I'm dissappointed in that poll...
Fallout 3 was just better. Deeper, more interesting. Vegas is trying too hard.
Fallout 3 was just better. Deeper, more interesting. Vegas is trying too hard.
Wouldn't there inclusion on the poll prove this more objectively than just your oppinion by itself? If Fallout 2 got no votes this would support your statement, if it got more than Fallout 3, it would disprove it.ExaltedK9 said: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
Hey thanks for all of those amusing pictures and youtube videos, they were much better than the response they substituted. Now that you don't have shit more to say thats relevant to your argument, you're just gonna troll with numerous distractions, all the while pretending that I'm... how did you so charmingly put it? 'Teh Tr0llz'?Ultratwinkie said:*slow clap* oh great, you put yourself into such denial its astounding. Ever wonder why so many people corrected you in this thread and no one has ever taken your side?ExaltedK9 said:Aww. You mad there buddy? Did my differing opinion shatter your world? It's funny how you think that I'm the one who blatantly ignores evidence against me, when all along its been you.Ultratwinkie said:1. Wow. Just wow. You still think metacritic is a CRITIC. It takes ALL THE REVIEWS OF A GAME AND AVERAGES THEM OUT IN A NUMBER. How freaking hard is that to get through your head? Its freaking embarrassing especially after everyone told you what metacritic IS. Metacritic is also one of the biggest review sites around. Metacritic shows how many reviews are positive about it IN THE ENTIRE PUBLICATION WORLD. The user score is just as valid based on the size of the site. GOTY is given by publication and none of them actually matters unless given by the only organization that picks games based on merit, the art of interactive entertainment and the academy of interactive arts & sciences. Fallout 3 was not picked in 2008 in either, it was little big planet and guns of the patriots. GOTY means nothing unless given by an actual reputable organization, and not some publication.ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said:lordy, lordy, where to begin with your misconceptions?ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said: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?Ultratwinkie said: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?ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said:Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said:Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?Ultratwinkie said: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. >.>ExaltedK9 said:Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...randomsix said:You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.ExaltedK9 said: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,Super Toast said:Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.
In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.
OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.
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.
Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.
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?
And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.
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.
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?
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.
Not being a prick - learn it.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year
http://www.metacritic.com/
You don't know what metacritic is do you? Wow. Just wow.
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.
One that you have clearly achieved.
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.
Yet again your stance is poorly constructed.
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.
Sorry, it's just the truth.
2. Funny how the old fallouts are still loved and are still being called the greatest games on the PC by multiple publications. They are still given excellent scores.
3. not enough whores and child killing? Well damn right. The originals were fearless in controversy and instead of hiding controversy like fallout 3 did. Fallout 3 was less wasteland and more like a mormon church or a show for small children.
4. I said you can't compare different genres because fallout is lacking when put against the originals. Fallout 3 is too tame, and just looks juvenile. New vegas however does has some of the original charm, but didn't capture it entirely.
5. irrelevant? They are still getting praised and New vegas was made as a game for the fanbase of the originals.
6. What? Are you a damn idiot? Oh wait you are since so many people corrected you on this same point before. Fallout 3's technology is outdated, their fanbase also likes the originals, fallout 3's awards are meaningless, and only got 1 single point higher than fallout 1 but got blown away in user reviews. If they spent so much more time in fallout 3, you would think they would get higher than one point and have much more user praise. However it doesn't.
seriously, you keep disregarding any evidence against you. I offer facts, and so do the people in this thread yet you disregard this and call us the idiots who disregard evidence. You offer an opinion and try to pass it as a fact, and we have plain facts from statistics.
And yes, I have an understanding of what your metacritic is, and I don't really give a shit about what it got, because as I said before, standards change with the time, just as they have too as technology advances. I have you beat in logic. If you don't believe me, read some of my previous posts, until you feel ashamed of your mental retardation.
Or, as I expect you'll do, crawl back into your nerd cave, and whisper reassurances to your antique Fallout collection.
Let me give you a hint. you are:
Really, you try to make it as if the world revolves around you and your tastes but it doesn't. Should anyone prove you wrong you revert to insults, which is against the rules on the escapist, and you're on probation. "smart and logical" move there. What's funny is how you slowly reverted into a child and reverted to "nuh uuuuh, your wrong because my opinion is fact". Funny, because the facts in the real world disagree with you.
First you started out as a troll, then we realized you were serious. Now, you act just like this:
By the looks of it you are resorting to desperate tactics like "i trollz you" when not only will that get banned, but this picture exists:
Seriously, every post you make is full of logical fallacies its almost astounding and you still think your opinions are fact. Amazing.
X] Shit, that made me laugh! Well played.Super Toast said:Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.
I know what you mean. FOr me I think the F3 map was more zen. There were huge dungeons/buildings with broad empty spaces in between them. In those empty spaces we would encounter all sorts of random (and unique) events. It made the world seem more spontaneous and real. That's what made F3 more immersive for me.Stoink said:Everything was great in fallout new vegas there was more stuff to do and improved on fallout 3 in almost everyway, but i just didnt get that same feel i got from playing fallout 3 and thats why its better.
Still pulling information out of your ass, I see. But please, stop projecting, and feel free to follow up on all of my points, you'll find that they're quite true, unlike your many assumptions. But please, do tell how my points being unresearched (they aren't) make me easily distracted? More of your made-up logic, I'm guessing.Ultratwinkie said:Have to keep your attention since you don't research your points at all. You say "i am embarrassing myself" when you don't even know what metacritic is, and when you fail to learn what it is you say "its not important because i can't understand it"ExaltedK9 said:Hey thanks for all of those amusing pictures and youtube videos, they were much better than the response they substituted. Now that you don't have shit more to say thats relevant to your argument, you're just gonna troll with numerous distractions, all the while pretending that I'm... how did you so charmingly put it? 'Teh Tr0llz'?Ultratwinkie said:*slow clap* oh great, you put yourself into such denial its astounding. Ever wonder why so many people corrected you in this thread and no one has ever taken your side?ExaltedK9 said:Aww. You mad there buddy? Did my differing opinion shatter your world? It's funny how you think that I'm the one who blatantly ignores evidence against me, when all along its been you.Ultratwinkie said:1. Wow. Just wow. You still think metacritic is a CRITIC. It takes ALL THE REVIEWS OF A GAME AND AVERAGES THEM OUT IN A NUMBER. How freaking hard is that to get through your head? Its freaking embarrassing especially after everyone told you what metacritic IS. Metacritic is also one of the biggest review sites around. Metacritic shows how many reviews are positive about it IN THE ENTIRE PUBLICATION WORLD. The user score is just as valid based on the size of the site. GOTY is given by publication and none of them actually matters unless given by the only organization that picks games based on merit, the art of interactive entertainment and the academy of interactive arts & sciences. Fallout 3 was not picked in 2008 in either, it was little big planet and guns of the patriots. GOTY means nothing unless given by an actual reputable organization, and not some publication.ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said:lordy, lordy, where to begin with your misconceptions?ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said: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?Ultratwinkie said: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?ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said: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.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said:Yea, generally newer does equal better. If that weren't true, we would still be playing pong, instead of Halo, and Call of Duty.Ultratwinkie said: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.ExaltedK9 said:Any game that was made before YESTERDAY is ancient? Aren't you being a little fanatical there?Ultratwinkie said: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. >.>ExaltedK9 said:Yea I knew I was walking on hallowed ground when I said that I didn't think the first Fallouts were good. I will probably be made and example of...randomsix said:You forgot to put on your flameshield, broseph.ExaltedK9 said: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,Super Toast said:Believe it or not, but Fallout 3 isn't the first game in the series.
In my opinion, Fallout 3 is the best, followed by Fallout 2, then New Vegas, then the original.
OT: Fallout 3, but only because of the abundance of glitches, and invisible walls in New Vegas.
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.
Oh right, I mixed up my predecessors and successors.
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?
And as it happens, I love Fallouts 3, and New Vegas. Just not the first 2, those suck more than a hurricane.
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.
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?
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.
Not being a prick - learn it.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_the_Year
http://www.metacritic.com/
You don't know what metacritic is do you? Wow. Just wow.
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.
One that you have clearly achieved.
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.
Yet again your stance is poorly constructed.
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.
Sorry, it's just the truth.
2. Funny how the old fallouts are still loved and are still being called the greatest games on the PC by multiple publications. They are still given excellent scores.
3. not enough whores and child killing? Well damn right. The originals were fearless in controversy and instead of hiding controversy like fallout 3 did. Fallout 3 was less wasteland and more like a mormon church or a show for small children.
4. I said you can't compare different genres because fallout is lacking when put against the originals. Fallout 3 is too tame, and just looks juvenile. New vegas however does has some of the original charm, but didn't capture it entirely.
5. irrelevant? They are still getting praised and New vegas was made as a game for the fanbase of the originals.
6. What? Are you a damn idiot? Oh wait you are since so many people corrected you on this same point before. Fallout 3's technology is outdated, their fanbase also likes the originals, fallout 3's awards are meaningless, and only got 1 single point higher than fallout 1 but got blown away in user reviews. If they spent so much more time in fallout 3, you would think they would get higher than one point and have much more user praise. However it doesn't.
seriously, you keep disregarding any evidence against you. I offer facts, and so do the people in this thread yet you disregard this and call us the idiots who disregard evidence. You offer an opinion and try to pass it as a fact, and we have plain facts from statistics.
And yes, I have an understanding of what your metacritic is, and I don't really give a shit about what it got, because as I said before, standards change with the time, just as they have too as technology advances. I have you beat in logic. If you don't believe me, read some of my previous posts, until you feel ashamed of your mental retardation.
Or, as I expect you'll do, crawl back into your nerd cave, and whisper reassurances to your antique Fallout collection.
Let me give you a hint. you are:
Really, you try to make it as if the world revolves around you and your tastes but it doesn't. Should anyone prove you wrong you revert to insults, which is against the rules on the escapist, and you're on probation. "smart and logical" move there. What's funny is how you slowly reverted into a child and reverted to "nuh uuuuh, your wrong because my opinion is fact". Funny, because the facts in the real world disagree with you.
First you started out as a troll, then we realized you were serious. Now, you act just like this:
By the looks of it you are resorting to desperate tactics like "i trollz you" when not only will that get banned, but this picture exists:
Seriously, every post you make is full of logical fallacies its almost astounding and you still think your opinions are fact. Amazing.
And the only thing others have corrected me on is what exacty metacritic is. But nice, way to twist one more thing in your favor. (You're starting to embarrass yourself.)