If you want to make a point, do it so with words, not bazillion of smileys. Thank you.


Actually, maybe you should stop slinging that opinion trainwreck, and *defend* or at least debate your so-called points.
And did you actually read the reviews you posted? Most of them agree that the RPG elements and story telling were greater, but were dissapointed by the lack of Elder Scrolls-esque stuff in the game e.g. exploration, and wacko-jacko baloney such as Aliens and such.

Not to mention Fallout 3 pretty much "resurrected" the series, while NV brought it back to the right direction. Alas, it got flak for using the same buggy Bethesda engine.


Exaggerated personality, dirty stereotype, fake accent and little to no backstory. How did he get there? What is he doing there? Right, being a Vodka drunkard with 2 six slaves is enough explanation for you I guess.
I bet you liked Niko Bellic in that case. :biggrin:


Sadly, people like him are the reason why the review ratings are so [censored] up. Nowadays, everything below 8 is considered trash. :goodjob:

Hey, if IGN and OXM said Fallout 3 is perfect, then it must be perfect. There's no arguing against such highly objective and professional reviews.




And most AAA products get 9's and 10's even when the review actually finds flaws from them. I remember reading one which basically pointed out every flaw there was in Fallout 3 and it even sounded aggressive so expected a solid 6 at most at the end, but... it was 9.7. Good job indeed.

I don't pay attention to reviews. I like to form my own opinion on things. I guess I am just a free thinking kinda guy.

Let me guess you play World of Warcraft? Have you any idea how big a hypocrite you are Smert? You criticize other people's opinions and pass your own of as facts.
You use reviews to win an argument and then when you lose that argument you say that reviews aren't important. I feel sorry for you I really do

[quote name='UnDeCafIndeed' timestamp='1321482111' post='19282813']
Hey, if IGN and OXM said Fallout 3 is perfect, then it must be perfect. There's no arguing against such highly objective and professional reviews.


As oppossed to you, who's video game reviews are respected the world over :rofl: Do you have your own well known website where you review games? Do more people in the world look to your opinion on video games than IGN and OXM? :rofl:

Good for you little buddy. Here you go, you deserve a :ribbon: I guess there's no need for any video game ever to be reviewed again if thats the case. Why stop there lets never have any experts review any film or book or anything ever again. Ban reviews I agree with you. :facepalm:

So again, you are completely incapable of forming your own opinion? You just go along with what other peoples uniformed opinion?

Here have a cookie :cookie:



Stop stop, you're making me laugh so much it hurts :rofl:


"Experts" :rofl:

I make up my own opinion, by playing the games and by doing so I know what I am talking about. I don't take the opinions of those that don't know crap all about the series and only care about graphics and write reviews for people incapable of forming their own opinions and that also only care about graphics.

I actually did. Did not find it fun, amusing or worthwile.
I just want to hear your reasoning that's all. When I "criticize" you, I actually expect you to counter-argument my points and keep the debate going.

Oh sorry, I forgot that I am the bad guy here. Have a tissue.


So you are finally resorting to a strawman. You are loosing concentration, buddy. :hubbahubba:

I actually never denied reviews being important(that's why I mentioned them, right?), the thing I commented on was the final rating system that seems to "matter" much more than the written criticism itself (the example by Cafe above).

Maybe if you reading comprehension wasn't that bad, you would get it. Alas. *sad music*


Funny you mention Boone. Let's compare shall we?

Boone:
Actual backstory where you can uncover more during the gameplay
Interaction with gameworld
Personal quest
His own opinions, he can leave you or outright attack you
Dialogue, insight into the factions, the world and others

Dukov:
Russian
Drunkard
six Slaves

I won't lie. Boone's boring. He's a bit bland, has a cliché personality and doesn't talk much.
Still a Shakespeare material when compared to the most of the random F3 cast with 3 lines of a dialogue at most.


You are welcome. What was the point you were trying to make again?

Ok guys he stated why he hated Fallout New Vegas, no sense in trying to convince him other wise. :spotted owl:

[quote name='Smert' timestamp='1321486980' post='19284671']
I actually did. Did not find it fun, amusing or worthwile.
I just want to hear your reasoning that's all. When I "criticize" you, I actually expect you to counter-argument my points and keep the debate going.

Oh sorry, I forgot that I am the bad guy here. Have a tissue.


So you are finally resorting to a strawman. You are loosing concentration, buddy. :hubbahubba:

I actually never denied reviews being important.

Wow you really don't know when to quit your behind and lost so much credibility with your continious contradictions of your own points. At what point is Boone interesting or a good character during the game? He tells you about the factions. You can read that on Wiki. Thats what its there for. You haven't listed anything special about Boone yet I'm still waiting?

Smert lost credibility?

Seems like the person that posts reviews that gave Fallout 3 better review scores then New Vegas in an attempt to prove how Fallout 3 is better.. then turns around saying reviews aren't important.. seems to me is the one with no creditbility :whistling:

Also when you quote someone make sure the quote shows up in black. Gets confusing.

Urm, hello? Did you even read what I just wrote?

Lemme rephrase:

"And did you actually read the reviews you posted? Most of them agree that the RPG elements and story telling were greater, but were dissapointed by the lack of Elder Scrolls-esque stuff in the game e.g. exploration, and wacko-jacko baloney such as Aliens and such."

1) I said that most of the reviews agreed on NV being a better RPG (not necesarilly a better GAME than Fallout 3)
2) You posted ratings
3) I said that even the content of the review matters, not just the number in the end
-notice how I didn't actually say anything about reviews not being important or meaningless-
4) Strawman from your side

If anyone's contraditing himself, it's you. Do you even read the stuff Reviewer writes, or just skip right to the number? :rolleyes:


Haha, I think we are getting a bit lost in translation here. :wink_smile:

I was actually the one who brought towards the reviews.

Out of curiosity wasn't the sales numbers of New Vegas released and it was equal to or great then that of Fallout 3?

Hello, do you know how to read posts? Can you not tell who said what? Maybe you should get somebody to read posts before you reply. Pay attention little buddy. He made a point that NV reviews were better than F3 as proof it was a better game. When I showed you people the reality that nearly every review gave F3 a better score than NV.

It was apparently greater from what I've read. By November 8, 2010, it has already shipped over 5 million copies worldwide, as opposed to F3's 4,7 millions (October 2008)

Smert is saying the review scores mean crap all because they still said good things about New Vegas and gave it a score less then Fallout 3. Fallout 3 review pointed out the number of problems with Fallout 3 yet still gave it a high score.

This goes to what I have been saying the scores are based on things like graphics. Also the bugs people talk about were because Bethesda didn't do their damn job.

The only reason why Fallout New Vegas got a lesser score was because it had "dated graphics" and bugs Bethesda never bothered to fix right. The story and RPG elements are still better then Fallout 3.

Again I don't care what review have to say.. I have the ability to make up my own mind.

Also I don't like being called "little buddy" becaue I have a feeling you are what 12? at most 16 so its realy annoying.

[quote name='Smert' timestamp='1321487693' post='19284941']
Urm, hello? Do you even read what I write?

Lemme rephrase:

"And did you actually read the reviews you posted? Most of them agree that the RPG elements and story telling were greater, but were dissapointed by the lack of Elder Scrolls-esque stuff in the game e.g. exploration, and wacko-jacko baloney such as Aliens and such."

1) I said that most of the reviews agreed on NV being a better RPG (not necesarilly a better GAME than Fallout 3)
2) You posted ratings
3) I said that even the content of the review matters, not just the number in the end
4) Strawman from your side

If anyone's contraditing himself, it's you. Do you even read the stuff Reviewer writes, or just skip right to the number? :rolleyes:


Haha, I think we are getting a bit lost in translation here. :wink_smile:

I was actually the one who brought towards the reviews.

:rofl: Smert and Styles or Laurel and Hardy I don't know which of you two is funnier! Now Smert claims whats important in a review is the tiny details or how good an rpg both games where. Its funny I don't remember you mentioning that point originally you just said New Vegas got better reviews. Seriously you are the Minister of your own BS

So your saying instead of buying the game for it's great content I should read the wiki? The game being the source of the wikis information? Makes no sense.

This thread is a winner.

I form my own opinions not read others.

Finally ran out of arguments? I am dissapoint!

But good, that makes it easier. Thanks for proving my point even further. :wavey:

P.S.: Better reviews. as in written content, criticism, full fledged opinion, not just score in the end. Just sayin'


Best argument ever. So I am supposed to read the wiki now instead of playing the game itself?

I could say the same for your beloved Dukov. See how that works? Doesn't change that Boone actually has more quality content. From the common logic standpoint, what is there even to argue?


+1

You oughta fix the quote though, because I did not write it. :biggrin:

Its simply a fact of life that New Vegas had more developed RPG elements while F3 had insanely good exploration.

And reviews do not mean a thing, all you are doing is reading somebody who you do not know's opinion on a game. Its like walking up to a random guy on the street and asking him if Batman: Arkham City was good or not.

[quote name='Styles' timestamp='1321488414' post='19285211']
[u]Smert is saying the review scores mean crap all because they still said good things about New Vegas and gave it a score less then Fallout 3. Fallout 3 review pointed out the number of problems with Fallout 3 yet still gave it a high score.

No he didn't at any point originally mention review scores. So the little details are what matter to you guys, well whatever floats your boat, ok little buddy :thumbsup:

Holy crap, this went downhill these last few pages. :stare:

Rules. We have them. Some of you NEED TO READ THEM.