Official Codex Impressions of New Vegas

[Topher]

it's completely irrelevant to the game itself if it's a sequel or not and it's a completely different genre than the originals but if it pleases you to call it the long awaited "true" sequel to FO1/2 then sure, go ahead. Don't really see why we're even having this discussion...

The problem we're having is that I feel the same way. We're arguing semantics because it's fun but I honestly don't think it matters if anybody considers it a sequel or not, I though that was made clear in an earlier post. Anyway, you don't think that a book can be the sequel to a movie?

I'm also assuming that when you say I'm comparing and action game to a non-action game you're considering New Vegas an action game? Because as far as I'm concerned if it's not in an absurdly different genre like "racing" then in can be a sequel and to me at least New Vegas is close enough.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

[


Maybe I'm just Mr. Open-Minded, but I look at it as much sillier to define a game based on the one thing it isn't (turn-based isometric) rather than all the things it is.

Turn-based isometric determines your combat strategy and party development , as is now you have the most lame implementation of a retarded tactical shooter.

That's an interesting way to say "aim for the eyes, be careful not to stay between Ian/Marcus and the enemy, and you're golden"

 

[Topher]

[


Maybe I'm just Mr. Open-Minded, but I look at it as much sillier to define a game based on the one thing it isn't (turn-based isometric) rather than all the things it is.

Turn-based isometric determines your combat strategy and party development , as is now you have the most lame implementation of a retarded tactical shooter.

That's an interesting way to say "aim for the eyes, be careful not to stay between Ian/Marcus and the enemy, and you're golden"

As much fun as I had with Fallout's combat that does pretty much sum it up.