It's not better by default, it's better because it took more money to make, MADE way more money, won many more awards, got many more good reviews, has a larger fan base, and utilized next gen technology.
Wait, what? Exactly what do you know of the size of the fanbase of the previous fallout installments? Also, are you seriously suggesting that the amount of money circulated proves that a game is good? "it cost a lot to make, and it made a lot of money, hence the game is a masterpiece" is that what you're saying?
Sorry but im not going to trust your "sense of objectivity" any further than I can throw it (which would amount to exactly zero meters or feet).
Also, name me one gaming magazine at the time that gave Fallout 2 "bad" reviews, and I'll easily find THREE that gave Fallout 3 just as bad reviews...
It's not better by default, it's better because it took more money to make, MADE way more money, won many more awards, got many more good reviews, has a larger fan base, and utilized next gen technology.
Wait, what? Exactly what do you know of the size of the fanbase of the previous fallout installments? Also, are you seriously suggesting that the amount of money circulated proves that a game is good? "it cost a lot to make, and it made a lot of money, hence the game is a masterpiece" is that what you're saying?
Sorry but im not going to trust your "sense of objectivity" any further than I can throw it (which would amount to exactly zero meters or feet).
Also, name me one gaming magazine at the time that gave Fallout 2 "bad" reviews, and I'll easily find THREE that gave Fallout 3 just as bad reviews...
No that was just speaking objectively. I'm trying to convey that Fallouts 3 and NV are way more advanced, and the first Fallouts are small potatoes compared to them.
I mean I could (subjectively) go on, and on about how Fallouts 3 and NV have an amazing expansive map, interesting locales, people, enemies, gameplay, and weapons. But you seemed to want the facts, and so I gave them to you.
But oh wait. You don't like facts? Ok, then I'm gonna stop telling them to you, so you can pretend that Fallouts 1 and 2 are still relevant, and even comparable to it's successsors.
No that was just speaking objectively. I'm trying to convey that Fallouts 3 and NV are way more advanced, and the first Fallouts are small potatoes compared to them.
I mean I could (subjectively) go on, and on about how Fallouts 3 and NV have an amazing expansive map, interesting locales, people, enemies, gameplay, and weapons. But you seemed to want the facts, and so I gave them to you.
But oh wait. You don't like facts? Ok, then I'm gonna stop telling them to you, so you can pretend that Fallouts 1 and 2 are still relevant, and even comparable to it's successsors.
Exactly what is "more advanced" about F3 and NV other than the graphics?
For one thing, last time I checked, Fallout 1 and 2 had more skills, traits and perks to choose from for your character, while the recent installments have a rather finite and limited level progression. Aside from that, the variation of items, weapons and armour in the first two installments vastly overshadows the puny variation in equipment and items in the later installments. Aside from that, you could have a lot more followers in your party in Fallout 2 than you can in Fallout 3.
Then there is the fact that Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas suffer from a bad case of self-censorship not present in the first two games. I mean, I could shoot children in the groin if I wanted to and then proceed to visit a whorehouse in the next town fucking an enslaved prostitute in the first two games, something made impossible in Fallout 3 since Bethesda arbitrarly thought that the player shouldn't be able to do such a thing for "moral" reasons, in a game which boasted to be morally ambiguous and that the PLAYER had the ultimate choice in what to do and what not to do.
So if you claim that F3 and NV are "way more advanced" you're just talking out of your ass. The only "more advanced" are the graphics, although it wouldn't surprise me that you're one of those people who sincerely believe that the quality of a game relies on graphics alone and that everything else is irrelevant...
I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,
Have you actually played them? Me and a lot of other people have played Fallout 1 and 2 AFTER the more recent installments and have thought them to be a load better.
I've only played 2, 3 and a little bit of 1. My favourite so far is Fallout 2.
I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,
OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.
You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.
OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.
Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>
Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.
Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?
Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.
Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.
1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.
And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.
And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.
No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.
Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.
Merriam Webster disagrees with you.
English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?
My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.
As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.
I already learned it, the question is did you? Judging by your probation i'd say not. Since you seem to insult everything to get a rise out of people. Perpetuating speculation doesn't help your point at all, nor are your attempts to insult anyone who argues with you and even use points you can't even back up. Next gen graphics? Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, requiring the green tint to hide the texture and model defects. If your graphics are so bad you need to HIDE IT WITH EDITING, it isn't next gen graphics. Look at downtown DC with fellout installed (removes green tint that textures rely on), it looks like utter crap. Physics? It uses the outdated gamebryo engine, another laughing stock that is more outdated than valve's source engine. The game play is downgraded from morrowind, a step backward. Nowhere in fallout 3 is there "next gen". Not from a technical, storyline, or game play perspective.
Graphics don't matter in a game. Only in shallow games do they matter, look up crysis. Its old and generic but still looks better than anyhing you've seen now. By the way you trying to compare a CRPG with an FPSRPG is just embarrassing. Next you'll say Dragon age was bad because it didn't have russians and guns.
In a word, yes (good comeback though). And as for my probation, you know that Pixar thread thats so popular right now? Well I posted that I thought up was boring, and had the bad luck of that beingthe first post. And I caught alot of flak from pissed off manchildren who agressively rushed to its defense.
But thanks for bringing up something thats completely irrelevant, because it just demonstrates how you have nothing substantial to say.
You say that Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, when FO1 looked like it had been rendered in Microsoft Paint. But you're right, FO3 looks so much worse. And even if the physics aren't top notch, they still a hell of a lot better than Fallout's 1 and 2. And I don't remember any assault rifles in Morrowind, so your little theory there is bullshit as well.
I'm sure Fallout 3 won game of the year when it was realeased for being inferior to it's, what, 6 year old(?) predecessors. Really, if you seriously believe that, then you're just not seeing things logically. But that seem perfectly in charcter for you.
Comparing games from different genres isn't embarrassing, it makes perfect fucking sense. Whats embarrassing is your determination to ignore facts and common sense, because you're ferociously nostalgic for the "good" old (incredibly OLD) days of Fallout. Before it was good and all.
And Bioware is my favorite developer, and I liked Dragon Age. Also, I'm half Russian, and don't like games where they're depicted as evil. I'm just patriotic that way.
Common sense? Since when is following games purely for graphics ever common sense? It will only cost you extortionate amount of money to view "graphics" as console cannot render good graphics anymore. Its been years since the hardware consoles use has ever been recent. Hell the Xbox was already outdated by the time it came out. To view "graphics" would need even more money. Why spend all that when photorealism is is literally outside the window?
You say fallout was never good in the past when it scored a 89 on metacritic, 1 score point away from fallout 3 and scored HIGHER than New vegas (85). If fallouts are so bad, why are they still regarded highly on metacritic and almost the same in scores? And the USER scores for fallout 1 is 9, while fallout 3 is 7. If fallout is so bad, why is it so praised now? and by so many people years after its release? and on the biggest review site?
Game of the year awards are practically popularity contests. It shows nothing other than a publication that likes it. Its basically the opinion of the publication and its writers. Game of the year awards are not given by the gaming god, only publications that post news of video games. Hell GOTYs started at the earliest 1992 (?), and even then it wasn't until 2000 to 2008 did the "big" publications began to do GOTY awards.
I didn't say you thats it's better solely because of it's good graphics. And now you're ust talking nonsense. What the hell do you mean by "Consoles cannot render good graphics anymore."? You talk about me condemning stuff for being old, you think that the Xbox was outdated by the time it came out. And by "To view "graphics" (why the hell do you have quotation marks around graphics anyway?) you would need even more money." what exactly do you mean. If you want to see a games graphics, you would have to spend money to buy the game?
I don't know what these ramblings mean, can you please translate them to english for me?
I didn't say that the old Fallouts weren't good back when they came ou, but they are nowhere near as good as it's next gen successors. To say so would be completely retarded.
And let me get this straight, the Game of The Year award is meaningless, but an obscure review that said it was good is now a more viable judgement? In what fucking universe?
Because I'm sure that a multinational annual televized objective evaluation is far less a credible source than some no-name blogger who thinks that the first 2 Fallouts are 'Teh Bomb!'.
And believe me, it's not so praised. The new Fallouts have a much larger following, and always will.
But it's becoming painfully obvious that your willing to disregard all of the facts, reasonings, and evidence that doesn't agree with you.
And unless you want to be a COMPLETE hypocrite, I wouldn't complain about my spelling, and grammar errors again.
Unless of course you've already edited all of yousr out. Which would take awhile.
For one, you say thet graphics are all important when it would cost an arm and a leg to get "god like graphics". Consoles cannot render the "god like graphics " due to their stagnant technological state. You would have to buy an expensive PC for that. Even then the PC would be under utilized since not every game has "god" graphics. In short following graphics is illogical and a waste of money. Graphics don't last long and will only be improved, its utterly impossible to stay completely at the cutting edge.
GOTY awards are effectively meaningless since its not a focused award. Its given by publications, and even then they only gained popularity recently. Reviews put together and form a number that shows how good it is however has weight. If you look at the official and user score, they are the same and in the user score the old games surpass the new ones. Games can be good regardless of age. Mario, pong, and tetris all stand with the newer games of today and are still loved. Age means nothing about a game's quality. Sure it has a large following but that only proves they are more accessbile.
Metacritic isn't exactly mainstream. Not like IGN, Game FAQs, or ya' know...the Escapist. Just because some nostalgic blogger says something doesn't make it remotely true. It really shocks me that you would sooner debunk GOTY than your obscure metacritic. I don't care what score he gave them.
And I'm not even talking about "God like" graphics. Just good enough to not look like the first Fallouts. They look like shit, and you can't deny it.
And (this is the last time I'm gonna say it) I'm not saying that old games cannot be good, alot of them still are. But you cannot honestly compare the first 2 Fallouts to the new ones. That would constitute a whole new level of dumbass.
lordy, lordy, where to begin with your misconceptions?
1st: The official score is 89, one point away from fallout 3, and higher than fallout new vegas.
2nd: the user score is calculated by multitudes of people's scores. Not one person. The user score shows that fallout struck a much higher chord than fallout 3.
3rd: Review scores are calculated by 5 or more reviews from actual publications like gamespot and IGN.
4th: You're comparing classic rpgs with an FPS RPG, two different genres. Comparing the new and old fallouts are like comparing starcraft II with GTA IV. By that logic path GTA sucks because you cannot command troops, doesn't have the factions, and has no base building. Understand? Genres go into sub genres and have different requirements. City builders are a sub-genre of strategy, and have different criteria. Do we ridicule city builders because there are no troops to command? no. Should we ridicule final fantasy because it doesn't have "phat gunz"? No. By that same logic, fallout 3 sucks because its a tiny game with only one city, one hooker, no child killing, no nut shots, no eye shots, no jokes, and small selection of guns and armor.
5th: So you ridicule fallout because of graphics? still? Just wow. The level of ignorance exuded by the notion is simply amazing. Graphics do not dictate game quality. At all. Simply shooting down a game purely for graphics alone is plain concentrated ignorance.
Again, the score that one website gave Fallouts one and two when they came out hold no credence. Scoring systems change with time. Back in it's day pong would have probably gotten a 10 out of 10.
And I don't know where you got the idea that you can't compare games from different genres, because they're different. You're just saying that so that your favorite games won't suck in comparison. Which they do.
And the fact that you're ready to dismiss the GOTY awards in favor of a single review just shows your persistence to believe what you want, even when it's not true.
And if you disliked Fallout 3 because there wasn't enough whores and child killing for you then I tihnk that says something about you. Nothing I didn't already know though.
And graphics are an extremely important part of any digital media. Theres a reason that people make such a big deal of them. You would be lying if you said that nobody cared, because most everybody does. But please, explain how ignorance is just dripping fromthat statement. Again, you're just willing to contradict that because you love the first Fallouts so much.
Besides I'm not even shooting down the first ones because of the horrible, horrible, sickeningly aweful graphics. They're just a testement to how dated, and irrelevant the first installments have become.
Being completely objective, Fallouts 3 and New Vegas are better than their predecessors. They took more money, and time to make. They made WAY more money. They have many more awards, Many better reviews, A much larger fan base, and way more advanced technology.
wow, I saw this one coming when I made the post I just didn't think it would last so long. Okay first thing's first, your both right on almost every thing that has been stated so far (in my opinion), but that's the thing it's all statement and speculation. The thing is, and I'm not trying to say that ether of you are wrong, just because someone like's an older game or an original in a franchise more than it's successors doesn't make them wrong, it just suits their tastes in games more then the others did. Next he's not saying that fallout 3 is bad, so what if you don't like the first two fallout games, you two keep going on about opinions, but from my point of view (and this is just speculation, maybe I'm reading it wrong) it seems like your both ignoring that key element of opinion in the conversation. Next, another thing with the aforementioned matter of opinion is graphics, the age of a game and graphics correlate with each other because of newer game engines, but fallout 1,2 have a different engine from fallout 3 and New Vegas and although graphics can and do make the game more immersive, they are not the most important thing in a game (don't get this confused I'm not saying the engine is unimportant, THAT would be stupid, I'm saying graphics can be unimportant). On the age note though, just because a game is old doesn't make it bad and just because a game is new doesn't make it good does not mean that they are not important, innovation, as time passes we see what we've done right and what we've done wrong so games can get better as they get older, but developers tend to stick to what they know will work so we don't always see as much innovative ideas as we would like. Again with opinion, just because a game is critically acclaimed or wins game of the year does not actually mean it's a good game, There's ALMOST never any actual fact when looking at a review from any website or blog and if a lot of people agree with what the critic or reviewer in question is saying then his opinion is similar to most people, the difference is people think the critic is question is important so they listen to his opinion instead of an average person who has a different from theirs. That's what I think, but in the end it's just what I think is true.
Fallout new vegas, IMO. I find the story much more satysfying than fallout 3 (capping benny in the head, anyone?). The main problem i have with it is that it doesn't know if it wants to be an rpg or a shooter. I really like having vegas as a main hub where the story gravitates.
Fallout 3 was excellent, even then. I played fallout 1 and 2, and tought that they were nice game, even if my modern day retarded brain couldn't understand them. Altough i'm sure they are a bit overhyped because of nostalgia.
I have yet to play fallout tactic, altough i'm a fan of those games.
EDIT: woah, epic flamewar above my post. I'll just say that they can't be compared. NOW DON'T FEED THE TROLL
While Fallout New Vegas improves and adds so much to Fallout 3, I actually still prefer Fallout 3..maybe it's the big band music on the radio, or the lovely atmosphere of DC but I always find myself turning off New Vegas to play more Fallout 3. Oh and it helps that Fallout 3 has the metro's which I actually found fun to explore especially because I could blast ghouls heads off whilst listening to Let's Go Sunning or my personal favorite Civilization.
EDIT: I've pinned it down, it's the general tone and feel of the game how you grew up in a vault not knowing just how big the world is around you and when you leave it's finally a big burst of light and then you slowly come to grips with the devastation around you. I still get goose bumps from that scene even after playing it 3 times. I still get the sense of despair and the feeling of an odd fear but respect for the ruins around you, just go down the Patomic river to get to Rivet City and you'll see what I mean all around you the skeletons of buildings loom over head and you can't help but wonder what lies in them..
New Vegas just feels really empty and isolated, though the settlements are more populated which is nice.
I really don't see why the poll don't include fallout 2 and 1 because both of them are much better than nv and fallout 3.
However out of those two nv is much better game because it actually feels like a fallout game mostly because of better writing and better humor.
Fallout 3 was for me step down from oblivion which itself was step down from morrowind.
So fallout 3 is for me oblivion with guns just worse and nv is an actual fallout sequel.
I didn't encounter a single bug, glitch or any annoyance in New Vegas. A streamline amazing experience full of wonderment and spectacle. Loved it from beginning to end.
With Fallout 3 my game crashed five times before I got out of Vault 101 and I absolutely hated the story. I like how the whole story is based around telling the player what he cares about and what to do (although every game is like that nowadays, great storytelling guys). After meeting my 'Dad' for fifteen minutes I was told to walk across the wasteland to go find him. I put that absolute poor excuse for story off until the end.
Zero player empathy when it came to story. In New Vegas I got shot in the head and it was said it might be an alright idea to go find out who shot me. I got caught up in a story about myself, that felt genuinely personal, instead of something I was simply 'told' to believe in.
That's why New Vegas is better in everyway. It cares about the player.
I get so sick of hearing this. Theres a reason none of them are options on the poll. They are not comparable to the new installments. They are ancient and suck next to their predecessors,
OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.
You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.
Also predecessors are those that come before.
OT: Fo:3 is my favorite on account of Lincoln's Repeater. It really just makes it better than anything else, period. And yes, I am an Abe Lincoln fanboy.
Yes, now go back to your call of duty and your medal of honor chest thumping of "war". Oh wait, they are ancient games too. Come to think of it Fallout 3 is ancient, batman arkham asylum is ancient, all halos are ancient, gears of war is ancient, Oblivion is ancient, morrowind is ancient, and every game not made in 2011 is ancient so they all must suck. >.>
Christ, this is the same notion that is set in concrete in immature freshmen in high school.
Don't like fallout? then don't come to fallout threads. Is that so hard to do?
Fanatical? No, i am pointing out how flawed your logic is. Newer =/= better, older =/= bad. 1.Don't like a game? Fine, don't play it. However you don't go bringing age into the argument otherwise your just spouting flawed logic. You also don't state your opinion as fact.
Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.
1. OK. But only as long as I have your blessing... I'll stick to only the good ones.
And the age of the first installements isn't irrelevent. I mean, its not gonna e winning any awards this year for it's stunning characters, and (poker face) breath-taking visuals.
And the definition of 'opinion' is the personal beliefs of an individual. Seen as factual, in other words. But next time I'll be sure to add an 'I think' so you don't feel insecure.
No, it doesn't. By your logic mario, pong, and tetris is bad. However, since Halo 3 and call of duty are ancient now, they must suck too. It's your logic. In fact since the all the consoles are over 1 year old they all must suck by your logic.
Opinion:
a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge.
Merriam Webster disagrees with you.
English & context, learn it. Really, this is getting embarrassing. English and logic fallacy back to back? What is next?
My debunking of your misinformed argument, of course. And thats not my logic, it's yours. Age can be irrelevant, but in the case of the Fallout series, it's not. It just means that Fallouts 3 and New Vegas took a small fortune to create, thousands of man hours, an incredible amount of consideration and tweaking, and nextgen graphics, physics, and gameplay up the arse. Whereas the first 2 look like garbage, and probably took something under a year, and have very much fallen from grace.
As far as the opinion thing, heres another copy/paste from Webster's: a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter.
If you need the bottom line, refer to my previous post.
I already learned it, the question is did you? Judging by your probation i'd say not. Since you seem to insult everything to get a rise out of people. Perpetuating speculation doesn't help your point at all, nor are your attempts to insult anyone who argues with you and even use points you can't even back up. Next gen graphics? Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, requiring the green tint to hide the texture and model defects. If your graphics are so bad you need to HIDE IT WITH EDITING, it isn't next gen graphics. Look at downtown DC with fellout installed (removes green tint that textures rely on), it looks like utter crap. Physics? It uses the outdated gamebryo engine, another laughing stock that is more outdated than valve's source engine. The game play is downgraded from morrowind, a step backward. Nowhere in fallout 3 is there "next gen". Not from a technical, storyline, or game play perspective.
Graphics don't matter in a game. Only in shallow games do they matter, look up crysis. Its old and generic but still looks better than anyhing you've seen now. By the way you trying to compare a CRPG with an FPSRPG is just embarrassing. Next you'll say Dragon age was bad because it didn't have russians and guns.
In a word, yes (good comeback though). And as for my probation, you know that Pixar thread thats so popular right now? Well I posted that I thought up was boring, and had the bad luck of that beingthe first post. And I caught alot of flak from pissed off manchildren who agressively rushed to its defense.
But thanks for bringing up something thats completely irrelevant, because it just demonstrates how you have nothing substantial to say.
You say that Fallout 3's graphics were a joke, when FO1 looked like it had been rendered in Microsoft Paint. But you're right, FO3 looks so much worse. And even if the physics aren't top notch, they still a hell of a lot better than Fallout's 1 and 2. And I don't remember any assault rifles in Morrowind, so your little theory there is bullshit as well.
I'm sure Fallout 3 won game of the year when it was realeased for being inferior to it's, what, 6 year old(?) predecessors. Really, if you seriously believe that, then you're just not seeing things logically. But that seem perfectly in charcter for you.
Comparing games from different genres isn't embarrassing, it makes perfect fucking sense. Whats embarrassing is your determination to ignore facts and common sense, because you're ferociously nostalgic for the "good" old (incredibly OLD) days of Fallout. Before it was good and all.
And Bioware is my favorite developer, and I liked Dragon Age. Also, I'm half Russian, and don't like games where they're depicted as evil. I'm just patriotic that way.
Common sense? Since when is following games purely for graphics ever common sense? It will only cost you extortionate amount of money to view "graphics" as console cannot render good graphics anymore. Its been years since the hardware consoles use has ever been recent. Hell the Xbox was already outdated by the time it came out. To view "graphics" would need even more money. Why spend all that when photorealism is is literally outside the window?
You say fallout was never good in the past when it scored a 89 on metacritic, 1 score point away from fallout 3 and scored HIGHER than New vegas (85). If fallouts are so bad, why are they still regarded highly on metacritic and almost the same in scores? And the USER scores for fallout 1 is 9, while fallout 3 is 7. If fallout is so bad, why is it so praised now? and by so many people years after its release? and on the biggest review site?
Game of the year awards are practically popularity contests. It shows nothing other than a publication that likes it. Its basically the opinion of the publication and its writers. Game of the year awards are not given by the gaming god, only publications that post news of video games. Hell GOTYs started at the earliest 1992 (?), and even then it wasn't until 2000 to 2008 did the "big" publications began to do GOTY awards.
I didn't say you thats it's better solely because of it's good graphics. And now you're ust talking nonsense. What the hell do you mean by "Consoles cannot render good graphics anymore."? You talk about me condemning stuff for being old, you think that the Xbox was outdated by the time it came out. And by "To view "graphics" (why the hell do you have quotation marks around graphics anyway?) you would need even more money." what exactly do you mean. If you want to see a games graphics, you would have to spend money to buy the game?
I don't know what these ramblings mean, can you please translate them to english for me?
I didn't say that the old Fallouts weren't good back when they came ou, but they are nowhere near as good as it's next gen successors. To say so would be completely retarded.
And let me get this straight, the Game of The Year award is meaningless, but an obscure review that said it was good is now a more viable judgement? In what fucking universe?
Because I'm sure that a multinational annual televized objective evaluation is far less a credible source than some no-name blogger who thinks that the first 2 Fallouts are 'Teh Bomb!'.
And believe me, it's not so praised. The new Fallouts have a much larger following, and always will.
But it's becoming painfully obvious that your willing to disregard all of the facts, reasonings, and evidence that doesn't agree with you.
And unless you want to be a COMPLETE hypocrite, I wouldn't complain about my spelling, and grammar errors again.
Unless of course you've already edited all of yousr out. Which would take awhile.
For one, you say thet graphics are all important when it would cost an arm and a leg to get "god like graphics". Consoles cannot render the "god like graphics " due to their stagnant technological state. You would have to buy an expensive PC for that. Even then the PC would be under utilized since not every game has "god" graphics. In short following graphics is illogical and a waste of money. Graphics don't last long and will only be improved, its utterly impossible to stay completely at the cutting edge.
GOTY awards are effectively meaningless since its not a focused award. Its given by publications, and even then they only gained popularity recently. Reviews put together and form a number that shows how good it is however has weight. If you look at the official and user score, they are the same and in the user score the old games surpass the new ones. Games can be good regardless of age. Mario, pong, and tetris all stand with the newer games of today and are still loved. Age means nothing about a game's quality. Sure it has a large following but that only proves they are more accessbile.
Metacritic isn't exactly mainstream. Not like IGN, Game FAQs, or ya' know...the Escapist. Just because some nostalgic blogger says something doesn't make it remotely true. It really shocks me that you would sooner debunk GOTY than your obscure metacritic. I don't care what score he gave them.
And I'm not even talking about "God like" graphics. Just good enough to not look like the first Fallouts. They look like shit, and you can't deny it.
And (this is the last time I'm gonna say it) I'm not saying that old games cannot be good, alot of them still are. But you cannot honestly compare the first 2 Fallouts to the new ones. That would constitute a whole new level of dumbass.
lordy, lordy, where to begin with your misconceptions?
1st: The official score is 89, one point away from fallout 3, and higher than fallout new vegas.
2nd: the user score is calculated by multitudes of people's scores. Not one person. The user score shows that fallout struck a much higher chord than fallout 3.
3rd: Review scores are calculated by 5 or more reviews from actual publications like gamespot and IGN.
4th: You're comparing classic rpgs with an FPS RPG, two different genres. Comparing the new and old fallouts are like comparing starcraft II with GTA IV. By that logic path GTA sucks because you cannot command troops, doesn't have the factions, and has no base building. Understand? Genres go into sub genres and have different requirements. City builders are a sub-genre of strategy, and have different criteria. Do we ridicule city builders because there are no troops to command? no. Should we ridicule final fantasy because it doesn't have "phat gunz"? No. By that same logic, fallout 3 sucks because its a tiny game with only one city, one hooker, no child killing, no nut shots, no eye shots, no jokes, and small selection of guns and armor.
5th: So you ridicule fallout because of graphics? still? Just wow. The level of ignorance exuded by the notion is simply amazing. Graphics do not dictate game quality. At all. Simply shooting down a game purely for graphics alone is plain concentrated ignorance.
Again, the score that one website gave Fallouts one and two when they came out hold no credence. Scoring systems change with time. Back in it's day pong would have probably gotten a 10 out of 10.
And I don't know where you got the idea that you can't compare games from different genres, because they're different. You're just saying that so that your favorite games won't suck in comparison. Which they do.
And the fact that you're ready to dismiss the GOTY awards in favor of a single review just shows your persistence to believe what you want, even when it's not true.
And if you disliked Fallout 3 because there wasn't enough whores and child killing for you then I tihnk that says something about you. Nothing I didn't already know though.
And graphics are an extremely important part of any digital media. Theres a reason that people make such a big deal of them. You would be lying if you said that nobody cared, because most everybody does. But please, explain how ignorance is just dripping fromthat statement. Again, you're just willing to contradict that because you love the first Fallouts so much.
Besides I'm not even shooting down the first ones because of the horrible, horrible, sickeningly aweful graphics. They're just a testement to how dated, and irrelevant the first installments have become.
Being completely objective, Fallouts 3 and New Vegas are better than their predecessors. They took more money, and time to make. They made WAY more money. They have many more awards, Many better reviews, A much larger fan base, and way more advanced technology.
wow, I saw this one coming when I made the post I just didn't think it would last so long. Okay first thing's first, your both right on almost every thing that has been stated so far (in my opinion), but that's the thing it's all statement and speculation. The thing is, and I'm not trying to say that ether of you are wrong, just because someone like's an older game or an original in a franchise more than it's successors doesn't make them wrong, it just suits their tastes in games more then the others did. Next he's not saying that fallout 3 is bad, so what if you don't like the first two fallout games, you two keep going on about opinions, but from my point of view (and this is just speculation, maybe I'm reading it wrong) it seems like your both ignoring that key element of opinion in the conversation. Next, another thing with the aforementioned matter of opinion is graphics, the age of a game and graphics correlate with each other because of newer game engines, but fallout 1,2 have a different engine from fallout 3 and New Vegas and although graphics can and do make the game more immersive, they are not the most important thing in a game (don't get this confused I'm not saying the engine is unimportant, THAT would be stupid, I'm saying graphics can be unimportant). On the age note though, just because a game is old doesn't make it bad and just because a game is new doesn't make it good does not mean that they are not important, innovation, as time passes we see what we've done right and what we've done wrong so games can get better as they get older, but developers tend to stick to what they know will work so we don't always see as much innovative ideas as we would like. Again with opinion, just because a game is critically acclaimed or wins game of the year does not actually mean it's a good game, There's ALMOST never any actual fact when looking at a review from any website or blog and if a lot of people agree with what the critic or reviewer in question is saying then his opinion is similar to most people, the difference is people think the critic is question is important so they listen to his opinion instead of an average person who has a different from theirs. That's what I think, but in the end it's just what I think is true.
Its not opinions. He tries to pass his opinion as fact. He did this before and got flamed right out of a thread. I don't think you know metacritic either, and you need to work on grammar.
okay, no I don't know metacritic so I'll just take your word on how it works.
yes I know he does and about half way through I messed up on a line and it screwed up my paragraph , but it may be because I'm still pretty young, well your still right.
My brother borrowed it and he dl'd the update got a call saying he has a bugged out weapon...and the whole .44 + .357 as you can bore the barrel on the fly....
Again, the score that one website gave Fallouts one and two when they came out hold no credence. Scoring systems change with time. Back in it's day pong would have probably gotten a 10 out of 10.
Metacritic is not a critic itself. It's a critical aggregator, which means that it gathers reviews of high credence and averages out their scores. Not a perfect comparison, but it's hardly the "single review" thing you keep on insisting on. This demonstrates your reluctance to actually research an opinion before you put fingers to keyboard.
ExaltedK9 said:
And the fact that you're ready to dismiss the GOTY awards in favor of a single review just shows your persistence to believe what you want, even when it's not true.
Acquiring Game of the Year for 2008 isn't all that great an accolade, to be brutally honest. Hell, Fallout 3 is my Game of the Year for 2008 by default, because nearly everything else sucked. Fallout 2, on the other hand, was released in 1998, regarded as one of the very best years for gaming ever.
Let's have a list of some of the games released in 1998: Final Fantasy Tactics - check. Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri - check. StarCraft - check. Unreal - check. Banjo-Kazooie - check. Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six - check. Metal Gear Solid - check. Grim Fandango - check. Thief: The Dark Project - check. Baldur's Gate - check. Half-Life and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time - check-fucking-mate.
Fallout 2 was rated favourably in a year when all of these classic titles were released. Some of these, including the aforementioned StarCraft, Half-Life and The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, have legendary reputations, with The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time being the single-most critically acclaimed computer game ever made. What did Fallout 3 have to compete against? Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Grand Theft Auto IV and Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots. That doesn't sound like a fair fight to me. Not at all.
And let's have a good look at the assessment of Fallout 3 as the Game of 2008. In fact, Fallout 3 didn't win quite as many Game of the Year awards as you seem to make out. In fact, a lot of gaming entities seemed to think that LittleBigPlanet was a superior game in 2008 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year].
ExaltedK9 said:
And graphics are an extremely important part of any digital media. Theres a reason that people make such a big deal of them. You would be lying if you said that nobody cared, because most everybody does. But please, explain how ignorance is just dripping fromthat statement. Again, you're just willing to contradict that because you love the first Fallouts so much.
System Shock 2 is a superior game to BioShock, despite being built on the dated-for-its-time Dark Engine. Doom is superior to Doom 3, despite the ten-year gap and the complete gulf in graphical potential between the two games.
ExaltedK9 said:
Being completely objective, Fallouts 3 and New Vegas are better than their predecessors. They took more money, and time to make. They made WAY more money. They have many more awards, Many better reviews, A much larger fan base, and way more advanced technology.
I'd like to turn your attention back to System Shock 2. It cost considerably less money and took a lot less time to make, has made a lot less money, has few awards, a smaller fan base and is built on the outdated Dark Engine - and yet it is still a superior game to BioShock. It's got a better storyline - which BioShock is largely a facsimile of, up to and including the twist in the middle. It's more frightening and atmospheric - a lot, lot more frightening. It's got better RPG elements. Best of all, it doesn't have a character screaming this at the end of the game: "COME AND GET IT MOOK".
"The Polito form is dead, insect. Are you afraid? What is it you fear? The end of your trivial existence? W-wh-whe-whe-when the history of my glory is written, your species shall be but a footnote to my magnificence...I AM SHODAN."
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
