Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Review TNO fellates Fallout: New Vegas

Achilles

Arcane
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
3,425
@Darth Roxor: Not everyone wants to read a review that reveals much of the game's content. You seem to want a lot of spoiler-related stuff which, although cool for someone who's already played the game, is completely wrong for anyone who hasn't. If you fill your review with examples, you reveal some of the game's best moments and/or crucial plot points. In my opinion, this is not the way to write a review.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Relay said:
Admiral jimbob said:
None of the games you reference with this stupid self-meme ever achieved the level of praise from "respected" Codexers (VD, Elwro, Jasede etc) that F:NV has,

Well VD hailed DA as the second coming of christ since Arcanum. So much for some respected l33t codexer, ultimately he doesn't care for anything but irrelevant, cosmetic C&C which is what made him praise DA so much.
VD likes C&C a lot. More news at 11.

For the record though, my DA review was fairly critical and far from glowing. I explained in details what I liked and what I didn't like, letting the reader draw his own conclusions.

I consider most C&C irrelevant because you don't get to feel the impact of your "choices" except in the very ending slides.
Didn't we already have that conversation?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 03#1418103

Relay: "You seem to be a guy who mostly enjoys RPGs for the ending slides it brings. It's non-linear, yes, but the C&C doesn't matter that much in the game..."

VD: "The most important aspect in RPGs for me is not the ending slides but the ability to make my own choices as I progress through the game/story."

Shannow said:
In addition to what Relay said about VD (and in that I agree with him):
VD was more or less thrown out. Has posted less and less on the codex. Has gone fully 2010 recently.
Why the butthurt?

I stepped down (due to the disagreement about forum moderation and retard handling). I doubt I would be writing articles for the Codex and hanging around if I was thrown out.

Gone 2010 recently? Because I praised New Vegas and you thought it sucked?

Silellak said:
Relay said:
People who praise NV as a good Fallout game don't remember what made Fallout great.
MetalCraze said:
The major focus of Fallout was on SPECIAL and all kinds of stuff you can do with those skills in quests and not only. That's why it was loved.
ITT: People tell other people why they liked Fallout.

"No, you didn't enjoy Fallout for the setting, atmosphere, and quest design! You enjoyed Fallout for the character system and turn-based combat!"
http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39174

"Poll time! Why do you like Fallout so much?

Setting & Atmosphere - I dig anything post-apocalyptic - 37%
Story - Yes, I do play RPGs for the story and I read Playboy for them articles - 8%
Combat - It had me from the first time I unloaded a full clip into a raider - 13%
Multiple Solutions - That's what role-playing is all about for me - 40% "
 

Darth Roxor

Royal Dongsmith
Staff Member
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
1,878,479
Location
Djibouti
Alexandros said:
@Darth Roxor: Not everyone wants to read a review that reveals much of the game's content. You seem to want a lot of spoiler-related stuff which, although cool for someone who's already played the game, is completely wrong for anyone who hasn't. If you fill your review with examples, you reveal some of the game's best moments and/or crucial plot points. In my opinion, this is not the way to write a review.

A couple of things:

1. That's why you'd do best to present things without spoiling too much. Show me a quest. Tell me how many possible outcomes and ways to achieve it there are. But at the same time, don't tell me EVERYTHING how to access those different ways and get different outcomes.
2. If the presented game is supposed to be FULL of great quest design, spoiling a single great quest a little won't do much harm.
3. If I want to read stuff like 'Stuffx is awesome! Stuffy is even more awesome! And stuffz? It's like, awesome multiplied by five!' I'm gonna go to some random forum and read a thread called 'New Vegas impressions'. When I read a prestigious review, I want specifics. This is not Gamespot, where reviewers play a game for 2 hours and then have nothing to present, so they have to go with 'it's awesome, trust us on that'.
 

Crooked Bee

(no longer) a wide-wandering bee
Patron
Joined
Jan 27, 2010
Messages
15,048
Location
In quarantine
Codex 2013 Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire MCA Serpent in the Staglands Dead State Divinity: Original Sin Project: Eternity Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
Silellak said:
In regards to the 'map spanning fetch quests'...am I the only one who saw those and thought "I'll get to them when I'm in the area"?

Nope, you're not alone in this.

I didn't particularly like "Return to Sender", but I thought it was unobtrusive enough. And it leads to a nice dialogue/confrontation with Chief Hanlon, to boot.
 

racofer

Thread Incliner
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
25,608
Location
Your ignore list.
2py98aq.gif
 

Needles

Scholar
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
118
2003, but still relevant:

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?p=7052

Section8 said:
I read the name and thought "Hey, this slur just writes itself!" Kind of like a Bioware "plot."
The key word here is emergence - GreenNight pointed out the difference between Troika's "worlds" and Bio's "story", and this is the core issue. Bioware's designers seem to think that an RPG is a choose-your-own-adventure book (but even those have much less than exponential branching growth) with some combat in between. Companies like Troika and Ion Storm, who are actually advancing gameplay and making good games, are taking advantage of the PC as a simulation medium.
Excellent point. If there's one uber design philosophy that should be held in higher regard over others it is "Create a game world, not a game" Designers with a programming background seem to "get" this. A game should be structured like a program. If all interactions are considered as functions, that's a good starting point. The player is essentially spending their time in the "main program loop", and can call an interaction at will, and every time that interaction is called it behaves in a manner consistent with any other calls to said interaction. It's a hell of a lot better than writing massive chunks of nested if statements for everything possible interaction. That accounts for a great deal of the reasons behind why I can't stand BG, and think Deus Ex isn't nearly as good as it's cracked up to be. Reliance on explicit scripting. General cases and consistent game world rules are far superior.

So yay FO:NV
 

Morkar Left

Guest
Relay said:
Morkar said:
Hey skyway, why don't you just play NV before bitching? It would show you how laughable your arguments are and you could come up with some valid and reasonable criticism to backup your bitching fun.

First I'm not skyway, second I did a full playthrough or I wouldn't know about stupid quests like Return to Sender and how shitty Obsidian is for thinking that it's a good idea to spread a fetch quest all over the map for an hour of walking then making you fast travel back three times to the places you've just visited, then make you..
I have nothing against short, straight to the point, filler fetch quests usually but you are totally doing it wrong if you think I'm not gonna bitch about something that takes an hour of walking across a desert stupid wasteland with three radscorpions and two rats to kill. You and all the people who approve this piece of shit of a non-game are nothing more but a massive concentrated pack of human diarrhea. You stink and your place is not in front of a computer but thrown at a landfill. You're not even worth the gulag.
Ok, then Skyway-Relay if I hurt your feelings.
Return to Sender is obviously a longtermquest that you do while doing other quests. But this was already mentioned.

Skyway-Relay said:
You and all the people who approve this piece of shit of a non-game are nothing more but a massive concentrated pack of human diarrhea. You stink and your place is not in front of a computer but thrown at a landfill. You're not even worth the gulag.
Ok, I hurt your feelings...

Skyway-Relay said:
second I did a full playthrough

Because you like shit...
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Why is it a bad argument?

Why would someone finish a game if it's shit? Nothing better to do? Compulsive-obsessive disorder? No, seriously? The moment you realize that game X is shit, you lose interest and stop playing. No?
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
Vault Dweller said:
Why would someone finish a game if it's shit?

Well I did stop playing Toilet Age but I keep playing KotOR2 until I beaten it ... then again my ability to keep playing KotOR2 was rage-driven.
 

Admiral jimbob

gay as all hell
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
9,225
Location
truck stops and toilet stalls
Wasteland 2
This is not a hobby based on enjoyment. This is a hobby based on having something to impotently bitch about, while elevating yourself on a pedestal as a prestigious gentleman of taste without having to get off your ass and improve yourself to do so. Get with the times, grandpa.

That said, I'm kind of obsessive-compulsive about leaving things unfinished myself, I'll finish most games I put more than an hour into whether I'm enjoying them or not. So now I don't bother starting them if I don't think I'll like them.
 

Xor

Arcane
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
9,345
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Wasteland 2 Divinity: Original Sin 2
Vault Dweller said:
Why is it a bad argument?

Why would someone finish a game if it's shit? Nothing better to do? Compulsive-obsessive disorder? No, seriously? The moment you realize that game X is shit, you lose interest and stop playing. No?

It really depends on how shit a game is. For example, I played through the entire main quest in Oblivion because it took me a while to figure out how terrible the game really was. The level scaling didn't become apparent right away, the plot was obviously retarded but I kept expecting it to go somewhere, and I kept expecting the side quests to get better as I went along. It was only after I beat the game that I looked back and realized how utterly boring the experience had been.

There have been other games that I've been unable to play for very long simply because I found them boring from the beginning. Morrowind, for example. Never played that one for more than a few hours.
 

Relay

Educated
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
444
Vault Dweller said:
For the record though, my DA review was fairly critical and far from glowing. I explained in details what I liked and what I didn't like, letting the reader draw his own conclusions.

Calling DA best RPG since Arcanum isn't glowing ?

Didn't we already have that conversation?

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic ... 03#1418103

Relay: "You seem to be a guy who mostly enjoys RPGs for the ending slides it brings. It's non-linear, yes, but the C&C doesn't matter that much in the game..."

VD: "The most important aspect in RPGs for me is not the ending slides but the ability to make my own choices as I progress through the game/story."

Yes we had it but I wasn't talking to you but someone else who brought your name up in the conversation.
Still, those choices seem rather superficial and limited for something that you bring as a main point in a game. Taking the werewolves or the elves side in DA is not gameplay impacting in that you won't get specific questlines opened up once you slaughter the other side, you won't get any kind of IN GAME consequence except at the very end when you have to call the useless armies, and, like I said, in the ending slides. Same thing for Vegas, you can do all of the NCR quests AND when you hit the part with the platinum chip you can side with House or the Legion. If that's the extent of the powers of C&C then I can't consider this a feature, just lipstick put on a pig, if the game sucks, or the cherry on the cake, if the game rocks. But the cake will always be good whether you put a cherry on top or not, and a pig will always be a pig even with lipstick.

http://www.rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=39174

"Poll time! Why do you like Fallout so much?

Setting & Atmosphere - I dig anything post-apocalyptic - 37%
Story - Yes, I do play RPGs for the story and I read Playboy for them articles - 8%
Combat - It had me from the first time I unloaded a full clip into a raider - 13%
Multiple Solutions - That's what role-playing is all about for me - 40% "

The poll unfortunately doesn't make the difference between vanilla multiple solutions and C&C. You have "multiple solutions" in games like Oblivion but no C&C.
I do enjoy multiple solutions, having the ability to use stealth, combat or diplomacy to get shit done. I don't care for the C&C bit, and I couldn't care less that I get to see the consequences to my choices in teh ending slides.
 

Shannow

Waster of Time
Joined
Sep 15, 2006
Messages
6,386
Location
Finnegan's Wake
Vault Dweller said:
Why is it a bad argument?

Why would someone finish a game if it's shit? Nothing better to do? Compulsive-obsessive disorder? No, seriously? The moment you realize that game X is shit, you lose interest and stop playing. No?
Then Morkar comes and tells you you haven't played it enough and it gets better later on or he tells you you haven't played it enough to judge it.
We've seen it all before.
Seriously VD, don't you have anything productive to do instead of asking questions you already know the answer to? How's AoD coming along?
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,800
Sunk costs are sunk costs, investing time into something you dislike just so you can argue about it on a forum is weird. Oh yeah and Relay's already been outted as a flip-flopper. "I did a large part of the main quests and ton of the sidequests (most of the NCR) and none broke for me. The only thing I could complain about in the game, and it's the same for anything Bethesda-related, is that too much portion of the time you spend is done on walking...New Vegas is a great game that redeemed Obsidian a bit for me."
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Relay said:
Calling DA best RPG since Arcanum isn't glowing ?
Arcanum was the last non-action RPG and probably the last isometric RPG, not counting the Spiderweb games, so...

Still, those choices seem rather superficial and limited for something that you bring as a main point in a game. Taking the werewolves or the elves side in DA is not gameplay impacting in that you won't get specific questlines opened up once...
First, how many games actually do that? One? Two maybe? Why are we suddenly applying the highest possible standards to Dragon Age?

Second, as I've tried to explain - unsuccessfully obviously - that it's about choices not endgame slides. It's about being able to decide what to do.

Bad design - werewolves are killing the elves, go kill the werewolves.

Good design - werewolves are killing the elves, go kill the werewolves, turns out that werewolves were created by the elven curse, you can reverse it if you want.

Very good design - werewolves are killing the elves, go kill the werewolves, turns out that werewolves were created by the elven curse, you can reverse it if you want; alternatively, you can decide that werewolves would make better allies and convince them to wipe out the elves.

This is DA's strongest aspect, but the filler combat makes the game less enjoyable and less replayable, which I noted in my review.
 

Morkar Left

Guest
Shannow said:
Vault Dweller said:
Why is it a bad argument?

Why would someone finish a game if it's shit? Nothing better to do? Compulsive-obsessive disorder? No, seriously? The moment you realize that game X is shit, you lose interest and stop playing. No?
Then Morkar comes and tells you you haven't played it enough and it gets better later on or he tells you you haven't played it enough to judge it.
We've seen it all before.
Seriously VD, don't you have anything productive to do instead of asking questions you already know the answer to? How's AoD coming along?

No, I haven't a problem with him criticizing the game. Don't fall into a meme-trap. NV has flaws as many as Arcanum has. There is plenty of material for him to argue about, loot, hp and damagesystem for starters. But his complaints are just nonsense.

And seriously, it takes you at least 40 hours to play through the game for the first time. That's a whole week of regular work for something that is a "piece of shit of a non-game".
Why invest basically a whole holiday week for something you don't enjoy and don't get payed or loved for? I skipped Oblivion after 5 hours and never finished it. I gave it another go with a shit lot of mods years later and it was playable but never finished it. I just can't understand such behavior.
 

VentilatorOfDoom

Administrator
Staff Member
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
8,600
Location
Deutschland
Arcanum was the last non-action RPG and probably the last isometric RPG, not counting the Spiderweb games, so...
your defintion of RPG seems pretty narrow, considering ToEE, KotC, NWN2 etc
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Could have been phrased better, I agree.

ToEE and KotC are dungeon crawlers. NWN2 was shit.

Edit:

Shannow said:
Vault Dweller said:
Why is it a bad argument?

Why would someone finish a game if it's shit? Nothing better to do? Compulsive-obsessive disorder? No, seriously? The moment you realize that game X is shit, you lose interest and stop playing. No?
Then Morkar comes and tells you you haven't played it enough and it gets better later on or he tells you you haven't played it enough to judge it.
So? Just because someone might say something means the argument is bad?

If you played for a few hours and gave up, and then someone tells you that the game gets better, you listen to the arguments and decide if it's worth reinstalling/playing more. If someone tells you you haven't played enough to judge, you present your arguments based on what you've seen so far and let other people punch holes in them, if they can.
 

Drakron

Arcane
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
6,326
Vault Dweller said:
Relay said:
Calling DA best RPG since Arcanum isn't glowing ?
Arcanum was the last non-action RPG and probably the last isometric RPG, not counting the Spiderweb games, so...

If we ignore all the jRPGs ... and Temple of Elemental Evil.

Well it IS a glowing review, especially here were Arcanum have a mystic reputation (that I just dont get, the game is borked) as I understand why Toilet Age looks good on paper but its piece of crap because of poor implementation when said implementation was actually done instead of being placeholders or half-assed.

At best Toilet Age is bland, even Jade Empire is better was combat, despite being broken, its not a pain in the ass and visuals are not bland "13th century Europe" and Jade Empire is a mediocre game at best.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,024
Drakron said:
Well it IS a glowing review, especially here were Arcanum have a mystic reputation (that I just dont get, the game is borked) as I understand why Toilet Age looks good on paper but its piece of crap because of poor implementation when said implementation was actually done instead of being placeholders or half-assed.
I've never ever, not once, said "as good as Arcanum". There is a huge and obvious difference between "best since" and "as good as".

As for the review, come on, guys, put a few points into reading comprehension next time you level up.

From the review:

"Dragon Age takes place in a very familiar land of humans, dwarves, elves, and blood-thirsty monsters. You'll find knights and mages, undead and ogres, dragons and giant spiders, werewolves and golems. It's a Tolkien-esque world aimed at creating instant recognition, familiarity, and comfort, if you're easily confused by unfamiliar worlds and anything original. The world is threatened by an equally generic Blight, represented by waves of annoying, orc-looking monsters who continue to be up to no good throughout the game, until you're ready to fight an anti-climatic battle, slay the dragon (come on, it's DRAGON age, what did you expect to kill in the end?), and save the world.

The main quest (or it least the background) is less awe-inspiring, unfortunately. A long time ago mages had attempted to rival gods, which corrupted Heaven and created the first darkspawn. The darkspawn lurk underground, rarely rising to the surface, which makes it easy to ignore them as a minor and mindless inconvenience. However, every now and then the darkspawn manage to find and corrupt one of the ancient dragons sleeping underground, at which point the corrupted dragon becomes a general of the darkspawn, uniting them into a horde and leading it to the surface to raid and destroy. Such an event is called the Blight and it plays the same role as the Reapers do in Mass Effect: a horrible threat that doesn't make a whole lot of sense and lurks quietly behind the scene while you're busy convincing people who don't take the threat very seriously to act, in-between taking your time exploring and levelling up."

^ Gives anyone a hard-on? Reminds you of Arcanum and the good, ol' days?

"You get 3 stat points when you level up. Unfortunately, the reasons to invest into more than 1 (rarely 2) stats are missing, while the combat talent requirements give you a very good reason to keep dumping points into your primary stat, which:

* creates bloated stats that no longer make any sense;
* makes stat bonuses pointless (for example, Champion class upgrade for your Warrior gives you +2 to Willpower and +1 to Cunning; in a more balanced system these bonuses would have made sense - if you had 10 points in Str, 5 in Willpower, and 6 in Cunning, upgrading to Champion would have plugged holes in your build and significantly increased secondary stats, but in a system with Str 40, Willpower 10, Cunning 10, increasing Cunning by 1 gives you no benefits whatsoever);
* makes the injury system meaningless as in most cases it gives easy to ignore penalties.

...

I'd say that the decision to fill the game with generic combat was THE worst DA design decision, because it drowns truly memorable fights in an ocean of combat filler and makes replaying the game and making different choices - an undeniable strength of the game - so much harder. When I started playing the game I kept making mental notes about my next character's choices and admiring all the possibilities, but by the time I finished the game the combat price to try different non-combat things was way too much for me.

Unfortunately, the bloated primary stats make most penalties a minor inconvenience at best, and the irrelevant secondary stats make the corresponding penalties easy to ignore. For example, a warrior with a head trauma (willpower penalty), a cracked skull (cunning penalty), a concussion (magic penalty), and a torn jugular (constitution penalty) will NOT notice these effects at all. A warrior with several attack and damage penalties will be noticeably less effective though, especially against more challenging enemies. To make matters worse, a quick visit to the camp will heal all the injuries instantly."

Glowing review?
 

Sceptic

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
10,872
Divinity: Original Sin
Vault Dweller said:
ToEE and KotC are dungeon crawlers. NWN2 was shit.
Dungeon crawlers are still RPG's (and unless RPG=C&C, both ToEE and KotC have very strong RPG elements, stronger than DAO I'd argue). And NWN2 OC was shit, all expansions were good to great. I know many people don't like SoZ, but there is no question that MotB and MoW are better games than DAO in just about every way.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom