Bethesda says it will make 'considerably more noise' in 2013

#111MC2011Posted 4/11/2013 6:04:30 AM
I thought the anti-cazador perks introduced in OWB were over-kill, and that people complaining about them were over-exaggerating.

Yes they're fast, yes they can be dangerous (especially in large groups), but they're glass cannons and spraying bullets in the general direction of their wings usually results in a GG cazadores lol.

That said, I prefer the DLC in NV. For FO3, OA was okay, The Pitt was decent, PL I felt was over-hyped, and f*** MZ. Terrible way to end the DLC support of FO3.

For NV, loved DM, started off enjoying HH but sequential playthrus made me hate it more and more, OWB was good and LR was decent.
---
http://i.imgur.com/zHLma5j.jpg
You're next...
#112themagicpainmanPosted 4/11/2013 6:19:56 AM
I agree except with DLC. FO3 had some of the best DLC ever especially point lookout.

...Did you play the NV DLC?
---
"Combine Cloak and Dagger with Boots of Swiftness so CC doesn't stop you from moving faster toward defeat." - Frost_shock_FTW
#113CatholicPriest7Posted 4/11/2013 7:04:08 AM
Some people just really love obsidian for whatever reason. I however feel like they can't make sequels to games where they already have all the assets made for them and they are even worse when it comes to making games from scratch.

Every neckbeard in the world will have you believe that KOTOR 2 was better than KOTOR. How did obsidian know we wanted to wait 10 hours to get a lightsaber in a star wars game? Not to mention the less exciting environments.

NV didn't feel nearly post-apocalyptic enough.
---
Religion is a man-made device to enslave the minds of the weak.
#114Mortuss_ZeroPosted 4/11/2013 7:06:12 AM
I liked both FO games, but I think they did different things better. NV had better main plot writing and mechanics (gun mods, ammo subtypes, companion wheel, better crafting, etc.). 3 was more fun to explore, had better sidequests (even if there were less of them) and had better "dungeons".
Just my two cents, feel free to tear me to ribbons or insult my intelligence for it.
---
Wake up and face me. Don't play dead, because maybe one day I will walk away and say "you disappoint me, maybe you're better off this way"
#115Bane766Posted 4/11/2013 7:12:36 AM
CatholicPriest7 posted...
Some people just really love obsidian for whatever reason. I however feel like they can't make sequels to games where they already have all the assets made for them and they are even worse when it comes to making games from scratch.

Every neckbeard in the world will have you believe that KOTOR 2 was better than KOTOR. How did obsidian know we wanted to wait 10 hours to get a lightsaber in a star wars game? Not to mention the less exciting environments.

NV didn't feel nearly post-apocalyptic enough.


The only thing I think is better from KotOR 2 to 1 is that I hate that first city part that you land in in part 1. I really don't like having to go through that again-and it takes so long. Other than that part KotOR 1 is a HELLA better game then part 2.

Part 2 had some good villians, but they amounted to jack in the end. It was a rushed game as everyone who played it knows-as it seems like the ending is basically incomplete. Part 1 is epic. Part 2 is not really all there.
---
Douleur Peur Mort
#116ArchMageSynokPosted 4/11/2013 8:07:10 AM
FO3 had better atmosphere/style/story. NV had better gameplay. Same goes for Kotor1&2.
---
http://i.imgur.com/UNFgs.jpg
#117Ajd_KingPosted 4/11/2013 8:17:49 AM
ArchMageSynok posted...
FO3 had better atmosphere/style/story. NV had better gameplay. Same goes for Kotor1&2.


Oh man.

F3 having a better story than NV.

Oh wow.
---
"I dream of a future where French people can stuff their asses full of noodles without having their motives questioned."
- Magicalyn, Cracked
#118turn_basedPosted 4/11/2013 8:25:45 AM
CatholicPriest7 posted...
Some people just really love obsidian for whatever reason. I however feel like they can't make sequels to games where they already have all the assets made for them and they are even worse when it comes to making games from scratch.

Every neckbeard in the world will have you believe that KOTOR 2 was better than KOTOR. How did obsidian know we wanted to wait 10 hours to get a lightsaber in a star wars game? Not to mention the less exciting environments.

NV didn't feel nearly post-apocalyptic enough.


^^^ it's been 200 years since the war, society and communities have evolved beyond a nuka-cola crack head and sawed-off shotgun carrying perv. New Vegas is believable, 3 is not.
#119Ajd_KingPosted 4/11/2013 8:31:49 AM
The vaults in 3 opened later, so them not being as advanced isn't unbelievable.

But, everything else is, so I agree that overall the place isn't believable. Most towns have no way of surviving, the environmental damage is unrealistic, and the purifier 'solution' is idiotic (cleaning this one river will eventually clean the whole world's water derpderp).

Then you've got especially large anamolies like Tenpenny inexplicably coming from the UK, which is so incredibly unlikely it makes me think Tenpenny is senile, and Little Lamplight, again, inexplicably, surviving being next to all those Super Mutants.

Hopefully they go for less ROC next time, and more sense.
---
"I dream of a future where French people can stuff their asses full of noodles without having their motives questioned."
- Magicalyn, Cracked
#120PacoTheTaco1Posted 4/11/2013 8:32:21 AM
I'm just going to throw my two cents in even though I may or may not be jumped for it...

But...

The Fallout series seemed like it was suppose to be a dark and goofy, humerous take on a society trying to rebuild after its previous " stuck in a time era" self blew each other up. I'll be honest...Fallout 3s atmosphere had moments where it was really too dark and got a bit too full of itself. At the same time, however, the DC region was less "developed" than the West, and that was accurately made apparent.

NV, however, was a tad more colorful and goofy. It was mostly dark humor, and fit with the original creators' take on the world. The West was far more developed than the DC area, and there was an entire region untouched by the nukes. It was incredibly appropriate considering the lore and story. It wasn't meant to be bleak.

Both games had appropriate atmospheres. The biggest reason people prefer FO3 is because FO3 was their first Fallout. Most people only knew the story up till that point, and thought it meant to be the meaning and atmosphere FO3 conveyed when, in all honesty, it was just Bethesda reviving AND rebooting the series for those who have never played the original. That is why people who go to NV think the atmosphere is inappropriate...they started off thinking that all FO games are like FO3. Granted, I'm not saying this is the only opinion...I happen to like FO3 a tad better because I think it's smoother, but I can't help but love NV.
---
We prefer to call zombies "Less than alive, but still slightly functional" people. By calling them zombies, your being insensitive to them.- Valkrosin