-
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.
Fallout 4 Pre-Announcement Bullshit Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]
- Thread starter Syril
- Start date
Xor
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 9,345
Hey, bro, I don't think FNV is the greatest game ever, but I would say it's good enough to merit its own existence. And it also gave popamolers a sample of good RPG quest design and writing, which might in turn pressure Bethesda to do better with their future games.
Okay.
Setting, story, dialogue, characters, volume of content, humour, factions, locations...
How do you feel it compares to the first 2 Fallout games?
Some people object to the second one being compared to the first, which I think is a bit harsh.
As I explained to tards on the Bethesda Forums, I can close my eyes and see the bulk of the game on the infinity engine. The dialogue is short and sweet, the locations are interesting enough to remain interesting and attractive in 2D... I think New Vegas could be recreated on the infinity engine and be considered a worthy successor.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,528
Narratively it does rather well - not on par with Fallout, but doing well around Fallout 2. Gameplaydesign wise, incomparable for obvious reasons - the game had all the potential of being fucking awesome, but what can you do with that bethesdian frankenshooter design.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,528
Yep, that's me.
Coincidence. The time I mentioned that I was dictating to tards, I was dictating to you.
You thought I was ripping into New Vegas, but I was defending it.
You thought I was ripping into New Vegas, but I was defending it.
I think I'm so forgiving of Fallout 2, despite it being inferior in many ways (subjectively), was that I had them on that Fallout trilogy thingy that Bethesda got upset about. I played fallout 2 right after fallout 1 without pause, and it felt like the second chapter to me.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,528
I probably misunderstood you, it happens; but then, my opinion of the game has also shifted quite a bit from what it initially was.
Eyeball
Arcane
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2010
- Messages
- 2,541
Yes. I'd 1DP that bitch. Bethesda is no longer in the business of making GOOD games, but they certainly do know how to make enjoyable ones.
Clockwork Knight
Arcane
Why? It's an amazing game. The fact you need to preemptively apologize for liking it shows what a parody the Fallout fanbase is
I remember a certain... joy while playing 1 that was absent during 2. The Hub, Shady Sands, Junktown, Necropolis, they didn't have an equivalent in Fallout 2.
The misunderstanding was most likely my fault. My written english is awful, and it's my native language.
Onholyservicebound
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
Warning!:
This post is not a one liner! Avert your eyes from this wall of text!
In story I think it blow Fallout 2 out of the water, doesn't top Fallout however, but how can you compete with the master?
When it comes to the narrative I prefer the branching style, even if I played it only once and never explored the others, I'd still prefer it. Because it's more satisfying finishing a story when you know you're not only fighting the bad guy because you have to. I think this is reflected by how passionate people get when it comes to this kind of narrative, people rarely get into heated arguments about the merits of the super-mutants of the enclave , even if they do have them. Even Skyrim with it's shallow civil war engages people by letting them choose whose politics to get behind.
When it comes to combat the originals are generally better, there are some exceptions ..like defending the cattle mission... Although New Vegas can be more fun, because of the diverse variety of weapons and playstyles, in Fallout there's a very linear progression in combat, in NV I wanted to try every different weapon and build combination, and I have done most, and they are almost all fun in different ways.
On SPECIAL Fallout 2 did it best. Fallout: New Vegas did it good, it wasn't as unbalanced, but at the same time it lacked in serious impact like the first two.
Perks were better in NV, more numerous and unlike the first games, most of them actually even worked. Skills follow pretty much the same, they were better in New Vegas, and actually useful, There were about 3 useful skills in the first games and pretty much everyone knows it.
Scale and length is better in Vegas, because of the DLCs, and unlike a lot of the games the DLC actually feel like part of the world, and not some one off bullshit. They differ in style, but the themes are generally the same and the characters all tie into each other and the main story.
There were great characters in all of the games, but in Vegas there were more of them, and the best ones were just as memorable and some more so.(Caesar, House, etc.)
All in all I think it compares pretty well to Fallout, it's improved and expanded in a lot of aspects, a hell of a lot more balanced. Some things were done better in the old games, most of which are related to the shitty engine Vegas was on, as well as the game itself being a bit more forgiving in terms of build consequences. With the Sawyer.esp I think the game is on par with Fallout 1, better in some ways. Lastly, Here are some cool sounding buzzwords: C&C!! Player agency!! Depth!! Balance!! PRODUCTION VALUES!!!
Onholyservicebound
Arcane
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2013
- Messages
- 1,567
OT: The signatures on this page make it look like a discussion between a bunch of insufferable elitists, almost all of them mention idiots, fools, or ignorance in some way...
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,528
Silence, you ignorant fool!
I usually struggle to finish games those days but played FNV 7-times and all its DLCs; so it was GOOD despite being done on crappy and buggy 3D engine; as F4 goes? If it will be Skyrim with guns will demo despite or maybe thanks to possessing low expectations. Played F3 up to the point Herpton could be nuked 
and derp quited after stumbling onto Giant Ants! quest; played F2 countless times, finished F01 and FT too. Best of them? Hard to say but F02 was close to my ideal game: Branching, sand box with decent Story and many instances of C&C and possible play-styles.
and derp quited after stumbling onto Giant Ants! quest; played F2 countless times, finished F01 and FT too. Best of them? Hard to say but F02 was close to my ideal game: Branching, sand box with decent Story and many instances of C&C and possible play-styles.
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2010
- Messages
- 3,528
I'll have you know, sir, that my ignorance is of the purest form and is supercharged to such lengths, that the circle completes and the meaning of the word collapses becoming it's own antonym: wisdom.
Yeah, all that light green in Oblivion sure was purrdy. Or how about some run-of-the-mill Ashan-worthy fire and brimstone Oblivion-environs?
Bound by reflexive fear of becoming too negative and therefore unfit for society, the common mind exhibits resistance to the evidence of Bethesda sucking at absolutely everything.
Zboj Lamignat
Arcane
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2012
- Messages
- 5,886
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.