[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]
rolling eyes is sarcastic but I didn't use any in the first post, check it out. So, anything else ?
Please do I really need to specify how story was bad ? All there was in that game was going from here to there and in the end a attack and finally purifying the water. I would not even call it a story. If you feel it's depeer than that please clarify .
The point was how people just like fallouts because of nostalgia and i just used fallout 3 as an example how it's better than that. Surely that point was not difficult to understand ?
[QUOTE="Ek-Andy"]
If you go on to ANY forum expecting to be able to discuss a game, and you get back is pessmestic nonsense with no one actually being able to discuss the game because of it, then would you not be annoyed? So why shoudn't I be annoyed that I have to see hate for the title everywhere I go with nothing to really back that, and with no one being able to discuss anything else because of that?naval
Well people do point out the flaws but you just ignore that, so feel free to get annoyed because ignore stuff.
"....more like looking beyond the shiny graphics and blowing up stuff."Want me to explain why that's flamebait? Because it's clearly insulting my intelligence, how can you not see that? Are you suggesting I am a shallow person? Are you then going to suggest I shouldn't be annoyed at you out right offending me? I find it amazing that people don't realising they are posting flamebait. That's an opinion nested in an insult. That's not how your porperly discuss anything.Ek-Andy
Nope, I am not calling anything else or intending to do any. this is what I saw in the game ... I just said what I thought was good in the game .. shiny graphics and all the shooting ---- everythign else like story, gameplay, characters etc were subpar (now I guess you will acusse me of telling that you liek subpar things, right ? ). Funnily enough, you call others pessimistic because you cannot see what is good in fallout games compared to newer gamesI see what is good in them, and I see what is bad in them. People often forget about the bad of the past so they can moan about the present. That's called nostalgia, and it's my theory that they love for Fallout is largely based on that. Nostalgia is just glorified pesemism for the present and future. The game has problems, and it's starting to show it's age. Games have came along and bested it, like KoTOR. Alot of games may not be quite as deep as Fallout, but at the end of the day there are a few that are more fun. I'm not even saying Fallout 3 is better, I'm just saying it's good. There is a fair bit to Fallout 3, for a start there is a large and varied world to explore. There are enjoyable side quests. There are a great selection of weapons, and combat can be enteraing (Incidently combat in Fallout is plain outdated. It's not fun anymore, and I doubt it was fun to begin with. Fallout 3 trumps the originals there.) if you chose to make it so. The humour falls flat alot of the time, but the atmosphere is far more impresive than in the original. And if you knew you were not going to like Fallout 3 why did you buy it? The key to enjoying Fallout 3 is to look at it as an action adventure title rather than an RPG, because that is essentially what it is. You could complain about it not being a true sequel, but that is a ridiculous argument because it's 9 years to late for anyone to make it one. It's just a fun game on it's own rights. The story is nothing special, infact it's bad, but story isn't a strong point for the Fallout series (No, it really isn't.) annyway.
Also even if you didn't intend to offend anyone with that comment, it was actually offensive because of the meaning behind what is being said as "seeing beyond". To say that you see beyond something that someone else has not is to suggest they are shallow. That's essentially what that phrase means.
"Well people do point out the flaws but you just ignore that, so feel free to get annoyed because ignore stuff."
It's not about just pointing out flaws, it's about ONLY pointing out flaws. You refused to accept that anything was good about the game, and that's pesimism.
Finally that's what I mean by justify. I know the story is bad, but you still have to justify what you're saying if you want to support an argument. Just saying "The combat was bad." is not enough to prove a point. Explain what was so bad about. Your justification for the story being bad wasn't very good though. Here's why the story was bad:
The game has intresting introduction, but really the whole story goes down hill from here. Basically the plot was never focused. SPOILERS The first section of the story simply covers you finding your dad, which is a fairly good framing story for the remainder of the game, but unfrotunately you find him rather quickly, and after that it goes off on a complete tangent about purifying water, which wasn't all that great. The game tried to force an emotional reaction out of the player with the Father son connection, but the writers failed to establish this and the end result was all emotional impact was lost when they attempted it. The main problem with the plot was that it was very generic and unoriginal, and badly told. The ending was awful, bland, unoriginal and unsatisfying.
That is justification.
Log in to comment