Aren't they already saying that about Fallout? It is almost like when we get past 25 years old, Entertainment seems to just get worse. Oh I pine for the stuff that came out when I was 15-25 years old, that was the pure golden age of entertainment. Unlike the new stuff that is just derivative dribble with a fancy coat of paint, that is too easy to play. and the really old stuff that has crappy graphics and sound, and overly complex game play.
I am probably older than you and believe me, most games have always been mediocre. We just don't remember them as much. And I think games have largely gotten better. I mean, look at Fallout; every version (pre-76 I guess based on what I hear) was better than the last. And I've been playing since 1.
> every version (pre-76 I guess based on what I hear) was better than the last
Fallout 1 & 2 were awesome.
Fallout 3 lost some of the feel but brought a more polished experienced, and was probably a net benefit.
FO:NV was very, very, very good. Nearly as good as FO 1 & 2 in writing, storyline, etc, and much better in other ways. Perhaps this was the peak of the series.
Fallout 4 was pretty weak; not in the same league as any of the previous games IMO. Maybe for some people the base constructio
Except that Fallout 3 was basically on rails. The addition of "karma" took a big chunk out of what made Fallout 1 and 2 great - you could trick and steal your way through the world unless you get caught, in which case there are consequences.
Having consequences for merely opening a cupboard ephemerally "owned" by an NPC that may already be dead in an empty shit shack is stupid.
I disagree. Fallout 3 is open. You can leave the vault at the start and walk in any direction and have fun. The main quest is not the point of Fallout 3; the main quest can be ignored if you want. New Vegas however felt more like being on the rails in some places - you can't walk any direction or you'll be dead very quickly, the difficulty forces you to basically follow the freeway to Primm, Nipton, Novac, Boulder City, then eventually New Vegas, taking the looong way around to avoid cazadores, deathclaws, etc. You can't really avoid the main quest in New Vegas as it parallels the safe route out of the starting area.
Also Fallout 3 shows you stuff, New Vegas uses exposition. Face it, game writers in general are terrible at wriing. These aren't English majors. At best you have something resembling a polished fan-fic. But Fallout 3 doesn't try to do a lot of exposition, the plot is shallow because the point of Fallout 3 is to explore.The main plot is simple because it's less than 10% of the game anyway. New Vegas though does too much writing, too much plot, and it fails. Obisidian falls into the trap that too many Game Masters fall into: writing a complex plot that the players ignore or subvert, then decides to keep forcing them back onto the plot that they have no interest in following. I've played New Vegas several times, and I still don't understand lots of it without just accepting that some plot points are just forcibly contrived, or that Mr House is brain damaged, or the NCR is brain damage, or that Caesar is brain dam.. oh wait, he really is.
NV was open world, with only one usable path. F3 was open world, with only one practical path to the end. If you were a wanderer, F3 was more open. If you wanted the end, NV was more open.
F3 wasn't open in DC. You were forced to one of two paths, underground, or along the water. F4 was the first where you could walk the perimeter of the usable map and spiral your way to the middle (avoiding only a couple of hot spots). In NV and 3, large portions were essentially lo
F3 is open in that you can ignore the main quest and go most places. Many people go to Rivet city early and end up talking to Doctor Li, bypassing the need to even visit GNR for example. Yes, you need to go underground to get into the city areas, but crossing the river is easy to do. Visit Canterbury Commons early at low level even, even though I typically never bump into it until very late. Moira's quest for example, takes you to some distant areas early on, such as Minefield or Robco. There are some a
I always notice that the NV lovers complain about things 3 added that they like in NV. 3 added karma. NV used karma. But NV lovers liked it better in NV than 3. Yes, the NV mod for 3 did have more time to tweak things that were already in 3. "but they had less time", they also had a fixed game engine, so no time to modify it, and no ability to do so either, which is why it's a F3 mod. Everything in NV could literally be done in F3, with mods, if you spent as much time and money as the dev team did (wit
So much for Fallout (Score:2)
It will still exist, it will even still exist for PC, but it will require the latest DX and the storylines will also go downhill.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't they already saying that about Fallout?
It is almost like when we get past 25 years old, Entertainment seems to just get worse.
Oh I pine for the stuff that came out when I was 15-25 years old, that was the pure golden age of entertainment. Unlike the new stuff that is just derivative dribble with a fancy coat of paint, that is too easy to play. and the really old stuff that has crappy graphics and sound, and overly complex game play.
Re: (Score:3)
I am probably older than you and believe me, most games have always been mediocre. We just don't remember them as much. And I think games have largely gotten better. I mean, look at Fallout; every version (pre-76 I guess based on what I hear) was better than the last. And I've been playing since 1.
Re: (Score:2)
Eh.
> every version (pre-76 I guess based on what I hear) was better than the last
Fallout 1 & 2 were awesome.
Fallout 3 lost some of the feel but brought a more polished experienced, and was probably a net benefit.
FO:NV was very, very, very good. Nearly as good as FO 1 & 2 in writing, storyline, etc, and much better in other ways. Perhaps this was the peak of the series.
Fallout 4 was pretty weak; not in the same league as any of the previous games IMO. Maybe for some people the base constructio
Re: (Score:2)
I love me some FO 1 and 2 but FO3 was just a transformationally better experience.
Re:So much for Fallout (Score:2)
Except that Fallout 3 was basically on rails. The addition of "karma" took a big chunk out of what made Fallout 1 and 2 great - you could trick and steal your way through the world unless you get caught, in which case there are consequences.
Having consequences for merely opening a cupboard ephemerally "owned" by an NPC that may already be dead in an empty shit shack is stupid.
Re:So much for Fallout (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Fallout 3 is open. You can leave the vault at the start and walk in any direction and have fun. The main quest is not the point of Fallout 3; the main quest can be ignored if you want. New Vegas however felt more like being on the rails in some places - you can't walk any direction or you'll be dead very quickly, the difficulty forces you to basically follow the freeway to Primm, Nipton, Novac, Boulder City, then eventually New Vegas, taking the looong way around to avoid cazadores, deathclaws, etc. You can't really avoid the main quest in New Vegas as it parallels the safe route out of the starting area.
Also Fallout 3 shows you stuff, New Vegas uses exposition. Face it, game writers in general are terrible at wriing. These aren't English majors. At best you have something resembling a polished fan-fic. But Fallout 3 doesn't try to do a lot of exposition, the plot is shallow because the point of Fallout 3 is to explore.The main plot is simple because it's less than 10% of the game anyway. New Vegas though does too much writing, too much plot, and it fails. Obisidian falls into the trap that too many Game Masters fall into: writing a complex plot that the players ignore or subvert, then decides to keep forcing them back onto the plot that they have no interest in following. I've played New Vegas several times, and I still don't understand lots of it without just accepting that some plot points are just forcibly contrived, or that Mr House is brain damaged, or the NCR is brain damage, or that Caesar is brain dam.. oh wait, he really is.
Re: (Score:2)
NV was open world, with only one usable path. F3 was open world, with only one practical path to the end. If you were a wanderer, F3 was more open. If you wanted the end, NV was more open.
F3 wasn't open in DC. You were forced to one of two paths, underground, or along the water. F4 was the first where you could walk the perimeter of the usable map and spiral your way to the middle (avoiding only a couple of hot spots). In NV and 3, large portions were essentially lo
Re: (Score:2)
F3 is open in that you can ignore the main quest and go most places. Many people go to Rivet city early and end up talking to Doctor Li, bypassing the need to even visit GNR for example. Yes, you need to go underground to get into the city areas, but crossing the river is easy to do. Visit Canterbury Commons early at low level even, even though I typically never bump into it until very late. Moira's quest for example, takes you to some distant areas early on, such as Minefield or Robco. There are some a
Re: (Score:2)
I can't even imagine trying to solve the game before 50 hours or so of walking around and exploring...
Re: (Score:2)