fallout 3 or stalker

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by wehertn (1469 posts) -
hi i played the orginal stalker a bit but really didnt liek how it was almost all mutants and real dark the new stalker loosk to be more human fighting and less dark but fallout 3 looks to be really good as well should just pick up one of these or get both would it be worth the cash?
#2 Posted by GodLovesDead (9752 posts) -
If you didn't like Stalker, then you might not like the next Stalker. Though I don't know what you're talking about when you say "mostly mutants". I fought many more humans than mutants from what I recall. And I think Fallout 3 will blow. Clear Sky > Fallout 3.
#3 Posted by bulletsword (13995 posts) -

despite how Fallout 3 looks good, I'd say go with Clear Sky.

you might want to edit your title as well. it'll throw people off a bit.

#4 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -
Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......
#5 Posted by jedinat (3560 posts) -
Why don't you wait until they come out before you make any decisions, lol. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. sucks imho, so I would of course go with Fallout 3 for the time being.
#6 Posted by GodLovesDead (9752 posts) -

Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......Hells_rebelion

Amazingly disappointing.

#7 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......GodLovesDead

Amazingly disappointing.

We'll see when the game comes, you can't really say anythings "Bad" until you have it in your own hands.....
#8 Posted by jedinat (3560 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......GodLovesDead

Amazingly disappointing.

I know it's fun and popular to bash Bethesda, but it does get old. Maybe if everyone refrained themselves 50% of the time their opinions would become 50% more relevant, and similarly less irritating.
#9 Posted by GodLovesDead (9752 posts) -
[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......jedinat

Amazingly disappointing.

I know it's fun and popular to bash Bethesda, but it does get old.

Don't care. I'll bash Bethesda until I feel I got my $60 worth.

#10 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -
I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.
#11 Posted by GPAddict (5964 posts) -

Eventhough Fallout 3 isn't out yet, its hard to say. But I think Fallout 3 will be a better game than Clear Sky. But then again Clear Sky isn't out either. :)

But I own Stalker and I really didn't care for it. On the other hand, I have always enjoyed the Fallout games.

#12 Posted by GodLovesDead (9752 posts) -

On the other hand, I have always enjoyed the Fallout games.

GPAddict

Only if Fallout 3 had anything in common with the previous Fallout games.

#13 Posted by fatshodan (2886 posts) -

I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

#14 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.fatshodan

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?
#15 Posted by GodLovesDead (9752 posts) -
[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

My "300+ hours of non stop fun" was about 10 hours. Beat the game in about 5, and spent 5 hours doing guilds. Pointless if you ask me. There's no reason to explore all the content if there's no reason to play it. The character development is completely screwed up.

#16 Posted by fatshodan (2886 posts) -
[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

The combat is simple click spam; the character development is simple, underdeveloped and frankly undermines itself; the story is generic and bland; the character interactions are simple and limited; the side quests are repetitive and largely pointless.

So, again, which part of Oblivion is deep? There's a lot to the game - a hell of a lot - but what in Oblivion is deep or particularly well developed? Oblivion is a cIassic case of quantity over quality.

#17 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -
[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"][QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.fatshodan

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

The combat is simple click spam; the character development is simple, underdeveloped and frankly undermines itself; the story is generic and bland; the character interactions are simple and limited; the side quests are repetitive and largely pointless.

So, again, which part of Oblivion is deep? There's a lot to the game - a hell of a lot - but what in Oblivion is deep or particularly well developed? Oblivion is a cIassic case of quantity over quality.

Not really wanting to argue, but anyone can spew a bunch of nonsence about a game and call it bad. Starcraft has simple graphics, you point, click and click a spot to go. CRAP Counterstrike all you do is bunneyhop and shoot Final fantasy 7 is Linear and has no substance All nonsensical opinions that in the end, make no difference. Of course they had Quantity, that was the whole point of the series. the story fits just fine and if you have the least tad bit of imagination you can see something much deeper Try WoW for instance, the most wildly popular game, yet for most quests it "Fetch this" "Fetch that". Try actually playing the game before you form an opinion. /end discussion
#18 Posted by Ein-7919 (3490 posts) -

Starcraft has simple graphics, you point, click and click a spot to go. CRAP Counterstrike all you do is bunneyhop and shoot Final fantasy 7 is Linear and has no substance All nonsensical opinions that in the end, make no difference.Hells_rebelion

I just wanted to point this out

  • Starcraft - npcs actually evolved (both literally and metaphorically)
  • CS - nobody actually claims the game has depth...it's an online FPS...would you call the Battlefield games "deep"?
  • FF7 - yes, it is linear...again, nobody is arguing that point...it's a JRPG (aka adventure game with stats/inventory)

So yes, it does actually make a different and they are not nonsensical opinions. Even though the "review" is mostly satirical, I found the Zero Punctuation review of Oblivion to be near spot on. Watch it, laugh with it, laugh at it, scorn it, do whatever...but I agree with a lot of points that Yahtzee has to say about it. And, based on Bethesda's track record with Oblivion, I can somewhat see where the people who are nervous and skeptical about Fallout 3 are coming from.

EDIT - oh, I forgot to post something relevant to the original thread. Um....my vote goes to Clear Sky. But, then again, I'm biased. I'm loving S.T.A.L.K.E.R. right now, and even though I loved the first 2 Fallout games (and even Fallout Tactics), I, too, am nervous about how Fallout 3 is looking.

#19 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Starcraft has simple graphics, you point, click and click a spot to go. CRAP Counterstrike all you do is bunneyhop and shoot Final fantasy 7 is Linear and has no substance All nonsensical opinions that in the end, make no difference.Ein-7919

I just wanted to point this out

  • Starcraft - npcs actually evolved (both literally and metaphorically)
  • CS - nobody actually claims the game has depth...it's an online FPS...would you call the Battlefield games "deep"?
  • FF7 - yes, it is linear...again, nobody is arguing that point...it's a JRPG (aka adventure game with stats/inventory)

So yes, it does actually make a different and they are not nonsensical opinions. Even though the "review" is mostly satirical, I found the Zero Punctuation review of Oblivion to be near spot on. Watch it, laugh with it, laugh at it, scorn it, do whatever...but I agree with a lot of points that Yahtzee has to say about it. And, based on Bethesda's track record with Oblivion, I can somewhat see where the people who are nervous and skeptical about Fallout 3 are coming from.

EDIT - oh, I forgot to post something relevant to the original thread. Um....my vote goes to Clear Sky. But, then again, I'm biased. I'm loving S.T.A.L.K.E.R. right now, and even though I loved the first 2 Fallout games (and even Fallout Tactics), I, too, am nervous about how Fallout 3 is looking.

I was making a point that you can point out personal quirks about a game but it doesn't make it "Bad" to everyone else. You make some good points too. anyways, we will see what fallout has to bring to the table when it's out.
#20 Posted by fatshodan (2886 posts) -

Starcraft has simple graphics, you point, click and click a spot to go. CRAP Counterstrike all you do is bunneyhop and shoot Final fantasy 7 is Linear and has no substance All nonsensical opinions that in the end, make no difference. Of course they had Quantity, that was the whole point of the series. the story fits just fine and if you have the least tad bit of imagination you can see something much deeper Try WoW for instance, the most wildly popular game, yet for most quests it "Fetch this" "Fetch that". Try actually playing the game before you form an opinion. /end discussion Hells_rebelion

I was going to pick apart your discussion, but the whole thing is ridiculous and you're really not making any legitimate points I can counter. Oblivion is a mishmash of extremely shallow and undeveloped elements. I'm not making broad and general statements that don't really get to the core of the game (as you are doing with the above). I am making very specific statements about the core gameplay mechanics.

As for Oblivion, I've spent over 100 hours playing the game. I know the game as well as anyone else. It has many strengths, but it is not a deep game. It is extremely shallow.

#21 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"] Starcraft has simple graphics, you point, click and click a spot to go. CRAP Counterstrike all you do is bunneyhop and shoot Final fantasy 7 is Linear and has no substance All nonsensical opinions that in the end, make no difference. Of course they had Quantity, that was the whole point of the series. the story fits just fine and if you have the least tad bit of imagination you can see something much deeper Try WoW for instance, the most wildly popular game, yet for most quests it "Fetch this" "Fetch that". Try actually playing the game before you form an opinion. /end discussion fatshodan

I was going to pick apart your discussion, but the whole thing is ridiculous and you're really not making any legitimate points I can counter. Oblivion is a mishmash of extremely shallow and undeveloped elements. I'm not making broad and general statements that don't really get to the core of the game (as you are doing with the above). I am making very specific statements about the core gameplay mechanics.

As for Oblivion, I've spent over 100 hours playing the game. I know the game as well as anyone else. It has many strengths, but it is not a deep game. It is extremely shallow.

Oh well, I like the game, I think it's deep, so your opinion really doesn't matter to me. *Clenches self waiting for a "smart"@@@ response*
#22 Posted by Planeforger (16384 posts) -
[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......jedinat

Amazingly disappointing.

I know it's fun and popular to bash Bethesda, but it does get old. Maybe if everyone refrained themselves 50% of the time their opinions would become 50% more relevant, and similarly less irritating.

Hells_rebelion said that Fallout 3 would be good because of his positive opinion of Oblivion. GodLovesDead said that he had a negative opinion of Oblivion, thus implying that Fallout 3 will also be disappointing. It all seemed relevant to me.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

  • NPC interaction was simplistic and not even remotely as deep as in other RPGs.
  • There was too much freedom in Oblivion - the game didn't restict your character in any way, which badly damaged the roleplaying experience (Your clumsy orc barbarian is identical to my weak elf rogue in terms of how the quests play out, how the world reacts to me, and so on. The only difference between the two characters would be how they potentially fight enemies). There are no meaningful choices - that's not depth, that's simplicity.
  • The ending of the story was terrible, in the sense that you don't actually feel that you achieved anything.
  • The rest of the story was just as bad - it was simply an excuse for a series of fetch-quests. Compare Oblivion's story to just about any other RPG...
  • 300 hours of non-stop fun? You can easily see everything in the game in under 70 hours, and there were only a handful of moments in the game that were deliberately enjoyable (laughing at the broken AI and physics doesn't count, or else Big Rigs would be the best game ever).

I mean, there's probably a bit of depth there (maybe), but it's undoubtedly the most shallow game in its own series, and doesn't compare to something like first two Fallout games...or a majority of the other WRPGs I've ever played.

Right, back on topic, I guess it all depends on what you prefer:
If you're a fan of shooters, horror games or gameplay with some kind of depth, then STALKER is arguably the way to go.
If you're a fan of Oblivion, but thought it needed more guns, then Fallout 3 is perfect for you.

#23 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -
[QUOTE="jedinat"][QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......Planeforger

Amazingly disappointing.

I know it's fun and popular to bash Bethesda, but it does get old. Maybe if everyone refrained themselves 50% of the time their opinions would become 50% more relevant, and similarly less irritating.

Hells_rebelion said that Fallout 3 would be good because of his positive opinion of Oblivion. GodLovesDead said that he had a negative opinion of Oblivion, thus implying that Fallout 3 will also be disappointing. It all seemed relevant to me.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

  • NPC interaction was simplistic and not even remotely as deep as in other RPGs.
  • There was too much freedom in Oblivion - the game didn't restict your character in any way, which badly damaged the roleplaying experience (Your clumsy orc barbarian is identical to my weak elf rogue in terms of how the quests play out, how the world reacts to me, and so on. The only difference between the two characters would be how they potentially fight enemies). There are no meaningful choices - that's not depth, that's simplicity.
  • The ending of the story was terrible, in the sense that you don't actually feel that you achieved anything.
  • The rest of the story was just as bad - it was simply an excuse for a series of fetch-quests. Compare Oblivion's story to just about any other RPG...
  • 300 hours of non-stop fun? You can easily see everything in the game in under 70 hours, and there were only a handful of moments in the game that were deliberately enjoyable (laughing at the broken AI and physics doesn't count, or else Big Rigs would be the best game ever).

I mean, there's probably a bit of depth there (maybe), but it's undoubtedly the most shallow game in its own series, and doesn't compare to something like first two Fallout games...or a majority of the other WRPGs I've ever played.

Right, back on topic, I guess it all depends on what you prefer:
If you're a fan of shooters, horror games or gameplay with some kind of depth, then STALKER is arguably the way to go.
If you're a fan of Oblivion, but thought it needed more guns, then Fallout 3 is perfect for you.

Dude it's over, end of discussion.....
#24 Posted by jedinat (3560 posts) -

Yeah it is not deep. But then, the Fallout games were not deep (imho, don't flame me). Stalker is not deep. Free-roaming games are generally not deep, simply because the more you attempt to create a living, breathing world, the more you fail at exactly that. I dropped Fallout 2 after I got married and found out that there was no dialogue or character development beyond the the briefly humorous shot-gun wedding. Linear games have the advantage in that they can tell much deeper stories, while open games just set the player up for disappointment, imho. (Not that I'd not absolutely love a grandly successful free-roaming game; I just have yet to come across one that has satisfied me.)

Oblivion was a good game, but certainly not a deep one)

#25 Posted by Epipsychidion (78 posts) -
I think that they're very different games, and it's quite hard to compare them to one and other. I have both S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Oblivion, and love them both, but how do you compare a FPS to an RPG and get apples to apples results? Myself, I'm getting both!
#26 Posted by AlIegro (58 posts) -
I enjoyed S.T.A.L.K.E.R far, far, FAR more than Oblivion. And I think (know) that Clear Sky will be superior to Fallout 3.
#27 Posted by Erandel (1164 posts) -
I think both will be good in their own way, but if I had to buy one it would be Fallout 3, as Stalker had major problems on some systems when it came out, so they lose points / reputation for that - although I would eventually buy it.
#28 Posted by Buffalo_Soulja (13151 posts) -

With Clear Sky they probably have a lot of new mutants and just want to keep them a surprise. If you played the first one then you would know why.

[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......Hells_rebelion

Amazingly disappointing.

We'll see when the game comes, you can't really say anythings "Bad" until you have it in your own hands.....

Likewise you can't say anything good about the game.

Seriously I'm sick of that excuse. Developers give previews for a reason; so we can make a judgement about the game before we buy it.

#29 Posted by teardropmina (2806 posts) -

Yeah it is not deep. But then, the Fallout games were not deep (imho, don't flame me). Stalker is not deep. Free-roaming games are generally not deep, simply because the more you attempt to create a living, breathing world, the more you fail at exactly that. I dropped Fallout 2 after I got married and found out that there was no dialogue or character development beyond the the briefly humorous shot-gun wedding. Linear games have the advantage in that they can tell much deeper stories, while open games just set the player up for disappointment, imho. (Not that I'd not absolutely love a grandly successful free-roaming game; I just have yet to come across one that has satisfied me.)

jedinat

a while ago, there was a thread about the "deepest" RPG, and someone came up with a, imo, pretty good list of ways of being "deep" in CRPG, such as story and character-class development. "Story" is not the only way for a CRPG to be deep. Fallout is no "freeroaming" game; it's open-ended, but not pointless, inconsequential freeroaming (Oblivion). Falllout is ultra deep in "character stats roleplaying": variously built characters move through the game differently (get some quests, lose some, handlng quests differently and etc.). Fallout is a very deep game; Oblivion is nowhere near anything that can be defined as "deep" in CRPG.

#30 Posted by Buffalo_Soulja (13151 posts) -
[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

You're thinking of breadth, not depth.

#31 Posted by teardropmina (2806 posts) -

should just pick up one of these or get both would it be worth the cash?wehertn

to be honest, this kind of thread ("best bang of $$$" type) usually appear after the games in question are released. No one has yet to play neither of these two games...so whatever you get is mere speculations and guesstimations.

#32 Posted by PC360Wii (4658 posts) -
[QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

There is nothing deep about Oblivion, it was an empty sandbox with a total of what? 20-30 side quests? Most of the dungeons were comepltely pointless, leveling was pointless, the main story was crap ....

What else? I could go on for ages, scaled leveling was **** 4-5 voice actors was **** ...

What WAS good about this game? Morrowind was so much better, Oblivion was all flash and no substance.

#33 Posted by jedinat (3560 posts) -
a while ago, there was a thread about the "deepest" RPG, and someone came up with a, imo, pretty good list of ways of being "deep" in CRPG, such as story and character-class development. "Story" is not the only way for a CRPG to be deep. Fallout is no "freeroaming" game; it's open-ended, but not pointless, inconsequential freeroaming (Oblivion). Falllout is ultra deep in "character stats roleplaying": variously built characters move through the game differently (get some quests, lose some, handlng quests differently and etc.). Fallout is a very deep game; Oblivion is nowhere near anything that can be defined as "deep" in CRPG. teardropmina
You are right--Fallout does have much more complexity when it comes to gameplay mechanics. "Deep" is obviously very subjective. I guess I rather equate it with immersiveness. A game is deep to me if the narrative is meaningful and intelligent, the characters believable and interesting, and the general gameplay and world-responsiveness appropriately supportive.
#34 Posted by thusaha (14495 posts) -
STALKER.
#35 Posted by aliblabla2007 (16756 posts) -
Clear Sky. Easily.
#36 Posted by Hells_rebelion (2884 posts) -
How good was the original stalker? I never actually got to play it, cause my old computer couldn't play it, but I've been thinking about picking it up one of these days.
#37 Posted by harrisi17 (4010 posts) -
for the love of god, get both.
#38 Posted by leper-messiahs (399 posts) -

I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

WOW, people bash them because they know what a good RPG is, Oblivion wasn't it. There stories are poor compared to a good RPG, and the game in general was all style over substance, had absolutely no depth, some of the worst writing I have ever seen, and virtually no choices in dialog. People BAsh Bethesda because they have turned a whole gen of Xbox gamers into thinking Oblivion is a great RPG, it is crap.

#39 Posted by TheBigBadGRIM (1002 posts) -
How good was the original stalker? I never actually got to play it, cause my old computer couldn't play it, but I've been thinking about picking it up one of these days.Hells_rebelion
The original STALKER is a "flawed masterpiece". It's a game with tons of potential and many people really love it, but alot just can't tolerate the bugs and the really odd gunplay. I heard it's not as good as it should've been because THQ was breathing down their backs making them change the game. I heard its like a mix of 3 games combined making it messy I dont know really. But STALKER Clear Sky definately looks like it's gonna be great without THQ bothering.
#41 Posted by Crucifier (7195 posts) -
[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......Hells_rebelion

Amazingly disappointing.

We'll see when the game comes, you can't really say anythings "Bad" until you have it in your own hands.....

so did you buy big rigs: over the road racing? go buy it. you dont know its bad.
#45 Posted by leper-messiahs (399 posts) -
Clear Sky IMo, is gonna be the best game of 08, it looks to have the originals unique and outstanding atmosphere and living breathing world, as well as some new polish and more closer to their original vision of the first stalker.
#46 Posted by chesterocks7 (1572 posts) -

hi i played the orginal stalker a bit but really didnt liek how it was almost all mutants and real dark the new stalker loosk to be more human fighting and less dark but fallout 3 looks to be really good as well should just pick up one of these or get both would it be worth the cash?wehertn

This topic was bound to turn into a flame war. You're going to have the Bethesda haters saying that Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns because its made by Bethesda and it's going to suck because they suck etc., you'll have the Fallout fanboys crying endlessly over how Bethesda has ruined their beloved franchise, and then your going to have the bandwagoners who just hate Bethesda because everyone does and it seems the cool thing to do.

What it boils down to is your own personal preference. If you liked the first STALKER, then get Clear Sky and you'll probably love it. If you enjoyed Oblivion and want to see a post-apocolyptic world with lots of gore and darkness, get Fallout 3. When they come out just play the demos for both and get whichever one whose demo you enjoyed more.

Don't listen to all the whining children complaining that their favorite games are ruind and thus Fallout 3 will suck. They hold their opinion to be the objective truth and refuse to believe otherwise, so just go with what you think you will enjoy more.

#47 Posted by Crucifier (7195 posts) -

[QUOTE="wehertn"]hi i played the orginal stalker a bit but really didnt liek how it was almost all mutants and real dark the new stalker loosk to be more human fighting and less dark but fallout 3 looks to be really good as well should just pick up one of these or get both would it be worth the cash?chesterocks7

This topic was bound to turn into a flame war. You're going to have the Bethesda haters saying that Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns because its made by Bethesda and it's going to suck because they suck etc., you'll have the Fallout fanboys crying endlessly over how Bethesda has ruined their beloved franchise, and then your going to have the bandwagoners who just hate Bethesda because everyone does and it seems the cool thing to do.

What it boils down to is your own personal preference. If you liked the first STALKER, then get Clear Sky and you'll probably love it. If you enjoyed Oblivion and want to see a post-apocolyptic world with lots of gore and darkness, get Fallout 3. When they come out just play the demos for both and get whichever one whose demo you enjoyed more.

Don't listen to all the whining children complaining that their favorite games are ruind and thus Fallout 3 will suck. They hold their opinion to be the objective truth and refuse to believe otherwise, so just go with what you think you will enjoy more.

you do realize that there will most likely NOT be a demo for either game right?
#48 Posted by chesterocks7 (1572 posts) -
[QUOTE="chesterocks7"]

[QUOTE="wehertn"]hi i played the orginal stalker a bit but really didnt liek how it was almost all mutants and real dark the new stalker loosk to be more human fighting and less dark but fallout 3 looks to be really good as well should just pick up one of these or get both would it be worth the cash?Crucifier

This topic was bound to turn into a flame war. You're going to have the Bethesda haters saying that Fallout 3 is Oblivion with guns because its made by Bethesda and it's going to suck because they suck etc., you'll have the Fallout fanboys crying endlessly over how Bethesda has ruined their beloved franchise, and then your going to have the bandwagoners who just hate Bethesda because everyone does and it seems the cool thing to do.

What it boils down to is your own personal preference. If you liked the first STALKER, then get Clear Sky and you'll probably love it. If you enjoyed Oblivion and want to see a post-apocolyptic world with lots of gore and darkness, get Fallout 3. When they come out just play the demos for both and get whichever one whose demo you enjoyed more.

Don't listen to all the whining children complaining that their favorite games are ruind and thus Fallout 3 will suck. They hold their opinion to be the objective truth and refuse to believe otherwise, so just go with what you think you will enjoy more.

you do realize that there will most likely NOT be a demo for either game right?

Then he can watch the video review and gameplay videos. The point was that he should choose which game to buy based on what HE thinks he'll enjoy more, not based off the rants of upset fanboys.

#49 Posted by vash47 (2171 posts) -
[QUOTE="GodLovesDead"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]Fallout 3 looks pretty amazing, and Bethesda is a great candidate to put out a game like this considering Oblivion was amazing......jedinat

Amazingly disappointing.

I know it's fun and popular to bash Bethesda, but it does get old. Maybe if everyone refrained themselves 50% of the time their opinions would become 50% more relevant, and similarly less irritating.

[QUOTE="fatshodan"][QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"][QUOTE="fatshodan"]

[QUOTE="Hells_rebelion"]I honestly see in no way anyone can bash Bethesda.....They have some really deep story driven games.Hells_rebelion

Which part of oblivion is deep?

The part were you start it up, begin the first level do the side quests talk to all the NPC's uhhmmm possibly the were you can do just about anything? and the part were you beat the game....Oh wait 300+ hours of non stop fun you say?

The combat is simple click spam; the character development is simple, underdeveloped and frankly undermines itself; the story is generic and bland; the character interactions are simple and limited; the side quests are repetitive and largely pointless.

So, again, which part of Oblivion is deep? There's a lot to the game - a hell of a lot - but what in Oblivion is deep or particularly well developed? Oblivion is a cIassic case of quantity over quality.

Not really wanting to argue, but anyone can spew a bunch of nonsence about a game and call it bad. Starcraft has simple graphics, you point, click and click a spot to go. CRAP Counterstrike all you do is bunneyhop and shoot Final fantasy 7 is Linear and has no substance All nonsensical opinions that in the end, make no difference. Of course they had Quantity, that was the whole point of the series. the story fits just fine and if you have the least tad bit of imagination you can see something much deeper Try WoW for instance, the most wildly popular game, yet for most quests it "Fetch this" "Fetch that". Try actually playing the game before you form an opinion. /end discussion

The ironic thing is that Starcraft does a much better job of character presentation and story development, than the so-called "RPG": Oblvion.

Oblivion was BS, simply, I forgot the link to the real Oblivion review, it's the most honest review I have ever read.

#50 Posted by foxhound_fox (91108 posts) -
The original STALKER was a fantastic shooter and a good "role-playing" like game. The next STALKER is going to be an improvement of the original. Fallout 3 is not only going to be a bad shooter and a severely broken and lame role-playing game (like Oblivion) but it's also a terrible "Fallout" game.

But then again, if you didn't like STALKER then Fallout 3 might just be the game for you considering you might fall into the audience Bethesda are "shooting" for with the game.