Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Subhuman wrote:Seriously. This is what we're up in arms about?
I think it's more that no kid-kill is pushing it into the oblivion "you can be evil, but not really" zone.
Wait..
What I mean is that "We're mad they've taken oblivion and reskinned it to look like fallout, because oblivion fucking sucks"
"I've decided that if positive affirmations can "cure cancer" then negative affirmations can cause cancer. Chant with me: Fuck you and Die, Todd Howard. Fuck you and Die, Todd Howard. Fuck you and Die, Todd Howard."
there is a wasteland, they just transferred the California desert wasteland to the east coast where they could have put a really fucking cool radiated Appalachian trail.
I still don`t get it, how can there be a free roaming wasteland like in Fallout 1/2, when you only have this Washington DC location? Isn`t fitting in ma brain somehow. Bethesda fails.
Yea, I'm with DaC-Sniper. The game is smaller then oblivion and oblivions maps was pretty damn small. Sure, there were lots of little crevices to explore, but the point is, for exploring and wandering around - Small. I can't even imagine the game encompassing the entire DC area, honestly, much less any REAL amount of wasteland.
I disagree with you, gentlemen. In Fallout you only had the illusion of a wasteland. All the action happened in towns. I'd rather have a small and compact gameworld with plenty of meaningful places than a vast, empty and essentially useless wasteland. Good examples of the former are PS:T and Bloodlines, for instance.
I've nothing against the size and setting of Fallout 3. In fact, it's quite interesting. It's ultimately up to what the gameworld conveys to the player. A rich atmosphere is truly a sum of many parts, as we've noticed from a bunch of other CRPGs. In TES series, that aspect has been lacking.
Please convince me how exploring a vast, generic wasteland is beneficial to the gaming experience. Unless you're Haris and absolutely love doing tedious activities.
Depends if you count slave hunting, caravane driving and random encounters into the Wasteland as well. It adds just a nice illusion, how you have called it, that there is something between the towns, in PS:T, you only have those towns and its very narrow builded. If you wander around the wasteland, its only logical, that there are other people or mutants around that might want to kill you and steal your money or weapons, i don`t know whats wrong about it, makes perfect sense to me. There are also lot of other unused possibilites with that system. If Bethesda had a different engine they could make a random generated wasteland engine (TM), where you can ride with your pimped motorbike from town to town, while meeting some random encounters and drivebyshooting them. In Fallout 3 you can`t ride from town to town, because there is only one town, there is a high possibilty that there are no random encounters at all. :NMA-post:
Dear God, if there is no wasteland in fallout 3 what are we to do? After all it, came from a game CALLED wasteland.
If FO3 is a one city thing, with no wasteland, I won't even THINK of buying it.
VasikkA wrote:
Please convince me how exploring a vast, generic wasteland is beneficial to the gaming experience. Unless you're Haris and absolutely love doing tedious activities.
Where else are you supposed to get trade goods and to gain experience, unless you want the game to be closed off and one dimensional, gaining experience and goods only through core missions.
VasikkA wrote:I just don't like empty spaces, that's all.
that empty wastland (be it merely an illusion) is one of the thinks that made F's atmosphere for me. I agree on the 'meaningful places' being a good choice, just give me that wastland feel.
I agree, fallout was always supposed to be a sparse world where there was nothing but a few towns/cities and shit trying to kill you. Beth will just cheap out and condense it into a single city environment with no wasteland.
fallout ranger wrote:Beth will just cheap out and condense it into a single city environment with no wasteland.
You must be a goddamn soothsayer, because I just forsooth read the thing we should read to the headbagged betrayers of video game faith before we shoot them, after the revolution.
"You have proven to the masses that enjoying their experiences, life and otherwise, can be measured in profitability. That Art can be measured for value by comparing production cost with projected sales figures. And now, in your final moments, you'll teach them that while you can censor our entertainment, no our very expression itself, you can never censor the overwhelming elation that comes from having you fuckers shot to death on live television, for crimes against humanity.
Fire."
"I've decided that if positive affirmations can "cure cancer" then negative affirmations can cause cancer. Chant with me: Fuck you and Die, Todd Howard. Fuck you and Die, Todd Howard. Fuck you and Die, Todd Howard."
Forgive me, I'm new to the whole "Glittering Gem of Hatred" thing. I'm not exactly on one side or the other... yet... but I just have to get this clarified.
If Bethesda just took the game, renamed it, changed a few characters, and turned it into an original, non-Fallout post-apocalyptic shooter-RPG...
Wouldn't it wind up in the same league as BioShock? And STALKER? And those games seem to get a lot of attention and praise from the Fallout vets.
I've played through BioShock, FO1, and FO2, but not STALKER, so correct me if my assumptions about that game are wrong.
Well that's the problem though. I think most people wouldn't actually mind it if this was a generic new license, but when you take on Fallout, you're taking up a whole different set of rules, ideals, what have you. Its like if some movie studio made a post apocalyptic comedy, which has potential and could potentially be a great movie, and called it Mad Max 4.
... So that's it? All this hate and Beth-flaming over them taking the name "Fallout" and making a game loosely based on the first two?
I, personally, wasn't a fan of the combat in FO1 or 2, and despised Tactics. I did, however, love the choices and the amount of interactivity with the NPCs and such.
Concerning the whole wasteland issue... Though I thought Oblivion was a decent RPG in itself, it had a lot of wasted space. Sure, it was cool to walk around for a bit and see a unique little spring or tree grouping you wouldn't find anywhere else, but after a while it got tedious and fast traveling was a much better option.
From what we've seen in Morrowind and Oblivion from Bethsoft, I really don't think it would work for them to push a wasteland. I mean, then we'd just have a lot of... flat... wasted space.
Besides, in FO1 and 2, it was easy to have a massive world. Games were nowhere near as demanding. Seems to me that if they have a smaller world this time around, there's more room for decent NPC content and quests/events. You know, what Oblivion... struggled with.
Isn`t fitting in ma brain somehow. Bethesda fails.
