- Joined
- Jun 18, 2002
- Messages
- 28,470
Tags: Fallout 3
GamesRadar have compared the upcoming Fallout 3 to Oblivion. <a href="http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/f/e3-08-11-ways-fallout-3-will-kick-oblivions-ass/a-2008071115264204043">The article's called "11 ways Fallout 3 will kick Oblivion's ass"</a>. Here's the opening, along with the 11 paragraph titles:
<br>
<blockquote>Fallout 3 is more than just a sequel to one of the most beloved PC RPG series ever - it's also a spiritual successor to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, probably the single most ginormous game of the current console generation. Created by Bethesda, the same developer behind that sprawling fantasy epic, Fallout 3 has some pretty huge shoes to fill - but judging by what we've seen so far, it took one look, scoffed and is currently at work on an even bigger pair.
<br>
<br>
While it could be described as Oblivion with guns, Fallout 3 mutates that game's first-person RPG experience into something that - while its DNA is still recognizable as Oblivion's - is wholly distinct. In fact, the small chunk of Fallout 3 that we've played through so far essentially takes everything that was great about Oblivion and retools it into something better - here are 11 of the best examples we could find.
<br>
<br>
1. More voice actors
<br>
2. Better gore
<br>
3. Twice as much going on
<br>
4. More interesting places to discover
<br>
5. Realistic lockpicking
<br>
6. Actual dialogue replaces conversation wheels.
<br>
7. Moral decisions actually carry weight and relevance
<br>
8. Better drugs
<br>
9. Better dogs
<br>
10. Nuclear catapults
<br>
11. Hats</blockquote>
<br>
Ignoring the few that are the funny, isn't it amazing how when a new game comes out, everything that was so awesome last year about that old game suddenly has all these horrible flaws? Flaws which nobody cared to mention in all the over-hyped previews.
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com">4 out of 6 news items today were brought to you by GameBanshee. GameBanshee, where if you don't like the article, you're not supposed to link to it</a>. Right, Brother None?
GamesRadar have compared the upcoming Fallout 3 to Oblivion. <a href="http://www.gamesradar.com/pc/f/e3-08-11-ways-fallout-3-will-kick-oblivions-ass/a-2008071115264204043">The article's called "11 ways Fallout 3 will kick Oblivion's ass"</a>. Here's the opening, along with the 11 paragraph titles:
<br>
<blockquote>Fallout 3 is more than just a sequel to one of the most beloved PC RPG series ever - it's also a spiritual successor to The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, probably the single most ginormous game of the current console generation. Created by Bethesda, the same developer behind that sprawling fantasy epic, Fallout 3 has some pretty huge shoes to fill - but judging by what we've seen so far, it took one look, scoffed and is currently at work on an even bigger pair.
<br>
<br>
While it could be described as Oblivion with guns, Fallout 3 mutates that game's first-person RPG experience into something that - while its DNA is still recognizable as Oblivion's - is wholly distinct. In fact, the small chunk of Fallout 3 that we've played through so far essentially takes everything that was great about Oblivion and retools it into something better - here are 11 of the best examples we could find.
<br>
<br>
1. More voice actors
<br>
2. Better gore
<br>
3. Twice as much going on
<br>
4. More interesting places to discover
<br>
5. Realistic lockpicking
<br>
6. Actual dialogue replaces conversation wheels.
<br>
7. Moral decisions actually carry weight and relevance
<br>
8. Better drugs
<br>
9. Better dogs
<br>
10. Nuclear catapults
<br>
11. Hats</blockquote>
<br>
Ignoring the few that are the funny, isn't it amazing how when a new game comes out, everything that was so awesome last year about that old game suddenly has all these horrible flaws? Flaws which nobody cared to mention in all the over-hyped previews.
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com">4 out of 6 news items today were brought to you by GameBanshee. GameBanshee, where if you don't like the article, you're not supposed to link to it</a>. Right, Brother None?