|
xxEightxx posted:Melee is the most op build if you get the right perks not sure what is trying to be said. Also unarmed was awesome in Fallout 2 and one of my favorite ways to play through that game.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
I like the settlement stuff because it follows some of the general themes of Fallout; the game isn't set in the apocalypse itself, it takes place after the dust has settled and people have begun rebuilding. The settlement stuff plays into that, because then you as the player are contributing to the construction of something new over the smouldering ruins of shitsville. Gameplay-wise and in terms of writing it could still use some work, but the general idea of building a new town in a game set in a place where everybody else is already building new villages on the ruins of old cities makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:Melee is the most op build if you get the right perks not sure what is trying to be said. It can be pro-ice in any Fallout but there's literally like five unarmed weapons total in every non-New Vegas entry, so once you get the best one early on you're not going to be seeing a lot of variety for the rest of the game, which can get boring. Melee isn't much better, at least in terms of actual useful weapons (no one is making a build centered around the rolling pin).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Settlements arent about rebuilding the wasteland of the post-post-apocalypse, because the gameplay mechanics for them are literally just a lovely version of the construction set in game. Its not tied into the game world or story at all or even really acknowleged except once or twice and the mechanics themselves are on the level of a mediocre mod. In fact, it would be more impressive if it was a mod because then you'd go 'how neat, managing to fudge the creation kit into the game, very CHIM' but instead its a series of mostly lifeless and dull systems full of boring npcs serving no real purpose you couldnt do outside the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
For their first attempt, I think the settlement stuff is very fun. Hopefully ES6 and FO5 have a better version of it, especially if it causes more people to bitch about video games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Why would they bitch about it if it was better 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:For their first attempt, I think the settlement stuff is very fun. After all, this whole 'building things in a game' sure is innovative and new and totally not something done way better in other games already or gently caress, even roughly done already in NV and Skyrim just less freeform and integrated
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Sheen Sheen posted:Why would they bitch about it if it was better Because the guy above me exists. People that are never happy. The settlement stuff isn't "bare minimum". You're obviously not someone that produces anything based on the tone of your posts. Making poo poo is hard and making open world RPGs is VERY hard. They could have diverted those funds to better writers or better modelers or WHATEVER the current complaint may be. However, they tried something new, it was pretty fun if pointless and should be encouraged to improve on the process for future games. Saying that they did a half-assed job with the assumption that modders would "fix it" is an assumption on your part. I'm not saying that the game is anywhere near perfect but I hate these hyperbolic arguments that that a company is poo poo because some aspects of their product are not up to your descending standards.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Hrrrm yes, this certainly wasnt another examle of 'Lets just do the absolute boring minimum and let modders fix the rest' from Bethesda Your example of them not improving is literally bringing up a thing they did in a previous game and then improved upon
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:Because the guy above me exists. People that are never happy. „Its vedy hard to make bideogame“ does not apply to huge multi million dollar game company. What kind of laughable point is that even supposed to be? A shitload of the mods made to fix settlements arent technically complex or time consuming in the least, Bethesda just didnt do them, either because they wanted to keep the system barebones and simple or because they were lazy shits. You can either "assume" willful negligence, the same we've seen in Bethesda games for a long time now or you can try and defend the towering loving ediface of a huge company as just not being able to do more than have a single page of a design doc for the settlements because "its very hard". Wolfsheim posted:Your example of them not improving is literally bringing up a thing they did in a previous game and then improved upon Bethesda sometimes improves on things, sure, but it feels like half the time its one step forward, two steps back
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
Deceitful Penguin posted:Except that Ive been using the creation kit and modding Bethesda games since loving Morrowind, which is why just pasting the creation kit in game is so loving weak. Maybe if you have never touched it before all of this is new but the only difference to me is that its in-game and worse. "It's hard to do x with y technology" applies to multi-Billion dollar companies in IT, what are you talking about? If you don't realise how red-tape, bureaucracy and bloating can affect even the most prominent names out there, you potentially have never worked in one of these companies. Agressive deadlines, under-budgeting, bad management, waste of funds, bad project management, cognitive dissonance, overzealous marketing campaigns, disconnect between sales and dev teams, etc... are all very common reasons for stupid poo poo to happen in any IT field whatsoever. That's not even close to being uncommon in larger companies however unacceptable it may be in small ones because it would lead them to run out of money. "Hey guys we need this feature that doesn't exist and wasn't per scope initially but we need it next week" is not a freaking rare thing in large companies, btw. EPIC fat guy vids fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
Yeah, no you sound like an idiot. People make it sound like Bethesda are producing a shovelware third party wii game, when there's obviously alot of work gone into the game, as well as craft and people like you don't really seem to understand the industry, a budget, priorities or deadlines it seems.
Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 05:54 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Edit: left the tab open. I was talking to Penguin. I don't know how you can really say that when every Bethesda game has been better than the last. I'm purposefully excluding NV. Morrowind had a cool story but boring combat, a world that was a pain in the dick to navigate and a system that could be broken in half by accident. It stays in our consciousness for how ridiculous it got AND because it was the first open RPG for most people. Oblivion was a step in the right direction even though I'd never play it again. FO3 is weird because it was their first attempt at an already established IP and they had to make some very risky decisions. I would have liked a Van Buren style game but they heyday of isometric RPGs was over at that time. Pillars and the like garnered a resurgence but not a renaissance. The risks they took there ushered in Fallout to be a staple franchise for god-knows how long. Skyrim brought a gorgeous game with very fun combat but also writing that was embarrassing and gameplay systems that felt like an MMO. FO4 is pretty, it's fun and all the vanilla systems work just fine. Nothing feels like a grind and yes, mods make everything better (because of course they do). You know that a lot of the limitations for settlements were because of the console versions, right? Yeah they should have release two separate versions, I guess, but the amount of PC players that really needed more than the vanilla cap is pretty low. Remember, most people don't obsess over a single video game. I do but that's because I'm broken.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
I would argue that something like Hearthstone was well-done, well-implemented, and made sense for the style or RPGs that Bethesda is good at making, whereas The settlement system in Fallout 4 was none of those. It seemed like a superficial way to look at that type of progression by saying "you could build your own house in the last game, now you can build your own towns!!!" without actually thinking about how to integrate that into the bigger part of the game world. I'd even argue that settlement building wouldn't have been completely terrible if they limited it to just Sanctuary and tried to focus on building one settlement with a fine-tuned and well-implemented system--instead they filled the entire map with potential settlements for the bizarre and completely pointless purposes of being able to make trade routes and production facilities that serve no purpose. And I'd strongly argue that this is to the overall detriment of the game, because rather than designing an interesting game world with fun quests and fun places to explore, it almost seems like Bethesda charged people for the "privilege" of being able to do their work for them, only the best you could do with what they gave you was design janky settlements and fill them with nameless NPCs completely devoid of personality who gave you a mountain of copy-paste Radiant quests. And people will go out of their way to laud the "improvements" that Bethesda made--combat, factions, companions--they still pale in comparison to almost any AAA game from any other company over the last decade, so I don't feel like that's a real feather in Fallout 4's cap. Really the only true improvement that impressed me was how the game handled power armor. The funny thing is, I would be way more forgiving of all the game's shortcomings if it was fun to explore--I felt bored exploring the commonwealth almost right away. I'm fully willing to admit that this may be a personal problem, because I enjoyed the hell out of Fallout 3 and Skyrim because I enjoyed dungeon diving, exploring, and just stumbling on random poo poo in those games so much. In Fallout 4 I...didn't. I can't really put my finger on why--maybe it's because I'm older and I just want different things out of video games now, I don't know--maybe the Borderlands-style loot system helped turn me off to exploration as well, and a good chunk of the discoverable crap being more blank slates for settlements and settlement materials almost certainly contributed to that. But Fallout 4 fell flat for me on just about every level. And given how much people loved it for whatever reason, I think it's a fair prediction that Fallout 5 will move further towards Minecraft with a Fallout skin and copy-paste Radiant quests. If that's what you're into, then good for you, you'll probably enjoy Fallout 5, and the series will keep chugging along in that direction even without ol' Sheen Sheen--it's not like Bethesda needs my money to keep the franchise going. EDIT: Holy Hell people, you don't have to like something just because a lot money and man-hours went into it--it's still very possible for something like that to be terrible (case in point, Fallout 4), and unfun gameplay elements caused by strict deadlines, while tragic, are still unfun. Sheen Sheen fucked around with this message at 06:27 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
Sheen Sheen posted:EDIT: Holy Hell people, you don't have to like something just because a lot money and man-hours went into it--it's still very possible for something like that to be terrible (case in point, Fallout 4), and unfun gameplay elements caused by strict deadlines, while tragic, are still unfun. I can agree with that but I don't think that was the main point of the argument. Though I do think the Settlement/vault building aspect of FO4 is the best part of it if you have a bit of imagination and figure out some exploits 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 06:40
|
|
|
I love Bethesda games. I've put hundreds of hours into everything but their odd spin offs since Daggerfall. But their games have inexplicable design flaws I just don't understand. Daggerfall was very much an experimental game that bit off more than it could chew. A lot of its gameplay systems were either broken or barely implemented. The series has certainly improved from refinement, but I wouldn't mind seeing modern technology and the resources of a major studio used to implement some of Daggerfall's more novel ideas. Things like different travel systems, language skills, holidays, a more complex criminal justice system, and relationships between not only different factions but different strata of society were all things that Daggerfall tried and failed at in varying degrees. I don't know that any contemporary game has taken a stab at these goals. I am horribly tired of the phrase "Break over the knee" and that's not what I ever really did in Morrowind anyways. I know there's all sorts of shennigans one can do with alchemy and custom spells and enchantments, but I never found that interesting. What I found interesting was the handcrafted dungeons, but also more importantly the relationship between factions, stranger in a strange land feel, and the ambigious story based on half truths. Morrowind is replete with flaws, but those are features I don't think any other RPG has matched-at least Western, I don't really have any experience with the Eastern entries in the genre. Oblivion's level scaling really ruined it when it came out for me. I learned to play it when I started to think of it more as fantasy GTA than an RPG though. Oblivion is where I saw Bethesda start to make really bizarre or undesirable decisions. We all know about how Cyrodil became generic fantasy Europe. But there was lots of other stuff that just seems bonkers and not thought out, like the speech minigame and the half-assed level scaling system. Morrowind had level scaling too, just not as half assed as Oblivion!! Still, the quest design was largely better than Skyrim. I'm grateful that Bethesda brought the Fallout franchise into the mainstream. I do think the resurgence in classic RPGs and designers is in part because Bethesda brought one of the flagship franchises back, even if the game itself was very actiony. Still, the Bethesda Fallouts are my least favorites of the games. They take what were undercurrents in the Interplay/Black Isle/Obsidian Fallouts and turn them up to 11, so they became kind of bizarre cartoons or caricatures. I liked Fallout 3 well enough when it came out, because it was Fallout, but I really don't think they "got" what made Fallout so great. Fallout 4 moved towards Skyrim-y design. And I like Skyrim, but I don't think it works for Fallout. Skyrim stripped down the RPG mechanics a lot, but the Elder Scrolls never really had well thought out RPG systems so I didn't mind that much. Fallout always let you design a character beyond its combat role, and Fallout 4 seems to repudiate that both with the simplified SPECIAL system and the dialog "wheel." Its a fun game to run around shooting and building in, but I do think it really lost what made Fallout special (no pun intended).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
i said it before in this thread and ill say it again. radiant quests are the worsts things to happen to a open world game, and needs to never be in any future games ever. even if bethesda's writing is generally p. meh, i'd much rather have written quests than "go to x and kill some dudes." but i somehow doubt they'll ever get rid of them and just start putting more and more of them into their games which is a huge bummer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:02
|
|
|
And I'll say it again every time it's mentioned, the alternative to those quests in no quest at all, not a hand written, well developed quest. System was developed for a reason, and that reason wasn't laziness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:And I'll say it again every time it's mentioned, the alternative to those quests in no quest at all lmao no it isn't--the game Bethesda made before Fallout 4 had some Radiant quests, yes, and they were every bit as lame as the ones in Fallout 4, but it also had like a gajillion more actual sidequests with actual content beyond "go to x building and kill y enemies," which seems to make up the vast majority of Fallout 4's non-settlement content. Skyrim's sidequests weren't perfect by any means, but even the worst ones are better than any Radiant quest ever. This might honestly be the first time I've seen someone try to defend Radiant quests
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
Radiant quests would be fine if they were used as breadcrumbs for places you hadn't been yet or something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:27
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:And I'll say it again every time it's mentioned, the alternative to those quests in no quest at all, not a hand written, well developed quest. System was developed for a reason, and that reason wasn't laziness. You are crazy if you think that reason wasn't laziness. Like the only way to nice it up is by saying that they felt the time going into written quests could be put into things they deemed more important, like the lovely settlement building. Which is not, I assume, what alot of people who play Fallout, or hell, Bethesda games in general get them for. Roobanguy fucked around with this message at 07:49 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:You are crazy if you think that reason wasn't laziness. And you're crazy if you don't think that it's because the budget and time on quests was being spent elsewhere (such as the team doing your precious hand written quests which were quite a few in Skyrim, or voice acting in FO4, wisely or not), and it was left to some programmers to develop a system to fill in the gaps, give a potentially limitless, if flat set of content and also get you to explore the world a bit more than you might otherwise have. Again, without that system, you wouldn't have had more hand generated quests, that budget and time is already spent. You would have had nothing, or all the quest content quality would have suffered. Given that people think the quests were already bottom teir, I have no idea if you can imagine worse, but that's where it would have gone. Kokoro Wish fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:And you're crazy if you don't think that it's because the budget and time on quests was being spent elsewhere (such as the team doing your precious hand written quests which were quite a few in Skyrim, or voice acting in FO4, wisely or not), and it was left to some programmers to develop a system to fill in the gaps, give a potentially limitless, if flat set of content and also get you to explore the world a bit more than you might otherwise have. Again, without that system, you wouldn't have had more hand generated quests, that budget and time is already spent. You would have had nothing, or all the quest content quality would have suffered. Given that people think the quests were already bottom teir, I have no idea if you can imagine worse, but that's where it would have gone. The Radiant system was already in place since Skyrim, so I have no idea where you are getting the idea that programmers had to completely reinvent the wheel specifically for Fallout 4 radiant quests. And if you are telling me that Bethesda, who have published multiple million sales games, who have had at least 3 years to make this game, couldn't find the time or money to budget for sidequests in their loving open world rpg, because they had to spend that money on VA or settlement stuff than I am calling bullshit. They probably planned from the start to just make the vast majority of quests radiant and call it a day on that department. Roobanguy fucked around with this message at 08:07 on Dec 22, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:04
|
|
|
Roobanguy posted:The Radiant system was already in place since Skyrim, so I have no idea where you are getting the idea that programmers had to completely reinvent the wheel specifically for Fallout 4 radiant quests. And if you are telling me that Bethesda, who have published multiple million sales games, who have had at least 3 years to make this game, couldn't find the time or money to budget for sidequests in their loving open world rpg, because they had to spend that money on VA or settlement stuff than I am calling bullshit. They probably planned from the start to just make the vast majority of quests radiant and call it a day on that department. I included Skyrim in the thing you quoted. I know how far back radiant goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:I included Skyrim in the thing you quoted. I know how far back radiant goes. Then why put in the idea that their programmers had to find a way to fill in the lack of quests in Fallout 4 when they already had a solution? Maybe you are right, and Bethesda, one of the biggest publishers out there who only releases games every couple of years, didn't have the time or money to make actual side quests in their open world games, but I find that much harder to believe than them just going, "gently caress it, we already have a automatic quest generator so why bother with actual quests, lets make some settlement assets." right from the start.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
I think we can all just settle down and admit that the only open world RPG with good side quests is Witcher 3.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Inzombiac posted:I think we can all just settle down and admit that the only open world RPG with good side quests is Witcher 3. But other people on the internet are wrong. Radiant quests have the potential to be interesting and well integrated, but Bethesda hasn't reached that point yet. I think the bigger problem is that a lot of mechanics in FO4 don't mesh well with the narrative elements, not to mention the mechanics and narrative both need work. Bethesda has time and resources, and I'm sure that they'll fix and integrate these things if it's worth the investment to them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 10:38
|
|
|
drkeiscool posted:Radiant quests have the potential to be interesting and well integrated Roobanguy posted:You are crazy if you think that reason wasn't laziness. Laziness is especially a dumb thing to throw at them because if a videogame developer didn't want to make a good game, they wouldn't be in that business. You got to have some passion for the thing you're making, otherwise I don't see how anyone could deal with things like crunch time. The reality is that a developer has to deal with things like budget, time and available manpower. None of those are infinite. If Howard & co had the ability to stuff in a gazillion handcrafted cool sidequests, they would have. Period. But there are limits to what they're able to put in the game. And sometimes a developer just makes a bad call. With the radiant quest system Bethesda wanted a way for there to be an infinite amount of stuff for the player to do. They succeeded in that. The problem was the actual content that was being generated wasn't that fun. I think Bethesda learned from the feedback they got from Skyrim which is why there's way less radiant quests in FO4. Roobanguy posted:Maybe you are right, and Bethesda, one of the biggest publishers I don't think we have any real data about when development began on FO4. It was pre-development since shortly after FO3, but Bethesda announced they'd be shutting down support of Skyrim and move to start development on a new title back in april 2013. So let's say 2.5 years of full development. Again by comparison Witcher 3 had a development time of 3.5 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Are people still treating the Witcher 3 devs as tiny independents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 12:37
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:I need more posts to convince me if fallout 4 is good or bad. Look what you've done 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
Yes, how dare people look at Fallout 4 with a critical eye in the Fallout 4 thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
Bethesda is incapable of writing a story. The thing I will say about them is that they're good at making a world to explore, but without anything to tie it all together coherently I lose interest. The problem I have with FO4 is that they just slapped a bunch of garbage "features" into it. I like being able to mod weapons, but FO4 takes it too far, I don't want to spend 20 minutes trying to figure out exactly which options I want on a single gun, when guns are literally lying around everywhere. Either go full Boarderlands and make it all random with no modding, or go the other FPS route and limit your arsenal and mod options. I like the idea of building settlements, but again FO4 tries to be something else with it. For a game like FO4, I shouldn't have to place guard towers and water pumps manually, that just shows the devs were lazy as gently caress. Have the game upgrade the settlements for me so I can go do fun things like crawl around in a cave elsewhere. For a game like FO4, first give me a reason to build a settlement, like they can farm mirelurks for meat, then tell me you need 50 Cakefarts, and 200 World's Worst Dad mugs, and let the freeloaders in the settlement upgrade their half-assed fence into a guard tower. In short it's a game that tried too hard to be other games
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:01
|
|
|
Kokoro Wish posted:And you're crazy if you don't think that it's because the budget and time on quests was being spent elsewhere (such as the team doing your precious hand written quests which were quite a few in Skyrim, or voice acting in FO4, wisely or not), and it was left to some programmers to develop a system to fill in the gaps, give a potentially limitless, if flat set of content and also get you to explore the world a bit more than you might otherwise have. Again, without that system, you wouldn't have had more hand generated quests, that budget and time is already spent. You would have had nothing, or all the quest content quality would have suffered. Given that people think the quests were already bottom teir, I have no idea if you can imagine worse, but that's where it would have gone. So you also feel that resources that could have been spent on engaging content--"precious hand written quests," as you refer to them (  )--were instead spent on slapping together a godawful settlement building system without trying to actually integrate it into the game in any meaningful way, then trying to bridge the massive gap in content with its predecessors through boring Radiant dreck? And given the tone of your posts, this is really the type of game you'd rather play?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:08
|
|
|
Iron Crowned posted:I like the idea of building settlements, but again FO4 tries to be something else with it. For a game like FO4, I shouldn't have to place guard towers and water pumps manually, that just shows the devs were lazy as gently caress. Have the game upgrade the settlements for me so I can go do fun things like crawl around in a cave elsewhere. For a game like FO4, first give me a reason to build a settlement, like they can farm mirelurks for meat, then tell me you need 50 Cakefarts, and 200 World's Worst Dad mugs, and let the freeloaders in the settlement upgrade their half-assed fence into a guard tower. I think the build-your-own approach isn't a bad one, but it sucks that walls and guard towers are useless. Since attackers simply spawn inside the settlement there isn't a point in building walls or guarded gates. It's just randomly placing turrets around the place until you hit the magic defense number. Everything else is pointless (outside of pure aesthetics).
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:14
|
|
|
Floppychop posted:I think the build-your-own approach isn't a bad one, but it sucks that walls and guard towers are useless. It's just more proof of lazy design on the dev's part
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
I'm wondering what version of Fallout 4 that you all were playing that was apparently 5% main quest and 95% Radiant Minutemen quests. The game I played also had multiple long quest chains for each of the four main factions, quests for most companions once you got to certain affinity levels, quests you could stumble upon just by listening to radio frequencies or walking in on situations, quests that were entirely independent of anything else you were doing like the entire Cabot House chain, and a lot of unmarked "quests" in the random encounters like coming across the Garvey Imposter, or places like Quincy and University Point where you piece together what happened while exploring... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
I enjoyed both Fallout 4 and Witcher 3. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Yates posted:I enjoyed both Fallout 4 and Witcher 3. Sorry. Same. It's weird that these incredibly fun games managed to become so popular when they are filled with "garbage". Seriously guys, your bar for garbage is WAY too low. Just go to the Greenlight games under review sometime. Those are actual garbage. Calling something like FO4 "utter trash" dilutes your argument. It's okay to not like something without that thing being the video game equivalent to Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
Floppychop posted:I think the build-your-own approach isn't a bad one, but it sucks that walls and guard towers are useless. People say that, but either my mods have tweaked that without telling me or the game was patched without notice. I've completely fenced in Sanctuary, Tenpines Bluff, Abernathy Farms, and some other places where it made sense, right up to the edge of the green, and invasions start from much further away. Though it is true that the default fast travel point for a lot of settlements often drops you off at a scenic overlook-type location outside the settlement that also can serve as an invasion rally point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Sheen Sheen posted:Why would they bitch about it if it was better Are you serious It's a video game in a series with a rabidly, aggressively vitriolic fanbase that has been kicking, crying, and screaming about every single addition or alteration to the series since 1998. These people literally wanted Fallout 3 to be Fallout 2 part 2, as if nothing had changed in the entire world of PC video games over the decade since Fallout 2 was unleashed upon the world. This is video games, man. People lose their loving minds over video games. Just look at the last year or so - No Man's Sky, Dark Souls 2 and 3, Overwatch, loving Pokemon, DOTA, STAR CITIZEN for the love of Christ - not to mention the neverending repetitions of console wars & the associated fanboyism, and that other thing that Shall Not Be Named that nearly tore apart the entire internet over the last 2 years. And that's just off the cuff. Fallout is a loving fanboy flamewar waiting to happen no matter what. NOTHING would ever be good enough. Ever. They will always bitch. Fallout fanboyism never changes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2016 17:42
|
|
