Search results

So, I should probably clarify. I didn't mean NMA as a whole, I meant the 76 specific forum. Sorry about the confusion. Regarding the other games, did you ever consider that they weren't supposed to be targeted at the old Fallout fans? The problem with the bashing of 76 on this site is the same...

So, I'm not here to troll. I'm here to genuinely discuss why I enjoy the games. I'm not 'another one of these', because I enjoyed the Bethesda games. I'm not a Bethesda 'white knight', because I'm willing to acknowledge they do some shitty stuff, and they're not as great as some people seem to...

I think Ice cream is good. You may think it's bad. If that were the case, who would be right?

I retract the 'died in limbo' comment. I meant more along the lines of 'It's nice to see they tried to take the series, from a dying and bankrupt Interplay, and at least attempt to continue it.

I don't disagree. I don't like the idea of the Fallout MMO, but that doesn't mean I'm not open to trying it or giving it a chance.

But wouldn't that be better than a complete revamping? They worked with what they had to produce something. You said it's a translation of how Fallout 2 worked, with heavy influence from Oblivion. That's accurate, and I liked the way it turned out. Subjectively, good.

True, but I'm talking MMO style multiplayer, and licensed ones at that. Sure there are mods, but I speak from the official standpoint.

Entertained. 'Nuff said.

I get that, and there are standards that are attached to it. I'm not saying it's good. I'm saying it could be. Additionally, there are other Fallout games that subverted expectations, like Tactics. That brought a new style to Fallout, and was a success. 76 wasn't. It's all a gamble. I'm just...

Not to disregard the rest of what you said, which is, in my eyes, valid [Except that I liked 2 the best, honestly.] But this part right here is kind of what I'm getting at. It was innovative in regards to the other titles being produced during the era. Additionally, maybe it didn't turn out the...

Even though NV was made with the same engine? With just as many faults as 3 and 4? I don't follow. New Vegas is good for the story, but the story of 3 was good also. The idea of attempting to salvage the water, Eden being a ZAX supercomputer, the moral choices of sacrificing yourself, doing...

I get what you're saying about the Devil May Cry gameplay. I see what you mean, games can be clunky and bad. In all honesty, for the time, I didn't think Fallout 3 was that bad. It's definitely not as jilted as some people seem to think.

So first and foremost, love the misquote. I said that's the beauty of subjective arguments, not folly. Nice try though. Secondly, Fallout 3 was designed for both the fans and the people who've never heard of the series. They may not have done the best they could, the game can still be enjoyable.

@Big No Fair enough

And there it is. Inferiority of the newer games. You can't compare them though! They're apples and oranges, dude. The amount of differences in design is staggering between 2 and 3.

I'm not sure that's how it's going. I've played Fallout and Fallout 2 to completion. I enjoyed lots about them, but I also had my gripes. Same with 3 and 4. You act like people who like 3 and 4 are incompetent, and know nothing of what they talk about, and that's just blatantly ignorant. I know...

Objectively, by your definition, seems to be what the majority dictates. Some people would find Howard the Duck to be a well made movie, and the Godfather to be a poorly made movie. It's like Scream. Scream was a poorly made movie, in my opinion. Yet it's seen by many others as one of the...

So, here's where I think you've got my intentions and position skewed. It's not to say that if you don't like a genre of games, they're bad. They're bad to you. That's the beauty of subjective arguments. Fallout 3 is bad. To you. And whoever else who shares that opinion. But to me, it's good...

I get that, but everybody needs to not be so set in the 'It's my way or the highway' bullshit, y'know?