immortalfrieza said:
Starke said:
I'm not even going to bother breaking down everything you said and responding to each bit, simply because all of it boils down to the same thing "This game is not a carbon copy of previous games in the series therefore it is bad." It's the No True Scotsman fallacy at it's most painful and blatant.
Yeah, if you're going to accuse someone of Invoking the No True Scotsman Fallacy, it might, and I'm just thinking here, might be somewhat important to have a vague grasp on the conversation that's going on.
immortalfrieza said:
Fallout 3 does NOTHING to defy the lore in any way, it expands on that lore while replacing it's combat and exploration systems with something far more detailed and involving.
It actually throws the setting's lore under the bus, then backs over it a couple times. That stray, "well there's jet there, so that makes sense," crack isn't random. Jet is a product of a chemist in Reno area just prior to the events of Fallout 2. It's absurdly addictive (I think the in game rate is 90%) and very big business for the New Reno families. Depending on the player's choices in Fallout 2, it's distinctly possible there's no way to produce more, as Myron is dead and the facilities have been destroyed. Failing that, there's no way to stop production of the stuff.
Fallderp has it scattered all over the DC area as if it was another pre-war chem. The problem with this... aside from it being in the loot tables for vaults and ruins in DC that haven't been looted in Myron's lifetime, is lore breaking. I get that you didn't realize that at the time, but it isn't a fallacy to say, "waitaminute how does this make sense?"
And that's one of the minor things that Fallderp fucks up. The Supermutants, Enclave, how water works, the Vault project, aliens, FEV, nearly every single thing Bethesda tries it hands at in Fallderp... they botch up the details, or don't understand the words coming out of their own mouth.
immortalfrieza said:
DOOM 3 is still a game about shooting demons in the face with a shotgun but now that they decided to update it to more modern standards and thus put a little atmosphere, atmosphere and give the player something to do besides shooting demons in the face just so you can find more demons to shoot in the face thus making the still many many times the player does shoot demons in the face all the more enjoyable instead of becoming repetitious it's a terrible DOOM game.
No, Doom3 was a game about trying to see the demon you were wanting to shotgun in the face, not about simply mowing through the hordes of hell.
I get for someone born after 1998 how that distinction wouldn't make sense. But, the original Doom games were a lot more in line with titles like Serious Sam or Painkiller. It's a specific kind of shooter. Doom3 was, "oh, we cans be system shock 2 now!" Well... no, that's not fair, it
was "we can be half-life 2 now" right down to a baddy implemented gravity gun in the expansion.
Now, Half-Life 2 is a pretty good shooter, but it's not the same kind of shooter as Painkiller, and it's certainly not the same kind of shooter as Doom 2. But, here we are with Doom 3 trying to be something it's not.
immortalfrieza said:
This sort of insane attitude is the reason why so many samey follow the leader copy and paste games come out these days.
Actually, the problem with Doom 3 was that it
tried to be that samey "follow the leader" drech.
Doom had it's own identity, independent of the, "well we're going to tell a serious story now," shooters. And, Doom3 screwed up. It chased after the leader and sacrificed it's own identity in the process. So instead of a good Doom game we got a mediocre Half-Life style shooter in a market that was already being pumped to the gills with mediocre Half-Life style shooters.
In fact, part of Painkiller's success can probably be attributed to Doom3 abandoning it's home in order to go try and compete with the cool kids.
immortalfrieza said:
Lore has to be followed exactly to the letter or it's wrong, no matter the wiggle room that lore should logically allow. No series or genre is allowed to innovate and improve upon itself in any way or it is not a real game in the series or genre. Why should developers bother making something better and fresher when everybody screams bloody murder precisely because they did?
Wow, talk about fallacies.
Okay, so here's something about Fallout you might not realize: The Enclave isn't in Fallout. It's not. It first popped up in Fallout 2.
There's expanding a setting. A good example of this in Fallderp is The Institute. It doesn't conflict with existing lore, it's a new thing, out there, with implications for the world.
Here's a bad example of expanding a setting: The Enclave has their brains replaced with dogshit and decide that the best course of action is to head for the east coast, en mass, after their home is nuked and they all died, because a long arduous trek across a radioactive nation is safer than finding someplace like NORAD or another facility closer to home that they can defend.
Bethesda made a terrible decision to import a lot of West Coast elements from the setting that just don't freakin' belong. Including the Deathclaws, Supermutants, Enclave, Regulators and Brotherhood of Steel. If they behaved consistently, so it wasn't just, "hey guys, remember this? *wink* *wink* You loved this, right?" That would be one thing. But, aside from the Deathclaws, nearly all of the imports that shouldn't be on the west coast are egregiously out of character.
However, if you suddenly turned out a Batman game where after a night of heavy drinking, Batman gives up his "no killing" rule, and took to the streets with a standard shooter arsenal, I doubt you'd be making the argument that, "it expands the lore." It doesn't, it flat out contradicts it, and doesn't add anything. Could Fallderp have used the Brotherhood? Yes. But, if they were going to use them maybe they should have behaved like The Brotherhood of Steel and not just The Random Good Guys Local #368.
immortalfrieza said:
I grew up playing both of these series.
Okay, this explains so much.
Here's the problem. Playing the original Fallout games as a child
will not make sense. I mean, yes, you can look at it and go, "oh, cool." But you wouldn't be able to understand what you're looking at. With Fallderp, not so much. It's the coloring book sequel to something legitimately intelligent and sophisticated. If you were treating the original games like coloring books, I wouldn't expect you to see the difference.
immortalfrieza said:
However, unlike many I am able to look past blind nostalgia and recognize just how limited those games were and how much better they've become as a result of this retooling for both of them. BOS damaged the Fallout franchise there's no doubt about that, but DOOM 3 is not the reason it took so long to make the new DOOM. DOOM 4 was stuck in development hell for a variety of reasons, none of which had anything to do with DOOM 3, if anything 3 renewed interest in a franchise that had been really stagnant for a long time.
Yes, Doom 3 renewed interest in the franchise. Right. Which is why Doom titles were releasing every couple years before it, and then... the franchise died for a decade. Right, that's what we call "renewing interest" now? I don't think those words mean what you seem to believe they should.
Just like how Doom3 managed to update itself to "modern standards," by chasing after Half-Life as hard as it could... Even though literally every other shooter for the last two years had been doing the same with terrible results.
In a lot of ways, Doom3 was the turning point for ID. Where they went from turning out their own things, with their own identities, to playing follow the leader with their game design. Which is a crying shame, the old ID games had a real identity. Now, to get games with that kind of flavor, you need to look at their games that got passed over to other developers, like Raven and Machine Games.
