Two Worlds, BioShock, Mass Effect, FO3

[flash9286]

Well I have to play them on the 360, don't have a xbox, so that limits my choices. I went ahead an picked it up anyway, it would have to be pretty bad not to warrant 10 dollars.

[DrSpike]

I don't know what it's like where you are but here you can get Xbox games quite cheap on eBay.

[RGBVideo]

I'm kind-of presuming Bioshock to suck, like Doom 3 and Civilization 3 sucked altough they got hyped much more than their predecessors did.

Oh, and no matter how good FO3 will be, most of it's Fallout-forum based fans will hate it and demand a million new features in free patches.

[asleepathewheel]

Here's an interview on Bioshock that's an interesting read :http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/3...ts_per_page=30

this game sounds fascinating, if the 360 gets that 65 revision (and thus is more stable a machine), I might have to pick it up.

[Nostromo]

Oh, and no matter how good FO3 will be, most of it's Fallout-forum based fans will hate it and demand a million new features in free patches.

Well, a lot of them are crazy. Some people take games way too seriously. Its almost religious. They're just ****ing games, you dumb ****s! BTW, I suspect that a lot of survivalists are Fallout fans. Someone wrote that one of the reasons why Fallout was so special was the isometric view. WTF?

[Nostromo]

this game sounds fascinating, if the 360 gets that 65 revision (and thus is more stable a machine), I might have to pick it up.

Its also coming on the PC and the PS3, IIRC.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by nostromo

Someone wrote that one of the reasons why Fallout was so special was the isometric view. WTF?

There's a few of those here so watch out.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by nostromo


Its also coming on the PC and the PS3, IIRC.

yeah, I see that. I'll probably pick up on the pc, if my specs are enough, though I may be due for a home pc upgrade...

[mactbone]

Originally posted by nostromo


Well, a lot of them are crazy. Some people take games way too seriously. Its almost religious. They're just ****ing games, you dumb ****s! BTW, I suspect that a lot of survivalists are Fallout fans. Someone wrote that one of the reasons why Fallout was so special was the isometric view. WTF?

Says the guy on a Civ forum... that still has an active community for a game from over 10 years ago...

Anyway, there's actually a point to that since the developers of Fallout said that they designed it to replicate the PnP experience into a cRPG.

Where exactly did anyone "demand new features in free patches?" Except for Paradox and TW games (because the TW guys claims that their bugs are usually features...) I haven't seen that.

For those that think Fallout fans are overly crazy think about how it would be around here if after Civ2 the publisher decided they wanted Civ: RTS! and promised the money made on that would go towards Civ3. Next, instead of doing that decided that they were going under and needed some quick console cash and set to work on Civ: Nuclear War the FPS! Then they ran out of money, scrapped Civ3 and sold the license to the guys who made MoO3.

Seriously, have you even heard of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel?

[Nostromo]

Anyway, there's actually a point to that since the developers of Fallout said that they designed it to replicate the PnP experience into a cRPG.

How come they didn't let the players learn the rules of the game. How come the game didn't make us calculate if we hit or not or determine the damage we've done?

A lot of RPG's used the isometric view at the time. I'm pretty sure that's not the thing that made Fallout standout in the crowd. If you ask me what made the game special, I'd answer: great game design, good story, good quests, memorable NPC's, great style...

Unfortunately, Bethesda are weak in a lot of those things. For example, I still don't understand why the retarded mini-games made the cut in Oblivion. You do it right or you don't do it. Its almost as if they're clueless about gameplay...

And, of course, storytelling is certainly not their forte, nor is creating memorable NPC's.

[mactbone]

Originally posted by nostromo
A lot of RPG's used the isometric view at the time. I'm pretty sure that's not the thing that made Fallout standout in the crowd.

Which? Betrayal at Krondor? Wizardry?It's not like there were a bunch of RPGs and they just took what everyone was making and injected an awesome story. They started out by deciding to make a game based on GURPS. Then they worked out the setting. Which makes absolute sense when you realize that the guys who made Fallout went on to make Arcanum in 2001 and it was still ISO, etc.

Originally posted by nostromo
If you ask me what made the game special, I'd answer: great game design, good story, good quests, memorable NPC's, great style...

Hmmmm, you'd think that great design would include the perspective...

Originally posted by nostromo Unfortunately, Bethesda are weak in a lot of those things. For example, I still don't understand why the retarded mini-games made the cut in Oblivion. You do it right or you don't do it. Its almost as if they're clueless about gameplay...

Yeah, I didn't play Oblivion - actually I hadn't really heard of Bethesda before - but from the descriptions I've heard those minigames were pretty dumb and pointless.

I read the recent interview about BioShock and they're being very deliberate in calling it a shooter. So, I guess it doesn't really fit with the group of games here. It is interesting that they've made the little girls invulnerable now with just a choice to "Harvest or Save." Also, it's apparently got a lot of Ayn Rand type stuff, etc. The creator seems to be going for a real - it's a shooter, but also a story! - which the Halo guys claim too.

[Nostromo]

Which? Betrayal at Krondor? Wizardry?It's not like there were a bunch of RPGs and they just took what everyone was making and injected an awesome story. They started out by deciding to make a game based on GURPS. Then they worked out the setting. Which makes absolute sense when you realize that the guys who made Fallout went on to make Arcanum in 2001 and it was still ISO, etc.

I was thinking of the Black Isle and the Bioware games.

Hmmmm, you'd think that great design would include the perspective...

Maybe, but I don't think that its the isometric view that made it great. On the contrary, the isometric view was pretty bad, with walls hiding important stuff from view. BTW, I wouldn't mind a third-person view like KOTOR, Jade Empire or Fable. They're generally better for melee combat. But first person is more immersive.

[Standup]

Going back to the original question I thought Witcher looked interesting

Official site

[mactbone]

I have a hard time with FPP because the peripheral vision is non-existant and the sounds don't give me the info I need. Plus, I feel like a floating eye.

Witcher sounds interesting. I'll have to find a video to see how the motion capture looks and what they mean by creating attack combos.

I checked out the Overlord demo - it's an action RPG that plays really fun. Sending minions around to trash the place and watching them pick up odd, assorted weapons was much more fun than I thought. Seems like a Dungeon Keeper concept without bases - maybe, more like a fun version of Goblin Commander.

[Nostromo]

Plus, I feel like a floating eye.

Its one of the things that bugged me in Oblivion. I felt, somehow, that my character was really small. Almost like a kid. It seemed to me that height of the "camera" wasn't right.