i dont play RPGs so you dont have to take my opinion into account if you dont want to but when i have played RPGs they require an enormous amount of patience and time which the majority of people i know just dont have. i mean they're good if your into them but my advice would be buy a shorter, more action packed, easier to play one before you go for the huge ones like Skyrim and Fallout so forth. something like mass effect maybe. anyway thats all ive got. latarz
If I didn't like Fallout, will I like Skyrim?
- Thread starter Mechanix
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some people like a sense of progression beyond enemies getting slightly less pathetic and getting fancier gear. Some people like the sense of danger and challenge created with the realization that the game contains enemies that will surely hand you your own ass if you try to fight them too soon, and the sense of accomplishment and satisfaction when you grow more powerful and are able to defeat them. Some people like the fact that their character can become like a demigod and curb stomp everything. Some people like some combination thereof.SinorKirby said:
So maybe obnoxious is not exactly the right word, but there's a lot to dislike about it.
Don't assume everyone plays the game as you do. Some people use VATS very conservatively, or even forgo its use entirely.SinorKirby said:
Oh, and in a largely unrelated note, since people are giving their opinions on these games... since getting New Vegas, I've had no desire whatsoever to play Fallout 3 and don't imagine I ever will again. There's not a single thing about it that I miss while playing New Vegas save for its relative stability, which is no reason to want to play a game. I think the first 20 hours or so of New Vegas, I must have found myself thinking "This is so much better than Fallout 3!" dozens of times (I somehow managed to ignore any bugs).
It doesn't seem to me like this sort of thing is uncommon in regards to the first-person Fallout games or the last two Elder Scrolls games. For both of those it seems like a lot of people have a clear favorite between the two, which illustrates something relevant to this thread: two games can appear to be very similar, yet provide very different levels of enjoyment to the individual playing them. It's something to consider.
If you didn't like FO:NV then that's fine, but if you didn't like FO:3 then that is just blasphemy... it's madness.(this is SPARTAAAA... anyway...) Different developers, same publisher, bethesda are bad mofo's you can't NOT like their games. (yes, im a fanboy. lol)
In my experience, the Fallout line and Elder Scrolls were very different. The encumber-ment issue IS a problem in Elder Scrolls, but not quite as much as in Fallout for me, maybe because there isn't as much useless junk to pick up in Elder Scrolls as there is in post-apocalyptic America. Honestly, it seems your problems with Bethesda come from very small details that just irk you to no end, and being as Skyrim doesn't come out until November, most of us are just as blind about what it might be like in those areas as you are. However, I, myself, expect great things from Skyrim, and I wouldn't let New Vegas turn you off of Bethesda for good. After all, I didn't even think New Vegas was NEARLY the best Fallout game (Even overlooking all the bugs, it still really bothered me, just in general). Therefore, I wouldn't give up hope on Bethesda just yet.
Funny how hating Fallout 3 is blaphemy when Fallout 3 was the game that ruined the Fallout lore and screwed up the overall feel of the game series. If anything is being blasphemous around here...it's Fallout 3 and Bethesda.ks1234 said:
I'm pretty sure I can, since I've been talking about what an awful piece of crap Oblivion is and what a bland and mediocre excuse for a game Fallout 3 is since each of them came out.ks1234 said:
Morrowind was fantastic, though.
Ya it probably won't be for you, I say get it off ebay later on but don't go dropping 60$ on it.
But I haveto say that Fallout NV item shit was aggresive, especially since the inventory system is so weak, outside of pipboy they only make a list of all items and you are suppose to scroll through thousands of them to find what to buy/sell, that is some lazy ass design.
I ended up stuffing it full of mods so it would get halfway decent.
But I haveto say that Fallout NV item shit was aggresive, especially since the inventory system is so weak, outside of pipboy they only make a list of all items and you are suppose to scroll through thousands of them to find what to buy/sell, that is some lazy ass design.
I ended up stuffing it full of mods so it would get halfway decent.
I found plenty of people to repair my stuff, only food will heal over time unless you play on Hardcore where everything does, the bullet casings are for crafting if you want to so you can make better ammo, and yeah shame on Obsidian for making you actually level up a skill to use it.SinorKirby said:
DAMN YOU, OBSIDIAN! Stop giving people options! Everyone should play how I play!
OT: I don't think wRPGs are really your thing, maybe try a jRPG?
Even though the OP has probably finished reading this thread, I think I'll post my opinion anyway.
*clears throat*
It sounds to me like the biggest beef you had with New Vegas was all the useful-yet-hard-to-find-a-use-for items and the karmatic decisions (Some may want to you to think otherwise, but it all does boil down to karma). I can't be certain on what Skyrim will be like (since nobody can) but Oblivion was fairly conservative on items. Not only that, but the items were sorted a lot more effectively, so it felt less like you had a lot of crap and more like you had a lot of alchemy crap.
Oh yeah, and Bethesda has never been big on moral choice systems, so I doubt that Skyrim will have one. But I still suggest that you buy Oblivion on Morrowind and see what you think of them.
*clears throat*
It sounds to me like the biggest beef you had with New Vegas was all the useful-yet-hard-to-find-a-use-for items and the karmatic decisions (Some may want to you to think otherwise, but it all does boil down to karma). I can't be certain on what Skyrim will be like (since nobody can) but Oblivion was fairly conservative on items. Not only that, but the items were sorted a lot more effectively, so it felt less like you had a lot of crap and more like you had a lot of alchemy crap.
Oh yeah, and Bethesda has never been big on moral choice systems, so I doubt that Skyrim will have one. But I still suggest that you buy Oblivion on Morrowind and see what you think of them.
I actually agree with this complaint. I much preferred speech "challenges" to speech "checks," because I, as well as many of my other RPG-nerd friends, don't exactly think "I better get my speech up RIGHT NOW because if I don't, I'll never be able to finish this game" so much as "These enemies are kicking my ass, maybe I should level up things I actually do NEED to survive a minute in these games." (i.e. guns, explosives, sneak, etc.)SinorKirby said:
But I digress...
I've already expressed that I much prefer Fallout 3 to New Vegas, but still. Some of the things that drive me absolutely nuts about Fallout: New Vegas weren't at all an issue for me in Fallout 3 (or any of the Elder Scrolls games, for that matter). That being said, there were certain issues in the Fallout games that DID carry over to the Elder Scrolls series, which I don't foresee disappearing for Skyrim as of right now. So maybe before ANYONE decides that the original poster won't like Skyrim, they should play an earlier Elder Scrolls game. If nothing else, it'll give them a better idea of what to expect from Skyrim than New Vegas would.
I respectfully disagree. Obvilion was Bethesda trying something different (I mean, that is what video game development is all about... innovation and fun... but admittedly, some ideas are better or 'more fun' than others) anyway, maybe Bethesda's recent type of gameplay is NOT for you... that's fine, I respect that (not really but lets pretend, lol) I will agree, many flaws in oblivion... I believe bethesda will try to fix them in Skyrim. Though just because oblivion has flaws does not make it a bad game by any means... it's just a good game with flaws.ComradeJim270 said:
As for FO:3 being "bland mediocre excuse for a game" well... thousands upon thousands of people have played for hundreds of hours... I think that speaks for itself
How is going from a lampoon of human nature and mankind's lust for power and insatiable greed that caused civilisation's downfall and humanity's struggle to rebuild something they caused, to "loot and lulz" an improvement?ks1234 said:
Hear, hear. Honestly, anyone who thinks FO 3 was a mistake doesn't hold much validity in argument against me. There was so much done right about that game that if the negative affects your opinion about it THAT much, something's slightly off about your gaming experience.ks1234 said:
Personally I don't like Fallout much but I love The Elders Scrolls games. Try out Oblivion, It's a bit more linear and quite simple, good for getting the hang of Bethesda's RPG's.
I'd say about 90% of the issues you have can be back-traced to the Gamebryo Engine. It's a festering pile of camel crap if I ever saw one and a sorry excuse for a game engine. I can only imagine the reason Bethesda used it for so long is because they we either locked into a contract of some sorts, or they were super cheap and couldn't be arsed forking out the extra dough for a newer game engine.
Also, It's been pointed out a zillion times already, but Obsidian made NV, not Bethesda. They've been hard at work with Skyrim since they finished Fallout, and as I recall, it was only about half their team working on Fallout, so if half their team made Fallout 3, then I can't imagine what their whole team, a new game engine, and 2-3 years development time could let them churn out.
Also, It's been pointed out a zillion times already, but Obsidian made NV, not Bethesda. They've been hard at work with Skyrim since they finished Fallout, and as I recall, it was only about half their team working on Fallout, so if half their team made Fallout 3, then I can't imagine what their whole team, a new game engine, and 2-3 years development time could let them churn out.
Ignorance is bliss, eh?94samWOW said:
Fallout 3 was a big mistake because it was Bethesda taking a loved series and turning it into whatever the hell they wanted. The original Fallout games were about humanity rebuilding civilisation after they destroyed it because they got greedy and couldn't get along. The Fallout games delved into human nature and how we would react to living in a life where civilisation was gone and now a new one was going to be born out of the ashes of the old world.
Fallout 1 and 2 both included these aspects. In Fallout 1 the Master was aware that people had caused their own downfall and that as humans we could not properly take care of ourselves, therefore he saw Super Mutants, which he could create, as the next step in human evolution. He wanted to create an army of mutants that would unify the human race and make all of their goals the same so we could live together and be more equal. However, there were many flaws such as people who had been living in the wasteland were not fit for transformation and became dumb and brutish, whereas more "cleaner" humans became intelligent and strong beings. More importantly all female Super Mutants are sterile, which means that eventually the Super Mutant race will no longer be able to continue and they will die out.
Basically, Fallout 1 dealt with getting rid of human's problems by getting rid of humans themselves.
Now let's skip to Fallout 3, what was that about? Oh yeah some whiny kid whose Dad goes missing and now he wants to go find him. Then said dad wants to purify the water (which should've mostly cleared by now anyway) to give all the people of the East Coast fresh water, because apparently they don't know how to make wells or filter water like those of the West Coast.
Fallout 3 just didn't have the political or societal messages of the original Fallouts and instead sacrificed that for stupid quests that you only take part in to see what cool loot you will receive. Fallout 3 was filled with stupidity and nonsensical things, such as the Experimental MIRV and Mothership Zeta. Bethesda did away with rebuilding civilisation and decided they would focus more on petty survivors trying hard to create communities where they can survive the harshness of the apocalypse, 200 years after it has happened, made even more pathetic by the existence of the NCR in the West who by that time had made a large republic of more than 300,000 people with a fully working government and military.
Fallout: New Vegas thankfully went back to original messages of Fallout and continued civilisations rebirth with the NCR and Caesar's Legion, a force dedicated to fixing the mistakes of the old world by taking one of the most successful empires in history and getting rid of the negatives of it, mainly the senate and democracy.
Would an empire led by one man's ideals work in the long run? Most likely not.
Would the NCR, who can barely hold onto Hoover Dam and Vegas be able to continue to spread? Not at all if they continue to be lead by inept commanders.
Can Mr House control all of Vegas by himself, or will he eventually turn into the real life Howard Hughes and become obsessed with himself and eventually become cut off from the real? Of course, because it has already happened.
Independent New Vegas? People free to do what they? Yeah, not a chance.
So yes I do think Fallout 3 was a mistake, and I've just given a small taste as to why.
The tone of both games are/will be completely different, as will the combat and other aspects of gameplay.
So yeah, I'd say give Skyrim a chance, even if you weren't a huge fan of New Vegas.
So yeah, I'd say give Skyrim a chance, even if you weren't a huge fan of New Vegas.
Innovation and fun? Nothing good about Oblivion was innovative. Bethesda's vaunted "radiant AI" was a joke, the combat system was bland, the setting was repetitive and dull. There are many more serious problems like these, and I found very few redeeming qualities to weigh against them. I did play the game a great deal, I tried very hard to like it, but the more I played it the more I realized that the only thing impressive about it is that it's big. It sacrifices everything for scale.ks1234 said:
As for "having flaws does not make it a bad game", that's kind of what "bad game" means: a game with flaws which are seriously detrimental to its enjoyment.
As for Fallout 3, it doesn't matter if the entire population of the world plays it until the sun dies, popularity is not a measure of quality. Fallout 3 is better than a lot of games, but there are a lot of awful games out there for it to be better than. It's an improvement on Oblivion, but there's nothing about it that really stands out. "Bland and mediocre" is perhaps too harsh, but much of what I hear people say about its quality seems far too generous to me.
You, of course, are welcome to your opinion on the matter so long as you don't expect me to agree with it.
I hope you're right about Skyrim. I would love for it to be good, but I'm not going to count on it. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by a good game than disappointed by a bad one.
By the way, I posted reviews for both of those games in the user reviews forum and you can go look at them if you want to know why I don't much care for either one.
Based on your words I don't believe you've played the first two games.ks1234 said:
God forbid someone should dislike a game that you don't, or have different measures of quality.94samWOW said: