I canned myself. It's completely true.poppabaggins said:This seems appropriate:
![]()
I canned myself. It's completely true.poppabaggins said:This seems appropriate:
![]()
Well to start I really adore New Vegas, I think Obsidian deserves more attention for the amount of effort they made. I was just not as captured into New Vegas. I think it is because New Vegas was a bit happier and easier to get into. In F3, I actually felt screwed, like I was in the Capital Wasteland. Everything was out to get you. In NV, you have more allies and the pacing allows you to build up to the harder foes when you are a bit more ready. There was none of that in F3, which really made everything much more tense and satisfying. The world felt like a wasteland, like a nuke had been dropped. I know this was deliberate, but in NV, it's just a desert. I never felt quite as absorbed into the world as I was in F3. I think F3 is more of a fight to survive game where you could die any minute by making a mistake. NV is more relaxed, so it didn't have the same effect on me. Also, NV's map is not as good as it could have been. A whole third is not really being used at all. And the actual New Vegas is very tiny. I guess walking through a desolate DC had more of a effect on me and felt more epic and intense. Love both though.Monicro said:This was from all the way back on page 1, but I have to ask, what makes you think this? I'm not even trying to insult you, I'm just honestly curious.Justice4L said:WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT? Fallout 3 was better than New Vegas!ChupathingyX said:No, because I never want Bethesda to work on a Fallout game ever again.
As for the actual topic, eh, it's a toss-up. There would have to be a ton of things that both companies would have to work on to make it work, really. Bioware's terrible writing of the romance paths (or better yet just don't include them altogether), Beth's mediocre world building (yup, a woman in Arefu who thinks she's a 50's housewife sure does make sense even though she had grown up her whole life in the wasteland and would really have no way of knowing what a housewife is or would act like)/ lack of tangible choice (gee, I'm a town nuking, slave selling, mass murdering dickhead but it's time to buckle down and help dad with this pure water for everyone thing, this is a really great idea). My point is even if the best possible product came out of this metaphorical team up it would still have a shit ton of problems.
Replace the heaven writing with Obsidian and I'm in.honestdiscussioner said:LMFAO! That was awesome . . . and so very true.poppabaggins said:This seems appropriate:
![]()
Dragon Age had such a predictable story. I kinda enjoyed it, but it wasn't in any way unique or even good. It was a mediocre dark fantasy with so many cliches i lost count.Riobux said:Comparing Dragon Age: Origins to the typical game, it's legendary.SpaceBat said:Hmm, I suppose DA:O's writing is above average for Bioware and way better than the story's such as of the overrated I-mostly-rely-on-a-twist KotoR et cetera, but I wouldn't call it Legendary, only pretty good. But that's just my opinion.Riobux said:It's Dragon Age: Origins. Which managed to create an universe that is unique and dark, and avoided the obvious trap of making it too flowery.
You should have bought out Interplay or the Fallout rights...ChupathingyX said:No, because I never want Bethesda to work on a Fallout game ever again.
Publising and financing is fine, but not developing.
They did that, and they released New Vegas which was buggy as shit. Blame Obsidian, Not Bethesda.ChupathingyX said:No, because I never want Bethesda to work on a Fallout game ever again.
Publising and financing is fine, but not developing.
Yes, New Vegas was buggy, but you can't put all blame on Obsidian.42 said:They did that, and they released New Vegas which was buggy as shit. Blame Obsidian, Not Bethesda.ChupathingyX said:No, because I never want Bethesda to work on a Fallout game ever again.
Publising and financing is fine, but not developing.