256 réponses à ce sujet

[Haplose]

I Ryukage I wrote...

Haplose wrote...

I Ryukage I wrote...

Haplose wrote...

That's part of the problem though. Gameplay mechanics were perfect in Fallout 1 & 2 for me. And stats had major impact on... well.. everything. No computer game ever came even close. By comparison, Fallout 3 would play almost the same if it had no stats at all. The system was brutally butchered and the stats are but a pale shadow of their past meaning.

Do you mean how in NV, dialogue options sometimes have things such as "Surivival" or "Perception" in the speech checks???

Wouldn't know. Haven't played F:NV *Shrug*
Maybe they improved dialogues there, but there was way more to it.

Like Perception determined how well you aim at range. Agility stat = your number of Action Points to use every turn (this is huge... 10 was max and it usually took 3-5 points to fire a gun... once.. or each point meant 1 step).
Intelligence x2 = skillpoints you gain every time you level. Consitution translated into your hitpoints and resistances.

I haven't played F3 in a while, but isn't this in both F3 and F:NV for those that have played both??? Also, iirc not sure, i thought thats what perception did in F3?? In New Vegas I know it has nothing to do with aiming (even though the actual in-game description says otherwise), and has mainly to deal with compass markers and speech checks

They have a... slight influence in F3. While they determined the game in F1 and F2.. that's the difference.

[Ulous]

Final Fantasy 10 was pretty awful, although I did pump some serious hours into the game by playing that blitz ball side game....... found it really addictive for some reason.

[Rockworm503]

Ringo12 wrote...

Funkcase wrote...


Basically gamer hipsters hate it. Becuase they like the old vintage ones better. I personally love the old Fallouts (except for Brotherhood of steel and tactics) Always have. But I think what Bethesda did was great, just could have done with more side quests and voice actors I thought. The way I see it, Bethesda saved Fallout. Black isle are no more, and Interplay are on the verge of becoming bankrupt.

Please...worst reason ever.

Fallout 1 and 2 are just so much better. Bethesda made the game into a shooter.

Fallout 2 had great open ended quests .  Such dealing with the Slavers in the the Den. The Slavers have a buddy of yours, Vic, that you want to rescue. There were many ways of getting this done.You could go into the slaver headquarters and shoot them all up. If you were a explosive traps guy, (like my guy was), you could go in the building and plant dynamite, then leave, and blow everyone up. If you had high intelligence and high speech, you could convince the slavers to stop trading slaves, and get them to free Vic. If you were a jerk, you could join the Slavers, get a slaver tattoo on your forehead that would have consequences for the rest of the game, and sell your tribal companion into a life of servitude. If you were a chick with a decent charisma, you can have sex with the head slaver guy for Vic's freedom.The vast majority of quests in fallou 3 are like this: go talk to this guy. Kill everybody in your way. The end.


Also Bethesda messed up on tag skills. In the originals, you picked three tag skills at the beginning of the game. They were your character's specialties. You want a medic with a good throwing arm that can pick locks? Pick Medicine, Throwing, Lock Picking. For the rest of the game, every time you level, and skill point put into a tag skill will be doubled. So, like, it's easier to become proficient at your character's specialties.

In Fallout 3 you pick three tag skills at the beginning. These tag picks give you a +10 bonus to the skill and that's it. not much planning.

There are many more reasons but I'll let you think it's because "hipsters" like the originals better.

I finally installed 1 and 2 after finding my copies.  Got all excited to see what the fuss is about how the first 2 games are so superior.  Started it up and instantly hated it.  Boring turn based with no direction whatsoever.  I get to the first town or whatever and I have no idea what I'm doing.  I lose patience and uinstall never looking back.
Whatever you have against Fallout 3 at least its playable.

[The Baconer]

Xenosaga 2, Fable 1 (thankfully avoided rest of garbage franchise)... And I think that's it.

[Lord Phoebus]

Funkcase wrote...

Basically gamer hipsters hate it. Becuase they like the old vintage ones better. I personally love the old Fallouts (except for Brotherhood of steel and tactics) Always have. But I think what Bethesda did was great, just could have done with more side quests and voice actors I thought. The way I see it, Bethesda saved Fallout. Black isle are no more, and Interplay are on the verge of becoming bankrupt.

Ignoring the poorly written dialog, crappy gameplay (Outside of VATS it plays like a bad shooter), simplistic enemy AI and one of the worst main quests and endings in gaming history, the largest problem with Fallout 3 is that it was about the wasteland, while Fallout 1,2 and NV were about people trying to reclaim the wasteland.  It may sound like a semantics but it makes a huge difference.  In Fallout 3 you spend most the game wandering around in the rubble of civilization it's grey, dingy, depressing and empty.  There is no life in the Capitol Wasteland, there are a few small settlements but Megaton and Rivet City are the only settlements you can call towns.  These aren't places that are trying to exert their influence on the wasteland, they aren't trying to grow their settlements, they're as empty and dead as the surrounding wasteland.  In the earlier fallouts you spend most of your time in towns, for the most part these people are surviving the dangers of the wasteland fine, their problems are the other people in the wasteland.  The small settlements have grown to the point where they are clashing with their neighbours, with organized groups of raiders and the fights are often as much over ideology as they are over resources and territory.  It's a more interesting story because it's a human story. 

It sort of reminds me about something George Romero once said about zombie movies and I think it applies here though I'm paraphrasing.  Zombie movies aren't about zombies, zombies are boring, they're about how people react to each other in crisis situation.  Similarly Fallout isn't about the nuclear holocaust, it's about the people rebuilding civilization after it was torn down.  Falout 1,2 and NV got that, Fallout 3 didn't. 

[k177sh0t]

Dragon Age 2

Fable 3

[Chuvvy]

Two Worlds, I played to see what all the complaints were about. Yeah... it's not good.

Modifié par Slidell505, 11 août 2011 - 09:33 .

[Farsoe]

TES.

[Chromie]

Rockworm503 wrote...
I finally installed 1 and 2 after finding my copies.  Got all excited to see what the fuss is about how the first 2 games are so superior.  Started it up and instantly hated it.  Boring turn based with no direction whatsoever.  I get to the first town or whatever and I have no idea what I'm doing.  I lose patience and uinstall never looking back.
Whatever you have against Fallout 3 at least its playable.

Fallout 1 and 2 are just fine and perfectly playable. Have to love Gog.com. You not giving the game time and actually idk learning the mechanics and controls is not our problem or a good reason for hating two fantastic rpg's.

[Haplose]

I also find them perfectly playable. The gameplay mechanics are nothing short of awesome for me. Turn-based is an advantage as well, it gives precise control over the flow of action and the battlefield. But I understand that the graphics can be off-putting in the modern times. They are for me.

So myself, I'm unfortunately not too keen to play the old games anymore. Well, had some fun with Master of Magic some months ago, but that was an exception really.

Does not change the fact how much of a dissapointment F3 was, compared with the old Fallouts. It was still a decent game... way better then Oblivion, I guess. But apart from graphics, it has nothing on the old Fallouts.

Modifié par Haplose, 12 août 2011 - 08:00 .

[Homebound]

i hate pokeymurn.

[Jiggasaurus]

Warheadz wrote...

Lost Odyssey.

Seriously, not everything about it was good, yet by and large it was a decent title.

[legion999]

Fable 3

[JediHealerCosmin]

Fable: The Lost Chapters was a really great game in my oppinion. One of my favorites.

Fable 2 & 3... WTF happened???

[Icinix]

JediHealerCosmin wrote...

Fable: The Lost Chapters was a really great game in my oppinion. One of my favorites.

Fable 2 & 3... WTF happened???

Streamlining.

[Rajorn]

Mass effect 2.


Its a good game, but a terrible RPG.

[Haplose]

Well, I'm having a lot of fun with it, but really calling ME2 an RPG is a far strech.

[Cribbian]

Oblivion and Fallout 3

[Clammo]

In no particular order;

Fable 2 (had the sense not to bother with Fable 3 after seeing the direction they were going)

FF13 (last FF game played was 7, so I thought this might be something similar, how wrong can one man be....)

Dragon Age 2 (shoddy, rushed, cash cow, and just like I didn't bother with Fable 3, it's highly unlikely I'll bother with DA3 if they keep heading the same way with it's design).

Modifié par Clammo, 12 août 2011 - 11:04 .

[nikki191]

dungeon lords hands down... it is an abomination

two world has the single worst voice acting in the history of gaming yet weirdly it grew on me and i ended up liking it

[Bad King]

Haplose wrote...

Bad King wrote...
Still, people forget that they did a lot of things better in Oblivion. It had better sidemissions, better gameplay, and more depth for each skill. And I always found enchantment OP in Morrowind (it almost completely took the point out of every other magic skill).

Did it? I don't remember that. The scaling system entirely ruined Oblivion's gameplay for me. More depth for each skill? I also don't really remember that, but indeed, it was a long time since I last played it.

I thought that the combat experience was a vast improvement in Oblivion where you could attack, block (voluntarily), perform dodge rolls, power attack, dissarm etc. your opponent. Combat in Morrowind consisted mainly of repeatedly using your most powerful attack- there was less room for tactics.

And yeah, while there were less skills in Oblivion, each one did have more depth. In Oblivion you earned a skill perk for every 25 level a skill rose- take acrobatics for example. As well as increasing jumping height, increasing your acrobatics skill would also grant you the following perks at certain levels:

Level 25 perk: You can now attack in mid air.
Level 50 perk: You can now do a rolling dodge.
Level 75 perk: You can now jump with a smaller loss of fatigue.
Level 100 perk: You can now bounce on the surface of water.

Meanwhile, in Morrowind increasing acrobatics only increased your jumping height and didn't grant any additional effects. The same can be said of almost any other skill in Oblivion- Block, marksman, sneak etc.

[SOLID_EVEREST]

Lord Phoebus wrote...

Funkcase wrote...

Basically gamer hipsters hate it. Becuase they like the old vintage ones better. I personally love the old Fallouts (except for Brotherhood of steel and tactics) Always have. But I think what Bethesda did was great, just could have done with more side quests and voice actors I thought. The way I see it, Bethesda saved Fallout. Black isle are no more, and Interplay are on the verge of becoming bankrupt.

Ignoring the poorly written dialog, crappy gameplay (Outside of VATS it plays like a bad shooter), simplistic enemy AI and one of the worst main quests and endings in gaming history, the largest problem with Fallout 3 is that it was about the wasteland, while Fallout 1,2 and NV were about people trying to reclaim the wasteland.  It may sound like a semantics but it makes a huge difference.  In Fallout 3 you spend most the game wandering around in the rubble of civilization it's grey, dingy, depressing and empty.  There is no life in the Capitol Wasteland, there are a few small settlements but Megaton and Rivet City are the only settlements you can call towns.  These aren't places that are trying to exert their influence on the wasteland, they aren't trying to grow their settlements, they're as empty and dead as the surrounding wasteland.  In the earlier fallouts you spend most of your time in towns, for the most part these people are surviving the dangers of the wasteland fine, their problems are the other people in the wasteland.  The small settlements have grown to the point where they are clashing with their neighbours, with organized groups of raiders and the fights are often as much over ideology as they are over resources and territory.  It's a more interesting story because it's a human story. 

It sort of reminds me about something George Romero once said about zombie movies and I think it applies here though I'm paraphrasing.  Zombie movies aren't about zombies, zombies are boring, they're about how people react to each other in crisis situation.  Similarly Fallout isn't about the nuclear holocaust, it's about the people rebuilding civilization after it was torn down.  Falout 1,2 and NV got that, Fallout 3 didn't. 

This 1000%!

Fallout: 3 is the worst RPG I've ever played. The gameplay mechanics was okay, but the entirety of the game was just awful.

[lobi]

Compared to the current crop of RPG 'lite' Fallout 3 is freaking brilliant. The DC wasteland is one of my favourite characters ever. Lord Phoebus should have tried speaking to people in the settlements like andale, republic of dave and following the notes and journals of people who travelled the wasteland. It wasn't all fetch quests for Moira.

Modifié par lobi, 12 août 2011 - 04:53 .

[aridor1570]

lobi wrote...

Compared to the current crop of RPG 'lite' Fallout 3 is freaking brilliant. The DC wasteland is one of my favourite characters ever.

Question: did you play Fallout: New Vegas?

[lobi]

@aridor yes. Just got done with old world dlc. Mojave had less people so less info on those that came before.

Modifié par lobi, 12 août 2011 - 04:58 .