Conversation
Notices
-
Dear Bethesda: Fallout 4 plz, and plz don't make it 80 gigs
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:11:59 UTC from web-
@mrmattimation Dear Obsidian: Fallout 4 plz #FTFY
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:13:17 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal That's dumb. Obviously, Obsidian won't be making any main installments. It would be neat if they made a spinoff game to compliment each main game, like they did with NV and FO3.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:15:23 UTC from web-
@mrmattimation I'd rather just a new Fallout from them in general as opposed to a new one by Bethesda. Bethesda literally only even made FO3 so I don't see why Obsidian can't make FO4. Besides, I'm sure we can all agree NV was superior to FO3.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:17:57 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal Bethesda owns the series. They obviously bought it in ORDER to develop it, not to just hand it off to someone else and watch them do it, otherwise they'd have just bought the rights to FO3.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:23:01 UTC from web-
@mrmattimation I'm not saying they're not going to develop it, but a new installment by Obsidian would be much better
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:24:06 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal I genuinely don't know why people liked NV better. That wasn't a Fallout game. That was "hey guys here's a western game and also there was an apocalypse but it really doesn't show that much". It's a good game, just not a good Fallout game, I don't care that Obsidian is made up of employees who worked on the originals. I also don't care that it had a better boss fight, as that seems to be the ONLY thing that people use to argue that it's a better game.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:26:38 UTC from web-
@mrmattimation Because FO3 was stupidly easy and didn't have a compelling story.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 22:27:54 UTC from web -
@mrmattimation That's not the only argument. And the team that worked on the originals is pretty important, because it basically means NV was closer to what fans loved about the originals even though people who never even played them criticized NV for deviating from 3. And funny enough, while the world was nicer, that's pretty much the only point you can make for FO3. Bethesda are great at building gorgeous worlds that end up being full of mediocre gameplay. Although, with that in mind, the world map in NV is considerably less cluttered. The DC area in FO3 is a great example of this, where there's pretty much rubble everywhere obfuscating your path so you're not exploring some vast world as much as following a sort of junkyard hallway. In NV you can see and to go places much further in the horizon, and it also has a lot more hub towns like the originals. It was much more logically arranged and it didn't feel like a chore to explore.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 23:07:46 UTC from web-
@northernnarwhal Well, at least you didn't just day "the boss fight was bettwr".
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 23:22:59 UTC from web -
@northernnarwhal Now, I'm not saying NV is a bad game. I just seem to have more fun with it if I pretend it's just a huge FO3 expansion. I have Tale of Two Wasteland installed and I'm having much more fun with it than I do unmodded.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 23:29:51 UTC from web-
@mrmattimation Well I mean, I could continue and talk about how the quests and levelling system of NV were just generally handled better, but you get my point. Maybe I'm just a bit of a purist for these sort of things, but I feel like as a fan of the Fallout series as a whole I felt NV was a much more appropriate installment, whereas FO3 is more of a black sheep of sorts despite being a numbered installment.
Wednesday, 06-Aug-14 23:40:15 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
