I really like these 'first impressions' run throughs that he does. As entertaining as they come.
Well... at first, it won't seem immersive at all. You just get 3 extra bars on your PipBoy, tracking Food, Water and Sleep. Keep them all at zero or so and you're good, allow them to grow, you'll have four thresholds where you lose certain stats and if it reaches the fifth threshold, you die.Roofstone said:I giggled at the freezing ending to his life. Though I wanna ask one thing: Hardcore, is it immersive.. Or just a pain in the royal arse?
you're preaching to the choir, I was referring to sequels actually, which I don't have a problem with wining a game of the year like mass effect 2 did, so long as they take the old stuff, and completely change it into a far superior product, better combat, guns, ai, new enemies, and a new focus of the story.Atmos Duality said:I can just as easily say "Despite how bad it is." and mean the same thing.Warachia said:so a game regardless of how good can't be a game of the year?
See how it works both ways? I'm being objective here, not subjective.
When a game has measurable, technical failures like all of these Gamebryo-Engine games have, do they really deserve those accolades year after year? I honestly can't say they do.
We've lowered our standards so glitchy, unfinished games can take on the mantle of "Best of the Best".
Today, as long as it works on the Xbox 360, and sports the latest Dynamic Bloom Lighting and Pixel Shader 2 tech, it's excused from having technical issues because DAMN IT LOOKS GOOD.
Real story: You remember Fallout 3, and how it sported those amazing Havoc Physics?
They were so buggy, that when I entered the Capital Building and the Congressional Hall, the corpse of a dead mercenary glitched out, stretched into a thin human boomerang, and FLEW AROUND THE ROOM SPINNING VIOLENTLY due to shitty programming.
I laughed my ass off, and then cried a little because I realized what I was playing was a gilded turd. By this point though, I hadn't finished the RUSHED-OUT-THE-DOOR-IN-A-DAY script and ending for the main story, so I was still optimistic.
Back on topic...
Bethesda has had EIGHT YEARS to iron out the bugs in the Gamebryo Engine (starting with Morrowind. Oh yes. The Oblivion engine is a direct descendant of Morrowind's, plus the Radiant AI.)
In that time, DOZENS of solid, works-out-of-the-box game engines have rolled by in the mainstream. Hundreds, if you count indie-projects like "Spring".
They have no excuse for that. None. And yet these assclowns keep awarding GOTY to them.
Why? Well, it's great marketing for one. And I remember the marketing blitz they did with Fallout 3. I watched the live demo, and thought it was awesome.
Little did I know that they crammed all the best parts of the game into the first 30 minutes of gameplay. And there's no plot threads to follow apart from the main story, so once you've done your mission, that's it.
No more characterization. Just get yer reward and it's out the door. Have fun doing Bethesda's Job with the GECK though! They know we did in Oblivion!
And just to drive the point home, there is an example of a game engine that has evolved and improved over the years, and is still in use today despite being 8 years old: Valve's Counterstrike: Source Engine.
It's multi-platform. It very VERY RARELY crashes. It too, uses Havoc Physics.
So I ask: Why do we lower our standards like this? Why should we expect the game to crash every 30 minutes if we didn't win the video card lottery?
How long are we going to tolerate this sequel exploitation model until we all wake up and realize that we've been playing the same fucking thing for 3 years?
Well, as long as recycled products like New Vegas and Black Ops continue to win accolades and churn out money, forever.
And that's just fucking depressing.
While its true that bugs are inexcusable, and are a big detriment to the experience I won't completely discount a game because of it. Why? Many enduring classic games lauded around here were originally incredibly buggy. Yet they are still remembered for years to come...Warachia said:you're preaching to the choir, I was referring to sequels actually, which I don't have a problem with wining a game of the year like mass effect 2 did, so long as they take the old stuff, and completely change it into a far superior product, better combat, guns, ai, new enemies, and a new focus of the story.
Believe it or not, I actually posted things almost identical to what you are posting right now when new vegas came out, WHY THE FUCK ARE WE RELYING ON THE USERS AND THE COMMUNITY TO FIX THESE GAMES? I am so sick of sequel after sequel where people keep deffending these, thanks for the reant though, I'll keep it in my reply becuase you made all of the points for me.