Support DAC:  |
Possible crap that might finally kill the FO name > no crap that can furhter harm Fallout? Hmm....T-900 wrote:I am of the mind that Fallout 3 is better than no Fallout 3.
Why would Fallout need attention from the masses of idiots? Your suggestion that it might rekindle their attention is strange, given these idiots never showed interest for Fallout, at all.If nothing, a new release of fallout would rekindle some interest from the masses of idiots out there.
I am of the mind that you're a moron. Why are so many people hell bent on seeing Fallout 3 made? You know it's just going to suck. I don't see why having a bad game is better than no game--that just doesn't make any sense. I was waiting for it too, but face facts: it just wouldn't be good.T-900 wrote:I am of the mind that Fallout 3 is better than no Fallout 3.
Errr, looking at the reviews that FOBos got, I' d say there aren' t any unbiased ones around any longer. They all got locked up to die in a cellar at some develloping house we all know to well.Hertston wrote:or at least read a few reasonably unbiased reviews.
I have no qualms about depriving "the people" the privilage of playing shit games. Especially when it's all for a higher cause (i.e. the production of good games).Hertston wrote:A perfectly valid point of view. A little selfish though (why should the folks who do wan't a Fallout 3 be deprived ? Nobody says you have to buy it).
My guess would be you like shitty games.tard wrote:Why do I prefer SoA to any of them ?
And I"m sure (as a matter of taste, only) there are people who like their meals lightly doused with the pleasant flavoring of feces.tard wrote:1. I prefer the real time approach (a matter of taste, only). When it's done well (obviously I think SoA was, presumably you disagree)... I'll grant some attempts have been truly appalling.
Tactical generally refers to small scale. If you want huge maps and you want RT, go play a RTS.tard wrote:2. Huge maps that allow many tactical possibilities, approximating "real life" at times. That's limited in JA2 and non-existent in S2.
OMGF! vehilces!@!#@tard wrote:3. Vehicles to play with.
Hah.4. Strong plot
Like I said, RTS are apprently what you're looking for.5. A full map and level editor, and MULTIPLAY. A human opponent always beats AI for entertainment.
*ahem* I rest my case. The game was so shit no one even bothered to make a few maps for it. And when mulitplayer = gamespy arcade, it's obviously something just tacked on so marketing can put a bullet on the box that gets nubskulls like you to buy it.OK, nobody ever produced new levels, and getting an MP game requires some organisation as Gamespy is a dead-zone.
My guess is that you never played SoA. And yeah, I really like wasting time and money on games I think are crap....My guess would be you like shitty games.
Complete BS. Now I'm sure you've never played it.SoA's combat was hardly tactical, it had as much tactics as command and conquer had strategy
At least get a clue (or a dictionary). Only an idiot would deny SoA was a tactical level game, regardless of how good or otherwise they may think is.Tactical generally refers to small scale. If you want huge maps and you want RT, go play a RTS.
So why it did it score 80% plus across the board in reviews then ? The reason map-making and editing never took off is because sales were lousy; I've already said that. That had infinitely more to do with marketing (or lack of it) than the quality of the game. Gamespy is hardly my favourite browser, but it's by far the most widely used in the industry. Internal browsers (Blizzard excepted) are generally restricted to FPS games.*ahem* I rest my case. The game was so shit no one even bothered to make a few maps for it. And when mulitplayer = gamespy arcade, it's obviously something just tacked on so marketing can put a bullet on the box that gets nubskulls like you to buy it.
Funny, i always thought part of tactical combat was to form your strategy, to fit the environment in which you're forced to fight. Sounds like you demand a map that fits your particular playing style. What was that you said about close-mindedness?Hertston wrote:I appreciate the term "flanking" is probably alien to you, but to execute tactics, you need room to manoevre, sometimes lots of room. Many S2 maps don't have room to swing a cat.
Running away with your fingers in your ears, eh? How Carsten Strehse.Hertston wrote:Anyway, I've had enough of arguing with a bunch of "nubskulls" with no taste and closed minds.
Its kind of apparent you didn't play S2 all the way through then. :confused2: ...and since when do you need LOTS of room to flank? Maybe some people here DO need a dictionary.Hertston wrote:I appreciate the term "flanking" is probably alien to you, but to execute tactics, you need room to manoevre, sometimes lots of room. Many S2 maps don't have room to swing a cat.
I can't put my finger on it right now, but people have just been saying this about some other game that was released recently. Can anyone remember what that was? That game where we saw all the movies and trailers and screenshots and heard all about it but apparently we still had to wait for the reviews to say it was crap. What was that game again?Hertston wrote:Even if you don't like SS's previous stuff, you've no idea how it (or The Fall) will turn out until you play it, or at least read a few reasonably unbiased reviews.
It didn't scored 80% only.Herston wrote:So why it did it score 80% plus across the board in reviews then ?
Apparently, we're not the only ones with "bad taste", given SS's games also failed to impress many people.Anyway, I've had enough of arguing with a bunch of "nubskulls" with no taste
and closed minds.
Don't trip on your ego on your way out.(shuts door on way out)
