so it's fine that people dont like the game but its not fine to call it a complete failure because "To say such a thing is to insult the taste of all of the people who enjoyed the game".

Right, got it, not "exaggerated" at all. And yes thanks for pointing out again that it was greatly successful.

To paraphrase you: Some people love Fallout 3. Boo fucking hoo. 

complete failure != multple awards and loads of fans

If it was a complete failure then it wouldn't have got the acolades that it did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_3#Awards

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1073664/awards

http://fallout.bethsoft.com/eng/links/fallout3-awards.php


a complete failure on EVERY LEVEL

*repeated bangs head against table*

I haven't got a problem with anyone not liking the game. I haven't. I'm just pointing out that it's not fair to say it was a complete failure on EVERY LEVEL because it blatantly wasn't.

I mean everyone has their own opinions about what makes a good video game. But the general concensus about Fallout 3 was that it was indeed a 'good' game. 

You both went into a game with different expectations, some of which were met and some not. 

^ jesus fucking christ, this 

I will go a bit further in what maybe pisses some people off about the treatment a series like Fallout and many other classics get.

See a small studio makes an enormously expansive and lovingly crafted game with a "small" team and and budget.
Cult status is attained, the guys made more than just a game in the end, people feel it, theres a part of their soul in it, and its because they really wanted to and tried for the love of it all. A labor of love as Fallout is aptly often described...

Financial success is of course primordial, they have to eat and pay the bills, it is prayed for but they know it very well chances are good it will work out if they do give it their best and know that they are an experienced team that knows that the fuck they are doing.

Now a large studio/publisher combo comes in to it, having picked up the rights to the game.
They have a way larger pool of talent and infintely deeper pockets...
There is no goddamn GOOD reason they cannot achieve what was achieved by a "lesser" team/budget. NONE.

So why, why is there LESS with MORE ??? They could not pay for a few more team members, they could not extend development time a bit more, they emptied their personal bank accounts like the crazy motherfuckers that put every piece of themselves in the original? Yeah fucking right.

It could of been much better, if it had been taken on and directed by a team/company that really cares and is passionate in delivering THE BEST they possibly humanly can.

But not its the nature of the type of company that took the franchise over AT ALL.

All crucial decision affecting the game and the teams ability to deliver their best is in the hands of people that really do not give a steaming SHIT about the game, the culture, in ANY way. They see numbers, they see shareholder meetings. They see their paycheck.

An army of suited cunts walking a rope between not going over the negative feedback/hype tipping point with the public and getting the most money out of the least investement. Thats all there is to the job to them, absolutely all of it, nothing about the franchise matters otherwise.


And justifying this shit with "but it made good sales so they win stfu you are wrong" is just CRAP. Thats how one bends down and accepts the mediocre. The fuckign EMBRACE of mediocre shit is repugnant.

Justifying greed driven undeperformance does nothing good for our cultural achievements.

Yeah its OK, yeah its actually fun to play through in some ways - but its far from all it could have been without loosing what it does have goign for it. And that is not ok. Its a pisstake. 

We're still talking about this?
Killes is wrong btw, I'd explain why but I'm typing this on my phone while drinking a beer by the pool. 

 

Since this dead horse is already a pile of pulp, I just want to address a small point that was brought up in this discussion.

IMO, awards and accolades a piece of work receives (games, film, music) cannot reliably be used as an indicator of its quality. I've seen many a pile-o-shit receive praise, while worthy works have only a cult following.

Also, just play the games you like and enjoy them. If you like a game that is tailored to the mainstream audience that doesn't mean you're a cretin. If you like artsy, esoteric ejaculate that doesn't mean you're some sort of ultra-sophisticated intellectual. And, if you want to play an RPG, just play Morrowind :P 

Ask skacky about the new Thief game! 

"but its far from all it could have been"

Well, I'm yet to play a game in my life that was perfect, and couldn't have been better. Every game out there 'could be more'. I haven't played skyrim yet though :D

BTW guys it's fun to discuss these older games. Just don't get too hot about it, it's just a discussion. Don't take anything too personally. 

the long dark looks like it might be fun... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZwVvl71JnM

You psyched?? I'm PSYCHED! 

Looks great. I'll be picking up 2033 Redux for sure. Dunno about Last Last Redux as it looks like less has changed with it. 

um... i was going to get the originals. I can't tell if it would be worth getting the new version or not since I'd be playing it on a PC anyway... and my hardware really isn't all that great. 

The before/afters in the video are probably comparing shitty console version to the redux, not the maxed out pc version of the original which looked a lot better. looks like everything being brighter is a major difference as well, instead of caked in shadow.

I'll probably play it but it's a shame they couldn't build some new levels into it. the odd extra room or secret isn't enough to excite me. Nor is a couple new gameplay modes like "survival". 

By the way has anyone played Afterlife Insanity? It's quite similar to Metro, mostly underground in dark cramped areas. Pretty fantastic design, probably on par with Metro actually.

Gameplay isn't as good as Metro. The first 2/3rds consist of melee whacking shit, which is pretty basic and too challenging. But the last third gets quite a bit more challenging and definitely feels like survival horror with fuck all ammo and enemies that will drop you very quickly. Probably the only negative is the unresponsive controls, most times I died was because I was trying to run but the characters was still swinging the axe around and shit like that.

It's really an underated game, if you love Metro then Afterlife is really worth playing.

It was originally intended to be a STALKER clone, so that gives an idea of the sort of environment.

And it's only $5 http://store.steampowered.com/app/224420/

7/10 

Played The First Templar as well this week. 6/10. Not that bad, just your average templar setting and story. 

I'd say get the new version. I played LL on a non-uber machine and it did look great (i.e. nice gfx combined with really good use of them), and I think the addition of that to 2033 will be well worth it (didn't play 2033 but will get this for sure). 

hrm.... Yeah ok. :S Price isn't too bad on steam either, 25 USD for redux. 

Some Lesser Known FPS

http://wkduffy.wordpress.com/

I recommend Vivisector. 

I have spare HB gift links for Hitman: Codename 47 and Hitman 2 on Steam. Anyone interested? 

but i saw single-player role play contests for it, where you had to create a character with e.g. < 3 intelligence and then tell your story as you played it. I played some fo3, but from the few hours i put into it that game didn't leave a similar expression at all. It felt like oblivion in a new look. 

http://www.puppygames.net/blog/?p=1574 

What is the overall point of that article? It's well written, but all I can get out of it is that it's not worth being an indie developer these days...