Clockwork Knight
Arcane
But The Witcher is polish, and as we all know Poland is superior because ççiz cxzkc zxciz xc oz stuvkzainé xcijkà
Maybe not, but it's a significantly better RPG, and certainly a better game. Not every RPG has to have the deepest skill systems, most reactive world ever, or aspire to be Planescape in order to be enjoyable.Metro said:It's no less of an RPG than Witcher.
* Mediocre/poor combat? Check.
* Borderline non-existent itemization/gear progression? Check.
* Shallow character customization? Check.
* Lack of meaningful choice and consequence? Check.
Sceptic said:Actually I'm not even sure I'd consider it to be of the same type. They might be if you play AP as a popamole shooter, but there's no reason to do that.
OSK said:-EXPERIENCE THE THRILL OF KILLING THE OWNER OF AN EXPENSIVE TOWER IN FRONT OF HIS GUARDS WITH NO CONSEQUENCES
sea said:Maybe not, but it's a significantly better RPG, and certainly a better game. Not every RPG has to have the deepest skill systems,most reactive world ever, or aspire to be Planescape in order to be enjoyable.Metro said:It's no less of an RPG than Witcher.
* Mediocre/poor combat? Check.
* Borderline non-existent itemization/gear progression? Check.
* Shallow character customization? Check.
* Lack of meaningful choice and consequence? Check.
I beg to differ.Sceptic said:To be fair your review was slightly schizophrenic. The main body goes into great detail about exactly what's wrong with every aspect of the game, with the only sign of anything good being with the quests...
The main quest is retarded. Searching for your father, i.e. traveling to different locations, is the best part of the main quest because it plays to the game's strength - exploration. Asking if anyone's seen a middle aged guy is beyond retarded, but doesn't affect the exploration, does it?... but even there there's some odd statements, such as when you describe the first half of the MQ as "the best part", yet in the very same sentence you make an allusion to the "middle aged guy" bit
Yes. Even Gothic (!). Gasp.And then the concluding remarks are that it's actually a "good and entertaining action RPG" if you can block out the Fallout bit. Wait what? you've just spent three long pages telling me in in-depth detail why it's in fact neither good nor particularly entertaining! But now it compares favorably with Two Worlds and Assassin's Creed, and Morrowind, and even Gothic (!)
Well, as one who loves RPG's this game is kind of the rub where the real world meets Codex-land. Fallout 3 was a good game (obligatory stop reading here), not a good RPG. People I have spoken with who have no other RPG exposure than consoles, Zelda games, and all that liked Fallout 3. They liked it as a game, and it had a lot of fighting, exploration, stories, and quests in a very unique, well laid out setting. Someone walking in off the street without ever hearing of FO1/FO2 could enjoy FO3. That's how it is. That's reality.Gord said:What I did like:
All in all a nicely done world to explore (and much more believable than Oblivion)
Some very atmospheric locations
Some quests were actually good
This may not be Bethesdas doing, but it still helps: there are a lot of nice mods
But maybe I'm just easily amused.
I actually didn't read much of what Racofer posted, I just assumed it was the review from VD because of my over-developed intuitive skills.Vault Dweller said:1eyedking can't into reading?
Which is pretty much what I attacked a couple of years ago. It sucks as an FPS since the mechanics are vastly inferior to other FPS, and it sucks as an exploration game since it lacks proper writing, atmosphere, art direction and combat challenge.Vault Dweller said:I said that exploration and side quests are the strongest aspects of the game, which is pretty much the sandbox experience and the "good for what it is" part. As a Fallout-like game, Fallout 3 sucks. As a sandbox game with guns and actiony combat, it's fairly entertaining.
The weird thing for me about New Vegas is that while it's a competent game (albeit on a crappy engine), I don't find it particularly memorable or excellent in any way. The world design is nice, there are some neat environments and weapons, but there's nothing about it that feels exceptional. Obsidian took Fallout 3, balanced it out, fixed the problems with story and world design, improved the skill system, etc., but New Vegas really didn't leave that "something" that made it stand out for me. It doesn't help that while some aspects of the game are quite good, others, like the endless fetch quests, boring characters with terrible phoned-in voice performances, clear loose ends left hanging due to lack of time etc. really drag it down for me. I honestly think Fallout 3 will end up staying in my mind far longer than New Vegas ever will, because at least Fallout 3 was different and stood out. New Vegas is just more of the same, and while a far better game in the end, it's also just sort of "meh".Jasede said:If you discuss FO3 and arrive at a positive opinion you're a dumbass.
If you discuss NV and arrive at a positive opinion while claiming constantly how terrible the engine is and how it could have been better, you're a good guy, though.
At least in my funny world.
1eyedking said:I know it's cool to be super-edgy and play the enlightened positivist role and find supposedly redeeming qualities in a game
Well they unlock two additional endings, allow you to skip some boss fights, make one other boss fight easier, can lead to the loss of some of your handlers (along with their bonus)... it's definitely not just for romances.Captain Shrek said:I would have liked it even better if the "tones" would actually ALL were beneficial in some major way, and not just bedding women.
Fair enough, I now see what you mean. I'm not sure I agree, as I didn't find the exploration to be good enough due to many locations just not being interesting enough to explore (and on this particular point Morrowind exploration was an order of magnitude better), but I didn't play the game as much as you did so I won't argue this particular point.Vault Dweller said:The main quest is retarded. Searching for your father, i.e. traveling to different locations, is the best part of the main quest because it plays to the game's strength - exploration. Asking if anyone's seen a middle aged guy is beyond retarded, but doesn't affect the exploration, does it?
wat1eyedking said:it sucks as an exploration game since it lacks proper writing
http://rpgcodex.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php ... 33#16446331eyedking said:I actually didn't read much of what Racofer posted, I just assumed it was the review from VD because of my over-developed intuitive skills.Vault Dweller said:1eyedking can't into reading?
I disagree that it sucks as a sandbox game. It's definitely not the best, but it's far from the worst. It does exploration much better than New Vegas, for example.Which is pretty much what I attacked a couple of years ago. It sucks as an FPS since the mechanics are vastly inferior to other FPS, and it sucks as an exploration game since it lacks proper writing, atmosphere, art direction and combat challenge.
On the Codex? Imagine that.I know it's cool to be super-edgy and play the enlightened positivist role...
How fortunate indeed.... and find supposedly redeeming qualities in a game that the mob will probably blindly lynch so as to come off as edgy (as well), but fortunately some people are left in these forums who still have some memory and can remember good FPS mechanics (e.g.: Counter-Strike) and good exploration games (e.g.: the Gothics), which's designs cannot be found anywhere in F3.
sea said:The weird thing for me about New Vegas is that while it's a competent game (albeit on a crappy engine), I don't find it particularly memorable or excellent in any way. The world design is nice, there are some neat environments and weapons, but there's nothing about it that feels exceptional. Obsidian took Fallout 3, balanced it out, fixed the problems with story and world design, improved the skill system, etc., but New Vegas really didn't leave that "something" that made it stand out for me. It doesn't help that while some aspects of the game are quite good, others, like the endless fetch quests, boring characters with terrible phoned-in voice performances, clear loose ends left hanging due to lack of time etc. really drag it down for me. I honestly think Fallout 3 will end up staying in my mind far longer than New Vegas ever will, because at least Fallout 3 was different and stood out. New Vegas is just more of the same, and while a far better game in the end, it's also just sort of "meh".Jasede said:If you discuss FO3 and arrive at a positive opinion you're a dumbass.
If you discuss NV and arrive at a positive opinion while claiming constantly how terrible the engine is and how it could have been better, you're a good guy, though.
At least in my funny world.
Mmm, no, to be honest, no. I can't recall a single location or character that had memorable design or dialogue. Megaton is a piece of shit when compared to Shady Sands (which is pretty shitty but at least it's coherent, i.e.: it makes exploration pleasurable since it constructs verisimilitude), and no place like The Glow is to be found.Vault Dweller said:I disagree that it sucks as a sandbox game. It's definitely not the best, but it's far from the worst. It does exploration much better than New Vegas, for example.
I wouldn't say good, but OK. Not memorable means exactly that. I know it's kind of harsh since the guys at Obsidian were probably trying their best, but the end result just doesn't get anywhere near a good RPG's feet.Jasede said:F3:NV is a good game.
1eyedking said:Harold is now a fucking talking tree
Daemongar said:Well, as one who loves RPG's this game is kind of the rub where the real world meets Codex-land. Fallout 3 was a good game (obligatory stop reading here), not a good RPG. People I have spoken with who have no other RPG exposure than consoles, Zelda games, and all that liked Fallout 3. They liked it as a game, and it had a lot of fighting, exploration, stories, and quests in a very unique, well laid out setting. Someone walking in off the street without ever hearing of FO1/FO2 could enjoy FO3. That's how it is. That's reality.
It is not what the codex would want in a FO3, though. FO3 would have to have a better RPG engine, meaningful stats and choices, logical outcomes, some manner of integration with the original FO1/FO2 backstory, the ability to kill everything that moves including children on the ship, ability scaling, plus lots, lots more.
Kalin said:I think it is far more disturbing that so many of those who (rightfully) dislike Fallout 3 actually seem to think of New Vegas as a respectable game. Having played both, I really fail to see how one is better -or perhaps more aptly, less worse- than the other. They both suffer from scaled leveling, sub-par voice acting, simple and unintelligent dialogue options, cliché followers, lifeless towns, bland and unconvincing characters, a severe lack of proper background stories, boring combat and poorly made endings. The settings vary slightly, and some features have been tinkered with, but by and large, they are equally appalling.
Don't know what you're smoking, but F3 had NPCs (Moira, 3dog) and quests (survival guide, emo vampires) that were more derp than whole derp stuff in F2 x 145678. And that's excluding the fact that the whole world did not make any goddamn sense and it was basically the game equivalent of Terminator 4 - nonsense overdrive.Clockwork Knight said:FO2 had better writing, but in terms of derpness it is a tie
ZbojLamignat said:*butthurt*