Support DAC:  |
Expansive? More like "orchestral" and "out of place." The original Fallout games had environmental and theme setting music. It wasn't some movie film score that butts its way in when you're trying to ignore it. The original music set the mood VERY well and wasn't trying to be fancy for the sake of being fancy.Mishmaster5000 wrote: Also, Fallout 3 had a very expansive soundtrack, ,more than the previous two games offered.
Bullshit. Absolute HORSESHIT. If you actually played the game, you would notice the desolation of the wasteland, and when you finally fixed the radio tower, it was like you had someone to talk to. It was absolutely NOT anything like a film score.King of Creation wrote:Expansive? More like "orchestral" and "out of place." The original Fallout games had environmental and theme setting music. It wasn't some movie film score that butts its way in when you're trying to ignore it. The original music set the mood VERY well and wasn't trying to be fancy for the sake of being fancy.Mishmaster5000 wrote: Also, Fallout 3 had a very expansive soundtrack, ,more than the previous two games offered.
I suggest you download the original soundtracks and have a listen.
As they said, the first two were on discovering the world. The whole "dad" and "purifier" concepts lay down this... invisible path with invisible walls. Whether or not you comprehend it, you're still following that directive no matter where you are; 1 & 2 didn't specify a lifelong pursuit, but rather one specific goal of relative significance that didn't bear down as an overtone like FO3 did.Mixie wrote:you really can't hit the plot too hard
While I agree that correcting the software's imperfect form is more than necessary, I would argue that "playability" (if such a word exists) comes more from content than from ease of operation. All the same, it is the task of amending this particular variable that has had me periodically updating a thread of usermods for the better part of a year now.Mixie wrote:if you have a high end machine. . . becomes stable, and playable.
Again, it's not the hardware/software that's in question; the combat system components completely lack consideration for numerous elements, including accuracy differences from single shots vs. burst/auto firing, no possible way to melee in close quarters outside of switching equipped weapons, AI enemy behavior at close quarters... the list goes on. It really, unfortunately does.Mixie wrote:I do have to agree on the combat, though. The combat sucked donkey balls, and to actually get any fun out of it, you need to push your computer to a high setting, to eliminate lag. Then, the game's combat engine does become a bit fun.
The multitude and flexibility of jobs in the first two games were the prime reason why it was such a stellar RPG title. Different people need different work done. The ability to handle the jobs in different ways-- the flexibility-- is what makes it so provocative, so full of personal inflection on how you feel is best to deal with a dilemma, and what consequences arise from your choices. The lack of said flexibility-- the narrow, single paths that are completed upon your payment of caps and/or unique weapon-- is what the vast majority of us see as the dumbing-down of what was once a prominent, believable world.Mixie wrote:I do think that both games fell into RPG syndrome, namely, " We has 200 plots! We is complicated!" but the side quests made the game all the more fun.
Fell for this to tryed to love it came very close to liking it in the end its a pile of shit covered in a pretty wrapper.Manoil wrote:Eh? You mean, of all the fights the game pulls you through, you never ONCE noticed the aggressive orchestral music? Should I torrent the OST and link it for you?
Reading the back-and-forth with KoC makes me interested in his other arguments...
As they said, the first two were on discovering the world. The whole "dad" and "purifier" concepts lay down this... invisible path with invisible walls. Whether or not you comprehend it, you're still following that directive no matter where you are; 1 & 2 didn't specify a lifelong pursuit, but rather one specific goal of relative significance that didn't bear down as an overtone like FO3 did.Mixie wrote:you really can't hit the plot too hard
While I agree that correcting the software's imperfect form is more than necessary, I would argue that "playability" (if such a word exists) comes more from content than from ease of operation. All the same, it is the task of amending this particular variable that has had me periodically updating a thread of usermods for the better part of a year now.Mixie wrote:if you have a high end machine. . . becomes stable, and playable.
Again, it's not the hardware/software that's in question; the combat system components completely lack consideration for numerous elements, including accuracy differences from single shots vs. burst/auto firing, no possible way to melee in close quarters outside of switching equipped weapons, AI enemy behavior at close quarters... the list goes on. It really, unfortunately does.Mixie wrote:I do have to agree on the combat, though. The combat sucked donkey balls, and to actually get any fun out of it, you need to push your computer to a high setting, to eliminate lag. Then, the game's combat engine does become a bit fun.
The multitude and flexibility of jobs in the first two games were the prime reason why it was such a stellar RPG title. Different people need different work done. The ability to handle the jobs in different ways-- the flexibility-- is what makes it so provocative, so full of personal inflection on how you feel is best to deal with a dilemma, and what consequences arise from your choices. The lack of said flexibility-- the narrow, single paths that are completed upon your payment of caps and/or unique weapon-- is what the vast majority of us see as the dumbing-down of what was once a prominent, believable world.Mixie wrote:I do think that both games fell into RPG syndrome, namely, " We has 200 plots! We is complicated!" but the side quests made the game all the more fun.
Fallout isn't Call of Duty, or Duke Nukem. While it could be presented in FPS format, in order to more personalize the experience of the Wastes, Fallout 3 failed on enough fronts to make the effort ultimately count as a failure. I can honestly say this because, like you, I defended Fallout 3 for a very long, long period of time. But I had played it enough times through-- multiple playthroughs of extensive periods of time-- that I had seen everything wrong with the game. And I found myself making excuses for it. After a while (just after Broken Steel, in fact), I realized the game was just... failure. I stopped making excuses and just said it aloud.
Consider doing the same.
This is trueThor Kaufman wrote:Fallout 3 definitely has some nice chairs, though.
Nope. Just lets me know when someone reaches a point where they're too stressed to argue a pointless hate for something, so they begin to act like a cynic to seem more grown-up. ^-^senisterdenister wrote:I've noticed that in every post you make you swear. I bet you think it feels cool acting like an adult, don't you?
