Sorry OP, I only listen to [i]GameTrailers[/i]
:cool:
Newsflash, IGN suck big biased dicks OP.
"Oh jee the animations look crap and the graphics look crap from the 2 seconds of video I watched LOLOL it sucks and anyone who says it's good are biased/bullshit/cocksuckers/payed for their opinion/wrong."
Or you could be on the other end of the spectrum:
"OMG This game is the best game ever because even if it's crap I can't accept the fact that I wasted $60 on this bag of shit because I hyped it too much."
I haven't played the game yet, so I'm not sure which end of the spectrum I'll be on, but Jesus Christ, some of these people make me sad that I even play video games.
I work on the philosophy that if something looks bad then it is.
I've been playing it.
It's a lot better in a lot of aspects.
Stuff like combat and other things that aren't the new features, have been tweaked really well.
Now VATS is pretty useless at the beginning, ironsights are welcome addition.
I've not encountered any bugs yet except for one ragdoll spazzout, and a CTD (due to firefox popping up a window).
The character voices are MUCH better, less noticeable when they're recycled.
That doesn't necessarily refer only to aesthetics.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
:ninja:
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;25532311]I work on the philosophy that if something looks bad then it is.[/QUOTE]
That's a shitty "Read a book by it's cover" attitude. You're going to miss out on lot of fun stuff if you keep it up.
[QUOTE=Lebowski;25532337]That's a shitty "Read a book by it's cover" attitude. You're going to miss out on lot of fun stuff if you keep it up.[/QUOTE]
A book's cover doesn't contain any information about the quality of the book.
A gameplay trailer/footage reel contains a lot of information about the quality of a game.
[QUOTE=oldage;25532362][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/nwLjj.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
That part about the sound.
:frog:
I love how people use the "Don't judge a book by it's cover" when books are totaly different to games, games have trailers, screenshots and demo's, so you can judge the game as much as you like
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;25532416]A book's cover doesn't contain any information about the quality of the book.
A gameplay trailer/footage reel contains a lot of information about the quality of a game.[/QUOTE]
None of the footage I've seen properly shows off the new features, the tweaks to combat, new voices, etc.
Though I understand where you're coming from.
Honestly, I wouldn't pay full price for the game (because I just LOATHE gamebryo), but it's definitely better than Fallout 3. The world is a little more involving. It feels like a lot more care has been put into making the landscape interesting with out of place/hidden shit, almost a handcrafted feel.
The factions are very cool, and it adds another layer of depth. Weapons just plain feel better for first person combat too now.
Wait until it's cheaper if you feel so strongly about it.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=Melon_Mapper;25532487]I love how people use the "Don't judge a book by it's cover" when books are totaly different to games, games have trailers, screenshots and demo's, so you can judge the game as much as you like[/QUOTE]
And all of these can be misleading of a game. In more than one instance, the demo has been better than the whole game itself, in more than one instance, the screenshots and trailers only show the highlighted interesting moments in a game, and the rest of it is dull.
You can't judge the game as much as you like, because you're probably getting to the conclusion that the game company wants you to (if you're a fan).
[QUOTE=oldage;25532362][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/nwLjj.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
What is good two years ago doesn't mean the same thing is "as good" two years later.
The fact that it is pretty much the same but highly tweaked and in a completely different plot/situation and still gets a good score two years later says a lot.
Score's are not universal, they are relative to the time that the game was released.
If Ocorina of Time was released today it would probably get a bunch of 6-7's/10's. When it was first released it got pretty much universal acclaim and 10/10's.
[QUOTE=Melon_Mapper;25532487]I love how people use the "Don't judge a book by it's cover" when books are totaly different to games, games have trailers, screenshots and demo's, so you can judge the game as much as you like[/QUOTE]
And yet playing is still really the only way to know about the game fully. Guess what? I've played 9 hours of New Vegas, and it's not just a fucking reskin. Everyone who says that is a fucking idiot.
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=KorJax;25534106]What is good two years ago doesn't mean the same thing is "as good" two years later.
The fact that it is pretty much the same but highly tweaked and in a completely different plot/situation and still gets a good score two years later says a lot.
Score's are not universal, they are relative to the time that the game was released.
If Ocorina of Time was released today it would probably get a bunch of 6-7's/10's. When it was first released it got pretty much universal acclaim and 10/10's.[/QUOTE]
It's a good game, it's entertaining, what a game is supposed to be, why it should be getting low reviews is beyond me.
oh man you guys are just HORRIBLE
episode 2 was the same shit as half life 2, and left 4 dead 2 was the same shit as the first and was the pretty much same thing, but they still gets praised and you still suck valves dick while new vegas is like fallout 3 which was a already a great game and you bash it? lol
Something tells me that I should just stick with Fallout 3, and my many mods, and play STALKER Clear Sky to get my Faction Wars on
Atleast until Vegas has been out a while
[QUOTE=Kid Cudi;25534191]oh man you guys are just HORRIBLE
episode 2 was the same shit as half life 2, and left 4 dead 2 was the same shit as the first and was the pretty much same thing, but they still gets praised and you still suck valves dick while new vegas is like fallout 3 which was a already a great game and you bash it? lol[/QUOTE]
Welcome to facepunch :)
Feels like Fallout 3 with new weapon models and ironsights to me.
Honestly this New Vegas is full of bugs and shit is getting old, same happened to Oblivion, same happened to Fallout 3 and then what happened? Most of it got fixed and what didn't was fixed in the unofficial patches, I buy these games mostly not because of what they contain, but of what the community is capable of doing with them. I always get bored playing vanilla Oblivion or vanilla Fallout 3 but if I add some weapon, quest, clothes, etc mods (no furry shit) I can play them for days without getting bored.
All this talk of bugs reminds me of how it was made by Obsidian, who is FAMOUS for releasing buggy lumps of shit that turn out to be shining gems of awe.
[QUOTE=oldage;25532362][img_thumb]http://i.imgur.com/nwLjj.png[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
IGN do use separate reviewers for each platform. They are all morons mind you.
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;25535425]All this talk of bugs reminds me of how it was made by Obsidian, who is FAMOUS for releasing buggy lumps of shit that turn out to be shining gems of awe.[/QUOTE]
Most of the team behind the first fallouts are in Obsidian, so it stuck to it's roots.
Helped me make my choice on buying it.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;25532311]I work on the philosophy that if something looks bad then it is.[/QUOTE]
Ok buddy.
[img]http://www.minecraft.net/img/logo.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=hexpunK;25529508]Oblivion with guns: The DLC: The movie.
With a title like that I hope they don't make a film.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ZestyLemons;25529461]A 9.0?
Yeah, IGN is just sucking a little bit of dick. Vegas is just a reskin of Fallout 3 with the same terrible animators.[/QUOTE]
Terrible animators is a fucking understatement, everything about Bethesda's game engine is shit
EVERYTHING except MAYBE looks
It's a piece of fuck, the gameplay is so fucking bad in Oblivion and Fallout 3 because of it, if they were using a real engine maybe they'd actually be really fucking good games
[editline]20th October 2010[/editline]
[QUOTE=silentjubjub;25536069]Ok buddy.
[img_thumb]http://www.minecraft.net/img/logo.gif[/img_thumb][/QUOTE]
I'd like to point out that Minecraft being a good game is a massive opinion
I mean yeah, it's a good game but as it is now (and I understand COMPLETELY that it will get better as more features are implemented) it gets boring quite fast after you make your first home and explore a few caves near you (you don't really want to leave your home area because if you do you could get lost and fuck you)
[QUOTE=eatdembeanz;25535425]All this talk of bugs reminds me of how it was made by Obsidian, who is FAMOUS for releasing buggy lumps of shit that turn out to be shining gems of awe.[/QUOTE]
If there's one thing I have to concede, Obsidian really does know how to make a good game. They have some great ideas with good design choices even if they can't seem to see them through entirely with everything else. If you can look past some of the bugs - or even enjoy them, as I have - you're bound to have a good time with their games. But, this is from my own experience with KOTOR2, Alpha Protocol, and this. Mileage may vary.
[QUOTE=ChestyMcGee;25532416]A book's cover doesn't contain any information about the quality of the book.
A gameplay trailer/footage reel contains a lot of information about the quality of a game.[/QUOTE]
Not true. They misadvertise to appeal to a certain market.
They advertised New Vegas as a shooter, when it is eons better than FO3. It was made by some of the people that made the original 2, after all.
I played it and it was much better than people make it out to be.
[QUOTE=Kid Cudi;25534191]oh man you guys are just HORRIBLE
episode 2 was the same shit as half life 2, and left 4 dead 2 was the same shit as the first and was the pretty much same thing, but they still gets praised and you still suck valves dick while new vegas is like fallout 3 which was a already a great game and you bash it? lol[/QUOTE]
Episode 2 and Left 4 Dead 2 were excellent because they offered something unique, something not in the base game. Episode 2 had new puzzles, new gameplay aspects and the continuation of a story the players cared about. Left 4 Dead 2 has a completely different atmosphere from Left 4 Dead- it's pretty much all fancy new content.
I don't see anything really redeeming about New Vegas, nothing that I haven't really seen before in a mod or a DLC. All I can see is more of the same, and, as I've said before, I'd pretty much be buying the same game twice. It's not worth it to me.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
