the #1 thing that you "worry" about in Gaming
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I WANT THAT GAME!!!!!ChupathingyX said:
Seriously though Bethesda did a MUCH better job than Obsidian as I don't even play New Vegas anymore. Fallout 3 was more emotional, immersive and fun.
What worries me about the medium is "gamers" worrying about what the average person thinks of games. Why do we care? Why should we care? Trying to please everyone will get us nowhere; it's time to grow up and get on with get on things, like making/ enjoying good, original games. I mean really why is it such an issue with us that some ignorant people refuse to see any artistic merit in this medium; we know there is, that's why we play games, and that's why others with open minds will play games too.shadow_Fox81 said:
A different ditigal download client for every publisher installed on your PC and no choice between say, Steam or GG or stardock, to buy your game from, only the publisher's download service and they won't do special sales.
This is a very real possibility in the near future. If EA pulls it off, everyone will follow.
This is a very real possibility in the near future. If EA pulls it off, everyone will follow.
That'd be great...MiracleOfSound said:
...too bad it'll never happen.
The problem is Bethesda games get way too much praise than they deserve, you never seem to see reviewers call them out on their writing, stories and characters. whereas when it comes to reviewing an Obsidian game people are extremely quick to point out how buggy it is, ending their review with a footnote along the lines of "Oh, yeah and the writing is good".
Let's use good ol' IGN as an example, their review of F3 says things like:
*"Blank slate"
*"fantastic writing"
*"exciting, top-notch main story"
*"Rather than spoil the story, I'll simply say that it does not disappoint."
*"And, like the main quest, each side quest feels organic with numerous routes to completion."
*"It prevents you from becoming a god-like character"
*"This comes in contrast with the voice work which most definitely does not take a minimalist approach"
And finally my favourite comment from their review..."deep role-playing".
Now let's look at their review of New Vegas...
*" Since the first game was so widely loved" (Fallout 3 was the first Fallout game? That wasn't taken out of context by the way)
*"but New Vegas does feel like a giant, awesome expansion."
*"You're a courier in these troubled times with no defined background"
*"There are three possible endings to the main quest"
IGN didn't give a bad review of New Vegas, but the things they said were all mostly ignorant. They never mention the writing like they did in the Fallout 3 review, and when they talk about companions all they do is complain about them and don't seem to mention the fact that they now have their own story, quest and more backstory compared to 3. They also say things that are wrong about the main quest and write it off as pretty useless compared to F3's main quest which is apparently one of the best in a RPG ever.
In F3's review they say the Lone Wanderer is a blank slate, but never say such a thing about the Courier, who has much more of a blank slate than the LW.
And finally the worst offender is calling New Vegas an "expansion". Seriously? The game has the same engine as F3, how does this make it an expansion, heaps of games use the same engine. Not to mention the plethora of new weapons, characters, quests, different setting, story and gameplay adds.
Stuff like this really annoys me, and it needs to stop, even Extra Credits have made some false statements about New Vegas which just furthers the issue considering how many people watch that show here.
...
Wow, you're really good at making me go way off topic and blabbing on like an old coot who hates the world.
if thats the way Alan moore had thought about comics we would have no Watchmen hell if Emily Bronte had thought of the novel similarly there would be no wutheing hieghts (or modern novel). We should care what people think. average peoples thoughts had the Picasso's demoislelle de Avigone but in back rooms for decades, how can the medium evolve if we don't care what people outside the medium think. not caring is complacency and all bad art is born of complacency. we can learn from holding ourselves to a higher standard.The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
Honestly? The period when I can still trade the game in I will spend way too much time deciding wether I like the game or I'm just going through motions, causing me to either rush the game or leave it laying around till I can't trade it in anymore. It's maddening.
I honestly don't know how to respond to that, I'm just dumbfounded.GamerAddict7796 said:
I don't know if you noticied but I was saying that Fallout 3 had a horrible story that was basically Bethesda saying "Hey we now have the Fallout license...go crazy!"
Obsidian were then allowed to make New Vegas and they said "How now we have the Fallout license for a bit, let's make a story about the political and societal aspects of the Fallout world that is caused by the lust for power that humanity shows when trying to re-create a world that was desroyed by man's own lust for power".
I agree, but I think maybe if New Vegas had come out first, the novelty would have been on its side, as it was for F3, and the F3 reviews would have suffered the same way.ChupathingyX said:
That's subjective really... myself I prefer the main story in F3, it feels more personal to me, looking for your dad as opposed to trying to find someone who shot you. They're both great, I just prefer the more intimate story.ChupathingyX said:
Yeah, that was really stupid of them. NV had many, many difference to F3. Not just in gameplay but in feel, atmosphere, humour, style, stats balancing, writing... really the only similarities are the graphics engine and visual assets, re-used music (why did they do that?), and most of the base mechanics. Which is true of most sequels, really.ChupathingyX said:
Also, no 'expansion pack' gives you 80-100 hours playtime in one playthrough.
Was that the comment about the courier having no backstory? I also disagreed with that. The story was all there if you took the time to find it - in Primm, Goodsprings and especially the Strip with Benny and Mr House giving you tonnes of exposition. All they had to do was talk to the NPCs, something I'd consider pretty obvious for a Fallout game.ChupathingyX said:
That's true, but still I preferred the more political story of New Vegas, as stories centered around politics and society aren't very common in more action-oriented RPGs.MiracleOfSound said:
That and saying the Courier has amnesia, which just isn't true at all and has no proof to back it up. It also causes their thesis to have much less weight now that their original statement is now completely false.
Things like this http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/112247-Rage-Cuts-Single-Player-When-You-Buy-It-Used and day 1 DLC as ways of upping game sales, Lets not make games more engaging, entertaining and of a higher calibre, lets just turn them into bland, pandering, disposable items with no value past there first hand purchase while prising many people out of the hobby all together.
I think you can probably tell that this has gone past a mere worry to just down right frustrating with me
I think you can probably tell that this has gone past a mere worry to just down right frustrating with me
Now I may be mistaken, but wasn't the actual story behind the courier that he wasn't from the Vegas area and had recently gone there, hence why he didn't know anything about the place?ChupathingyX said:
Pretty much, he/she's a Courier which means he/she is constantly moving around from place to place. In New Vegas through dialogue you can make it so that the Courier has been to places such as New Reno and Montana, the birthplace of the Courier is never mentioned as you can decide that for yourself.MiracleOfSound said:
I'm still looking forward to Lonesome Road to finally meet Ulysses, who might shed some info on the Courier and I think Chris Avellone said somethng once that implied that you would be able to influence your relation with Ulysses, he was deliberately vague to avoid spoilers.
I don't feel there's anything to fear in particular.
Some of the console trends started by a certain unnamed franchise happy company are a bit worrying, though nothing that will ever shake PC land.
There's nothing to worry about as far as development trends go. The game industry today is unique compared to other forms of media in that there are no real problems in terms of marketing and distribution for independent companies. There is no difficulty whatsoever in finding whatever type of game you're after, and whatever it is there is someone out there making it. I see people who apparently only notice AAA console blockbusters and whatever Yahtzee reviews complaining about too many shooters or whatever, I want to adjust their head and inch to the right and point them to the plethora of other games they'd probably be enjoying a great deal more. In most cases it seems if you have a complaint about the kind of games coming out, the fault is with you for looking in the wrong places.
Some of the console trends started by a certain unnamed franchise happy company are a bit worrying, though nothing that will ever shake PC land.
There's nothing to worry about as far as development trends go. The game industry today is unique compared to other forms of media in that there are no real problems in terms of marketing and distribution for independent companies. There is no difficulty whatsoever in finding whatever type of game you're after, and whatever it is there is someone out there making it. I see people who apparently only notice AAA console blockbusters and whatever Yahtzee reviews complaining about too many shooters or whatever, I want to adjust their head and inch to the right and point them to the plethora of other games they'd probably be enjoying a great deal more. In most cases it seems if you have a complaint about the kind of games coming out, the fault is with you for looking in the wrong places.
I'm not saying ignore all criticism, and continue on with what we're doing, I'm saying developers should stop censoring themselves because people who know nothing about our medium find some topics "distasteful". Why do you think COD's still sells so well even though half the people on these forums will complain about it? Because f*cking idiots who still think of games as toys buy them, and their over-priced map-packs, like the sheep they are. And because of it, every long-running (and stagnating) series copies them, and then are bought by-the-idiots-who-think-they're-clever because they've noticed COD quite popular, and therefore should be hated. That's not very progressive. I'm not saying we should alienate everyone who hasn't played games, I'm saying we should ignore the ignorant and let them play in there own feces, and welcome those with a brain to the gaming community. If that makes sense.shadow_Fox81 said: