Isn't that the case with every games' fans?

Ha haaa! I left out the part where I completed the game and haven't touched it since for some odd reason...

You're probably right, it's 110 degrees here, I can't think straight...

The graphics are pretty damn bad.



Please read:

"The graphics are pretty damn bad."

hes talking about fallout 3 and new vegas

:(
My PC can't run SC.
Well anywho, I hope the new DD is as well done as the previous two, each made me over-hyped for the games.

are you for real... Dungeons and Dragons talk in this forum? do you smoke the roll-a-dex? please i know you are hyped, but only talk about other games that had fallout in their title.

honestly i feel like calling into one of these podcasts to discuss their opinions of my multiplayer attempts for fallout 3, and how new vegas has defined the battle ground for others who wish to try such a thing.

the dev diary, should take up a pattern of spacing of time between releases as we want to see a stable flow of information as the release date is so close.

I don't get it.

D&D, I miss that game....
The biggest problem with MPlayer Fallout is one of the things that makes Fallout so great, your decisions and choices have lasting effect on everything that happens.
Oblivion would work much better than Fallout for multi-player, as the quests were limited and linear.
If they could make Fallout co-op work, then I think that there would be no reason to have a real life.
As for the steady flow of info, I'm surprised, the fans are generating more hype for this game then their, IMO, pathetic marketing campaign. I'm sorry, but it had to be said, word-of-mouth that is barely inspired by anything other than the greatness of the game is not a viable source of income...Unless it's something as universally loved as Fallout, then your lucky your just so awesome.
I'd like to see them up their marketing tactics, but considering this game has more pre-orders than F3, there really is no reason to do so.

It had its problems, but overall it had more RPG depth than any action/RPG I've played in a long time. Most of the people that thought it was a "fail" were people that only care about graphics, and those people I don't understand. Graphics are nice, but interesting gameplay is what brings me to the table.

Edit:
Heh...well that explains it. OMG TEH BAD GRAFX!

Also, the game was fairly short, but the story could be different every time, so the amount of content there was actually pretty big if you re-played the game. I actually did play it more than once, which is rare for me. Most games get tossed on the "maybe again someday" pile after the first play-through.

That's it...I'm done with this thread. The graphics svck.

And who didn't understand why they missed their shots alot early on.

Fallout 3 was gorgeous to me...idk I've always felt really immersed in Bethesda's games though. I have a lot of confidence in Obsidian after playing a game many of them worked on (Fallout 2).

IMO Fallout 3 graphics were great, they are still great (on PC of course, but without mods). Bethesda did a perfect job in lighting and effects to make the game look absolutely incredible without people noticing the dated engine. And for an Open-Ended RPG, the graphics were near-perfect.
I still playing FO3 from time to time, and I am still impressed with the graphics, I love waiting until 5AM in the game and walk on the wasteland admiring the beautiful sunrise.

And with the little tweaks in FNV, it will look splendid! But, graphics aren't everything. Those who loves FO1 and 2 won't mind the graphics at all. Gameplay is where Fallout wins. :fallout:

Now, on topic: I don't think there is a pattern, just like Beth Podcasts. But I don't mind, I won't watch the Dev Diaries after all

are we the same person?

Right, but maybe what he's saying really is that he didn't like how AP looked.
Hence, art design. AP might have better textures than NV but everything looks sort of plasticky.
New Vegas has much better looking environments despite having poorer textures.

:vaultboy: :thumbsup:

I was hoping for a new Dev Diary. There is only so much sadness that can fill my heart :sadvaultboy:

You obviously have "Alpha Protocol" confused with some other, less intelligently designed game. The people who didn't like "Alpha Protocol" are those who have no concept of how an RPG should play. People whose attention span is infinitesimal. People who regard napkins as unnecessary and Lady GaGa as fine art.

You're not one of those, are you?

You're treading a fine line there. :mellow:

Now that was unnecesserely cruel towards the guy you quoted even in this context, wouldn't you think?

Bull. People who don't like AP consider good design(House to mission based gameplay in an RPG? What?) and gameplay(self explanatory) to be important. I don't like AP very much, it was okay, but I like Fallout 1/2. I think I know how an RPG should play. The difference between Fallout and AP is that Fallout has fun gameplay, and instead of going from a house to a mission, you go to hubs(which you can roam in and talk to people) and get side missions. There are no side missions in AP, which is a huge letdown in an RPG. Also, the C&C of AP is vastly overrated, there are 3 endings, and some cool mission changes but most of these changes are cosmetic.

I'm not going to lie, this is sounds EXTREMELY condescending. "You don't like what I like, so you are CLEARLY of an inferior breeding." is pretty much what it sounds like. I have heard mixed reviews of Alpha Protocol. I can't say anything since I've not played it. But, like when someone says the Fallout Series are dumb games, as much as I dislike it, that doesnt make their opinion any less valid than my opinion of the Fallout Series being the best series of all time.

In the time between now and your next post, you should think about being alot nicer to other members.

Oh yeah it does. Opinions are opinions. As long as you can't back them up somehow they ARE not valid. (That also naturally counts for wordsmith. His reaction is over the top)

Also all Fallout games are well known for how much freedom they offer in the video game buisness. Even F3, as much as some people hate certain things about it (including me), offers one of the most complex experiences for games. That argument is certainly NOT valid.

I don't know if it's my sleep deprivation, but I am not sure what you're saying. :cryvaultboy:

He's saying opinions can be invalid if you can't back them up.

Then he'd be half right. If you say 'World War II' never existed, even though there is evidence. You'd be wrong. But even if you use the latest cutting edge blah blah blah graphics for your game, there will always be someone who says 'this svcks'. But you can't prove or disprove that the graphics svck. It's all semantics basically.