Fallout New Vegas

[smeghead25]

I'll be holding out for the inevitable GOTY edition.

This is true for me as well :/

Until:
a) they confirm that all DLC will be released like Fallout 3's DLC was, in physical form, or
b) they announce that there will not be any DLC
c) retailers get some sort of download thing in store so that I can store it on my HDD and play it at home without having to hope that my wireless won't bug out on me

...I won't be purchasing F:NV. And sadly this is true for about 45% minimum of people with consoles (according to NPD last year only 55% of consoles have ever been connected). More when you include the fact that a lot of people (like me) have awful internet that takes days to download 1Gb and therefore won't bother downloading DLC.

 

[Ryuo]

I'll be holding out for the inevitable GOTY edition.

This is true for me as well :/

Until:
a) they confirm that all DLC will be released like Fallout 3's DLC was, in physical form, or
b) they announce that there will not be any DLC
c) retailers get some sort of download thing in store so that I can store it on my HDD and play it at home without having to hope that my wireless won't bug out on me

...I won't be purchasing F:NV. And sadly this is true for about 45% minimum of people with consoles (according to NPD last year only 55% of consoles have ever been connected). More when you include the fact that a lot of people (like me) have awful internet that takes days to download 1Gb and therefore won't bother downloading DLC.

Reading several articles from the official Fallout website/Bethesda blog, DLC IS confirmed, just under wraps atmo. i.e. how many and the nature of, are TBA.

 

[GonzoGamer]

honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was

It's funny because I remember thinking the Same thing about GTA Vice City: it coudn't possibly be as cool as GTA 3.
I hope history repeats itself: we get an even bigger and more awesome (orgasmic? maybe) Fallout Vegas with even more content. Then we get Fallout San Andreas Vault with three times the amount of content we got in the other two.

 

[El Dingo]

I'm putting my money on New Vegas being a big upgrade. Then again, my disappointment with FO3 will carry over if they don't allow me to finally be able to punch a giant rat in the groin...

Is that too much to ask? Really?

Dear GOD! ALL I WANT TO DO IS PUNCH A RAT IN THE GROIN!!!!

 

[The Rockerfly]

not all upgrades to PCs are graphics based. i upgrade them to keep up with the times, and for PERFORMANCE which is vastly different to graphics. i have a damn quad core and ATi 4650 card yet i play old games. Hell i play more outdated games then i do with the graphic intensive games.

i am talking about the assumption that everyone wants explosion ridden games and not other games. you do not know everyone, and you don't dictate what they like.

relating to modern day situations? since when in our modern lives do we have flying space cars and blue alien women called asari? since when do we have a russian in a jogging suit wreak havoc over a town and no one cares? since when in our daily lives do we care about the war in the middle east anymore? games are meant for escapism, not reminding us of life.

the original fallouts had plenty of strategy, especially fallout: tactics. you could use many different ways to take an enemy down including speech, tech, and pop culture references. Hell in fallout 2 you could make a guy's head explode by uttering a simple riddle.

you say people don't like buying the same game so they buy consoles? have you SEEN the console game library? its sport games, and sequels. If it isn't a sequel its a damn rip off of another console game or shovelware for the wii. people don't buy the wii because they wanted to lose weight, they bought the wii because it was cheap and accessible opposed to the 60$ and 300$ price tags.

Then why on earth do you upgrade your computer then? Seems illogical to me

You're right I don't know everyone, but the majority of people do want action based games, that's why they have become so popular over the last few years. I many not know what everyone wants but I can see through products being released what people want (as a result, games companies make games to satisfy that demand)

Media is not black and white, some people want realism others don't. Avatar was heavily advertised in many forms, besides the cinema market want different things to the game market. Again you mistake you for a majority, you use it for escapism and so do I but many don't, they want to experience things they can't. That in itself is escapism but to a more real life situation

You can get past people by talking to them, locking doors, controlling robots and make them fight one another. Okay they head exploding thing is pretty cool but there aren't really that many different methods, at least not enough for me to consider it a truly bad point in Fallout 3

Have you ever worked in a retail shop? The Wii fit sold fucking loads, check the sales figures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_Fit#Sales

However, yes a lot of people bought it because it was cheap but when it was released we were in a recession, a lot of people wanted a new console but didn't have the disposable income to buy a more expensive 360 or ps3

 

[Lordmarkus]

On paper it feels like the best damn game ever created, but I'll find out on friday.

 

[Delusibeta]

I've spotted a Fallout 3 GotY + Fallout New Vegas bundle for £30 (on PC). I'm damn tempted, even though I realise pre-ordering games is very much a mug's game these days, especially for PC games, what with DLC and the fact that it's by a developer with a reputation of buggy games on an engine that has a reputation of being buggy. Hmm...

 

[Hr Habberdasher]

A game with the incredibly fun game play of Fallout 3 but not with the shitty story and bad dialogue, with juicy extras, made by people who worked on Fallout 2,

What's not to like?

P.S. I don't see how just because has the same game play as Fallout 3 it can't be better than Fallout 3

 

[-Drifter-]

Yes, I suppose it would be if you're a moron who can't pay attention to anything for more than 5 seconds if someone's head isn't exploding. One of the things people liked so much about the older games is that you could approach just about any given situation from multiple angles, instead of just resorting to murder every time.

I'm sorry but I gotta call bull on this. A game that is action filled does not make it automatically stupid.

No, and in fact I didn't say that. What I did say was that a game is not automatically dull because it's not all action, all the time, and unless you have an incredibly short attention span and are distracted by shiny objects, you should be able to see that.

I also find it funny how lots of people think mainstream shooters are stupid when you can die in a few however in games like TF2 or Half Life you can soak up bullets like a sponge.

High difficulty =/= intelligent game. If you need proof, look no farther than Ninja Gaiden.

I take it you didn't notice that that the above person stated they played Fallout 2 after Fallout 3, and the same goes for me. People should really stop living under the assumption that just because something is old it's automatically bad.

It doesn't mean it's bad, you're right. However there is a reason why many don't play games that are over 10 years old
They are dull

Clearly someone who hasn't played enough Castlevania.

Say what you will, the story is better in Fallout 2 but it is so boring to play compared to many faster paced games.
You can call people stupid about liking stupid games but to call someone stupid because they want an exciting game is stupid

A person may not be stupid because they want an exiting game, but they are stupid if they get bored with anything that isn't always fast paced. Do you watch nothing but action movies? I doubt it. In the same way that I don't want every movie I watch to be Rambo, neither do I want every game I play to be Call of Duty.

Graphics have no bearing on a game. At all. Isometric or first person, sprites or bump-mapping, doesn't make a shit of difference to me.

graphics don't fucking matter

I'm assuming then neither of you want to bother upgrading your computer then or buy a console. Of course graphics matter otherwise we'd all be playing text based games

Graphics do matter, but they also aren't that hard to look past and/or adjust to. Besides, Fallout 3 wasn't exactly what I'd call good looking anyway.

 

[The Rockerfly]

1. you cant exactly run a commodore 64 in this day and age. you either keep up with the times, or you're just a caveman in modern clothing. i also like to keep my options open when i see a game i like.

2. its not demand, they merely want to recreate the impossible. they want to recreate the same success halo had. have you seen the BIG releases this year? RTS games and RPGS. Starcraft, civilization, etc. now people will try to recreate the starcraft profits for the next 10 years.

3. you just defined escapism... then called it something else.

4. it is if you want any real variety. you cant bypass conflicts by being a part of a faction in Fo3 like in the originals or bypass them by using disguises.

1. Granted but still upgrading years ago is unnecessary, if you did do research, many people are still running on XP, most companies are still running on windows 95

2. It is demand, people still want incredible games, this is very difficult for developers to do so they recreate games hoping the market will still buy the game. Most of the time they will because the product has enough variety from the original or it is compatible for the modern generation console

3. Exactly, playing gritty shooters is still escapism

4. Okay I will admit there is as many choices as maybe the other fallouts but for a game about the nuclear apocalypse, I feel as though making a riddle which blows someone's head off is a bit silly for a game with a serious tone

 

[The Rockerfly]

le snip

May I ask why on earth did you underline the times I used stupid? You didn't really make a point of it

Okay I see what you mean, however Fallout 3 isn't constantly like that, so it's gameplay must be still valid in your books. Which it isn't, so why do you dislike it then?

I never said high difficulty made an intelligent game

No I haven't however of course there are going to be a few exceptions, but many don't want to live on a few games. We want variation, different genres and different game types. Otherwise the game gets very dull to play, especially going through a game the x time

I agree, no one should watch entirely one genre of film and to play only one game type would have the similar effect but if we want to play a game that we can still run on the same console then we can't rely on games that are very old. For example, if I play call of duty 4 for 3 days in a row then play another game campaign for 1 day, I cannot rely on the few games that are on xbox live, with gameplay that has stood the test of time. I wouldn't have very long, that's where the new games come in

I completely agree, fallout 3 was an ugly son of a ***** but I think that worked when the world was meant to look ugly and grim

I said most games aren't fun to play

 

[-Drifter-]

le snip

May I ask why on earth did you underline the times I used stupid? You didn't really make a point of it

Well you sure said it enough times.

Okay I see what you mean, however Fallout 3 isn't constantly like that, so it's gameplay must be still valid in your books. Which it isn't, so why do you dislike it then?

Pretty sure I didn't say I disliked it. I just prefer the older games.

I never said high difficulty made an intelligent game

But you did imply low difficulty made for a stupid game.

No I haven't however of course there are going to be a few exceptions, but many don't want to live on a few games. We want variation, different genres and different game types. Otherwise the game gets very dull to play, especially going through a game the x time

What?

I agree, no one should watch entirely one genre of film and to play only one game type would have the similar effect but if we want to play a game that we can still run on the same console then we can't rely on games that are very old. For example, if I play call of duty 4 for 3 days in a row then play another game campaign for 1 day, I cannot rely on the few games that are on xbox live, with gameplay that has stood the test of time. I wouldn't have very long, that's where the new games come in

... Again, what? What does this have to do with anything?

I completely agree, fallout 3 was an ugly son of a ***** but I think that worked when the world was meant to look ugly and grim

Doesn't really excuse the bad rendering, texture quality, character models and animation. Again though, there are more important things to worry about than technological prowess.

I said most games aren't fun to play

Okay, when?

 

[Starke]

1. you cant exactly run a commodore 64 in this day and age. you either keep up with the times, or you're just a caveman in modern clothing. i also like to keep my options open when i see a game i like.

2. its not demand, they merely want to recreate the impossible. they want to recreate the same success halo had. have you seen the BIG releases this year? RTS games and RPGS. Starcraft, civilization, etc. now people will try to recreate the starcraft profits for the next 10 years.

3. you just defined escapism... then called it something else.

4. it is if you want any real variety. you cant bypass conflicts by being a part of a faction in Fo3 like in the originals or bypass them by using disguises.

1. Granted but still upgrading years ago is unnecessary, if you did do research, many people are still running on XP, most companies are still running on windows 95

In what third world country? Most companies I know upgraded from NT or 2000 to XP, and continued to use XP. Though I'm seeing a lot of kick over to Win 7 now. Which means companies stopped using Windows 95 sometime back in the 90s.

2. It is demand, people still want incredible games, this is very difficult for developers to do so they recreate games hoping the market will still buy the game. Most of the time they will because the product has enough variety from the original or it is compatible for the modern generation console

Er... what? It is hard for companies to make games so they will make games?

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "without research, it is hard to know how to classify games", and leave it at that?

3. Exactly, playing gritty shooters is still escapism

Depends on how you define "gritty". If it's a visual aesthetic, sure, whatever. If it's a gameplay tone, that can get real old real fast.

4. Okay I will admit there is as many choices as maybe the other fallouts but for a game about the nuclear apocalypse, I feel as though making a riddle which blows someone's head off is a bit silly for a game with a serious tone

What are you talking about? Serious tone my ass. Fallout 2 had the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch and a killer bunny in addition to the aforementioned bridge gag, riffing on Holy Grail alone. Easter eggs included finding a downed shuttlecraft from the Enterprise and a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy referencing whale and pot of petunias. And that was just random encounters.

In non-random encounters you could run across pinky and the brain, get Wallstreet quoted at you and muse that "I always suspected Jesus had ties to organized crime."

 

[The Rockerfly]

In what third world country? Most companies I know upgraded from NT or 2000 to XP, and continued to use XP. Though I'm seeing a lot of kick over to Win 7 now. Which means companies stopped using Windows 95 sometime back in the 90s.

It's very expensive, difficult and unnecessary for most companies to switch, msot retailers are on 95 and a supplier I had for the last few years ran on 3.0, ouldn't even give me a standing total

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say "without research, it is hard to know how to classify games", and leave it at that?

Yeah I think that would be the best bet

Depends on how you define "gritty". If it's a visual aesthetic, sure, whatever. If it's a gameplay tone, that can get real old real fast.

If we're on about fallout 3, it's defiantly a visual thing but the overall tone is serious, which is weird when you consider how much unrealistic things your character applied to

What are you talking about? Serious tone my ass. Fallout 2 had the Holy Handgrenade of Antioch and a killer bunny in addition to the aforementioned bridge gag, riffing on Holy Grail alone. Easter eggs included finding a downed shuttlecraft from the Enterprise and a hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy referencing whale and pot of petunias. And that was just random encounters.

In non-random encounters you could run across pinky and the brain, get Wallstreet quoted at you and muse that "I always suspected Jesus had ties to organized crime."

I meant the overall idea of trying to survive in a nuclear wasteland. I like the idea of hardcore mode because it's almost like a simulation of what I would do in that situation. I just think it really distracts me from the idea of having a nuclear wasteland when everything is silly

Well you sure said it enough times.

What's your point though? Half the times it wasn't used in the same context, how about I point out the times you use the word "and", it'd be pretty much the same thing

Pretty sure I didn't say I disliked it. I just prefer the older games.

Okay fair enough

But you did imply low difficulty made for a stupid game.

Low difficulty on fallout made it stupid, having it on a high difficulty made you think a lot more. That's why I can't wait for hardcore mode. Also I never implied anything

What?

Tl;dr, gamers need variation, we get bored, we can't play the same campaign over and over again. Why we buy new games

... Again, what? What does this have to do with anything?

You mentioned about action films, I related it back to this situation

Doesn't really excuse the bad rendering, texture quality, character models and animation. Again though, there are more important things to worry about than technological prowess.

Fallout 1, 2 and tactics are very ugly by today's standards. I found the PC version to have fine rendering and texture, while the consoles was overall uglier everything was rendered faster. However everyone on pc games seem to have different experiences

Okay, when?

Sorry to a different person, this is getting confusing

 

[luckycharms8282]

honestly, no I dont think it will be as good. It will possibly be awesome, but not the pure orgasm FO3 was

Whoa.

You'll have to remind me, when was F3 an orgasm?

The game was good, but... F2 was better :/

Purely your opinion that F2 was better, just like it's my opinion that FO3 was a great game. Now Im pretty sure the OT asked for my opinion which I gave. Now lets quickly compare FO3 and F2, shall we?
F2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOpVmEqD-Co&feature=related
F3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFkMgksMB8o

Now, you make the claim that a game made in 1998 is BETTER than Fallout 3. I find it surprising you can even compare two games that were made a decade apart from each other. Probably the only reason you say F2 is better is because you played it as a child. You now feel nostalgic whenever you think about it, and as time goes on you idealize the game and make it seem better than the pixelated nightmare that it really is.

Have I done a sufficient job reminding you, or do you want me to dedicate my afternoon to pleasing you?

so we can only like fallout if we are children? funny, because fallout 3 was so damn simple my legally retarded cousin called it easy. now i ask you, should i imply fallout 3 is only for legal retards? no, yet you call fallout 2 for children when teens cant even understand it.

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I NEVER said it was FOR children. I said that he had most likely played it as a child and therefore remembers it fondly. Please stop using your stupidity as a reason to flame me.

 

[Sephychu]

It'll certainly trump the wonder-turned-piss-pile that Fallout 3 was.

I loved it, then I liked it, now I hate it.

 

[luckycharms8282]

Way to go, OT. Im sure it wasnt your first intention, but, once again, people are fighting over which Fallout game is really the best. FO3 and FO2 are so different they might as well not even share the same name. Why do so many people feel the need to force their opinions on others? If you think one is better than the other, that's fine, but I honestly dont care about your opinion (speaking to everyone in general).