Search results

I disagree. Recent games are lacking the depth of the older games. The designers appear to be following the "picture tells a 1000 words" mantra, and are relying on the graphics to tell most of the story.

Some just people do it for the love of it, or to push out a point of view. True. The tuning fork would work better. Instead of a monkey though you could have a trained imp flying next to you, which would be a cooler pet.

Oblivion would have been a better game with a radio-like feature. You could have had a minstrel following you around playing tunes and giving you weather updates. Whenever you wanted to change songs you could have given your minstrel a shake.

Bethesda should have made a demo version of the game, then all elements of gameplay could be discussed freely. It's fucked up that everything is so sanitised.

Children patches right up the top. Is that a statement?

Both vaults 68 & 69 would be fucked up. I'm assuming there'd still be designated Overseer, security officer(s) etc. It could still degenerate into ugly situations if different factions argue over the one member of the opposite sex. Most likely that one member would have no say in both cases...

That most people don't carry a wardrobe on their back.

If the new Fallout is successful it'll most likely go the same way as TES. Each new iteration will bring a new fanbase and the old fans will be ostracized.

But would you be able to fire your gun while riding?

It wasn't in the originals, hence it's a new critter.

There's that humanoid crab in the concept art that might be in the game, and the Behemoth, which we know is in the game.

I have read some Shadowrun novels, so my interest was piqued when I heard about this game. Unfortunately Microsoft got involved and the game ended up being a piece of shit. FO3's different in that Bethesda know how to do the Marketing/PR, and, as an adventure game, it probably will be ok...

I admire your pig-headedness sarfa. Perhaps it would be better to wait for FO3 to be released and then discuss why it failed or suceeded. We could then postulate on whether it stuck with the law of sequels/prequels or broke them. I think you're overestimating the general public. FO fans care...

It was a classic trilogy (some would say duology). 22 years later something was made with the same name that was a piece of shit. The number in the series is irrelevant. They want another IP. TES 5 will be produced later. No. They're taking it mainstream and marketing it as a classic reborn...

Really? I bet a lot of people who hadn't seen the originals went to see Phantom Menace, and that sequel was fucked up. Sales wise the new movies were a success, even though a lot of the original fans hated them. Not a bad parallel to FO when you think about it. We'll never know if the...

Agreed. IIRC, water was a quest item, not a survival item. Maybe Bethesda devs got the idea when they were LARPing around some vacant toilet blocks.

More IPs = more new releases = more sales. Just like with ID or Blizzard having similar games in different universes. It makes good business sense for Bethesda to have another IP they can develop alongside TES. Why Fallout? I don't know, maybe they hate Fallout fans. More likely they just...

Don't agree with you. More likely people will be intrigued by the notion of a classic being redone after all this time, based on marketing and reviews. Fans won't like it, but I doubt that will have a huge hit on sales. Do you really believe that the only people who buy sequels are those...

Bullshit. The best way to make money is to make something the customers think they want. Most of the time customers don't know what they want, so some *gentle* marketing is required to prod them in the right direction. Bethesda hasn't done anything wrong by purchasing the FO license. There...

To make more money. Another IP increases sales, income etc etc. Not sure why this is such a hard concept to grasp.