jdreyer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 15:14:

xXBatmanXx wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 07:02:

jdreyer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 04:20:
Super Meatboy did nothing for me, so I completely skipped this one (that, and the setting/subject matter seemed unappealing).

I never played Zelda, so I have no idea what "Zelda gameplay" is, but this game sounds like some kind of rogue-like?

I am not sure I understand how anyone, anywhere, at anytime, could comment on video games and not know what "Zelda gameplay" is....I just don't have words for how confused I am....if you google zelda gameplay, then google BIA gameplay....I would think it would be self explanatory....on top of that...are you saying you have never played the original Zelda?
I mean....I......but........

I have never owned a console, and seeing how much played stuff is in my Steam account I probably never will.

jdreyer wrote on Apr 22, 2013, 04:20:
Super Meatboy did nothing for me, so I completely skipped this one (that, and the setting/subject matter seemed unappealing).

I never played Zelda, so I have no idea what "Zelda gameplay" is, but this game sounds like some kind of rogue-like?

siapnar wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 11:39:

ItBurn wrote on Apr 19, 2013, 10:14:
Am I alone in this?

Nope. I've never played more than 10 minutes of a game developed in Japan. Never liked the play style, stories, or characters.

CrashTestDummy wrote on Apr 17, 2013, 18:17:
I think its just a straight forward reference to the Flamethrower weapon from Return To Castle Wolfenstein and 2009's Wolfenstein by Raven.

Rattlehead wrote on Apr 16, 2013, 17:54:
Why the hell is it not fallout 4? It's what the fans want!

jimnms wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 19:36:
As a fan of the first two Fallout games, I thought FO3 was a good story set in the Fallout universe, but so much seemed unfinished and half assed about it. The main quest was linear, with only one set path. You had no say in what direction you wanted to go, your only option was to do as you were told, no alternatives. Many side quests were linear as well, with a few having one or more alternatives.

There were so many things wrong with FO3, it was almost as if the designers never played the originals. Whoever had the boneheaded idea to make ammo weightless should never be involved in designing another RPG again.

What Bethesda did right in FO3 was the world design, but then they failed hard with the quests taking place in only a small part of this wonderfully designed world. I love the setting of FO3 so much more than FNV. With it being so good, it still had so many little things wrong. It's been 200 years since the bombs fell, but you come across so many places that are untouched. Seriously, after 200 years you shouldn't find a convenient store fully stocked with food.

For FO4, let Bethesda pick the setting and build the world, then hand it over to Obsidian to populate it with stories and quests.

Taskeen wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 15:23:

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:51:

FO3 was an amazing game and I liked it better than NV like many other people. It was ghastly if you were a fallout 1-2 fan and expected a clone of these, because it's a completely different game.

It had poor writing, poor system design, cookie-cutter dungeon design, decent art direction but some horrifically incompetent art (look at the proportions of the character models sometime, particularly their hands), poor loot progression (mortal sin for what was essentially a dungeon crawler), poor combat, and while it provided a whole world for you to explore, exploration by and large wasn't very rewarding. And of course it's technical design bore no resemblance whatsoever to the originals, the world didn't feel much like Fallout, and the story barely meshed with the proceeding titles, but hey I'll be kind and assume to be valid the argument that fans of a franchise shouldn't expect a truly "next-gen" sequel to be anything like its predecessors. Even then, however, you're still left with the fact that taken on its own merits, FO3 wasn't well designed at all. If you only judge a game by whether or not you had fun playing it, and not by how engaging or intriguing the gameplay that creates that fun is, then I guess FO3 was alright. But then you can have a lot of fun playing checkers, even though when compared to chess it's not a particularly interesting or compelling game.

Don't worry about FO3 fanboys. That game was so bad and was a disservice to the originals. I only give credit to Obsidian for TRYING to work with such a bad engine for NV. We will get our better spiritual successor with Wasteland 2, and other games like Shadowrun Returns proving that games don't need first person all the time, especially for RPG Strategy classics. These kids have no idea how amazing the original Fallouts were.

Cutter wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:07:
Why do you all want Elswyr so much? I"d much rather have the Black Marsh. Utilize some underwater adventures with the Argonians. Ruined towers in the swamps, trolls, etc. Black Marsh would be hella more cool than Elsewyr!

Scottish Martial Arts wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 14:03:

Rattlehead wrote on Apr 15, 2013, 11:43:
Good, now get to work on Fallout 4.

Good god, no. Skyrim vastly exceeded expectations and was a superb title, but it only exceeded expectations because Fallout 3 was so ghastly. Bethesda needs to stick to what they do well rather than mangling vastly different franchises until they fit the mold that Bethesda has made for itself.