Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Torak]

You need the game to be scaled because you don't have the foresight and strategy to be able to change what you do according to what you're fighting?

[Micro102]

You need the game to be scaled because you don't have the foresight and strategy to be able to change what you do according to what you're fighting?

lol say that after you've played the morrowind expansion. i was a theif with the best dagger and armor i could find, heavily custom enchants.....i lost in melle. spells....thing regenerated faster then my magic could....with all my potions....failed in range. like i said thing lost because AI chose running for literally 30 minutes over punching me

[Cthulhu]

I played the Morrowind Expansion.  I could handle the really hard enemies.  If you can't win, you're not trying hard enough, or you're not willing to buy a win.  Next time, get about ten or twenty Skooma, and a bunch of Flin, Mazte, Greef, and the like, chug everything and go at him.

[Brian]

no because if you only got good against certian enemies it would be hell. in morrowind the expansion pack. the one with the ice fortress, i was a theif and couldnt hide, so i had to leap up on top of ice and rapid attack that stupid ice golem thing for 30 minutes straight. best armor high lvls. thing could of turned around and one hit killed me. in fact it did about 20 times befor i went beserk and found out that if you whack it over and over it turns chicken.

so as you see theives CANNOT kill warrior specialists unless the AI is bland. thats like trying to kill an archer who is faster as a warrior....if its smart enough to keep its distance you will never kill it.

What's wrong with some character types being bad for some things? make people improvise, provide alternate routes, or at least make sure these parts aren't a requirement for the main quest.  Don't nerf the whole game. (or anti-nerf)

[Micro102]

well i dont like to drink 50 skoomas because its not excatly how the game should be played. im pretty sure you would die of overdose if you did that lol.

the expansion doesnt let you go back after a certian point and i deleted my old saves so if i didnt beat that thing i would of had to start all over. i had to do the same thing to the final boss too. thank god for messed up AI

[Cthulhu]

So you won't drink potions, but you will exploit AI?

[Micro102]

i didnt know that the thing was unkillable by theives before i went in.

lol i think out of stubborness i left the difficulty rating at normal.

[McDoomhammer]

I'm starting to agree with Okenido about that ignore function.

[Torak]

I'm starting to agree with Okenido about that ignore function.

Only time I've ever used it.

[McDoomhammer]

Please, wise master, share your secrets with a humble supplicant.

[Micro102]

ignoring me because im discussing my point of veiw on the leveling system? whatever

if fallout 3 is like oblivion with guns, then i dont think it should have oblivions leveling system. or rather it should, but the terrian would also hold its own difficulty lvl

[E. Albright]

Seems you put gaming on a high pedestal there. Why not put your money where your mouth is, and make a game? Then I'll mercilessly judge in on ridiculously high criteria. Fun stuff, eh? You spend months/years on a project that you have fun playing, and it gets to me. All I do is bitch and moan about how good it "could have been".

So, come on guys. You know so much better, you fix it. Make me a Fallout 3. [...]

You know, you want to defend FO3, fine. But I'm REALLY sick of this "argument" cropping up here in its sundry forms. It is, to put it gently, fallacious. Expert ability to perform within a domain is in no way necessary to be able to meaningfully criticize it. Hell, it's not even sufficient. A quadriplegic isn't magically wrong for telling me I should throw that basketball through the hoop instead of trying to kick it. Nor would "lolusuck" become a useful criticism of such a basketball performance just because it was uttered by an Olympic basketball medalist.

[Fualkner]

[Not giving this game a chance in hell]

You know, you want to attack FO3, fine. But I'm REALLY sick of this "argument" cropping up here in its sundry forms. It is, to put it gently, malicious. Expert ability to perform within a domain is in no way necessary to be able to meaningfully criticize it. Hell, it's not even sufficient. A person who enjoys shooters isn't magically wrong for telling me I should give a game a chance instead of bitching out every opinionated flaw I see. Nor would "lolitsucks" become a useful criticism of such a game just because it was uttered by a person already biased against a game.

Hmm... look at that! It fits. I'm just trying to put people in a game designer's shoes, and show that they can't please everyone, especially not the neiche crowd. I'd love a game with a huge expanding storyline, enjoyable tactical combat, and every other little detail that would make the game into my own little dream. But I'm not getting that, and neither are you. That's the problem with sequels. Go surf over to the Fable II thread. They are recieving that game alot better, and my theory is this: They expected a sequel like Fable I, they got that, and so they enjoy the game. Here, FO3, you expected a turn-based RPG. Sorry to say, but those days are over. They've moved on. I have no doubts that they'll be back (Fads go in circles) but for now, the shooter is popular. I'd suggest enjoying it or just moving on with your life.

[Tilla]

So uhh, I started playing this game. It's not quite Fallout but it's also not quite not-fallout and if you removed the nametag from the front of the game and played it without expecting it to be the sequel to some of the greatest games of all time, it is genuinely pretty fun.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Well, like I said. Remove the Fallout name and it's a good game.