Sunday Previews

View : : :
115 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older
115.
 
Re: old school
Jul 3, 2007, 15:29
ibm
Re: old school Jul 3, 2007, 15:29
Jul 3, 2007, 15:29
ibm
 
I've read a lot of discussion about this subject on Blue's threads. Whilst I think leechers who never contribute anything to the market are 'bad', I can understand why some people would want to try before they buy if no official demo is forthcoming.

Hype and advertising generally paints a false picture of the game and reviews aren't really sufficient to base a purchase decision on.

As I generally only buy a few games a year because I'm usually very selective, I don't mind making the odd mistake, like Oblivion. Even then I played it to death for a week or so and came away not liking my experience too much I guess I still got my money's worth out of it.

Also I'm usually always playing a beta of an mmo during my spare time so I'm not much of a consumer anyway. Currently Tabula Rasa (when the test server is up anyway).

114.
 
Re: old school
Jul 3, 2007, 11:28
Re: old school Jul 3, 2007, 11:28
Jul 3, 2007, 11:28
 
Isn't every game? I never buy any game unless I've played it thoroughly.

Avatar 20715
113.
 
Re: old school
Jul 3, 2007, 07:25
ibm
Re: old school Jul 3, 2007, 07:25
Jul 3, 2007, 07:25
ibm
 
Yeah, this is a definite contender for trying the 'unofficial demo' before buying.

112.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 21:45
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 21:45
Jul 2, 2007, 21:45
 
Which brings us nicely back to opinion of what makes a good rpg. Fallout 1 and 2 - yes, Oblivion - no.

Oblivion may not have been a good RPG but that doesn't condemn Fallout 3 to the same fate. The only way to find out is to actually play the game.

Avatar 20715
111.
 
No subject
Jul 2, 2007, 17:25
No subject Jul 2, 2007, 17:25
Jul 2, 2007, 17:25
 
The big thing people seem to forget was mentioned a long time ago in this thread...

Today's gamers do not find certain playstyles entertaining...and sadly, these are starting to become the majority while most of us 'old timers' are becoming scarce.

Fallout 3 is still Fallout, however from what I have read and seen it's doing it's own thing to keep it a viable product in today's world.

What good would it be to have them make a Fallout 3 with the exact same mechanics as Fallout 1/2 and only the hardcore fans buy it, which I would fathom we'd number in a few thousand at best, leaving it to wither away under the release of far 'superior'* games?



*superior being market viable products.

This comment was edited on Jul 2, 17:30.
Avatar 24330
110.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 16:49
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 16:49
Jul 2, 2007, 16:49
 
Well, wots missing from that screenshot other than tits and pussy?



----------------------------
*** Born to troll ***
109.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 16:46
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 16:46
Jul 2, 2007, 16:46
 
I cant believe your argueing over nothing, when the real issue is what is missing from this screen shot
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/568/568806/img_4665149.html

108.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 16:29
ibm
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 16:29
Jul 2, 2007, 16:29
ibm
 
Which brings us nicely back to opinion of what makes a good rpg. Fallout 1 and 2 - yes, Oblivion - no.

Urge to kill rising.

This comment was edited on Jul 2, 16:29.
107.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 16:21
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 16:21
Jul 2, 2007, 16:21
 
That's like saying Syndicate doesn't really play that much differently from Half-Life, because both games are about shooting people.

Terrible analogy. Comparing GTA 1/2 to GTA3 is not the same as comparing Syndicate to HL. GTA 1/2 revolved around stealing cars and killing people. GTA3 revolved around stealing cars and killing people. Both games revolve around stealing cars and killing people. Syndicate is somewhat open-ended, squad-based action game with light strategy elements. HL2 is a highly scripted, linear corridor shooter.

Will Fallout 3 be exactly the same as the original? No. Will the combat and camera angles be different? Yes. Do they have to be the same as in Fallout to be good? No.

Fallout 3 won't be Fallout 1 or 2 with better graphics. It'll be a new game. You will never see what you believe to be a true successor to Fallout. However, in the end, as long as long as Fallout 3 turns out to be a good RPG, that's all that really matters.

Avatar 20715
106.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 16:08
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 16:08
Jul 2, 2007, 16:08
 
Does this make for different gameplay? Sure. Completely different? Not quite. You're still going around killing people and stealing cars, only from different camera angles.

That's like saying Syndicate doesn't really play that much differently from Half-Life, because both games are about shooting people. The reality is that while both games may deal with the same subject matter (shooting people) they do so in completely different ways with completely different results. Will Fallout 3 be an RPG of a sort set in a post apocalyptic environment? Yes. Will it play very differently from its predecessors? Almost certainly.

105.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 15:30
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 15:30
Jul 2, 2007, 15:30
 
Hmm, well, hopefully you aren't in the minority. I'd still venture a guess and say that without loot, 90% of the people who played Diablo wouldn't have played it.

Avatar 20715
104.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 14:04
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 14:04
Jul 2, 2007, 14:04
 
I played Diablo 2 because I liked the action gameplay, the tactics (yes, actual tactics) I had to use to accomplish my goal of killing everything that moved. As a barbarian, I had to use funnelling, hit and run, divide and conquer, focus fire and distracting maneuvres (remember the corpe explosion boss in the expansion?) to actually finish the game.
Never played on Bnet, neither have most of my friends who also happen to love the game, since we were on a dif country, and only had 56k connections at the time. So it wasn't about the loot, neither for me nor for them. It was about the fun, the action, the GAMEPLAY.

This comment was edited on Jul 2, 14:05.
103.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 11:42
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 11:42
Jul 2, 2007, 11:42
 
Saying Diablo was a bad game just shows your ignorance of what makes a good game (clues: game mechanics, interface, graphics, engine stability, compulsive feedback loops...Diablo was a good game, even if you didn't like the game).

Incorrect. All those things you mentioned refer to a game's polish and presentation. None of those compensate for the fact that game relies entirely on loot to keep people playing. Take away the loot and nobody would play. This means that the fundamental gameplay is weak.

Bullshit: controllable isometric implies a change in the angle...ie, fixed distance, but you rotate the camera.

Again, if you can think for a better word for a camera angle that is, by default, isometric but can be rotated and zoomed in on the player's character, please feel free to do so. I could use "third-person" but as I've already mentioned, that is far too vague a term.

This comment was edited on Jul 2, 11:46.
Avatar 20715
102.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 11:40
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 11:40
Jul 2, 2007, 11:40
 
And, uh, wtf does that have to do with immersion in the gameplay? Nothing

Alright, I'm not sure how I can make this easier to understand. Here we go again:

People more easily identify with a first-person perspective than with an isometric one. This is because we experience life through a first-person perspective. Therefore, we identify more with a game's character if we play the game through a first-person perspective and thus, we are better immersed in the game's reality.

Understand? I am not saying that perspective is the only factor in determining how immersive a game is. I'm just saying that it is a factor. Not sure how anyone can dispute this.

Whilst it is true that camera has no bearing on a game's RPG-ness, that's not the point under discussion.

Actually, that is the point of discussion. All the FO3 haters are complaining that FO3 is an FPS and not an RPG. They come to this conclusion primarily based on the fact that the game uses a (optional) first-person perspective. I've been arguing that the camera angle is not essential to an RPG and it isn't.

Someone who loved GTA1/2 might not have liked GTA3, because...they are hugely different games from a gameplay perspective.

Hugely different? All the games revolve around stealing cars and killing people. The first two are 2D and the latter two are 3D. Does this make for different gameplay? Sure. Completely different? Not quite. You're still going around killing people and stealing cars, only from different camera angles. I certainly wouldn't say that GTA3 isn't a GTA game because it isn't a top-down and 2D. However, FO3 haters seem content to make such claims about FO3.

Avatar 20715
101.
 
hahaha
Jul 2, 2007, 10:23
hahaha Jul 2, 2007, 10:23
Jul 2, 2007, 10:23
 
oh man, what a bunch of fucktards! this thread sure is a good one. I've previously very much disliked a few of you, but seeing you go at eachother makes for good entertainment.

"mom! a rpg in a first person perspective is not the same" "YES IT IS THE SAME. EMENSE YOURSELF!!!&/%" "but mooom"

(Not to mention CJ's complexity answer!)

jerykk, space captain, cj, who ever else, you go girl! hahaha

This comment was edited on Jul 2, 10:28.
100.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 2, 2007, 09:36
PHJF
 
Re: No subject Jul 2, 2007, 09:36
Jul 2, 2007, 09:36
 PHJF
 
Lastly... if I can't kill kids I'll be peeved. Who takes that out of the game? What says "nihilistic post-apocalyptic world" like chopping down toddlers with a chaingun?

Yeah there's another thing they will buckle on. I loved how UK Fallout didn't have any kids... and that topic came up in the talk with Doc Troy's assistant about sterility in Vault City. BREAKING THE FOURTH WALL

------
"That don't look like no golden marmoset I ever seen!"
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Avatar 17251
99.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 2, 2007, 08:18
99.
Re: No subject Jul 2, 2007, 08:18
Jul 2, 2007, 08:18
 
?

You want to see why people liked Fallout 1/2 so much...so you go play Fallout 3 to see why?

WTF?

98.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 2, 2007, 08:10
98.
Re: No subject Jul 2, 2007, 08:10
Jul 2, 2007, 08:10
 
Bullshit: controllable isometric implies a change in the angle...ie, fixed distance, but you rotate the camera.

97.
 
Re: No subject
Jul 2, 2007, 08:07
97.
Re: No subject Jul 2, 2007, 08:07
Jul 2, 2007, 08:07
 
Funny...I think VATS is a great way of porting Fallout's 'called shots' to the realtime realm.

"No Vault 13 connections?"

Uh...how do you know? Do you really think Beth wouldn't stick e few hints to V13 in there?

96.
 
Re: old school
Jul 2, 2007, 08:01
96.
Re: old school Jul 2, 2007, 08:01
Jul 2, 2007, 08:01
 
"Can't always get what you want. Deal with it. Shut the fuck up. "

Wow...if that isn't just the most conbstructive thing I've ever heard anyone say. You sound like it would be a pleasure to work with you in a company. Especially in the design phase/preliminary working stages.

115 Replies. 6 pages. Viewing page 1.
Newer [  1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Older