Its MUCH more casual/easier/less demanding than the older Fallouts, I think we can all agree on that

Going to add a warning, here:

If this thread goes down this road of "hardcoe" vs "Casual" players, I'm going to lock it.

Both terms represent fallacies developed by marketing researchers to figure why so many people were playing the Wii, and have little to no correlation with reality. In the forums, there tends to be this sense that "Casual" players mean less, or are as less valid of a hobbyist than "hardcoe" players; or that it's generally better to be a "hardcoe" player. When in reality, I think very few people consider themselves "Casual" gamers (and kind of by definition - if you care enough to post about it on a videogame forum... kind of rules out your eligibility to be considered to be "Casual" about it.)

And let's face it - the sort of person who would officially proclaim themselves to be a "hardcoe" gamer? Much like the people that would insist you recognize them as "hardcoe" movie fans, or "hardcoe" music fans (who appreciate the music you listen to - only on a higher and more 'meta' level;) these are not, generally, the sort of people that one wants to be associated with socially...

So yeah - let's stop the "Casual" vs "hardcoe" stuff now, before I engage a lock.

:laugh:

Best post on the thread by miles and miles.

You are still doing a superb job of proving my point that it isn't the split, but instead, the people who want to flame, insult and generally widen the divide between fanbases that are the problem

Thank you so much for your help here Mr Mayes. :thumbsup:

Then why bother to create thread like these?

Everybody in the each side want to answer in this

We are arguing with this since the day release and we never stopped from that day


Can someone prevent more trhead like this

Heh.

It's not the split in fandom that gets on my nerves, really. It's the tone taken by the participants. Honestly, we're talking about a game, here. I'm obsessed enough with Fallout games to post on this forum pretty frequently, but at the end of the day even I know a video game is utterly unimportant. It's meant to provide some entertainment and, if designed well, some food for thought and an appreciation of its art and design. For me, it's a way to release stress after a hard day.

Getting so worked up about it that one resorts to uncivil behavior seems awfully silly to me. I mean this with the greatest respect, but some of you guys seem a tad too centered on gaming, as if it's your entire life. Some of you don't even seem to enjoy it. Honestly, take a walk in the woods or something. Take a drive, go out on a date, play catch with the kids. Get some perspective.

Honestly, I'm not trying to preach down to you. This is life experience talking -- I was a media-obsessed nerd for too many years (I'm 47 years old). If you suddenly realize that you've been thinking about Wookies all day you need to take a break. Just sayin', and peace.

tl;dr -- The divide's okay; the rudeness svcks.

(This sums it up ALOT for me as well, EXACTLY, but the only difference is i don't like the split. But i learned the split can never be healed, so long as there is so many close minded people acting uncivil, and focusing too much on the gaming aspects, there will not be healing, so i'm taking Al D's advice to heart, keeping on doing what i do, Playing the games for the fun of it. :fallout: After all, i got a kid to take care of, and worrying about [censored] things like so many people do like nit picking about minor things is getting too old for me, major things is fine though.)

Preach out, brothah!!!!!

You are right, playing games take up too much of my life. It's the perfect espace from reality, though, when life is hard and I don't wanna [censored] it back Also, it's the same for the fan boys of everything, like comics, series, movies, books, car, whatver people find an interest in and want to defent against someone who says "yeah, I've seen that one before, thought it was pretty lame." Hurhurhur..

Anyways, well said.

I don't see anything changing in the future either. As someone said, Bethesda is a one trick pony, unless something drastic happens (such as Zenimax buying Obsidian) Fallout3 is Oblivion with guns, Skyrim is Fallout3 with magic, Fallout 4 is Skyrim with guns, TES VI is Fallout 4 with magic... :shrug:

And i don't see anything drastic happening either, after all, Fallout 3 was a commercial and ciritical success, the things that matter for corporations, they'll propably think "why fix what aint broke?".

"GASP"

What bothers me is when people take a completely unrelated thread, like the one about how Fallout 4 will look on Skyrim's engine, and derail it into yet another "Bethesda vs. Black Isle" thread.

There's plenty of threads dedicated to that subject already, please don't derail threads about completely different topics so you can tell us how much you dislike Bethesda; we already know. If you've got to vent, do it in the (innumberable) threads that already exist for that purpose.

This.



This!




A million times this!

It's like there's a weird variation of Godwin's Law going on on these forums: irrespective of its subject, as a topic grows longer the chances of it becoming a Beth-v-Black Isle slanging match approaches 1.

People get so het up about such ultimately trivial things, it's quite funny really.

"Why fix what we fixed from something that wasnt broken?"

But not all the fans praised it

You nazi! :rolleyes:

I find it hard to believe that any of the games were recieved with unconditional praise by all the fans though.

dikeybird's Law: 'As an online Fallout discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Black Isle and Bethesda approaches 1, irrespective of its original topic.'

Have a cigar, dikeybird.

Well, it depends on Bethesda whether that matters or not. Will they change it to please those not satisfied with Fallout 3 while possibly pissing off those who love their games for what they are (see New Vegas) or keep doing what they've been doing since... forever? Good thing i don't work for them

Best to keep it "Fan-base" vs "Fan-base" or "It's TES4" vs "It's not TES4" or "It's canon-lore" vs "It's not canon-lore"

Actually you can play all games "Casually" even the "hardcoe" ones. Both demand thought of play to get full appreciation of what the game is all about. You can play any game with little thought or little immersion ending up not fully appreciating what the game is all about or how it relates to previous games, jumping to erroneous conclusions such as the game is TES4 not Fallout canon-lore.

Neither understanding that games can have similar game-structures and when different game contents are built into those similar structures they produce completely different games and game-plays. As for lore and canon-lore, I have seen nothing that destroys either of those when comparing Fallout3 to Fallouts 1 and 2. Fallout3 is generally accepted as being sequel, of similarity in theme lore and style, and as such is canon, canon-lore.

I would question whether the split is more a split between those into role-play "realism" (to the full capability that the role-play medium can produce) and those less so, those more into taking-turns against those that are into real-time as real as possible role-play. Maybe.

Surely, it does not seem likely that players of a certain generation would be "stuck" in a past period of game development, but it seems to be. Game makers have gone to extreme lengths to make the realism and animation in games more lifelike and the role-play more realistic. I was an avid fan at the time that the past games were out. I am an avid fan now of any improvements made to the past versions.

Anyway, having played the early Fallouts when they came out way back, and thoroughly enjoyed them as they were the best games ever at that time, even though they were not perfect in many ways I still wanted more, and couldn't wait for the next of the sequels to be made.

News of Bethesda making the sequel came out, I wondered will it be as good as the ones before , probably, they always make good games and they are kind of good at making open-play big map games stuffed full with lots of content, and a reputation for outstanding writing as in their Morrowind game with it's very deep game-play, many factions and plots.

Incredibly it, Fallout 3, came out and surpassed all my expectations, it really did, in every way, it actually made me see more clearly the shortcomings of play in the early Fallouts 1 and 2, fantastic as they were at that time, Fallout 3 is like a patch, a super-patch, for Fallout 2, giving now the ultimate in Fallout gaming experience and beautifully melding into the earlier sequel scenarios.

Fallout 1 and 2 were not broken, but they were sure as hell fixed.

How did Fallout 3 do better than the originals, what, fancy new graphics and dungeon crawling? Its story was piss poor and it butchered the RPG mechanics, it ruined the point of specialization for a role with an overabundance of skill points and perks, how did it do better, because i dont see it.

I'm thinking "Curtis" hasn't played Fallout 1 and 2 very recently.

I have however, the story is enough to get me to come back. Earlier today I walked in to shady sands for the first time again. The first thing I noticed is it is more... fun, for lack of a better word, to play the later ones. I love the story to the origional games, but I enjoy playing the later ones more.

( I agree with you, Without starting a war( and i am not) I love the story, it is complex, that is why FO and FO2 tie for second place on my favorite Fallout titles, i cannot tell which one is better, they both are so good.) :thumbsup: