Author Topic: Video Game Discussion Thread  (Read 235366 times)

Delta Dragon

  • Creative Emeritus
  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #885 on: March 11, 2009, 05:34:27 pm »
Okay recently I got a DS flash card(yes a legal one) And got the PC version of Sonic Mega collection on it.  I have to say, Ristar is awesome.  It doesn't look like it would be that fun yet somehow it is.

The flashcard itself isn't the ethically (and at times, legally) problematic component. Did you purchase your copy of the Sonic Mega collection? If not, the legality of your flashcard does not absolve you of having used it for piracy.
Yes we bought both of them.  The only stuff I've downloaded is home brew stuff.

KebreI

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • A true man never dies, even when he's killed
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #886 on: March 11, 2009, 11:42:43 pm »
This question is open to anyone:  What if the Chrono series was bought by a company (such as Beth) and turned it into a first person, adventure-wandering game with RPG elements and a weak story that does not come close to the original two games?  Would you be pissed or would you welcome it with open arms, saying "Thank God someone finally made another one."  Or would you rather that company make their own time travelling, dimension crossing series?

I would get the game and try it out to see if its any good, regardless how different it is.If its not any good then damn the sucks at least I have the others, if it is good the AWESOME new chrono game.

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #887 on: March 12, 2009, 12:00:20 am »
This question is open to anyone:  What if the Chrono series was bought by a company (such as Beth) and turned it into a first person, adventure-wandering game with RPG elements and a weak story that does not come close to the original two games?  Would you be pissed or would you welcome it with open arms, saying "Thank God someone finally made another one."  Or would you rather that company make their own time travelling, dimension crossing series?

I would try it, regardless of difference. Maybe it's not the same case, but is similar in asking 'Would you play RD even if it's not the same like CT?'. It would still be a Chrono game, and deserves a chance like the rest.

But if it turns out bad, then it depends, if it doesn't keep up with the other ones, then I say it would have turned better to have not been a Chrono game. If it was for another reason, then I still have Trigger and Cross to play. But if it ends up good, then good, the company should try to make even another one.

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #888 on: March 12, 2009, 09:20:41 am »
I would try it, regardless of difference. Maybe it's not the same case, but is similar in asking 'Would you play RD even if it's not the same like CT?'. It would still be a Chrono game, and deserves a chance like the rest.

RD is not considered part of the core series though, it was more of a "gaiden".  So maybe I should modify the question "and the direct sequel to Cross and Trigger".  Offshoots of the main series can be wild and different...FF: Dirge of Cerebus was fine as a gaiden FFVII, but if they marketed that game as a direct sequel to FVII, or not even a "direct" sequel but a sequel nonetheless, I am sure it would be a huge disappointment (more so than that game already was). 

To give another hypothetical example:  Blizzard is currently making Diablo 3.  Assume that Blizzard went in a completely different direction with it and as it turns out, the game "Hellgate:London" is what Diablo 3 turns out to be(so the assumption there is that Diablo 3 already came out as the current Hellgate:London).  How do you think fans of the original 2 games would feel?  If Blizzard made a gaiden Diablo that was like Hellgate, say Diablo: Hellgate, then that game would be taken in its own right and probably not compared (as much) to the original 2  games).

Or even: if id software made Doom 3 like what the upcoming Diablo 3 (point and click 3rd person view)...fans of the original 2 games would be like "wtf did you do??"  But again, if they made "Doom: Point-n-Click Action Fest", it would be taken as its own game. 

The problem with my hypothetical is that id software made the first 2 Dooms and Blizzard made the first 2 Diablos...but Bethesda did not make the first 2 Fallouts...so it isn't exactly a fair comparison but hopefully it gets the point across.  Once you toss that number after the game, it is compared to the ones that came before, not gaiden games in that series.  Hopefully that gives an idea of where I am coming from.  I am not against change or new ways of doing things, but if a developer is going to touch an already existing series, one where the original games were good/great, they better be fucking careful with what they do.  Beth was not, in my opinion anyway.  The masses think otherwise. 
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 09:26:42 am by placidchap »

Acacia Sgt

  • Guru of Reason
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2655
  • Forever loyal to the Acacia Dragoons
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #889 on: March 12, 2009, 10:42:04 am »
Well, I can't say about those other games since I don't know them.

But I do see the point.

Delta Dragon

  • Creative Emeritus
  • Acacia Deva (+500)
  • *
  • Posts: 570
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #890 on: March 12, 2009, 01:08:52 pm »
In CT, were the Golem sisters that hard in the PS1 and SNES versions?  I'm up to them on CTDS and I don't have any memory of them being anywhere near this hard.  Either my characters are weaker or I just don't remember them.

Jutty

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 614
  • The Most In-Frequent Poster Ever
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #891 on: March 12, 2009, 08:15:37 pm »
I would try it, regardless of difference. Maybe it's not the same case, but is similar in asking 'Would you play RD even if it's not the same like CT?'. It would still be a Chrono game, and deserves a chance like the rest.

RD is not considered part of the core series though, it was more of a "gaiden".  So maybe I should modify the question "and the direct sequel to Cross and Trigger".  Offshoots of the main series can be wild and different...FF: Dirge of Cerebus was fine as a gaiden FFVII, but if they marketed that game as a direct sequel to FVII, or not even a "direct" sequel but a sequel nonetheless, I am sure it would be a huge disappointment (more so than that game already was). 

To give another hypothetical example:  Blizzard is currently making Diablo 3.  Assume that Blizzard went in a completely different direction with it and as it turns out, the game "Hellgate:London" is what Diablo 3 turns out to be(so the assumption there is that Diablo 3 already came out as the current Hellgate:London).  How do you think fans of the original 2 games would feel?  If Blizzard made a gaiden Diablo that was like Hellgate, say Diablo: Hellgate, then that game would be taken in its own right and probably not compared (as much) to the original 2  games).

Or even: if id software made Doom 3 like what the upcoming Diablo 3 (point and click 3rd person view)...fans of the original 2 games would be like "wtf did you do??"  But again, if they made "Doom: Point-n-Click Action Fest", it would be taken as its own game. 

The problem with my hypothetical is that id software made the first 2 Dooms and Blizzard made the first 2 Diablos...but Bethesda did not make the first 2 Fallouts...so it isn't exactly a fair comparison but hopefully it gets the point across.  Once you toss that number after the game, it is compared to the ones that came before, not gaiden games in that series.  Hopefully that gives an idea of where I am coming from.  I am not against change or new ways of doing things, but if a developer is going to touch an already existing series, one where the original games were good/great, they better be fucking careful with what they do.  Beth was not, in my opinion anyway.  The masses think otherwise. 

What exactly did they do that ruined the game? Have you even played it and if so how far in?

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #892 on: March 12, 2009, 08:23:54 pm »
What exactly did they do that ruined the game? Have you even played it and if so how far in?
They changed it from overhead to 1st person.  That was the major kick to his balls.  Nevermind how many other aspects and conditions between the games remained unchanged, the fact that it's a 3-D 1st person console game instead of an overhead PC/Mac game means they raped and mutilated the dead series that hadn't seen a new title in over decade.


Also, comparing what happened to SquareEnix selling the rights to the Chrono series is completely different.  Interplay/Black Isle Studios hadn't made a new game since '04.  SE is still making games.  Until SE no longer does any work I expect them to be the ones to carry on their series, but if they went bankrupt and disbanded, having another company take over a series would be better than it dying completely.


The way you're reacting is the same as people hating on Chrono Cross.  "It's different, it's changing the feel and play of the first game, BAWWWW I hate it without playing it all the way through!"  If anything you should be happy this third game is reaching console audiences instead of just the computer gaming crowd, and might lead more people to play the original two games in the series.

While I agree the storyline is rather weak, the gameplay aspect of it is fun.  If you hate the weak storyline, that's your vice.  Write to Bethesda and suggest they tune that aspect of the game up should a Fallout 4 ever be on the menu, or just completely ignore all that follows in the series, like Chrono Trigger fanboys tend to do when it comes to Chrono Cross.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2009, 08:32:19 pm by FouCapitan »

Radical_Dreamer

  • Entity
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2778
    • View Profile
    • The Chrono Compendium
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #893 on: March 13, 2009, 02:22:03 am »
What exactly did they do that ruined the game? Have you even played it and if so how far in?
They changed it from overhead to 1st person.  That was the major kick to his balls.  Nevermind how many other aspects and conditions between the games remained unchanged, the fact that it's a 3-D 1st person console game instead of an overhead PC/Mac game means they raped and mutilated the dead series that hadn't seen a new title in over decade.

They changed the camera angle and added support for additional platforms (there is a PC version of Fallout 3) and that "raped and mutilated the dead series"?

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #894 on: March 13, 2009, 09:55:02 am »
He is assuming that I am getting my panties in a bunch 'just' because the view went from isometric to first person and that it was not a PC exclusive.  He is wrong.

I am pissed because they turned an intricate and intelligent RPG into a medicore FPS/RPG (emphasis on the BOLD words, just in case you missed it, Fou).  Contrary to what you assume, I do think that Fallout could be properly adapted to the first person view and being a console game has little to do with anything (sure they have a reputation for being 'watered down' but it doesn't have to be so).  But Bethesda is not the company to do it.  They make pretty games not intelligent games.  They stripped out most everything and left the combat as the main focus of the game.  Sure they may have kept dialog trees (with dick all for meaningful consequences), SPECIAL, skills, perks, the BoS and Enclave, Vaults and Nuka Cola but it feels like they kept everything in name (so they can say it is Fallout) but missed the mark when it came to the spirit of the game.  It is equivalent to your typical model.  Pretty but dumb as fuck.

It doesn't sound like you played the originals or at least you don't appreciate them.

And I know that my example was not solid, I said so myself, but it was and still is sufficient to get my point across.  Just try to give it two seconds of thought next time and try to imagine that scenario instead of blowing it off because you think I am some cry baby fanboy who can't take it because it is not isometric. 
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 09:57:49 am by placidchap »

FouCapitan

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 626
  • Whatever it is, I'm against it.
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #895 on: March 13, 2009, 10:26:23 am »
He is assuming that I am getting my panties in a bunch 'just' because the view went from isometric to first person and that it was not a PC exclusive.  He is wrong.

I am pissed because they turned an intricate and intelligent RPG into a medicore FPS/RPG (emphasis on the BOLD words, just in case you missed it, Fou).
Thanks.  I have such a hard time reading words in regular fonts.

Honestly, you come across as a typical fanboy who was disappointed before you even had a chance to be let down.  As soon as you saw the name Bethesda, you knew what you were going to say about this game, because you knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that the resulting product would be below your well established standards on what a game with the name Fallout should be.

Just out of curiosity, have you played Fallout 3 at all even?  Gotten through the main story questline?  Completed any of the side quests?  Even gotten out of the vault yet?  If you have your complaints will hold a bit more validity, but if not it just hammers in the point that you came into this game with harsh judgements from the start.

Thanks for not calling me an idiot by the way.

It doesn't sound like you played the originals or at least you don't appreciate them.

Oh you got me.  I hadn't played the original Fallout games.  I hadn't even heard of the damn things before 3, because Interplay's advertising is about as compotent as a two year old working a job in rocket science.  I'd heard of Blizzard's similar RPG-fare like Diablo, and even heard of less popular games (Apparently) like Septerra Core, but the Fallout series was dust in the wind before the 360 sequel.

Not to say that they're bad games or anything.  I watched a few playthrough videos and they certainly look like something I'd check out, if not a bit dated.  But when you get down to it, the only reason you hate this game so adamantly is because of your mindset from playing the first two.

I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but that's nothing but nostalgia.  You wanted Fallout 2 - Part 2, not Fallout 3.  You didn't want a first person shooter with RPG elements, you wanted an RPG with gun elements.

I don't know why you seem to be so hung up on something done wrong.  You bold the words intricate and intelligent.  Was 3 too easy?  Was it too much geared towards a crowd of gamers who like to jump into a game and not be bombarded with complex battles that require deep thinking and in depth strategies else you discover a game over screen right off the bat?

Whatever your feelings are, you're entitled to them.  Just don't expect to be able to spit on an entire company without somebody raising an eyebrow to your actions.

placidchap

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 905
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #896 on: March 13, 2009, 12:14:21 pm »
Quote from: FouCapitan
Honestly, you come across as a typical fanboy who was disappointed before you even had a chance to be let down.  As soon as you saw the name Bethesda, you knew what you were going to say about this game, because you knew beyond any shadow of a doubt that the resulting product would be below your well established standards on what a game with the name Fallout should be.

As soon as I heard about the direction they were going to take it, I was sceptical and I was pissed.  I don’t hate Bethesda just for the sake of it; I have played Morrowind and Oblivion and those games are OK for what they are.  But in no way should Fallout be like Oblivion.  They are just not the same kind of game.  Or at least they weren’t.  They are now.  And yes, the resulting product is below the established standards of Fallout 1 and 2.  But it wasn’t an instantaneous conclusion.  I held out on judgement for a while longer than most of the more ‘rabid’ folk of the Fallout community, but in the end, it is not the game I was hoping for.

Quote from: FouCapitan
Oh you got me.  I hadn't played the original Fallout games.  I hadn't even heard of the damn things before 3, because Interplay's advertising is about as compotent as a two year old working a job in rocket science.  I'd heard of Blizzard's similar RPG-fare like Diablo, and even heard of less popular games (Apparently) like Septerra Core, but the Fallout series was dust in the wind before the 360 sequel.

Was that sarcastic or did you really not know of the original games?  It is true that they were not very well advertised…even I randomly came across Fallout 1 when I went to the store looking for a game to buy, way back in ’97.  I didn’t see it on TV or hear about it anywhere…just by chance but that shouldn’t be held against anyone.  Some of the best products are the ones that don’t need to be advertised. 
Septerra Core is a game I have been wanting to play for a while actually…have you played that one?

Quote from: FouCapitan
Not to say that they're bad games or anything.  I watched a few playthrough videos and they certainly look like something I'd check out, if not a bit dated.

They certainly are dated…they came out about 12-13 years ago!  But they are still great!  The same way Chrono Trigger and Cross are.  I’d also like to say that since you didn’t play the originals, you have hold just as much water in this argument as I do...

Quote from: FouCapitan
Just out of curiosity, have you played Fallout 3 at all even?  Gotten through the main story questline?  Completed any of the side quests?  Even gotten out of the vault yet?  If you have your complaints will hold a bit more validity, but if not it just hammers in the point that you came into this game with harsh judgements from the start.

Whoops.  I’ve played Fallout 3 as you have played Fallout 1 and 2.  I will, mind you...once I finish FFXII and some decent game altering mods come out...which I guess is the bright side of things...there is a chance that some more meaningful substance will be added to the game.  I'll never play a vanilla FO# though.  So yes, I came to the table with harsh but not unreasonable judgements.

Quote from: FouCapitan
But when you get down to it, the only reason you hate this game so adamantly is because of your mindset from playing the first two.

True, but how is that any different than how most people react?  People become attached to the first version of a TV show, movie, game etc (assuming it is good) that they see and they compare past and future versions to the one they saw first.  If I never played the originals, I may be liking Fallout 3 right now.  And if you played the originals, especially back when they came out, you might be singing a different tune yourself.   We are at different starting points.  I started with Fallout in ’97 and I thoroughly enjoyed (and still do) the games, so much that they are among my favourite games of all time.  I will naturally compare any future iteration to my beloved originals.  Fallout: Tactics, lacked the feel of the originals…but hey it is a “tactics” game and as such it is OK (certainly not a favourite though)...if they labelled that one as Fallout 3 back in 2001, well I’d have less nice things to say.  Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel…never played it, don’t think I need to play to know that it is a crap Fallout game, again easily ignored because it wasn’t trying to be a continuation of the core series.  Fallout 3, again I compare it to the originals.  Obviously Fallout 3 reigns supreme in graphical detail and environment.  But it is missing the intricate dialogue options, meaningful choice and consequence, interesting plot and quests (for the most part).  Instead they chose to focus on graphics, explosions, blood, gore, guns (portable nuke launcher...seriously?) and combat in general. 

Quote from: FouCapitan
I'm sorry to beat a dead horse, but that's nothing but nostalgia.  You wanted Fallout 2 - Part 2, not Fallout 3.  You didn't want a first person shooter with RPG elements, you wanted an RPG with gun elements.

No.  I wanted Fallout 3 – Van Buren not Fallout 2 part 2.  And yes, I wanted an RPG because that is what Fallout is [was], not a FPS w/ RPG elements.  If you really didn’t know about Fallout 1 or 2, you  may not know of the original Fallout 3 that unfortunately got canned because Interplay went bankrupt.  That is the game I was hoping for and to add insult to injury, the damn game was almost done.  A new Fallout game that was true to the originals but updated with newer technology (a natural evolution with games).  I wasn’t hoping for Fallout 2 part 2 with Van Buren.  I wanted a new Fallout game that was true to the originals and that is what the original Fallout 3 was going to be.

Quote from: FouCapitan
I don't know why you seem to be so hung up on something done wrong.  You bold the words intricate and intelligent.  Was 3 too easy?  Was it too much geared towards a crowd of gamers who like to jump into a game and not be bombarded with complex battles that require deep thinking and in depth strategies else you discover a game over screen right off the bat?

See there is a slight error in how you think of the Fallout series.  Yes it has been geared towards a crowd of gamers who like to “jump right in” but Fallout wasn’t about complex battles that kill you off in a matter of seconds.  Most of the battles were not complex and hell, it didn’t even have to be about combat.  What was “complex” (at least by today’s standards) was managing and fore-planning of stats, skills, traits and perks and how you use those in the game.  Those defined what character you played and thus how you played.  Perks you only gained every 3 levels (so choose wisely).  Traits gave you a positive and a negative effect and couldn’t be changed except once through one perk. (e.g. Finesse Trait: “Your attacks show a lot of finesse. You don't do as much damage but you cause more critical hits.”).  Stat and skill checks also played a more important role in the originals (but I know they are still present in FO3) Beth chose to give a perk every time someone levelled up and chose to eliminate traits altogether (or at least roll them into perks and take out the bad part) (e.g Finesse Perk: you have a higher chance to score a critical hit on an opponent in combat, equivalent to 5 extra points of Luck.)  They also gave less importance to the SPECIAL stats, as you can more readily boost them throughout the game, whereas in the original, you were pretty much stuck with what you picked in the beginning, save a few +1 items along the way and the power armour (both mid/late in the game).  So yes, they did gear it more towards the casual gamer as it is more flexible/less rigid but that isn’t where my argument lies. The originals had multiple dialogue paths and meaningful and usually permanent results to different paths.  Beth has different dialogue options as well, but they basically lead to the same outcome.  And even worse, negative outcomes don’t always stick!  You just leave and return and hostiles become friendly!!! Are you kidding me?  This is where my panties are bunched, the lack of meaningful choices and consequences.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2009, 12:22:51 pm by placidchap »

KebreI

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • A true man never dies, even when he's killed
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #897 on: March 13, 2009, 02:31:09 pm »
FouCapitan I would say you should play Fallout 1/2 before making any calls. placidchap doesn't have nostalgia glasses, they really are great games, and make Fallout 3 look it butchered there series in comparison.

Jutty

  • Black Wind Agent (+600)
  • *
  • Posts: 614
  • The Most In-Frequent Poster Ever
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #898 on: March 13, 2009, 03:31:55 pm »
True, but how is that any different than how most people react?  People become attached to the first version of a TV show, movie, game etc (assuming it is good) that they see and they compare past and future versions to the one they saw first.  If I never played the originals, I may be liking Fallout 3 right now.  And if you played the originals, especially back when they came out, you might be singing a different tune yourself.   We are at different starting points.  I started with Fallout in ’97 and I thoroughly enjoyed (and still do) the games, so much that they are among my favourite games of all time.  I will naturally compare any future iteration to my beloved originals.  Fallout: Tactics, lacked the feel of the originals…but hey it is a “tactics” game and as such it is OK (certainly not a favourite though)...if they labelled that one as Fallout 3 back in 2001, well I’d have less nice things to say.  Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel…never played it, don’t think I need to play to know that it is a crap Fallout game, again easily ignored because it wasn’t trying to be a continuation of the core series.  Fallout 3, again I compare it to the originals.  Obviously Fallout 3 reigns supreme in graphical detail and environment.  But it is missing the intricate dialogue options, meaningful choice and consequence, interesting plot and quests (for the most part).  Instead they chose to focus on graphics, explosions, blood, gore, guns (portable nuke launcher...seriously?) and combat in general. 


See there is a slight error in how you think of the Fallout series.  Yes it has been geared towards a crowd of gamers who like to “jump right in” but Fallout wasn’t about complex battles that kill you off in a matter of seconds.  Most of the battles were not complex and hell, it didn’t even have to be about combat.  What was “complex” (at least by today’s standards) was managing and fore-planning of stats, skills, traits and perks and how you use those in the game.  Those defined what character you played and thus how you played.  Perks you only gained every 3 levels (so choose wisely).  Traits gave you a positive and a negative effect and couldn’t be changed except once through one perk. (e.g. Finesse Trait: “Your attacks show a lot of finesse. You don't do as much damage but you cause more critical hits.”).  Stat and skill checks also played a more important role in the originals (but I know they are still present in FO3) Beth chose to give a perk every time someone levelled up and chose to eliminate traits altogether (or at least roll them into perks and take out the bad part) (e.g Finesse Perk: you have a higher chance to score a critical hit on an opponent in combat, equivalent to 5 extra points of Luck.)  They also gave less importance to the SPECIAL stats, as you can more readily boost them throughout the game, whereas in the original, you were pretty much stuck with what you picked in the beginning, save a few +1 items along the way and the power armour (both mid/late in the game).  So yes, they did gear it more towards the casual gamer as it is more flexible/less rigid but that isn’t where my argument lies. The originals had multiple dialogue paths and meaningful and usually permanent results to different paths.  Beth has different dialogue options as well, but they basically lead to the same outcome.  And even worse, negative outcomes don’t always stick!  You just leave and return and hostiles become friendly!!! Are you kidding me?  This is where my panties are bunched, the lack of meaningful choices and consequences.


Come on now really? You're going to compare Fallout 3 to Brotherhood of Steel? I've played Fallout 2. Never played Fallout 1 and though I found 2 to be a great game it was nothing revolutionary. BG2 and Planescape Torment do the genre better.  Also had you played the game you would know that a lot of the stats, perks, and such remain the same. I honestly can't imagine that you played the game.

http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3170949
http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/fallout3/review.html
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/42125.html
http://pc.ign.com/objects/568/568806.html
http://reviews.teamxbox.com/xbox-360/1607/Fallout-3/p1/
http://www.firingsquad.com/games/fallout_3_review/page6.asp

This site doesn't use a numerical system but it has this to say.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/reviews/2008/10/fallout-3-review.ars/4
The good:

    * One of the most ambitious and enjoyable open-world games yet
* Well-written script backed up by top-notch voice acting
    * More voice actors than Oblivion
    * Beautiful graphics with stunning atmosphere.
    * V.A.T.S. is actually fun to use.
    * The main story line offers 20 to 25 hours of gameplay; with side quests there's up to an additional 75.
    * Enemies do not respawn or automatically level.
    * Dogmeat

The bad:

    * Fighting in most situations without the V.A.T.S. system can be tedious.
    * Some collision detection issues
    * Pip-Boy 3000 screen could be a little bigger.
    * The game eventually ends.

The ugly:

    * The Bloody Mess perk. The results are both bloody, and messy.

As you can see it has scored the highest marks on every review I have seen. That's the complete first page on google if you type in Fallout 3 Reviews just so you don't think I cherry picked them.

KebreI

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • A true man never dies, even when he's killed
    • View Profile
Re: Video Game Discussion Thread
« Reply #899 on: March 13, 2009, 04:01:30 pm »
A) Fallout came out before both of those games, B) I rank Fallout far above BG 1/2

Quote
The good:
    * One of the most ambitious and enjoyable open-world games yet
    * Well-written script backed up by top-notch voice acting
    * More voice actors than Oblivion
    * Beautiful graphics with stunning atmosphere.
    * V.A.T.S. is actually fun to use.
    * The main story line offers 20 to 25 hours of gameplay; with side quests there's up to an additional 75.
    * Enemies do not respawn or automatically level.
    * Dogmeat

The first two Fallout games were much larger in size and allowed much more to be done, you couldn't see it because there wasn't flashy and shiny graphics that companies whore out now. V.A.T.S. wasn't fun to use but was good, but because that was the only real way to play the game.


Quote
The bad:

    * Fighting in most situations without the V.A.T.S. system can be tedious.
    * Some collision detection issues
    * Pip-Boy 3000 screen could be a little bigger.
    * The game eventually ends.
People whining over details that I don't think I have even noticed? The screens to small? Of course its too small it supposed to look like that? It ends? Well duh it has an actual plot beginning, rising action, climax, and conclusion.
Quote
The ugly:

    * The Bloody Mess perk. The results are both bloody, and messy.
It gives you a bonus,(to crit. chance I think) why the hell did they give it a bonus!?!


The problem with reviews is I have my own taste in games. Now I still liked F3 But it isn't anywhere in league with the first two games at all. Honestly if they would just make a game using something "outdated" , like the old infinity engine, today it would blow every single game today out of the water. Look at Dwarf Fortress, it's running off of a rouge-like, and is far more detailed then any of Bethesda's games. I still hold out n this dream after Capcom released Megaman 9.





Planescape: Torment is better then all of them though.