810 réponses à ce sujet

[Eternal Phoenix]

Skelter192 wrote...

I'll just wait for the Obsidian Fallout game.

Hopefully they actually have a solid build this time. New Vegas was a technical mess.

But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Fallout 3 was just soulless and lacked the RPG complexity of the older Fallout's.

Unless Arkane are working on this, I can imagine it'll have the same tedious combat of Failout 3.

[Addai]

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Because not everyone shares your opinion?

[Mr.House]

Addai67 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Because not everyone shares your opinion?

Well it's more people look at the game instead of being blinded by the giant world Bethesda creates to trick people into thinking it's a great game when it's really not.

Modifié par Mr.House, 19 novembre 2013 - 06:51 .

[Ravensword]

Mr.House wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Because not everyone shares your opinion?

Well it's more people look at the game instead of being blinded by the giant world Bethesda creates to trick people into thinking it's a great game when it's really not.

Yeah. Go back to Bethesda, Bethesda. You know, b/c they're headquartered in Rockville instead of the city of Bethesda.

Modifié par Ravensword, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:00 .

[ObserverStatus]

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Paling in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallouts doesn't necessarily make a game less than worthy of excitement, nearly everything pales in comparison to those. Personally, I think Fallout 3 was a great game, you just have to view it outside the shadow of the other Fallouts to appreciate it.

Modifié par bobobo878, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:03 .

[Ravensword]

bobobo878 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Paling in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallouts doesn't necessarily make a game less than worthy of excitement, nearly everything pales in comparison to those.

True. I know someone on my Steam FL who has logged in over a thousand hours in Skyrim but prefers the FO series to the TES. Ya'll don't give a damn whether it's developed by Bethesda or Obsidian; you guys just want to have your RL weapons and countless houses, bunkers, villas, etc. across the wastes.

[Jarl Johnnie Walker]

bobobo878 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Paling in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallouts doesn't necessarily make a game less than worthy of excitement, nearly everything pales in comparison to those. Personally, I think Fallout 3 was a great game, you just have to view it outside the shadow of the other Fallouts to appreciate it.

[dreamgazer]

Galactic Cannibalism wrote...

bobobo878 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Paling in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallouts doesn't necessarily make a game less than worthy of excitement, nearly everything pales in comparison to those. Personally, I think Fallout 3 was a great game, you just have to view it outside the shadow of the other Fallouts to appreciate it.

Mhm.

[themonty72]

Addai67 wrote...

Elton John is dead wrote...
But yeah. I don't know why people are getting excited over Fallout 4 considering Failout 3 and how it paled in comparison to New Vegas and the older Fallout's.

Because not everyone shares your opinion?

I do

Modifié par themonty72, 19 novembre 2013 - 10:07 .

[Liamv2]

I am looking forward to FO4 but i am looking forward to the obsidian game that will come out after it more.

[Dieb]

Fallout 3 was an amazing game. It has all the Fallout one needs in it, if only you get over the fact it's finally not in the desert.

Make no mistake, I love New Vegas just as much. It improves upon many things FO3 didn't do as well, and even upon things it got right already. But honestly, having played every Fallout game (except the spinoffs) as well as Wasteland, I did get a little annoyed of all the detached and forced references to previous games; as well as "Ranger this, Ranger that / Here's your constant reminder even we as developers STILL see this as 'Wasteland Light' and will never get over it."

En plus, as amazing their creative staff clearly is, Obsidian couldn't actually build a video game all on their own if their lives depended on it. Prior to release of any game they ever made, something I like to call the "Obsidian-Yes-No-Sandwich" happens: "Is it fun and immersive? Yes! Does it work? No! Do we have time left to fix it? No! Are we yet again forced to release it anyways? Yes!"

That's to say I'm confident Bethesda will do just fine. Fanboy much? Why, absolutely. I don't own a single Bethesda (Softworks) game I don't adore. They worked for this reputation and a certain amount of blind faith. The same goes for Obsidian.


P.S.: Should the Sniper Rifle be bugged this time around again however, they're dead to me.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 19 novembre 2013 - 10:53 .

[TheChris92]

Another thing I hope they'll improve upon is the voice acting -- Those fake Scandinavian accents, everywhere in Skyrim, got obnoxious quick because a lot of them, as usual, sound exactly the same. So you'll sometimes find people having conversations with themselves. Bethesda could take a cue from BioWare here to hire more voice actors (or at the very least actors with a wider voice range), and not all these hollywood celebrities, which they'll just drop off the face of the earth for most of the game anyway.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Honestly as long as it isn't some kind of Davidian black and white heroism-fest I'll probably get it.

[CroGamer002]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Honestly as long as it isn't some kind of Davidian black and white heroism-fest I'll probably get it.

Not even Fallout 3 was that bad.

[Ren Roche]

Beth should hire better writers + stop rushing out buggy games and leaving for the modders to fix the mess. I just hope this won't be as souless as FO3 (imo, the only good things about that game are Liam Neeson, the atmosphere and the world itself since you could walk for hours and still feel lost).

I'm getting a feeling they're just gonna make a Skyrim-esque shooter a la open world with a paper-thin main story, fetch quest based sidequests and wooden characters. Then again, too early to judge so let's hope it will be good. Also agree with the Chris92 on adding more VA's. It gets annoying when you talk with different people and they have the same voice.

[stonbw1]

I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, personally. Both had deficiencies, but I like the setting much better for FO3; it felt much more post-apocalyptic than the thriving metro area of New Vegas.

Unless BW pumps out a decent ME game beforehand, FO4 will be the reason I buy a next gen console.

[happy_daiz]

stonbw1 wrote...

I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, personally. Both had deficiencies, but I like the setting much better for FO3; it felt much more post-apocalyptic than the thriving metro area of New Vegas. 

See, that's how I feel, too. I loved new Vegas, but yet (still) have never finished it. Each time I've set out to do so, I start a new character, and get to a certain point in the game, and just stop. I don't feel compelled to go on, for some reason.

And I have all the FO:NV DLC, and just can't be moved to try it. From what I hear, that's a shame, because it's supposed to be really good.

I think I just prefer the setting in FO3. Something about it seemed more...I'm not sure. Believable, maybe? I don't know.

[Seagloom]

See, that exact reason is why I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3, setting wise. Fallout 3 feels like the bombs just dropped and the area has only taken its first steps toward recovery. Around two hundred years passed since the war, but there's hardly any signs of widespread social development. To me, that's very hard to believe.

Whereas NV is about where the future of an already developing region is headed. Having played past Fallout titles before it, I've seen firsthand a progression of societies between Fallout, Fallout 2, and FNV. There is growth and change as people adjust to living in the post war world.

Fallout 3's setting feels like an out of left field regression in comparison. It's like a retelling of the first game with details switched around to accommodate it. I don't dislike Fallout 3, really; but to me it doesn't quite fit in with the others. I see it as a side story rather than a core part of the series.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 novembre 2013 - 03:23 .

[Ren Roche]

happy_daiz wrote...

stonbw1 wrote...

I enjoyed FO3 more than NV, personally. Both had deficiencies, but I like the setting much better for FO3; it felt much more post-apocalyptic than the thriving metro area of New Vegas. 

See, that's how I feel, too. I loved new Vegas, but yet (still) have never finished it. Each time I've set out to do so, I start a new character, and get to a certain point in the game, and just stop. I don't feel compelled to go on, for some reason.

And I have all the FO:NV DLC, and just can't be moved to try it. From what I hear, that's a shame, because it's supposed to be really good.

I think I just prefer the setting in FO3. Something about it seemed more...I'm not sure. Believable, maybe? I don't know.

I agree. Capital Wasteland actually looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland, unlike the Mojave which is just a desert. FO 3 just nails that atmosphere. Plus, you can easily get lost. In NV the map feels more cramped.

[happy_daiz]

Seagloom wrote...

See, that exact reason is why I prefer New Vegas to Fallout 3, setting wise. Fallout 3 feels like the bombs just dropped and the area has only taken its first steps toward recovery. Around two hundred years passed since the war, but there's hardly any signs of widespread social development. To me, that's very hard to believe.

Whereas NV is about where the future of an already developing region is headed. Having played past Fallout titles before it, I've seen firsthand a progression of societies between Fallout, Fallout 2, and FNV. There is growth and change as people adjust to living in the post war world.

Fallout 3's setting feels like an out of left field regression in comparison. It's like a retelling of the first game with details switched around to accommodate it. I don't dislike Fallout 3, really; but to me it doesn't quite fit in with the others. I see it as a side story rather than a core part of the series.

I've only played FO3 and FO:NV, so I don't have the previous games to compare it to. FO3 was the first one I played, and that kind of setting was the standard, or the norm in my mind. Then when NV came out, it seemed like it hadn't suffered nearly as much as the Capital Wasteland. So that seemed a little watered down to me. As @ParaMedic said, it was just a desert, versus a wasteland.

I guess it's all about perspective and personal experience, huh?

Modifié par happy_daiz, 19 novembre 2013 - 03:26 .

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

happy_daiz wrote...

 Then when NV came out, it seemed like it hadn't suffered nearly as much as the Capital Wasteland. So that seemed a little watered down to me.

I guess it's all about perspective and personal experience, huh?

Well the Vegas area wasn't nuked nearly as much as the rest of the world.

Why? God-Tier Robert House. that's why.

[happy_daiz]

^ Ha! You make a good point.

OK, I'll admit, this kinda makes me want to go visit the Boomers, for some reason.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 19 novembre 2013 - 03:28 .

[Seagloom]

happy_daiz wrote...

I guess it's all about perspective and personal experience, huh?

Partly, yes. Which is why while I prefer FNV to F3, I don't think preferring F3 is a terrible thing.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 novembre 2013 - 03:29 .

[Dieb]

One thing is clear though, they need to retain the idea of providing the player with a multitude of different weapons in every "class".

What I hate most about Fallout 3 (aside from the broken SR scope of course) is how you have THE assault rifle, THE sniper rifle, THE shotgun, etc. At the endgame, you have one useful weapon out of every kind. New Vegas was great when it came to provide all kinds of equally useful weapons and enable you to just pick your favourite. I'm a sucker for headcanonig "signature" pieces of equipment for my characters that I would drag through the entire game, and thus I could do just that.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 19 novembre 2013 - 04:04 .

[Addai]

Mr.House wrote...
Well it's more people look at the game instead of being blinded by the giant world Bethesda creates to trick people into thinking it's a great game when it's really not.

Since exploration is a cornerstone of these games, the world isn't a "trick." It's part of what makes them good games.

And I'm tired of people telling me that games I enjoy aren't good like it's some kind of objective pronouncement.  I think I can decide that for myself.

Modifié par Addai67, 19 novembre 2013 - 04:18 .