[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

heretrix

Look, that's nowhere near the point I was trying to make. I refuse to have to justify why I like a goddamn game to anybody. I love the first two Fallout games and I hoping that this game will be good. I rather do that than to piss all over it before I get a chance to play it.

I don't care to explain that and it IS elitist for someone to call me a shallow fanboy because I wish to see the franchise continue giving a new creative team a chance. INTERPLAY IS DEAD. You aren't getting another Fallout game from them. Keep waiting for that Fallout MMO if you want, but that isn't likely to happen.

If the game is bad, THAT WILL SUCK. But I don't know that yet and I'm tired of hearing people blowing a gasket about it.

And good job missing the point I was trying to make. I never called you a shallow fanboy nor told you to justify why you like Fallout 3. That has nothing to do with anything I wrote. You can like whatever game you like.

My point is that people like you need to look at it from the other perspective, rather than make smarmy comments and simplistically conclude that people must be elitist. I'm specifically trying to explain how it should be understandable why Fallout 3 is looked at with spite by some and how that mentality is precisely not elitist, but simply natural.

And in case you missed that large bullet-pointed list earlier in the thread, we're not hating on Fallout 3 without reasons. There has been a ton of information released about the game so far; enough to, when combined with Bethesda's track record, make certain judgements.

There are only two pre-rendered cutscenes in the entire game. The graphical differene in-game vs. in cinematics is negligible. The fact that the transition is so seamless is a testament to the game's technological prowess.

The motorcycle chase in Act 3 switches continuously from gameplay to cinematics, and they have split-screen scenes in the game wih gameplay in one and cinematics in the other, and they look the same. The fact that the gameplay looks good enough to basically match the cutscenes is one of the game's major triumphs.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="heretrix"][QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]Looks pretty good. Seems to have that amazing atmosphere that the prior Fallouts had.heretrix

Goddamit Verge, you are supposed to hate it.

Why? :cry:

I think they wanted it to suck the instant they heard Bethesda was making it. Granted, there are a few who can provide good reasons for their worry, but for the most part all I've seen is elitist bull****.

Why is it so difficult to accept that one ****ty game can ruin a franchise? Look at Deus Ex. That franchise tag used to actually mean something. After the travesty that was Invisible War, it no longer does. Who really cares that much about Deus Ex 3 at this point? Nobody, and you have Invisible War to blame for that. Quite sad, considering you can make a solid argument that Deus Ex, a game which came out in 2000, is actually the best game of the decade.

Fallout is still one of the most respected franchises in gaming history, and the reason the spin-offs didn't impact that is because you've still got Fallout 1 and 2 as the main canon intact in the series. If Fallout 3 comes out and resembles Invisible War, which it seems well on its way to based on the information released, then it will hurt the Fallout franchise beyond repair. People will begin to associate "Fallout" with "Fallout 3", particularly since the latter will be the first Fallout game in a decade. That's where the annoyance lies, not to mention that Fallout 3 doesn't even have the benefit of being created by the original team like Invisible War did.

And please stop with this "elitist" BS, thanks. That's the type of thing that kills discussion and is used as a last resort by people with nothing meaningful to say. See: Republicans. Ultimately, it's the hypocrisy that bothers me most, with people acting like they can't even begin to understand this, no matter how many analogies of a similar hypothetical situation we put forth.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

I find that rather hypocritical considering you're sporting your gamerscore in your sig.

lowe0

Besides, at least my gamertag requires me to actually PLAY those games; listing off your hardware is basically a function of how big your tax refund was that year.

The reason people put their PC specs in their sig is because they also post on PC forums, and it's easier to list your specs in your sig than to manually type them out everytime someone asks you or when you're looking for an answer to something. It's not something I personally do, but it's perfectly understandable why someone would because people constantly ask what your specs are on those forums.

When you list what games you're playing in your sig, you're assuming that people care to know, for whatever particular reason. It's the same thing.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]Ouch. I doubt it's that bad. I'm more inclined to go with Eurogamer's 7/10 review, which basically says that most of the game is a mess but there are enough cool innovations to make it worth playing.Andrew_Xavier

A 7.0 should be a "good" game, not a mess that is "worth" playing, a 6.0 is a mess worth playing.

Also, I thought 20 minutes ago people were screaming that IGN overrates everything?

Why don't you go and actually read the review?

They gave it a 7 on the strength of its innovations in an era where every game is derivative of the other. The reason it didn't get any higher is because it has a lot of problems.

Actually, those guys don't really bother me, with one exception:

[QUOTE="CB4McGusto"]

the infamous "I can build a $500 PC that will own all your console" threads.

lowe0

I find that rather hypocritical considering you're sporting your gamerscore in your sig.

[QUOTE="Zeliard9"]

It's sort of funny seeing all this talk about MGS4's FPS. One of the most impressive things about its engine is how smooth it generally keeps everything, even with a bunch of stuff going on around you.

What's also funny is it's the same deal with Crysis. Crysis has an incredibly impressive streaming techology, so you can get only 25 FPS and it'll be the smoothest 25 FPS you'll ever experience.

DaGamingGod

:lol:

Did you just learn what motion blur is, and now you're trying to use the term at every opportunity? I'm talking about exactly what I said, Crysis' streaming tech. As in the way it dynamically streams assets to keep loading and stuttering at a minimum. It has nothing to do with motion blur.

As much as I want this game to succeed and be great now that I have a PS3, I still don't see it. I've never seen it, and I don't think I ever will. I've never been able to shake off the notion that Killzone 2 is no better than CoD4 SP/F.E.A.R. with a new coat of paint. I haven't seen anything from the game to indicate otherwise.

It's very impressive technically, but its gameplay seems very archaic.

It's sort of funny seeing all this talk about MGS4's FPS. One of the most impressive things about its engine is how smooth it generally keeps everything, even with a bunch of stuff going on around you.

What's also funny is it's the same deal with Crysis. Crysis has an incredibly impressive streaming techology, so you can get only 25 FPS and it'll be the smoothest 25 FPS you'll ever experience.