» Thu Jul 22, 2010 5:50 am Everything is relative Gizmo my friend and subjective to your own personal tastes. Naturally, we've had this conversation many a time before and the best result that we can ever hope to get out of it is agree to disagree or in the very least respect each others' opinions on this subject. 
Plainly put, people look for different things and get different satisfactions within the same activity. I fully understand your pov about why you want Fallout to remain in the same format as it always has been and what are your grievances with F3 as both a Fallout title and named sequel, while I believe you understand my differing perspective as why it is both a worthy sequel and game based on my own judgment.
Plainly put, people look for different things and get different satisfactions within the same activity. I fully understand your pov about why you want Fallout to remain in the same format as it always has been and what are your grievances with F3 as both a Fallout title and named sequel, while I believe you understand my differing perspective as why it is both a worthy sequel and game based on my own judgment.
Fallout 3 has two pre-existing series installments; As I've mentioned before... If Dawn of War Dark Crusade had turned DOW into a Quake like FPS... It would not only have forsaken the point of the series, but also made it impossible to even pretend to play the game in the familiar way ~which is likely the only reason you played in the first place. There are a dozen Warhammer titles, all set in the warhammer world ~but they can't all be sequels of each other for simply sharing the setting.
If someone does not like Chess (for example), why should they expect to like Chessmaster 9000, or even BattleChess; Conversely... Why make a Chess program to please persons that don't like Chess? I can see a Wizard's Chess game that plays out like in the Potter films, and that Potter fans might like it even if they don't like Chess, but unless they put a novice and an expert mode for the engine...they are clearly not making it for fans of the game ~Just fans of the setting.
I've often quoted different games which have altered their gameplay structures in order to "modernize" their titles or in the least reflect what the audience looks for during the times. Resident Evil and Metal Gear quickly spring to mind as examples of games whose core gameplay were altered and gained, not just exceeding success over their predecessors, but high critical praise for these changes.
The Vault Dweller's choices of dialogue were more developed and certainly hilarious (Oh that line about the sandwitch makes me giggle to this moment); but take just about any other character in the game and what you'll find are watered down and generic quest givers which offer a little information about the town you're at, the mission at hand, and maybe if you're really lucky of their background. The conversation I enjoyed the most in Fallout was with Harold because I felt he was the only real character outside the Vault Dweller who was given any sort of depth. Take anyone else: Aradesh, Tandi, your namesake, Killian, Ian, Decker, or whomever and really examine all of their dialogue and you may find what I mean. I find them about just as ordinary as any npc in F3. Chose One and the npcs of Fallout 2, the same.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0134648/quotes
PS Hope to see some more progress on that [censored] Enclave armor Gizmo, it rocks! :foodndrink:
I really want to finish it a soon as possible, but I don't expect to have much time until the end of October.
My work is seasonal, and this is the season.
@Andaius below:
Thanks :tops:
