Darks wrote on Mar 22, 2013, 09:19:
I don’t see this being true, I don’t know how anyone could possibly spend 200 Million on developing and advertising a game. You would be pretty much out of your mind to do that. I look at games and wonder how anyone could possibly spend 10 or 20 million on developing a game. Most likely this is just a rumor.

PropheT wrote on Feb 13, 2013, 12:10:

siapnar wrote on Feb 13, 2013, 11:39:
Anyway, different strokes for different folks.

I'm sure some people love this Aliens game.

I don't know. I like almost every game I play, and I've even had a little bit of fun with this one, but it really is as bad as people are saying it is.

I'd still ignore the game reviews for it, even though I wouldn't recommend the game to anyone. I've only looked at a handful of reviews, but most were similar to the RPS review where he starts off by noting how the game has been savaged by reviews. What kind of reviewer reads what people think of a game before they play it and review it? Not that it made him/her wrong in this case, but still.

siapnar wrote on Feb 13, 2013, 11:39:
I remember the original Hitman getting 68% from PC Gamer Mag. I was stunned because the gameplay had absolutely blown me away.

I mean, you could kill a dude with fiber wire while he's taking a piss then dump his body in the sewer... one of my lifelong gaming dreams!

Anyway, different strokes for different folks.

I'm sure some people love this Aliens game.

Creston wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 17:58:

Jerykk wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 16:34:
The Brotherhood of Steel is not supposed to be beacon of light and justice. It's supposed to be a secretive group of xenophobic elitists obsessed with technology

You do know that they explained that, in the game, right? That their head honcho basically abandoned their mission because he couldn't deal with seeing all the misery and suffering anymore, knowing they had the ability to help and never did.

Their entire DC faction split over that particular decision, which lead to the other guys (in the red armor, forgot their name) sticking with their old mandate and being pissed at the Brotherhood that stuck with the main Paladin.

It's fine if you don't agree with it, or that you think that nobody in the Brotherhood would ever betray their sacred commission, but don't make it out to be that Bethesda "didn't get" the Brotherhood. There's reams of discussions and computer entries over the head honcho's decision and the fallout from it.

Creston

TurdFergasun wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 12:15:

Zyrxil wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 12:06:

TurdFergasun wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 11:30:
Fo3 was a much more enticing environment to explore, and had memorable characters, as apposed to NV were i can't remember a single character or dialogue sequence. Republic of dave, uncle leo, three dog, and the music he spammed is still on a cd i play on a semi regular basis, with lots of dry humor that didn't need to slap you over the head with the punchline. Side quests were compelling, and rewarded exploration, and mission progress. NV just seemed like quantity>quality. Couldn't be bothered to get more than 1/2 way through. I'd compare fo3 to a witty british sitcom vs the average holywood cookie cutter show with the same jokes told with different faces over and over so no demographic feels left out.

Or you know, the exact opposite. FO3 had tons of empty Dungeons, I mean Subways to "explore". Characters were so weird and Krazyyyyy!!!, because that's obvious how you make good characters. SHUT THE FUCK UP 3DAWG. The 'humor' was juvenile and childish. Side quests rewarded slogging through indistinguishable locations, because that's what Beth's games are- Dungeon Crawlers. NV has depth of narrative. FO3 is the same as other Beth games- a two inch deep ocean with depth of NOTHING.

To summarize, you're a bad person and your dog hates you.

so what specifically do you remember from NV that made it so great, other than these generic terms you're throwing out? you sound like balmer describing every product he's ever released.

to summarize i am a bad person, and my cat has a taste for man flesh, hide while you can.

PropheT wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 12:52:

Zyrxil wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 12:06:
NV has depth of narrative.

...Which was what, again? The story in NV was forgettable. So forgettable, in fact, that I'm sitting here trying to remember the narrative in the game and I can't. There's a guy who shot you, and you're trying to find him and kill him. You do that, predictably, and find out there's some factions who don't like each other. If bugs don't derail everything you do for them, there's an ending that happens.

Fallout 3's narrative was trying to find your father, chasing his trail elsewhere, finally finding him and then things go poorly. You take on the classic enemies of the Fallout franchise on a one-way path toward the end, where there's a pretty amazing battle with a giant patriot robot. There's Brotherhood of Steel, Deathclaws, Enclave, Super Mutants, and so on and they don't feel like just references to the series like in NV. The ending sucked, but they fixed it with DLC.

There really wasn't anything in NV that was great that wasn't just taken directly from Fallout 3. The new gameplay changes were done better in mods, the story was flat and uninteresting, and it was so buggy that it was almost impossible to finish.

TurdFergasun wrote on Jan 9, 2013, 11:30:
Fo3 was a much more enticing environment to explore, and had memorable characters, as apposed to NV were i can't remember a single character or dialogue sequence. Republic of dave, uncle leo, three dog, and the music he spammed is still on a cd i play on a semi regular basis, with lots of dry humor that didn't need to slap you over the head with the punchline. Side quests were compelling, and rewarded exploration, and mission progress. NV just seemed like quantity>quality. Couldn't be bothered to get more than 1/2 way through. I'd compare fo3 to a witty british sitcom vs the average holywood cookie cutter show with the same jokes told with different faces over and over so no demographic feels left out.