Fallout 3 baby

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/index4.html

 Cmon! I hope this is a multi platform release. We'll know in six days eh (today 30/5/07)

I hope this is PC only. Too bad that won't happen.Hot_Potato

come, bothers, let us sit and join hands and pray togerher - pray that the lord will send a giant meteor filled with space spiders directly to the bethesda officers, and those few who survive the meteor blast will be eaten alive or be made into nesting grounds for the space spiders

amen 

Because it's Bethesda, you know it's going to be a real time First person RPG like Oblivion......Johnny_Rock

Because it's Bethesda, you know it's going to be a real time First person RPG like Oblivion......Johnny_Rock

I would be totally up for that if they just made the RPG elements more in-depth, i.e. leveling system specifically.

first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleSoldi3r1stClass

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]Because it's Bethesda, you know it's going to be a real time First person RPG like Oblivion......mrbojangles25

I would be totally up for that if they just made the RPG elements more in-depth, i.e. leveling system specifically.

It would still ruin the game no matter what. By changing the game to first person they're changing the genre of which it falls under, which doesn't really make it a true sequel to the game.

Anyway bethsoft hasn't announced anything about the game AT ALL. These people t hat are saying that bethsoft has already announced that the game will be played in first person are completely talking out of their asses.  

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]Because it's Bethesda, you know it's going to be a real time First person RPG like Oblivion......onemic

I would be totally up for that if they just made the RPG elements more in-depth, i.e. leveling system specifically.

It would still ruin the game no matter what. By changing the game to first person they're changing the genre of which it falls under, which doesn't really make it a true sequel to the game.

Anyway bethsoft hasn't announced anything about the game AT ALL. These people t hat are saying that bethsoft has already announced that the game will be played in first person are completely talking out of their asses.

"Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that ****of game experience?
Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in ****u>. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-****game, because that's not what we do well.
(clarification of the above) Sure, that was a phone interview and he slightly misquoted me. What I said was, "I don't know if we'd suddenly... "

Still the underlined part makes it seem like it has a chance to be in its original form.

And I never said that it will be a FPS I said that it is a possibility. 

you should all just hope it actually comes out some time relativly soon.zer0sil3nce

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peoplesmokeydabear076

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business.  Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleSoldi3r1stClass

How can you say that?  Oblivion sucked, Sea Dogs 2 (Renamed Pirates of the Caribbean) sucked.  Why have blind faith in a company that has a so-so recent past? 

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal people06m1r3m86

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business. Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

Hello, I don't know if you played the original two or not, but if you did and happen to like them, you'd appreciate the turn-based combat, which will be scrapped if FO3 ever goes to console, because there is no market for turn-based game in the console world. Console gamers want games that are accessible, which is everything Fallout was NOT. And Fallout's complexity is what made me love the game.

First/Third Person games are the fad in consoles these days. Games being made for consoles = 99% chance of becoming that way.

first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleSoldi3r1stClass

Bethseda watered down Oblivion, what makes you think they arent going to water down this? Im hoping to god that they dont.  Also, 10x cheaper for the same quality? no, not really. if they were 10x cheaper, they would be 9x worse

[QUOTE="06m1r3m86"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleErlkoenig

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business. Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

Hello, I don't know if you played the original two or not, but if you did and happen to like them, you'd appreciate the turn-based combat, which will be scrapped if FO3 ever goes to console, because there is no market for turn-based game in the console world. Console gamers want games that are accessible, which is everything Fallout was NOT. And Fallout's complexity is what made me love the game.

First/Third Person games are the fad in consoles these days. Games being made for consoles = 99% chance of becoming that way.

 KotOR is turn based, and although I don't play Japanese RPGs, I do believe that they are turnbased and that's the whole base that the PS2 is based on.  Just because a game goes to a console makes them bad, but I agree that a game going to a console gets watered down, look at Deus Ex.  I played Jade Empire recently and although there isn't tons of equipment to switch in and out that changes stats and everything, the gem system added as much complexity as changing armor and weapons and other things in an older RPG.  The ideas are still in newer games, just streamlined into a system that's easier to understand for a casual gamer but still has the complexity for others.

[QUOTE="onemic"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]Because it's Bethesda, you know it's going to be a real time First person RPG like Oblivion......smokeydabear076

I would be totally up for that if they just made the RPG elements more in-depth, i.e. leveling system specifically.

It would still ruin the game no matter what. By changing the game to first person they're changing the genre of which it falls under, which doesn't really make it a true sequel to the game.

Anyway bethsoft hasn't announced anything about the game AT ALL. These people t hat are saying that bethsoft has already announced that the game will be played in first person are completely talking out of their asses.

"Can we expect something similar to the work done on Morrowind, in terms of that ****of game experience?
Pete Hines: Again, it's early to say, but it wouldn't be a leap of faith to say that we plan to use technologies in development otherwise. You could make some fairly safe leaps of faith that it would be similar in ****u>. We're not going to go away from what it is that we do best. We're not going to suddenly do a top-down isometric Baldur's Gate-****game, because that's not what we do well.
(clarification of the above) Sure, that was a phone interview and he slightly misquoted me. What I said was, "I don't know if we'd suddenly... "

Still the underlined part makes it seem like it has a chance to be in its original form.

And I never said that it will be a FPS I said that it is a possibility.

Fair enough, but from your post you made it seem like they officially announced that it would be first person, which isn't true.

No matter what, if the game's in first person then they have pretty much destroyed the franchise. You can't completely change the genre of a game and expect it to still be a sequel or even worthy of the name of the existing series. Hopefully bethesda isn't dumb enough to actually look past that.  

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"][QUOTE="06m1r3m86"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal people06m1r3m86

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business. Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

Hello, I don't know if you played the original two or not, but if you did and happen to like them, you'd appreciate the turn-based combat, which will be scrapped if FO3 ever goes to console, because there is no market for turn-based game in the console world. Console gamers want games that are accessible, which is everything Fallout was NOT. And Fallout's complexity is what made me love the game.

First/Third Person games are the fad in consoles these days. Games being made for consoles = 99% chance of becoming that way.

KotOR is turn based, and although I don't play Japanese RPGs, I do believe that they are turnbased and that's the whole base that the PS2 is based on. Just because a game goes to a console makes them bad, but I agree that a game going to a console gets watered down, look at Deus Ex. I played Jade Empire recently and although there isn't tons of equipment to switch in and out that changes stats and everything, the gem system added as much complexity as changing armor and weapons and other things in an older RPG. The ideas are still in newer games, just streamlined into a system that's easier to understand for a casual gamer but still has the complexity for others.

No, KOTOR is not turn-based, it is real time combat with a pause like NWN/NWN2. "Pulse" combat is a better description. And yeah I know some Japanese RPGs are TB (I actually played a kickass TB strategy game on the PS back in the day), but they don't exist on the 360, which is the platform people feared FO3 would be on.

I fear the worst for the Fallout franchise, as there is no way Bethesda is going to put a turn based game on the 360 that requires thought and brain activity, and I have a 360 so flippin' spare me. Turn based games are not what the kids play theses days. I would bet my house this is going to be oblivion with guns and watered down comedic tones, just enough to get the Teen rating, as I doubt they are going to be able to replicate the brilliant writing that was once Fallout anyway. While I wish the game would stick with it's core roots, and that's all Fallout fans ask for, I highly doubt it. The videogame industry is becoming more and more like Hollywood everyday.

This sucks, I can see it already. While I like consoles, I just wish they kept their paws off of PC franchises, but they are inherently corporate proprietary closed wanna-be PC's anyway with a thirst for amazing PC IP's. I frankly don't care what anyone has to say, it's the truth whether you like it or not. If this game deviates too much from the Fallout world, I will not buy this game, I don't care what the name is on the box.

[QUOTE="06m1r3m86"][QUOTE="Erlkoenig"][QUOTE="06m1r3m86"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleErlkoenig

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business. Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

Hello, I don't know if you played the original two or not, but if you did and happen to like them, you'd appreciate the turn-based combat, which will be scrapped if FO3 ever goes to console, because there is no market for turn-based game in the console world. Console gamers want games that are accessible, which is everything Fallout was NOT. And Fallout's complexity is what made me love the game.

First/Third Person games are the fad in consoles these days. Games being made for consoles = 99% chance of becoming that way.

KotOR is turn based, and although I don't play Japanese RPGs, I do believe that they are turnbased and that's the whole base that the PS2 is based on. Just because a game goes to a console makes them bad, but I agree that a game going to a console gets watered down, look at Deus Ex. I played Jade Empire recently and although there isn't tons of equipment to switch in and out that changes stats and everything, the gem system added as much complexity as changing armor and weapons and other things in an older RPG. The ideas are still in newer games, just streamlined into a system that's easier to understand for a casual gamer but still has the complexity for others.

No, KOTOR is not turn-based, it is real time combat with a pause like NWN/NWN2. "Pulse" combat is a better description. And yeah I know some Japanese RPGs are TB (I actually played a kickass TB strategy game on the PS back in the day), but they don't exist on the 360, which is the platform people feared FO3 would be on.

 How is it not turn based, you select an action, that is played out in your turn, then you wait for the AI to play it's turn, while you select what you are doing next.  Everything is controlled by invisable dice rolls taking place in the background.  To say it's not turn based says that you can take an action at any moment during combat and that is not the way that KotOR works, the way Bioware describes it is "Turn-based in real-time."  That's exactly how it plays out too, you can add several actions to the queue and during each turn those get played out and the AI does the same thing, this is even visable in the "cinematics fights."

I don't think it works like that. You and the enemy don't take turn. You queue up a list of your moves, they have a list of their own. At each pulse, you and the enemy do the next move in the stack and wait for the next pulse. Each action cost the same, and there is no stat that determines the order in which characters act.

Bethesda + Fallout = bad idea.

I can't decide which is worse, this or that Shadowrun fiasco.Alaris83

Of course, Shadowrun my friend... Shadowrun... WHY THE HELL DID THEY TURN A RPG GAME INTO A FPS WITHOUT ANY SENSE OF WHAT SHADOWRUN REALLY WAS?!?!? GODS!! YOU'VE CURSED US, THEN I CURSE YOU WITH MY SHEER MADNESS FOR ALL ETERNITY!!!

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal people06m1r3m86

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business.  Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

What I am about to say is by no means a slam against console players, it is merely how I perceive how publishers and developers see console gamers.

Publishers look at console players and they see idiots who want the most satisfaction in the easiest manner.  They see  Billy the High School Dropout who works at Burger King and cant afford a gaming PC, and they also see his 8-year-old cousin Tommy.  Billy and Tommy dont have patience and they are easily frustrated, so they need a simple game that can be controlled by a few buttons on a pretty plastic controller.

In other words, Billy and Tommy are the lowest common denominator, and console games and games built for multiple platforms are built specifically for them.  While there are plenty of enthusiests on consoles who can handle complex RPG mechanics such as dialog, inventory, and skill allocation and point systems, marketing says that there simply arent enough.

So where does that leave us PC gamers?  Its leaves us with a game built for the Tommys and Billys of the world.  If we are lucky, we get some decent mod tools that let us make the game what it should have been (i.e. Oblivion) and if we are unlucky we get a crappy port that crashes and has controller issues.

So sure, us PC gamers get the same experience that console gamers get, though its hardly "quality".  And I personally dont think an extra 300-400 dollars (not to mention we save 20 dollars on each PC game compared to 60 dollar console games) for a good gaming rig is entirely unreasonable when measured against the benefits we receive.

And, as if to dump salt in the wound, these companies that make games for Tommy and Billy take their huge wealth, buy licenses to the works of art that are Deus Ex, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc and dumb them down so an 8 year old and a high school dropout can play them.

We got plenty of reasons to be concerned.

I don't think it works like that. You and the enemy don't take turn. You queue up a list of your moves, they have a list of their own. At each pulse, you and the enemy do the next move in the stack and wait for the next pulse. Each action cost the same, and there is no stat that determines the order in which characters act.

Erlkoenig

Even though it occurs at a faster pace, you do indeed take turns.  Ever notice how the combat always goes your turn, enemy turn, your turn, enemy turn.  Rounds occur in a matter of seconds, so it is indeed different from Fallout 1 and 2, but it is still turn based.

Its like you get a "window" to make a move, and if you dont make your move you miss your window and then the enemy takes his turn, then the opportunity comes back to you.

[QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

I don't think it works like that. You and the enemy don't take turn. You queue up a list of your moves, they have a list of their own. At each pulse, you and the enemy do the next move in the stack and wait for the next pulse. Each action cost the same, and there is no stat that determines the order in which characters act.

mrbojangles25

Even though it occurs at a faster pace, you do indeed take turns. Ever notice how the combat always goes your turn, enemy turn, your turn, enemy turn. Rounds occur in a matter of seconds, so it is indeed different from Fallout 1 and 2, but it is still turn based.

Its like you get a "window" to make a move, and if you dont make your move you miss your window and then the enemy takes his turn, then the opportunity comes back to you.

Hmm it's been so long, I might be wrong. Suppose that you're right, even if KOTOR's combat is technically TB, it isn't in the spirit of TB, you play it in real time most of the time. Also, being able to only do one action per turn isn't so hot to me.

[QUOTE="06m1r3m86"]

[QUOTE="smokeydabear076"][QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peoplemrbojangles25

I agree with the first guy here A console will give nearly the same quality for a fraction of the price, and as for Fallout on a console before, that was when Interplay was trying to cash in on a tried and true franchise to save their business. Bethesda has a good track record, I'll trust em.

What I am about to say is by no means a slam against console players, it is merely how I perceive how publishers and developers see console gamers.

Publishers look at console players and they see idiots who want the most satisfaction in the easiest manner. They see Billy the High School Dropout who works at Burger King and cant afford a gaming PC, and they also see his 8-year-old cousin Tommy. Billy and Tommy dont have patience and they are easily frustrated, so they need a simple game that can be controlled by a few buttons on a pretty plastic controller.

In other words, Billy and Tommy are the lowest common denominator, and console games and games built for multiple platforms are built specifically for them. While there are plenty of enthusiests on consoles who can handle complex RPG mechanics such as dialog, inventory, and skill allocation and point systems, marketing says that there simply arent enough.

So where does that leave us PC gamers? Its leaves us with a game built for the Tommys and Billys of the world. If we are lucky, we get some decent mod tools that let us make the game what it should have been (i.e. Oblivion) and if we are unlucky we get a crappy port that crashes and has controller issues.

So sure, us PC gamers get the same experience that console gamers get, though its hardly "quality". And I personally dont think an extra 300-400 dollars (not to mention we save 20 dollars on each PC game compared to 60 dollar console games) for a good gaming rig is entirely unreasonable when measured against the benefits we receive.

And, as if to dump salt in the wound, these companies that make games for Tommy and Billy take their huge wealth, buy licenses to the works of art that are Deus Ex, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, etc and dumb them down so an 8 year old and a high school dropout can play them.

We got plenty of reasons to be concerned.

Wow, great post brotha. I've already used "QFT" in this thread, and I'm gonna do it again.

QFT..... 

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"][QUOTE="Erlkoenig"]

I don't think it works like that. You and the enemy don't take turn. You queue up a list of your moves, they have a list of their own. At each pulse, you and the enemy do the next move in the stack and wait for the next pulse. Each action cost the same, and there is no stat that determines the order in which characters act.

Erlkoenig

Even though it occurs at a faster pace, you do indeed take turns. Ever notice how the combat always goes your turn, enemy turn, your turn, enemy turn. Rounds occur in a matter of seconds, so it is indeed different from Fallout 1 and 2, but it is still turn based.

Its like you get a "window" to make a move, and if you dont make your move you miss your window and then the enemy takes his turn, then the opportunity comes back to you.

Hmm it's been so long, I might be wrong. Suppose that you're right, even if KOTOR's combat is technically TB, it isn't in the spirit of TB, you play it in real time most of the time. Also, being able to only do one action per turn isn't so hot to me.

Ya, it definately feels real-time, thats for sure, and you dont see any of the dice-rolls occuring.  I guess thats what matters at the end of the day, technicalities be damned.

Wow, great post brotha. I've already used "QFT" in this thread, and I'm gonna do it again.

QFT.....

mismajor99

I second this. Exactly my thoughts. The blame is mostly on the developers. 

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleJohnny_Rock

How can you say that?  Oblivion sucked, Sea Dogs 2 (Renamed Pirates of the Caribbean) sucked.  Why have blind faith in a company that has a so-so recent past? 

Oblivion sucked? Wow, must be really lonely on your planet

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleh0wtehnub

Bethseda watered down Oblivion, what makes you think they arent going to water down this? Im hoping to god that they dont.  Also, 10x cheaper for the same quality? no, not really. if they were 10x cheaper, they would be 9x worse

360 = £200.... Alienware monster rig = £2500... quality difference... marginal... gameplay= THE SAME

This will go the way of oblivion. Multiplatform dumbing down FTW!

360 = £200.... Alienware monster rig = £2500... quality difference... marginal... gameplay= THE SAMESoldi3r1stClass

Quality difference??? Marginal?? :lol: 

I fear the worst for the Fallout franchise, as there is no way Bethesda is going to put a turn based game on the 360 that requires thought and brain activity, and I have a 360 so flippin' spare me. Turn based games are not what the kids play theses days. I would bet my house this is going to be oblivion with guns and watered down comedic tones, just enough to get the Teen rating, as I doubt they are going to be able to replicate the brilliant writing that was once Fallout anyway. While I wish the game would stick with it's core roots, and that's all Fallout fans ask for, I highly doubt it. The videogame industry is becoming more and more like Hollywood everyday.

This sucks, I can see it already. While I like consoles, I just wish they kept their paws off of PC franchises, but they are inherently corporate proprietary closed wanna-be PC's anyway with a thirst for amazing PC IP's. I frankly don't care what anyone has to say, it's the truth whether you like it or not. If this game deviates too much from the Fallout world, I will not buy this game, I don't care what the name is on the box.

mismajor99

Exactly my thoughts, well said. That is what they did with the TES franchise after-all. They turned a great RPG series which you actually needed a brain to play, into a simple and mindless hack n slash game with shiny graphics so that even the brainless can play it.

That said, even though Oblivion fails as an RPG, it's good game

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]

360 = £200.... Alienware monster rig = £2500... quality difference... marginal... gameplay= THE SAMEGangans

Quality difference??? Marginal?? :lol: 

Come and say that to my 52" hd samsung tv. My friend has that alienware i mentioned. Stacked next to my tv... which was a steal at £429... not a big difference. Plus add that to my lazyboy couch at a £299. 360 + huge hd tv + oh so comfortable couch = 928... AGAIN monster rig = 2500... perfect couch gaming heaven = 928.... :D

[QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleSoldi3r1stClass

How can you say that? Oblivion sucked, Sea Dogs 2 (Renamed Pirates of the Caribbean) sucked. Why have blind faith in a company that has a so-so recent past?

Oblivion sucked? Wow, must be really lonely on your planet

Earth?  Naw, there's billions of us.  And we hate levelled creaturesa and no reason to explore.  Oblivion was horrendously boring and inferior to Morrowind in every way....   cept Oblivion is prettier.  And that is what most people like.  Pretty over gameplay.

So maybe it is lonely here, since most games these day push graphics over gameplay. 

360 = £200.... Alienware monster rig = £2500... quality difference... marginal... gameplay= THE SAME

Soldi3r1stClass

Get a clue, buddy. The difference is in the complexity of gameplay when compared to previous games in the series.  Play Daggerfall or Morrowind, then play Oblivion and tell me Oblivion isn't dumbed down. 

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"][QUOTE="Johnny_Rock"]

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]first its fallout 3... FALLOUT.... THREEE.... second its by bethesda so its gonna be good... thirdly whats the hatred on consoles for. Ten time cheaper- same quality... xcept for really really anal peopleJohnny_Rock

How can you say that? Oblivion sucked, Sea Dogs 2 (Renamed Pirates of the Caribbean) sucked. Why have blind faith in a company that has a so-so recent past?

Oblivion sucked? Wow, must be really lonely on your planet

Earth?  Naw, there's billions of us.  And we hate levelled creaturesa and no reason to explore.  Oblivion was horrendously boring and inferior to Morrowind in every way....   cept Oblivion is prettier.  And that is what most people like.  Pretty over gameplay.

So maybe it is lonely here, since most games these day push graphics over gameplay. 

Says the guy who likes the slap fight combat that was morrowind over oblivion.

[QUOTE="Soldi3r1stClass"]

360 = £200.... Alienware monster rig = £2500... quality difference... marginal... gameplay= THE SAME

Alaris83

Get a clue, buddy. The difference is in the complexity of gameplay when compared to previous games in the series.  Play Daggerfall or Morrowind, then play Oblivion and tell me Oblivion isn't dumbed down. 

Okay genius explain to me how that disproves my point about price and enjoyment? We're talking about the sky and youre describing your feet to me. Plus how is oblivion dumbed down? The combat was more complex, the world ten times bigger, physics based traps... whereas morrowing was a slapfest where even if you could SEE the sword connect it didnt coz the stupid STATISTICS said it couldnt... coff coff

Bethesda did say they are going to stick with what they do best. So if they attempt a FPS esque game it may not turn out well, go look at Call of Cthulhu. Great scary story but combat was horrid.

I don't know what to think.  I liked Obilivion but you feel (if you played Morrowind for the PC) the taint of console on it.  Console to PC games don't turn out too hot as we all know.