Review NMA's World of Pure Imagination

[DarkSign]

H a i r

I don't hang out there enough to call you on it so I suppose this is where I'll make my exit.

So that's the official stance...it's a good game, just not a real Fallout sequel? Interesting.

 

[Brother None]

So that's the official stance...it's a good game, just not a real Fallout sequel? Interesting.

I don't think NMA does official stances...

My personal stance is that you could justify calling this mediocre, ok or good, depending on personal preferences. It's not an awful game, it's not a great game, it's not a Fallout.

 

[Volourn]

Oh? Basically a Bethesda game? Yup. i was right. Game is shit.

 

[DarkSign]

So that's the official stance...it's a good game, just not a real Fallout sequel? Interesting.

I don't think NMA does official stances...

My personal stance is that you could justify calling this mediocre, ok or good, depending on personal preferences. It's not an awful game, it's not a great game, it's not a Fallout.

Ok. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match, but surely there has to be some criteria for attributing an opinion on FO3 to NMA. Opinions on the board vary. I get that. You personally have an opinion. I get that. But the general consensus of a forum board does exist. The publicly promulgated opinion exists.

Now the deflector would pose the question "why does it matter if there's an official opinion" to which I'd respond: a) it's a method of weighing credibility over time and b) it's a fun bit of rivalry. The latter might be a bit childish, but it's the way of the 'Net.

It just seems a bit weird to publicly post an opinion, but when that opinion is used in whatever way it's called a private opinion.

Oh well. Glad that NMA doesn't have an opinion on the game either way. Way to draw a line in the sand

 

[DarkSign]

BTW.... does Rosh have a stance on FO3?

 

[Volourn]

Rosh's stance =

 

[St. Toxic]

BTW.... does Rosh have a stance on FO3?

Rosh is a stance.

 

[DarkSign]

Well played, Sir. Well played.