Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
User Settings
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Report this Comment
Use this form to report the selected comment to the moderators. Reporting should generally be used only if the comment breaks forum rules.

74. Re: Fallout 4 Tease? Jan 10, 2013, 14:35 theyarecomingforyou
ItBurn wrote on Jan 10, 2013, 07:49:
To balance things out. I too found NV to be more like an expansion. Same assets, gameplay and barely any new feature. It's basically the exact same thing, except with new locations and a new story and some slightly more polished mechanics.

I understand that it stands on it's own, that it's more faithful to the originals, blah blah blah. Still feels like an expansion.

The Mass Effect games didn't feel like expansions. They changed more things. Mass Effect 1 is very different from Mass Effect 3.
Indeed. Mass Effect 2 felt like a new game, despite the similarities of the engine. The graphics were improved, the gameplay was improved, the narrative was much better delivered, etc. I haven't played ME3 as it wasn't released on Steam, but it looks like an improvement again. It was the same with STALKER: Clear Sky, which (despite its faults) introduced improved graphics, new gameplay mechanics and a more focused narrative - unfortunately CoP took a backwards step with graphics, with a massive gameworld that didn't really have any personality.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 23:22:
I'm guessing you'd never play FO1 or FO2, given their dated engines.
I didn't play them at the time and I don't enjoy playing must very old games, so I have no intention of going back to them. My opinion of F3 and NV was based on me not knowing anything about the previous games, just like 90% of people who played them. You constantly bash Bethesda games but I enjoy them and clearly a lot of other people do too.

Jerykk wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 23:22:
So it basically boils to presentation. I'm guessing you'd never play FO1 or FO2, given their dated engines. Making meaningful and interesting choices is gameplay and the most important gameplay in an RPG. FNV excels in offering meaningful and interesting choices. Witcher 2 has a lot of interesting choices too, but not as many as FNV. Skyrim doesn't really have any. As with any Bethesda game, the main appeal of Skyrim is exploration and dungeon crawling. If by "gameplay" you actually mean "combat," then yes, the combat in Witcher 2 is better than the combat in FNV. However, the best RPGs make combat just one of many viable ways to play through the game (like in FNV). As for Skyrim, the combat's terrible.
No, it boils down to enjoyability. I liked TW2 for the narrative and for the environments, which had a very distinctive feel, much more than the combat. It's the same with Oblivion and Skyrim - they have very compelling gameworlds and strong writing, even if the RPG elements were very light. I'm sure they would have been even better if you could meaningfully influence the gameworld but they were compelling games that I enjoyed playing. NV just didn't have that. The engine was clunky, the gameplay tedious (after having completed F3), the game world wasn't interesting (to me it wasn't as compelling as F3) and I just didn't enjoy it - the entire game was hugely dated in comparison to what the rest of the industry was doing.

Immersion is very important to me and that's why I rate games like Far Cry 2 / 3, Skyrim, The Witcher 2, Dishonored, etc, so highly. F3 was pretty poor gameplay but the game world was very engaging and that was enough for me to complete it. If NV had been released instead of F3 it's possible I would have enjoyed it more but that's not how it was.
Avatar 22891
SteamID: theyarecomingforyou
Star Citizen: Blue's News
Login Email   Password Remember Me
If you don't already have a Blue's News user account, you can sign up here.
Forgotten your password? Click here.


Blue's News logo