Search results

Yes it would. But I would have hoped Bethesda could improve on that type of thing. Instead, they've gone backwards. I mean. Think about it. They've made nukes, a viable weapon. You can nuke someone.....and they don't die.

Exactly my point.

Now.....correct me if I'm wrong. But, I don't remember too many "F-bombs" in the original Fallout. I think Bethesda may overdo it with the f word. A lot of f words, can work. Raging Bull, and quite a few other movies use the F word quite effectively. I don't trust Bethesda to be able to...

Yeah. Horses could be kind of cool. Unless there's something in the Fallout lore that contradicts them, that I am unaware of. But, I don't see why horses couldn't be in. As long as there are cars and motorbikes too. Because just horses feels too Fantasy-ish, or even Planet of the Apes - ish.

Wow. This game actually sounds dumber than I thought it was going to be. * I edited out my response to Bainge. His post contradicts itself. You don't need me to point out the errors. But, to sum up.....Bainge, why is it too early for our negativity, but not too early for your optimism?

Bethesda never answers a question, without causing you to have a bunch more questions. They aren't good at clarifying things.

I don't know. I guess it's a decent interview compared to the usual, but there really aren't all that many specifics. I'm not sure if you could really form any kind of solid opinion based on this stuff. What I took from it: 1) No bandits with unbelievably good weapons....but level scaling...

By bringing back the mutants, the enclave, and the BOS.....I think Bethesda really missed an opportunity to expand the story line, and do something creative.

What? Deus Ex 1? That came out in 2000. That's almost a decade ago. That's not outdated?

Drinking stagnant water out of a subway station toilet.....and the penalty is radiation?

I have no clue.

I don't want to sound mean or anything....but after reading the pages of this thread: Bodybag. What are you talking about? I've read quite a few of your posts here....and I can't figure out what you are talking about. If you have a point....I've completely missed it. First, the analogy is...

Which confuses the hell out of me. Because if you want to make a console shooter.....you don't buy the rights to make Fallout 3. That makes no sense. I gotta think that the business side, and the "creative" side of Bethesda on this one, were separate. I gotta think that the business side...

We've already got a Diablo 3 gameplay video. Blizzard seems to want to show their product directly to the fans. Can't say the same for Bethesda. Another good example of the differences between the companies.

Well, isometric implies 2d, yes? Perhaps "Birds eye view" is a better term? Basically, the argument it refutes is that first person perspective = the future, and = superior.

Diablo 3 falsifies 3 claims: 1) PC gaming is dead, and not a lucrative market. 2) Isometric perspective is dead, and hurts "immersion" 3) Sequels HAVE to have fundamental gameplay shifts.

Read, and get informed about the opposition's viewpoints? No. Of course not. Why do that when you can generalize, and make assumptions, and use a condescending attitude?

Yes. I too wonder when The Elder Scrolls will be "moved forward" in such a way.

They talk like morons. You know?

The art itself isn't all that bad, as far as I'm concerned. The explanations are worse. Especially for the mutants. A couple of the robots look like they were straight lifted from Star Wars.