FeelTheRads
Arcane
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2008
- Messages
- 13,716
NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now.
A fate worse than death.
NMA was fucked the moment Roshambo was gone. Then the rats came out of the woodwork.
NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now.
It's true that Bethesda doesn't care for SJW shit. However their writing is very bad. Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim are bland, uninteresting worlds filled with throwaway NPC drivel and really shitty story arc. Bethesda is the classic example of "programmer-written dialogue".
In the end, neither company produces anything even remotely interesting from storyfag point of view.
Same did PS:T...
Bioware's problem isn't their formula, it's the excecution.
And do you honestly believe that DA:O,DA2,and DA:I are storyfag games? No storyfag would bother with them any more that he would be bothered with Skyrim.
Nah, that's how it always goes. You make Fallout from a remarkable game that it is, despite all the evidence, into something unremarkable. Not shit, just unremarkable.
Focusing on a few flaws instead of the gross overwhelming total of what the game did RIGHT, and instead of respecting just how rarely a game does that, this retarded attitude, when goes on unchecked, is a sign of mental decline of the forum.
NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now. These forums are pending the same fate, it appears. New blood is stupid, and old blood is getting senile.
I never even registered on that joke of a website
If setting and story don't matter, you should have said that in the first place instead of trying to defend Fallout 2's.I feel that this is a playing ground of storyfags. I personally love both Fallouts and they're on my top of ''teh bestest ar-pee-geez'', it's just that i can't stand pretentious idiot analysts is why i'm posting here.
Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.
Which is better, ice cream or steak? Stupid question.So, what is more important? Consistency to an arbitrary setting or being a good game gameplay wise?
The first is always somewhat barebones by comparison, but strong on specific atmosphere and character development, where as the sequel is always louder, longer, more of everything, but loses a bit of that core atmosphere. The original is always more 'core' whereas the sequel is more 'entertaining'.
Fallout hit me in a lot the same way as Baldur's Gate did. At the time, there had been no other game quite like it, only a distant prequel or ancestor that never quite handled the genre like it did. Fallout burst onto the scene with a legit post-apocalyptic setting, in isometric, 3D graphics, and it wasn't just some gimmicky little vault sim or something. It was a full world. All there to explore and to get radiated in.
Baldur's Gate came in and brought before my eyes the first real simulation of playing D&D on my computer. Sure,there were the Gold Box games, and those were great (I played every one of them), but BG promised to deliver more. It had more freedom. It allowed for so many more choices.
These games just weren't that great; we have to admit that. The writing was p. bad at times. There were plenty of holes. Both of them could have sat and baked for another year at least to have fleshed them out more. But I still loved them. Fallout in particular blew my mind because it just seemed like a post-apoc RPG for grownups. I know that sounds stilly but even the manual made me want to eat the thing in huge bites. It was all-consuming in its stark atmosphere and it'll always be one of my favorite RPG's of all time.
Radiated warts and all.
These games just weren't that great; we have to admit that. The writing was p. bad at times. There were plenty of holes. Both of them could have sat and baked for another year at least to have fleshed them out more
When a statement like this pops up, the natural question to ask is "compared to what?".
That abundance of silliness sort of undermines the setting which doesn't feel as coherent, Fallout 2 could have expanded upon the original without the inclusion of fedora wearing gangsters, aliens, ghosts, San Francisco (mostly everything in it) and similar stuff. While it certainly has a number of advantages over the first one (the amount of quality content, C&C, faction play between towns, much better follower system etc.), it's quite worse in regards to atmosphere and setting consistency.
Planescape: Torment is a completely different game type (it's a linear storyfag game) and Fallout 2 came at price of breaking the setting, adding munchkinfesting, the unskippable Temple of Trials, removing polish like descriptions of objects (so much things are "nothing out of ordinary" in Fo2) and ask about button and failed to fix the problems with the combat system. Oh an managed to make bugs even worse.A few people have brought this up, but roshan actually mentioned a couple of examples. Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment. There you go.
But now, today, if you go back and scrutinize the game, which is not a good idea if you truly value those memories, you do come to realize that a lot of what OP is stating is true. There are a lot of blank spots. Lots more detail and filler could have been added to the game. Would that have made it "better"? It's actually irrelevant, because RPG's were just not that "complete" back then. Part of Fallout's charm was its... emptiness.
You argue like those Bethesda fans who were under the impression that all the Fallout fans wanted was a carbon copy of Fallout.Basically, that fits all your responses after. F2 sucks because it isn't a carbon copy of F1.
Good to have this off our collective chests.
F2 is a much better game and it's ''deviation'' from the first one doesn't influence the gameplay in any bad manner.
Good gameplay is more important, which doesn't mean that consistency to aSo, what is more important? Consistency to an arbitrary setting or being a good game gameplay wise?
So stories are bad because Bioware is in the business of making shitty stories?I feel that this is a playing ground of storyfags. ... Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.
Which just shows how much Wasteland silliness influenced the setting.
Clearly, quite a few people here don't think they did a good job following it as "best as they could".Second game did follow the tone and the theme as best as it could for a game that happens later in time then the first. For most of its content.
First, I said enough, explaining why places like NCR, Reno, Enclave don't fit the '160 years since the war' Fallout setting. So far you've dismissed all my arguments, yet keep asking for more. As been pointed out by others, you don't argue in 'good faith'. You aren't having a debate, you're fighting a holy war, eradicating heresy.There is that list of locations that you avoid...
Problem with the FO2 haters is that you tell them you want more quest density and they interpret that in the worst possible way. "You want boring filler content! You want gangsters with fedoras and scientologists! YOU DECLINER!!".
also: epic butthurt.
FLAME ON:NMA is full of Bethesda apologists now. These forums are pending the same fate, it appears.
You certainly are. Look at all that faggot cowardly screaming you did in that thread in site feedback - after i was prevented to post and answer. And you are continuing with it now. Look, i admit my reaction to your silly statements about Neuromancer of all books was overblown, but your statements were ridiculous and overblown too. Feel better now?yes of course i am the one radiating chernobyl levels of butthurt itt
+Some people don’t appreciate what the word “classic” means.
Fallout have mongoloid stuff right at the beginning of the game, but it is a classic.
Opinions and assholes. Calling for popularity vote now?Clearly, quite a few people here don't think they did a good job following it as "best as they could".
This is nothing but another blatantly idiotic strawman. And obvious reducto ad absurdium fallacy. And a non sequitur.I think they moved the game 80 years into the future to distance from the tone/theme of the first game, but instead of doing logical shit, they treated it as anything goes.
You are mixing things up gramps, maybe you should go back writing how awesome w2 is. Im sure Fargo will mention you in a tweet someday. (arguing in good faith you say?)They really should have set the game on the other coast to show different post-war communities.
So what? Just because you say something it automatically becomes true?First, I said enough, explaining why places like NCR, Reno, Enclave don't fit the '160 years since the war' Fallout setting.
No, im asking you to prove any of your stupid assertions with anything but just saying "it is so because i say it is so" while so conspicuously avoiding to address any simple logical argument that you cannot refute.So far you've dismissed all my arguments, yet keep asking for more.
If me and you were talking in rl and you told me i was the same as a fan of bethesda vomit, you would wake up in a hospital. What fucking good faith would you expect in return for such "good faith"?As been pointed out by others, you don't argue in 'good faith'.
No shit? And thats true because you just said it?You aren't having a debate, you're fighting a holy war, eradicating heresy.
As I've been saying all along this dispute is between people who give a fuck about the setting and people who don't.
A Bandwagon fallacy. And appeal to popularity. ... This is nothing but another blatantly idiotic strawman. And obvious reducto ad absurdium fallacy. And a non sequitur. ... Thats also a False analogy fallacy btw... thats Tautology fallacy. ... So you go for Circular logic fallacy. .. The only thing you keep doing is stupidly trying to avoid even addressing that by flinging more stupid strawmans and apparently trying to use every known logical fallacy there is. ...This is just another blatant false strawman argument you make to avoid addressing anything that doesnt fit with your idiotic proclamations, while it is literally you who is literally and blatantly not arguing in any good faith... thats nothing but a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I have also a problem with super orcs, living undead that feed on radiation, Robin Hood guy in a desperate post-apo setting, ''followers of apocalypse'' which is plain weird stupid shit in my eye and some other things, but i didn't complain. Untill.. Until i saw threads like this on interderps. People complaining about F2 silliness, while ignoring huge derpness of the first game.Second, the issue isn't that it failed to copy F1, but because it significantly deviates from the tone and themes sets by the first game, unless you have no problem with ghosts, talking animals, yakuza, scientologists, gangsters from the 30s, who are just the tip of the iceberg.
The writing in F2 is miles better than F1 and what is that ''story'' of F1? Indulge us and tell about it. All i remember was '''there's some mutants running around ------> find random military facility and kill crazy half flesh/half machine dude ---> end of story.As a parody it wasn't all that good to be honest: they just didn't go coherent enough, crazy enough and their writing just wasn't good enough for it to work. The end result: a rather meh story and setting compared to Fallout 1.