Soooo what you really want to play is Wasteland 2?
Soooo what you really want to play is Wasteland 2?
What if an open world exploration action shooter RPG is exactly what some people want? I suspect there are a few.
I think you do GTA V a disservice. No BGS title is nearly as dense or concentrated in terms of their large worlds either. Name the largest city in Skyrim. Solitude? It's dwarfed by the size of Los Santos, Novigrad, and Gotham as just a few examples. Radiant AI in its current manifestation is nothing to be impressed with. 90% of the NPCs play no role and have the most menial of schedules merely being at certain places during certain times of the day. Most of the NPCs play no vital role in the game nor would you ever need to talk to most of them, like most games.
As for The Witcher 3 having "environments [that] have no variety between them," I have to disagree with this vehemently. That is certainly largely the case with GTA V reusing textures, but not the case at all with TW3. It is by far one of the most diverse and unique worlds I have seen in a game. If you actually take the time to explore and not just quick travel, you will see these areas aren't just randomly generated like Cyrodiil was in Oblivion. All of TW2's environments were handcrafted just like Skyrim was in Skyrim. You can definitely tell if something is authentic or a program merely generated an environment.
Batman Arkham Knight has the most densely poplulated city I've seen in a game to date. Not only is there horizontal exploration, which is standard for open world games, but there is verticality as well. The latter is very uncommon in most open world games and Arkham Knight excels at both. Yes, the PC version is currently broken, but that does not disregard what a technological marvel Arkham Knight actually is. No city BGS has ever built even comes class as the last BGS game to ironically have any sort of verticality was Morrowind due to having levitation as a skill. Ever since, every BGS game has been almost entirely flat (Skyrim had some mountains to give the illusion of verticality).
I will agree Dragon Age Inquisition's pseudo open world was not handled well. BioWare in its modern incarnation has not made an open world game (disregarding SWTOR). Thus, outside of the story and some lingering quests, collectibles, or dailies, there wasn't much to do in the world. Frostbite 3 also seems to suffer from overly cumbersome load times. Regardless, certain areas such as Skyhold were used quite proficiently and harbored a dense amount of activities.
BGS is definitely all about making a great game beyond anything else. Story. Combat. Even progression all is secondary to just living in this other world they create. That being said, that is not an excuse for not trying to make immersive cities, amazing combat, and progression that truly makes one feel unique and having achieved something. It's a balancing test, but one that BGS must constantly tweak and always take seriously.
But then they wouldn't be able to place it in the Fallout world, and use things from Fallout. Which they clearly must want to do or they wouldn't have bothered to spend money buying it if they weren't going to use the Fallout IP as a mine for resources to throw into their own style of game and use the history from Fallout.
No matter what the thread subject is about, a comparison between Fo1/2 and Fo3/NV/4 will be made and derail the main thread. Can we come up with a phrase for this phenomena? Kinda like Godwin's law but for Fallout.
With respect to the original topic, I think the game's graphics look fine - especially with some of the new additions to the engine. Aesthetically, it's extremely consistent and looks true to an era.
I just can't agree that it would've been better that they weren't made. Many pieces of media go through stages of dislike whether moved to different people or just changing how they do things. In music it happens all the time: when Linkin Park released Minutes to Midnight there were many of us discontented with the album, but Linkin Park went on and continued deviating from their Hybrid Theory/Meteora style. For many fans, both new and old, those newer albums were their favourites despite a high proportion of original fans not liking the sound shift. Should those people who did enjoy them lose out because many people think the newer albums shouldn't have been made?
That's just one band (anology of studio) doing what they want. Now lets take in staff changes. When Killswitch Engage lost Jesse and hired Howard there was very mixed reactions. Some hated him, some loved him, some just didn't mind. But there were claims that Killswitch should have just broken up when Jesse left. If they'd have done that there would be many people who loved Howard's albums who would've missed out on great experiences.
A closer anology for the Fallout situation: covers. Should bands just not cover stuff? No, of course not. In my opinion Leona Lewis should never have touched a Snow Patrol track, but it doesn't stop thousands of people out there preferring her version of Run. What right have I to deny them that?
So Fallout is not as continuous as you'd like. It's a fair opinion and I'll never tell you otherwise, but the fact is Fallout 3 has provided thousands of hours of fun for many, many people; fans of the originals and fans who have never played the originals alike. Would it really have been better if those people never had that experience? Wanting a different experience, or being disappointed with the provided experience is one thing (and I stand by your right to have that opinion), but outright wishing away thousands of other players enjoyment over it I'll never understand.
________
One can make your same point with Metallica.
What's interesting to me is that while I seem to prefer their later albums, there is no denying the change of format, or that if they changed their name to a new band, it wouldn't have mattered to me, as I didn't know who they were ~or really care. When a name invokes a reputation, I think it's disingenuous to use it and not deliver on that reputation; worse still to try to overwrite that reputation with something unrelated.
As for the graphics of Fo4, I do think they are very good; and better than FO3's; though I don't at all consider graphics to be an experience incentive. I consider it icing on the cake ~not the cake itself.
If the graphics of FO4 were identical to FO3's in every single way ~but the gameplay and story had improved, it would lose no points for me for its recycled visuals. FO3 & 4 lose their points for [the wrong] gameplay and lowered expectations [of the player].
Your point? I know people who enjoy one or more of those films. Personally I've only ever watched the first, so I can't comment. Fact is people have enjoyed 2 and 3, so at what point does anyone have the right to say they shouldn't have been made? You CAN argue they should have been done better, but that's a highly subjective opinion.
The only thing I can say that should have never been made ishttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810913/.
[censored] this movie was terrible.
I envy that. My heart felt suggestion is ~do not watch Highlander 2 or 3 if you enjoyed Highlander.*
Some things (like the upside down Dodge Viper logo), cannot be unseen.
*[But you will have to watch them if you want to understand the point of mentioning them].
This line of thinking can go as far as you like. You wouldn't care if Black Isle had never made Fallout in the first place, right? If they never made it you wouldn't know any better and you'd be playing Wasteland. Of course it was made, and you have played it, and you enjoyed it, which is great. But if I said that Black Isle shouldn't have made it in the first place because you could just go and play Wasteland, or whatever other personally subjective opinion I may or may not have, I dare say you'd likely disagree because given the option in hindsight you'd rather have the game experience than not.
Well Bethesda wanted to make Fallout 3, and weren't denied the option. I get that you prefer the Black Isle way of doing things when it comes to Fallout. Quite frankly I can't objectively tell you that you're wrong, because it's a subjective opinion. Thing is Bethesda did buy Fallout, like it or not. They did make a game that many times more people accessed than Black Isle's renditions. It became a financial success and millions of people have enjoyed them. Now you, YOU, sat on the other side of the monitor, you have an opinion, but that's all it is, an opinion. An opinion you are entitled to no matter how many people disagree. But what UnDeCafIndeed was suggesting is that those millions of people should have that experience stripped from them because of your unpopular (not wrong) opinion that you share.
Trust me, I've seen beloved franchises change too; become disinterested in modern offerings over older titles. It's not a great feeling when you've become so heavily invested in a series. But capitalism is what it is. At no point have I ever thought "it shouldn't have been made". That's just disrespectful in the highest order not only to the developer but to the fans that do actually enjoy the newer titles. I've often thought "I wish they'd done this differently", and when that thought crops up too many times I stop buying the new games and keep replaying the old.
How would it have been better for Fallout fans? You would have got no new games instead of actually having new games, albeit in a different format to the originals. Like I said, FO1/2 haven't gone anywhere. The existence of Fallout 3 doesn't change that, regardless of your opinion on it. Surely it's better for everyone involved that you at least had a chance of a Fallout 3, but didn't like it, and millions of other people did get a good experience out of it, than simply nobody getting anything.
As for Gizmo, apologies for misunderstanding you general intent. Given your explanation I can't disagree that it must be annoying to see a series change so much, but it's hardly the first time it's happened. Again, as I've responded to UnDeCafIndeed it's better for everyone to have at least tried the reboot than have no new games at all. You know, I'd actually like to see a mobile Fallout game in the same ideology and style as the first two games. I believe it could work really well. While I respect that both of you as older fans don't like the new direction of Fallout it doesn't change the fact that there are millions out there who do. They aren't wrong either.
Thing is that every series has that game. Sure there is a very minimal chance that another will ever be made in the same vein, but that's just life. Fact is Fallout 1/2 didn't get that much attention. The reasons for that can be arguably varied but the long and short is that Black Isle couldn't afford to keep going. So while you found your perfect niche it wasn't financially viable for the company making it to continue. Sad, but that's just the way it is. I dare say had Bethesda carried on the same style and made a "true" sequel to Fallout 2 then it wouldn't have been as successful as the current offering. Like I said, I'd actually really like to see a spin-off mobile game in that original style. I think in the modern market that would be a far better fit for it.