Fallout 4 Pre-Announcement Bullshit Thread [GO TO NEW THREAD]

[Major_Blackhart]

I honestly thought New Vegas was much, much better than FO3.
Why do these people think FO3 is better?

 

[sea]

I honestly thought New Vegas was much, much better than FO3.
Why do these people think FO3 is better?

From my understanding (a difficult gap to bridge when the other party has brain damage), it mostly boils down to:

• Fallout 3 was less buggy at launch, at least on consoles.
• Fallout 3 had a more "emotionally engaging" story because of the stuff with your dad.
• Fallout 3 had more "cool shit" like giant robots, Super Mutant Behemoths, nuke launchers, etc. New Vegas was pedestrian by comparison.
• Fallout 3 has a better sandbox world because there is more worthwhile loot to find while exploring, bigger "miscellaneous" locations and dungeons to discover, and no invisible walls within the world map. New Vegas had a world that was pretty much the same size, maybe even bigger, however, it was less dense and there wasn't as much to do outside of following quests you received in the towns.
• Fallout 3 had more action and violence in quests, New Vegas was more focused on non-combat stuff.
• Fallout 3 was "more epic."
• Fallout 3 had a radio jockey who would report on your game progress, and a better selection of songs on the radio.
• Fallout 3 was a fresher experience, and there had been little else like it that gamers had played at the time of its release. New Vegas was old hat and felt like an expansion pack.

I make no claims as to how valid these are or whether these people are "missing the point." It's just what I've gathered from reading comments. Incidentally, most of these sentiments are shared by console players who have not played the original games before Fallout 3. Incidentally, the complaints also have nothing to do with the RPG mechanics, quest options, quality of writing and world-building, etc.

 

[Excidium]

I honestly thought New Vegas was much, much better than FO3.
Why do these people think FO3 is better?

Because

"WAAH I CANT GO NORTH WITHOUT BEING RAPED BY DEATHCLAWS AND CAZADORS"

"Yeah, the NPCs do tell you the roads north are dangerous so you should go south instead like they recommend, unless you want to risk it"

"WAAH I CANT GO WHEREVER I WANT WHENEVER I WANT WTF I THOUGHT THIS WAS OPEN WORLD"

This is a real conversation

 

[Bony]

because in NV you play as a glorified postman

 

[Major_Blackhart]

It disgusts me how poor their taste is.

 

[grotsnik]

Quite a few of the worst comments I've seen from players who think Fallout 3 was better dwell on the nebulous quality of the game in terms of their personal 'immersed' experience - i.e. lots of vague rhapsodising about how it just felt like more of a post-apocalyptic experience...the moment you stepped out of the vault and saw the landscape for the first time...scavenging in ruins...gut-strewn raider encampments...drinking unclean water...deserts are boring...listen, you can make all the arguments about the actual tangible flaws with the gameplay/quest design/writing that you like, but I just know how I felt when I discovered Oasis for the first time, I was awed; when I saw the robot reciting Tennyson, I sobbed. You know, I think Obsidian are probably better at telling stories, yeah, but Bethesda are just so much better at creating worlds.

That really gets my goat. Not that atmospherics/aesthetics and other suchlikes shouldn't be at least taken into account when you're discussing the qualities of a game, but in Bethesda-style games it always seems to end up utterly overwhelming proper analysis of the nuts-and-bolts in favour of this unquantifiable wishy-washy crap that can't be challenged or debated on its own terms, because it's so completely bound up in the sensational and emotional effect the game had on the speaker personally. I'd almost be willing to bet that if you totted up all of the Skyrim reviews, there'd be more sentences in which the reviewer warbles on at length about admiring the beauty of the night sky or how they spent hours at a time chasing a rabbit through the snow or the thrill they felt at fighting a dragon on a rooftop than sentences about how the game actually works.

 

[General Maxson]

Quite a few of the worst comments I've seen from players who think Fallout 3 was better dwell on the nebulous quality of the game in terms of their personal 'immersed' experience - i.e. lots of vague rhapsodising about how it just felt like more of a post-apocalyptic experience...the moment you stepped out of the vault and saw the landscape for the first time...scavenging in ruins...gut-strewn raider encampments...drinking unclean water...deserts are boring...listen, you can make all the arguments about the actual tangible flaws with the gameplay/quest design/writing that you like, but I just know how I felt when I discovered Oasis for the first time, I was awed; when I saw the robot reciting Tennyson, I sobbed. You know, I think Obsidian are probably better at telling stories, yeah, but Bethesda are just so much better at creating worlds.

That really gets my goat. Not that atmospherics/aesthetics and other suchlikes shouldn't be at least taken into account when you're discussing the qualities of a game, but in Bethesda-style games it always seems to end up utterly overwhelming proper analysis of the nuts-and-bolts in favour of this unquantifiable wishy-washy crap that can't be challenged or debated on its own terms, because it's so completely bound up in the sensational and emotional effect the game had on the speaker personally. I'd almost be willing to bet that if you totted up all of the Skyrim reviews, there'd be more sentences in which the reviewer warbles on at length about admiring the beauty of the night sky or how they spent hours at a time chasing a rabbit through the snow or the thrill they felt at fighting a dragon on a rooftop than sentences about how the game actually works.

You summed it up pretty well.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Fucking morons.

 

[General Maxson]

Fucking morons.

You summed it up pretty well too.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I'm sorry, that's all I can fucking say about it.
It might not be as verbose as I used to post, but fuck, that's all I can really say about some people.
Really, it's like they're just spouting shit off from the reviews themselves. Let's not forget that FO3 was a buggy piece of shit, but the reviewers glossed over that bullshit because they were so in love with the concept (i.e. got bribed like crazy). FONV on the other hand, they criticize for having the same flaws of FO3 that they never pointed out in the original. Why? Check wasn't in the mail most likely. But it's so fucking retarded. It just fucking BLEEDS into the rest of the sub-human race that frequents these boards, but not in the same corrupt way. Rather, it becomes honest belief and that, THAT is true stupidity.
All it comes down to in the end: Fucking Morons.
I pray for a disease to wipe out all of these bullshit gaming journalists who infect the rest of the populace with their stupid. Then for that same plague to be set upon those morons who actually believe these reviewers. Like the virus mutates and goes from targeting corruption to stupid.
I'm sure some codexers would be caught in this plague of madness, but hey fuck it.
If it means Saint_Proverbius returns to us, I'm all for losing more than a few of the dead weight.

 

[tuluse]

if you totted up all of the Skyrim reviews, there'd be more sentences in which the reviewer warbles on at length about admiring the beauty of the night sky or how they spent hours at a time chasing a rabbit through the snow or the thrill they felt at fighting a dragon on a rooftop than sentences about how the game actually works.

I think that's what Bethesda sells too. People's imaginations just run wild and fill the game in with so much stuff that's not even there. So Bethesda has to keep their games empty to a certain degree or all the larpers would actually have their experience decrease as the result of something in the world actually functioning and not letting them fill it themselves.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I thought the complaint in FONV was that the wasteland was actually a wasteland and way too empty for people.

 

[tuluse]

I don't empty as in physically not having stuff around, but as in lack of reactivity and NPCs actually doing things other than waiting around for the player to come talk to them.

And no, having night day schedules where they go to bed at night doesn't count.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

God I sometimes really really hate people.

 

[IronicNeurotic]

There, there. Even if they see it as a disappointment. At least there is nobody considering New Vegas factually worse because of a toplist. That would be just sill....

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=46922209&postcount=485

I expect to hear the usual array of excuses. Obsidian was tricked. They can't catch a break. Its not their fault, pubs screw them over. The industry is rotten. Its because they're so ambitious. They ran out of gas. They had a flat tire. They didn't have enough money for cab fare. Their tux's didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole their car. There was an earthquake. A terrible flood. Locusts! IT WASN'T OBSIDIANS FAULT, I SWEAR TO GOD

Oh fucking damnit

(That entire thread is retarded as hell, by the way)

 

[Excidium]

If you're gonna dig for shit of course you'll find some, what are you doing on neogaf?

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Did NV make more money in sales than FO3?

 

[Stinger]

Yeah, FNV sold more I think but not by much. F03 was something like 4.7 mill at launch while FNV sold 5 mill at launch and both have continued to sell well. FNV would've made more money though since the budget would've been lower.

But I don't think that matters. Bethesda isn't going to suddenly make a proper RPG because of FNV, especially when FNV only sold that well because it had an established base from FO3. At this point they can do whatever the fuck they want and it'll sell millions regardless.

And Bethesda wants to make empty, shallow sandbox titles stripped of RPG elements so that all you do is hike around through a landscape that, at first glance is impressive but then as you explore you realise all the flaws, the emptiness of NPC interactivity and overall bland, excessively repetitive and linear quest design.

But that doesn't matter right cause you can chase rabbits mutants and you see that mountain toxic waste dump? You can climb it!

 

[racofer]

The whole Fallout 3 is better than NV phenomenon can be summarized as: daddy issues.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

I do wonder how much of it is propagated by Bethesda itself.
If you think about it, they might be rather jealous that Obsidian did a much better game than they could.
With less time and money.

 

[Stinger]

I don't think Bethesda can be jealous. You'd need to actually understand what a good RPG is to realise that FNV is a superior RPG compared to FO3. And Bethesda has a fundamentally flawed understanding of RPG design.

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Alright, you make a point there that I shall concede.
Still, I would think that, in their hearts, they would know they're lousy at the RPG part of their games.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

Somehow we nowadays manage to deal with quantum physics, space travel or bioengineering and yet the intelligence of the humankind disperses into oblivion when it comes to enjoying/thinking about our culture in general that makes up for the majority of the actual life.

 

[Lancehead]

Incidentally, the complaints also have nothing to do with the RPG mechanics, quest options, quality of writing and world-building, etc.

I'll give you some:

- Less skill points
- Removal of bobble heads
- Perk every two levels instead of one
- Story ultra-linear
- Legion is nonsense
- All NV did over F3 was add iron sights

 

[Major_Blackhart]

Do you believe that or are you just repeating what they're saying?

Also, I think Enclave is a bit nonsense in FO3, at least in the numbers it was portrayed in.