 50 fallout out fans? Those 50 fans were the ones who appreciated the game and recognised it for what it was. They were the ones who also encouraged interplay to make a second one. I seriously don't understand why you are are ragging on those *50 fans* seriously.

BioShockOwnz

Oh man, a full site dedicated to Fallout.:lol: Thanks for the chuckle, seriously.

I guess it's better than some random people who have probably never played one previously right? .... If anyone would know it the best these guys would so I really can't see how you can discredit thier view of teh game and these are right up there with your gaming journalist and what not.. they have all seen the game in action.

Supermutants

What was already obvious from original screenshots is affirmed here. Supermutants do not look remotely like the originals.

So why didn't besthada just make a new game? :S They won't even make the mutants look the same.. what the hell.

Avatar image for Memoryitis
Memoryitis

2221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#214 Memoryitis
Member since 2006 • 2221 Posts

Lets be honest turn based is in the 90s, plus having no turn base for fallout 3 can actually be a good thing

because all turn base is...it just takes longer for you to win the battle,

bethseda already said there will be pause so you can move the chars around which is superior to turn base

so lets take that out, then iso perspective would jus be useless because we have better graphics now, so why not put it in FPS mode

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#215 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts

Lets be honest turn based is in the 90s, plus having no turn base for fallout 3 can actually be a good thing

because all turn base is...it just takes longer for you to win the battle,

bethseda already said there will be pause so you can move the chars around which is superior to turn base

so lets take that out, then iso perspective would jus be useless because we have better graphics now, so why not put it in FPS mode

Memoryitis

No one has a probably with turn based.. that's the last thing at least on my mind..plus it is still turn based to some extent.

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#216 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="jangojay"]http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=38620

And why do you keep saying 50 fallout out fans? Those 50 fans were the ones who appreciated the game and recognised it for what it was. They were the ones who also encouraged interplay to make a second one. I seriously don't understand why you are are ragging on those *50 fans* seriously.

jangojay

Oh man, a full site dedicated to Fallout.:lol: Thanks for the chuckle, seriously.

I guess it's better than some random people who have probably never played one previously right? .... If anyone would know it the best these guys would so I really can't see how you can discredit thier view of teh game and these are right up there with your gaming journalist and what not.. they have all seen the game in action.

Supermutants

What was already obvious from original screenshots is affirmed here. Supermutants do not look remotely like the originals.

So why didn't besthada just make a new game? :S They won't even make the mutants look the same.. what the hell.

I'd rather have guys judge a game on the present instead of the past, so no.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#217 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts
I believe the two major problems with the game for fans of the original games are 1) that the game is being called "Fallout 3," a direct sequel to the first two games and having nothing to do with them in terms of gameplay, canon and story and 2) Bethesda's utter lack of respect for preserving the Fallout canon as it has already been established by the first two games.

I am sure that most fans would not be up in arms over this if it was not a direct sequel and didn't take a large crap on the canon built by Black Isle. There is evolution and then there is Fallout 3... a game which will be a massive success yet destroy everything that made Fallout "Fallout."

I have nothing against Bethesda making a game within the Fallout universe, just don't give me a game that isn't "Fallout" and tell me it is a sequel to the originals.
Avatar image for Pariah_001
Pariah_001

4850

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#218 Pariah_001
Member since 2003 • 4850 Posts

dude.. Come on. The game isn't even out yet. We don't even know anything about it really.xsubtownerx

Actually, we know quite a bit.

They've removed dialogue trees, the ability to kill whomever you like, they've made it impossible to play the game without using twitch format (VATS' use is limited and token), you're unable to beat the game without firing a gun, they've absolutely raped the previous storyline rationalizing the presence of every single element from the original games on the East Coast, they're using modern weapons instead of Fallout brand weapons*, etc..

*(This is actually pretty crucial. In breaking away from the fantastical weapon designs of the previous games, they're playing against the previous franchise's biggest signature strengths. Modern weapons are too industrial to fit the Fallout decor. When you think of a post-apocalyptic wasteland ala Mad Max, what comes to mind in an environment of "broken-ness" and ruin. Because of this, everything has to be scavenged and thrown together--Especially the weapons. The ones you find and use are more esoteric and customized--Sometimes in an amateurish fashion. The M-16 and the Kalashnikov have too much of an assembly line feel maintained by mental images of guards and soldiers working for corporations and/or governments. That would only create a juxtaposition for the ramshackle atmosphere provided by Fallout's run down and thrown together civilization. And before anybody brings up the Enclave, please to note that even they were little more than a shanty organization simply held together by an enduring ideal.)

Even if you do encounter those uniform-types in the game anyway, they're using bigger weapons to scale themselves to the dangers of the wasteland. M-16's and Kalashnikovs would be obsolete in that setting.

The turn-based isometric format was one of the essential elements that the Fallout atmoshpere is composed of. It was designed that way, not only to maintain the PnP RPG format, but also so the player could get a better feel for the game's vision of a post-apocalyptic world. There were dozens of other elements that were consequent of that format as well; incorpated more strategy in a fire-fight, complemented the subtle ambiance provided by the HUD screen, gave you more incentive to budget your leveling points and perks, enhanced the soundtrack's effect on the mood, you were given a broader view of the world to maintain the post-apocalyptic art (in fact, Fallout's art was based on the 86' RPG's "Wasteland" art direction so they could capture that game's feel)--It has a purpose. It's not something that can simply be advanced since it's not actually a flawed or primitive system; it's just a system that was designed specifically for the franchise. When you break away from it as a format, you're breaking away from the franchise altogether.

More thoroughly:

Bethesda detractors aren't mad about graphics. Isometric is a ty pe of the RPG genre, not something graphically consequent. Something so crucial and prevalent as the movement/combat system and evironment your character operates in would certainly add to the overall feel of the game--Even if the feeling is gradual, it's still apart of the game's overall sum.

I mean, why isn't the vision's medium just as important as the vision itself? Especially when one is consequent of the other?

It's not as if Black Isle couldn't have accomplished a similar or identical format as Beth's. There's nothing to suggest that the original game's are inferior or simply less advanced. In fact, even if they could have accomplished a third/first person view of the world's they created, that doesn't tell us for sure that they would have used it--Especially since, from the very beginning, they were always aiming for a PnP RPG. You just can't do that with Bethesda's third/first person vision. What's more, a TB game could never be achieved without Fallout's isometric sty le; TB was something Tim Cain was always going for from the get go.

Beyond that, it's highly debatable whether or not one would consider isometric view to be a "limitation." Despite popular belief, it's not even archaic so much as it is just consolidated into one genre followed by a specific audience. Hell, by the time Fallout 2 came out, devs were able to use 3D engines innovatively enough so they could accomplish Oblivion perspective. I don't see why the popular phrase "pushing the boundaries" as spoken by Bethsda proponents would automatically mean changing perspective, rearranging atmospheric freedom (see also: Can't kill everyone you want to), changing canon, removing dialogue trees, removing world maps, removing attack options, or adding a Suck-O-Tron to your arsenel.

But if I were to ignore all that for a moment, I'd still be able to argue that because the game was made in that time-frame, said time-frame's sty le would also become signature to the franchise. Not unlike Tarantino's frequent use of pre-90s cultural elements to make his movies. This isn't to say that the system must stay identical to every other game in the franchise; it can be optimized over time without changing its core structure.

Both games had specific designs that fit the decor being aimed for. The decor is kept by every single element, big and small, that adds to the overall sum of the game. The isometric system effects the environment. The environment effects the attack system. The attack system is influenced by the weapons. The specific weapons are consequent of the atmosphere trying to be captured by the game. The perfecting of atmosphere is crucial for the sense of immersion. In the case of Fallout, the sense of immersion is retained by giving a bird's eye view of the entire post apocolyptic civilizations. And all of these things revolve around SPECIAL. All of these elements work together to make the overall game.

This just isn't Fallout. They know it and we know it but they're trying to deny it all the same. Trying to pull the "afraid of change" card out of your butt isn't going to reverse the fact that everything about Fallout has been taken out of the franchise in this game. It would be far more appropriate to simply rename it and call, "Bethesda's post-apocolyptic world idea."

To quote myself:
Try to imagine making Chess into an FPS. You can do it, but will you still be able to call it Chess?

Unique individuality is a franchise's entire claim to quality. Fallout loses its unique individuality when its premise and history (such as it is after Beth put is through the wringer) are forced into an alien genre. Thus it loses that quality.

Avatar image for Zeliard9
Zeliard9

6030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#219 Zeliard9
Member since 2007 • 6030 Posts

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#220 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

Zeliard9

Did you just compare Bethesda to Treyarch. *walks out of house to get some air*

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#221 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

Zeliard9

Or better yet.. old school rainbow six raven shield and R6vegas. Took out all the fun, tactical stuff from the game that made it great :( and just made it to an arcadey shooter. Man another one that was on my disappointment list. :X

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#222 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

jangojay

Or better yet.. old school rainbow six raven shield and R6vegas. Took out all the fun, tactical stuff from the game that made it great :( and just made it to an arcadey shooter. Man another one that was on my disappointment list. :X

Except Rainbow Six was always a mediocre franchise.

Avatar image for Zeliard9
Zeliard9

6030

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#223 Zeliard9
Member since 2007 • 6030 Posts
[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

BioShockOwnz

Did you just compare Bethesda to Treyarch. *walks out of house to get some air*

It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. You completely missed the point.

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#224 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

Zeliard9

Did you just compare Bethesda to Treyarch. *walks out of house to get some air*

It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. You completely missed the point.

Well, Treyarch or Infinity Ward, either way, I couldn't care less. COD4, COD5, COD6, COD150. No thank you. :)

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#225 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts
[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

BioShockOwnz

Or better yet.. old school rainbow six raven shield and R6vegas. Took out all the fun, tactical stuff from the game that made it great :( and just made it to an arcadey shooter. Man another one that was on my disappointment list. :X

Except Rainbow Six was always a mediocre franchise.

NO!! Just no!!

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#226 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

jangojay

Or better yet.. old school rainbow six raven shield and R6vegas. Took out all the fun, tactical stuff from the game that made it great :( and just made it to an arcadey shooter. Man another one that was on my disappointment list. :X

Except Rainbow Six was always a mediocre franchise.

NO!! Just no!!

YES!! Just yes!! It's true. :)

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#227 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts

YES!! Just yes!! It's true. :)

BioShockOwnz

The game has never gone under AA on PC, I don't see how that's mediocre..

Avatar image for Memoryitis
Memoryitis

2221

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 0

#228 Memoryitis
Member since 2006 • 2221 Posts
[QUOTE="Zeliard9"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

BioShockOwnz

Did you just compare Bethesda to Treyarch. *walks out of house to get some air*

It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. You completely missed the point.

Well, Treyarch or Infinity Ward, either way, I couldn't care less. COD4, COD5, COD6, COD150. No thank you. :)

I actually thought about the same analogy as you did but decided not to use it in my arguments

Avatar image for skrat_01
skrat_01

33767

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#229 skrat_01
Member since 2007 • 33767 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Maybe an analogy will help. This is basically the same thing as Treyarch making Call of Duty games, which many people (from the large CoD fanbase) complain about since they're not nearly the same quality as Infinity Ward's Call of Duty games.

Rumor has it Treyarch is making Call of Duty 5. This was complained about by many when the rumor started spreading, understandably, especially after how good CoD4 was. It was like, "why the hell do they keep calling it Call of Duty?" And just like those Treyarch variants may be decent games on their own, they shouldn't be tagged with the Call of Duty name.

This is pretty much the same thing as that. Fallout 3 could be a good game, but it's not a real Fallout game in its design and it's made by a completely different company, so it shouldn't be called Fallout 3.

Zeliard9

Did you just compare Bethesda to Treyarch. *walks out of house to get some air*

It's an analogy, not a direct comparison. You completely missed the point.

No just no,

You simply have poor taste for a once innovative series

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#230 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

YES!! Just yes!! It's true. :)

jangojay

The game has never gone under AA on PC, I don't see how that's mediocre..

Gladly, at the end of the day, scores do not change how I feel. In System Wars they may matter, but when it's time to take a step out onto the grass and smell the cold brisk air, scores (others opinions) really mean squat to me.

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#231 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts
[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

YES!! Just yes!! It's true. :)

BioShockOwnz

The game has never gone under AA on PC, I don't see how that's mediocre..

Gladly, at the end of the day, scores do not change how I feel. In System Wars they may matter, but when it's time to take a step out onto the grass and smell the cold brisk air, scores (others opinions) really mean squat to me.

Then don't say it's mediocre like that's a fact :X

Avatar image for BioShockOwnz
BioShockOwnz

52901

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#232 BioShockOwnz
Member since 2006 • 52901 Posts
[QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

YES!! Just yes!! It's true. :)

jangojay

The game has never gone under AA on PC, I don't see how that's mediocre..

Gladly, at the end of the day, scores do not change how I feel. In System Wars they may matter, but when it's time to take a step out onto the grass and smell the cold brisk air, scores (others opinions) really mean squat to me.

Then don't say it's mediocre like that's a fact :X

Scores =/= facts, either.

Avatar image for jangojay
jangojay

4044

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#233 jangojay
Member since 2007 • 4044 Posts
[QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"][QUOTE="jangojay"][QUOTE="BioShockOwnz"]

YES!! Just yes!! It's true. :)

BioShockOwnz

The game has never gone under AA on PC, I don't see how that's mediocre..

Gladly, at the end of the day, scores do not change how I feel. In System Wars they may matter, but when it's time to take a step out onto the grass and smell the cold brisk air, scores (others opinions) really mean squat to me.

Then don't say it's mediocre like that's a fact :X

Scores =/= facts, either.

Well I assumed that is what you were basing your statement on.

Avatar image for NAPK1NS
NAPK1NS

14870

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#234 NAPK1NS
Member since 2004 • 14870 Posts
Yeah, so I went back and played Fallout II a few days ago. I am glad that they are switching up the game mechanics a little bit. The series feels a little bit dated at this point.
Avatar image for adders99
adders99

2623

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#235 adders99
Member since 2005 • 2623 Posts
[QUOTE="cobrax75"][QUOTE="MentatAssassin"][QUOTE="DragonfireXZ95"]

Oblivion anyone?

NAPK1NS

Yes, and we should all be grateful.

unless you have actually played a fallout game before.

Guys, the series has to move somewhere. It cant be stuck in 1990 limbo forever.

Amen Brother!

Avatar image for gingerdivid
gingerdivid

7206

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 0

#236 gingerdivid
Member since 2006 • 7206 Posts

Despite that fact the Oblivion was quite a departure from Morrowind, I enjoyed the game. After the initial disappointment, I judged the game on it's own merits, it was a fun adventure.

I wont play Fallout 3 under the jaded Fallout fans mindset, I'll be open to enjoyment, I wont analyse every nuance of gameplay and compare it to the originals.

So, I guess I'm pretty hyped, not exactly a day one purchase, but a purchase none-the-less.