Search results

Right, but those would all be bad games. Letting a good game go unpurchased for as frivolous a reason as its brand name is no better than supporting a terrible game.

Have you ever played Shadow of the Colossus? It's a beautiful game. It squeezes all the processing power it can out of the Playstation 2. It's innovative in both gameplay and presentation. I daresay it's one of the best games on the PS2. But it's not ICO 2. Wouldn't it have been a shame...

Of course it isn't. But then, anybody who comes here and tries to argue against the collective opinion of NMA'ers is a Bethesda plant, aren't they?

You must realize you're not going to get every single thing you want, though. I've heard several times now that it's a gamer's duty to support the development of good games. If it's still a good game, why not buy it?

Would you trust what the inquisition had to say about pagans and witches? People here have nothing but negativity for Fallout 3. People are allowed to have their opinions. But this is the last place I'd look to for information on the game. Everything here is bias.

I mean, I get the argument that it isn't Fallout 1 or 2. That's generally to be expected when the game is developed by an entirely different development team years after the games were developed and the technological limitations faced have been overcome. But that doesn't mean the game is going...

Sid Meier's Mutants!

I don't understand why you make the assumption that Fallout 3 sucks, though. You say people shouldn't buy a bad game; people shouldn't support developers that rely on first-week sales of overhyped games; that developers should make a good game. This is all true. But on what basis do you come...

I personally like the way it looks.