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

[WhiteGuts]

Oh boy, here we fucking go.

 

[Surf Solar]

snip

Don't be that guy, you sound like a butthurt fanboy. I play the game occasionally and it can be fun, but most of what he said is true.

 

[Curious_Tongue]

New Vegas was Fallout 3 with slightly less shitty writing.

I thought the writing was great.

Dialogue was natural, characters were three dimensional and locations and communities were interesting.

 

[abnaxus]

Just a little more, bros. Let's get another popamole thread to 100 pages.

 

[shihonage]

I thought the writing was great.

Dialogue was natural, characters were three dimensional and locations and communities were interesting.

 

[Akratus]

snip

Don't be that guy, you sound like a butthurt fanboy. I play the game occasionally and it can be fun, but most of what he said is true.

I replied only because I thought he was mostly wrong and was using faulty logic. I'm not that big of a fan of new vegas, though I do like the game.

 

[Cleveland Mark Blakemore]

New Vegas was worth every penny. It was flawed but very enjoyable, almost like a whole new game for the most part.

Another couple of months of testing and bug fixing and it would have blown the original away. Somebody rushed it through Q&A to get it out.

The Big M.T. was brilliant stuff for lovers of pulp science fiction from the 50's.

 

[Farage]

Find it amazing how some of you can bash the Fallout series and then worship Frog Fractions

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

snip

Don't be that guy, you sound like a butthurt fanboy. I play the game occasionally and it can be fun, but most of what he said is true.

I replied only because I thought he was mostly wrong and was using fauly logic. I'm not that big of a fan of new vegas, though I do like the game.

Do you like F3?

 

[Akratus]

Not even in the slightest.

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

And that's the main problem when trying to discuss FNV with its fans, they readily admit to suffering from serious mental issues like split personality just to have the faintest shade of a point.

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Akratus already sort of did this but I'm not above

Moreover, most of what you do has little impact on the rest of the quests/storyline -- you can kill Caesar and nothing changes.

Bullshit, the game is extremely reactive to loads of the things you do, characters react, questlines react, essentially you're just butthurt that the legion didn't automatically die with Caesar like NPCs on the opposing side claimed it would. Let me spell it out for you, THEY WERE WRONG. Anyway, killing Caesar has effects on companions, and lots of dialogue. But that's just one instant, there are loads of other examples of your actions effecting the quest/storyline, you can have absolute control over the questline if you so choose. It will affect both the ending and the final battle heavily.

As far as 'builds' go, any sense of balance or mutually exclusive character strengths/weaknesses vanishes around level 12-15 and you barely have to play half the content in the main game to reach that.

Nah, you have your trait loadout, as well STATS play a bigger role than they did in 3. Besides that, lvl 1 -15 will only net you 75 hp and 7 perks, out of the 88(100 w/ DLC) available. Unless you're arguing that you can beat everything at that level, which is pretty laughable.

Yes, they created a mod to increase difficulty but you have to have all of the DLC (including the shitty weapon packs wtf) in order for it to work.

That's for the good of the player more than anything, it increases the variety of viable perks and weapons and adds them to leveled lists, as well as merges weapons from the weapon pack to be able to use all mods in the base game and not have pointless doubles. It's a great mod, and it's worth the 10 extra bucks, lastly, the DLC are all worth it themselves. Dead Money being my favourite. They aren't comparable to locations, as their tone and setting are unique to them, so your dislike for the mojave doesn't even factor in there, as well they lend insight onto the main quest and provide even MOAR CHALLENGE. Your builds are also much more relevant in the DLCs, because of increased difficulty as well as the more limited resources.

Anyway, you're missing out, my recommendation? Shell out the 20, get the jsawyer patch, play the game, it's good. Although it's good even without all the DLC.

 

[Baron Dupek]

I thought the writing was great.
Dialogue was natural, characters were three dimensional and locations and communities were interesting.

I know some autis/aspie who think that the wooden writing and dialogs in F3 are atrocious.
Dunno, maybe beth overspiced game with "its less serious lololol" but in both humour and serious moment sucked. It was annoying even if you don't bother about writing sphere at all, threating as dungeon explorer or not.

And if you think that the writing in F3 is good then move your ass to the toilet, grab any detergent and read his back. Then you may try something more difficult like connecting dot or whatever.

 

[Akratus]

And that's the main problem when trying to discuss FNV with its fans, they readily admit to suffering from serious mental issues like split personality just to have the faintest shade of a point.

Two edits, and ten minutes of thinking later and I still can't properly respond to this level of edgy retardation.

 

[Broseph]

There is a world of difference between New Vegas and Fallout 3. With Bethesda-style hiking simulators, there's a way to get it right and a way to get it wrong. Of course, people who don't like them at all won't get anything out of New Vegas, it's certainly not the second coming of Fallout 1 or 2.

 

[DragoFireheart]

There is a world of difference between New Vegas and Fallout 3. With Bethesda-style hiking simulators, there's a way to get it right and a way to get it wrong. Of course, people who don't like them at all won't get anything out of New Vegas, it's certainly not the second coming of Fallout 1 or 2.

You're right.

New Vegas is vastly superior to the previous two games.

 

[Farage]

There is a world of difference between New Vegas and Fallout 3. With Bethesda-style hiking simulators, there's a way to get it right and a way to get it wrong. Of course, people who don't like them at all won't get anything out of New Vegas, it's certainly not the second coming of Fallout 1 or 2.

I don't get this, i played all Fallout games and i felt no diference between Fallout 3 and NV.
Mind ponting out a single diference when it comes to gameplay or mechanics?

 

[Zboj Lamignat]

Two edits, and ten minutes of thinking later and I still can't properly respond to this level of edgy retardation.

Apparently you don't know what "edgy" means, but you could spend these 10 minutes just honestly and openly admitting that you like to play a shit game from time to time (or more often, I don't know and I don't give a damn). No one will hate you for that, I promise.

There is a world of difference between New Vegas and Fallout 3.

World of difference There's barely any and when there is, it does not impact the gameplay itself, which is basically 100% the same.

 

[Broseph]

It's like you didn't even play it.

 

[Farage]

Fallout 3, New Vegas and Skyrim are the same game, just with diferent weapons and storyline.
Almost like a barbie doll on which bethesda consistently change its clothes and sell it again.

 

[sea]

The JE Sawyer mod requires the DLC because of technical issues related to its implementation and the fact that Sawyer just did not have the time to go and make multiple versions of it for every single combination of vanilla + DLCs. I'm not sure if it's worth the price of the DLC just for it alone, but it's worth trying if you do have all the DLCs. Acting like it's some sort of conspiracy to make people buy DLC is... yeah.

Also arguing that New Vegas "isn't reactive enough" is patently ridiculous and marks you as an insane person. New Vegas may quantifiably be the most reactive story-based RPG ever made, short of Age of Decadence perhaps (though AoD is basically "all" story).

New Vegas was worth every penny. It was flawed but very enjoyable, almost like a whole new game for the most part.

Another couple of months of testing and bug fixing and it would have blown the original away. Somebody rushed it through Q&A to get it out.

To be fair after, the official patches, New Vegas is now a very stable and mostly bug-free game. It was super rough at launch but Obsidian got things fixed up pretty quick all things considered.

 

[Akratus]

Two edits, and ten minutes of thinking later and I still can't properly respond to this level of edgy retardation.

Apparently you don't know what "edgy" means, but you could spend these 10 minutes just honestly and openly admitting that you like to play a shit game from time to time (or more often, I don't know and I don't give a damn). No one will hate you for that, I promise.

There is a world of difference between New Vegas and Fallout 3.

World of difference There's barely any and when there is, it does not impact the gameplay itself, which is basically 100% the same.

Apparantly you can't see the difference in two games beyond basic gameplay elements.

 

[Farage]

Apparantly i can't see the difference in two games beyond basic storyline events.

fixed

 

[Onholyservicebound]

Mind ponting out a single diference when it comes to gameplay or mechanics?

DT system?
I'd list more but you only asked for one.

 

[Farage]

Mind ponting out a single diference when it comes to gameplay or mechanics?

DT system?
I'd list more but you only asked for one.

Thats just a flavour.
Its like saying that Angry Birds in Space is completely largely by a distance of two galaxies diferent than Angry Birds Vanilla because space.
I totally get that some people prefer NV over F3 or Skyrim cause of the storyline. But the gameplay/mechanics core is basicly the same.