810 réponses à ce sujet

[Addai]

themonty72 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?

I do

Good for you.

[Vort3xX]

Para-Medic wrote...

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.

Which doesn't matter a squat imo if the world is so utterly brown/grey that it becomes boring and depressive to just walk around in it, that's actually one thing i thought New Vegas did "better" not saying it's perfect but better, here we have forests, deserts, even snow, big cities etc still a long way to go but the world needs diversity to be more exciting atleast how i see it.

Modifié par Vort3xX, 19 novembre 2013 - 04:45 .

[stonbw1]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

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.

Question then: if Vegas wasn't nuked too much, why use that as a setting for a game called "Fallout"?  When I was playing NV, I never got the overwhelming impression that this was a post-nuclear world.  In FO3, you seemed alone; you didn't know what was around the corner; occasionally, you would see another person far in the distance, friend or foe, who knew...  

It's just preference, but that's what I would anticipate for a game called "fallout"; not dancing girls, talking robots, and flashing casino lights.  (I will note, however, that I thought NV's story was better than FO3's)

[Liamv2]

I just thought does the legion control Europe?

[Seagloom]

stonbw1 wrote...

Question then: if Vegas wasn't nuked too much, why use that as a setting for a game called "Fallout"?

Because it's a continuation of past titles in the series. The NCR and super mutants in particular are directly tied to the first two Fallout games. It's simply another area of the same universe.

It's sort of like Baldur's Gate 2: Shadows of Amn. Amn is far south of Baldur's Gate. Its architecture and culture differ as well. However, the story is a sequel to the original game; and while you never get to revisit the eponymous city, it exists in the same world as Amn.

Chalk it up to name recognition trumping practicality.

Liamv2 wrote...

I just thought does the legion control Europe?

There's nothing to suggest Caesar has ever been further east than Colorado.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 novembre 2013 - 04:57 .

[Liamv2]

I was just wondering since FO4 may be in europe, the idea of the legion controlling it was interesting.

[Seagloom]

Well, anything's possible. Who knows? Logistically, I don't see why they would want to leave the US until their control there was fully established. Plus their luddite views would make travel across the Atlantic difficult. But again, anything the writers feel like doing can happen, so...

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 novembre 2013 - 05:09 .

[King KvT I]

Liamv2 wrote...

I just thought does the legion control Europe?

As far as I'm aware, Caesar's Legion only rules over New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado and most of Utah.

And I doubt that Fallout would leave the US, seeing as the 1950's America aspect is essentially the main theme of the game. Although I would like to at least get a mention of what's gone on outside the US, even if it was just into Canada or Mexico.

Modifié par King KvT, 19 novembre 2013 - 05:13 .

[Liamv2]

Disappointing but that does make sense.

[Dieb]

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.

I love this argument so much I'd name my firstborn child after it, Hollywood-style. Word for word.

Modifié par Baelrahn, 19 novembre 2013 - 05:24 .

[bussinrounds]

With all the kickstarters/incline coming, I almost had forgotten what the grim face of mainstream rpgs was like.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 19 novembre 2013 - 06:22 .

[Mr.House]

Addai67 wrote...

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.

When said exploration is boring except for only one part of the map(DC) then yes they are tricking you. A big pretty world is not enough, it needs to be fun to explore, FO3 was not fun to explore except for DC.

[bussinrounds]

Having to go through all those copy pasted subway tunnels to get anywhere in DC wasn't too fun either.

Modifié par bussinrounds, 19 novembre 2013 - 06:52 .

[Mr.House]

Really, people who want a real post-apocalyptic rpg should just get Wasteland 2, FO4 will just be another SKyrim. Pretty giant world with no substance which will only be fun with mods.

[happy_daiz]

Mr.House wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

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.

When said exploration is boring except for only one part of the map(DC) then yes they are tricking you. A big pretty world is not enough, it needs to be fun to explore, FO3 was not fun to explore except for DC.

Mr.House wrote...

Really, people who want a real post-apocalyptic rpg should just get Wasteland 2, FO4 will just be another SKyrim. Pretty giant world with no substance which will only be fun with mods.

Since when did opinion become fact?

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

[Liamv2]

Mr.House wrote...

Really, people who want a real post-apocalyptic rpg should just get Wasteland 2, FO4 will just be another SKyrim. Pretty giant world with no substance which will only be fun with mods.

Never heard of it do you need to play Wasteland 1 first?

Modifié par Liamv2, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:01 .

[Ravensword]

happy_daiz wrote...

Mr.House wrote...

Addai67 wrote...

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.

When said exploration is boring except for only one part of the map(DC) then yes they are tricking you. A big pretty world is not enough, it needs to be fun to explore, FO3 was not fun to explore except for DC.

Mr.House wrote...

Really, people who want a real post-apocalyptic rpg should just get Wasteland 2, FO4 will just be another SKyrim. Pretty giant world with no substance which will only be fun with mods.

Since when did opinion become fact?

Since the heroic messiah David arrived.

[Mr.House]

Because grey and brown is so fun to explore right?

[happy_daiz]

Is it just the color palette that bothers you?

Ravensword wrote...

Since the heroic messiah David arrived.

The guy with the EDI avi? I usually just back out of those threads slowly, tbh. The delusion is too great for me to bear.

Modifié par happy_daiz, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:07 .

[Mr.House]

happy_daiz wrote...

Is it just the color palette that bothers you?

Ravensword wrote...

Since the heroic messiah David arrived.

The guy with the EDI avi? I usually just back out of those threads slowly, tbh. The delusion is too great for me to bear.

No, it's just boring to explore. I never got tired of exploring the Mojave with Boone and ED-E and helping House take full control of his city.

[happy_daiz]

Large parts of NV were very much brown, due to it being a desert and all. The one part that really made me sad about exploring the Mojave was that there were very few Yao Guai. I always take the Animal Friend perk, and it was super cute seeing those out in the wild, curled up, sleeping. Made me all warm and squishy inside.

Ahh, Boone. Loved that guy. I'm glad they made followers drop instead of die in NV. Well, not that Boone ever would. I remember fighting a SM Behemoth in FO3, spending most of my time just trying to keep Dogmeat alive. I'll admit, that was a little frustrating.

Not as frustrating as Cazadores, though. *shivers*

Modifié par happy_daiz, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:13 .

[bmwcrazy]

Mr.House wrote...

Because grey and brown is so fun to explore right?

I thought the same when I first saw the Fallout 3 screenshots, but then I played the game and I was surprised how fun it actually was to explore the wasteland.

New Vegas was pretty much the same to me except with more greens.

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

[Seagloom]

Mr.House wrote...

Really, people who want a real post-apocalyptic rpg should just get Wasteland 2, FO4 will just be another SKyrim. Pretty giant world with no substance which will only be fun with mods.

I'd still rather get Fallout 4, honestly. I've never had a serious interest in post apocalyptic RPGs. The only reason I got Fallout was because it came bundled with my copy of Baldur's Gate gold. I ended up playing through it first, and found myself hooked. In short, I only got into it by sheer coincidence. Since then I've been interested in the Fallout games because they're Fallout games.

So all this Wasteland hype does nothing for me. >.<

As far as exploration goes, tastes definitely differ. One of my best friends prefers Fallout 3 to New Vegas because of the exploration. He doesn't mind if nothing eventful happens for a long time; because it's the sudden unexpected discovery that appeals to him. His brother has similar tastes, and actually disliked FNV's faction system. He just wanted to wander through areas, finding little funzies while killing fools. Unsurprisingly, both are also into the Elder Scrolls games.

What some people want *is* a pretty giant world with no substance. Or perhaps there is substance there that isn't defined by them in the way it is by you or me. I prefer New Vegas too, but I also have different tastes. And honestly, I don't get why Fallout 3 is bashed as much as it is. One can argue it's pared down or its lore is totally out of whack; but is it really *that* horrid at the end of day? It's nowhere near a truly crap RPG like say, GODS: Land of Infinity.

happy_daiz wrote...

The one part that really made me sad about exploring the Mojave was that there were very few Yao Guai. I always take the Animal Friend perk, and it was super cute seeing those out in the wild, curled up, sleeping. Made me all warm and squishy inside.

They're a lot more common in the Honest Hearts DLC.

Modifié par Seagloom, 19 novembre 2013 - 07:27 .

[Ravensword]

happy_daiz wrote...

Is it just the color palette that bothers you?

Ravensword wrote...

Since the heroic messiah David arrived.

The guy with the EDI avi? I usually just back out of those threads slowly, tbh. The delusion is too great for me to bear.

Ah, good. His legend is beginning to spread throughout the BSN.

Fun fact: he loves FO3, but hates NV for a few mindnumbingly stupid reasons.

[Jaison1986]

happy_daiz wrote...

Large parts of NV were very much brown, due to it being a desert and all. The one part that really made me sad about exploring the Mojave was that there were very few Yao Guai. I always take the Animal Friend perk, and it was super cute seeing those out in the wild, curled up, sleeping. Made me all warm and squishy inside.

Ahh, Boone. Loved that guy. I'm glad they made followers drop instead of die in NV. Well, not that Boone ever would. I remember fighting a SM Behemoth in FO3, spending most of my time just trying to keep Dogmeat alive. I'll admit, that was a little frustrating.

Not as frustrating as Cazadores, though. *shivers*

Dogmeat is nearly immortal with Broken Steel.

I liked FO3, not as much as New Vegas. But it was still good. What trully got me in NV was how in the middle of the hostile wasteland there was this little piece of the old world so finely preserved, and experience the old glory of modern civilization was really something else. I aways wanted to know how it felt to live in the Pre war world of the Fallout universe, and NV gave me a little piece of that. 

I really wish that the next Fallout could do something similar.