same here, although in mat's defense - i don't see why he should really have to play the game before criticising it. he's clearly read up on it - which is more than most folks do before slagging something off.Foo wrote:I'm with Mat on principle on this and I can see why he's pissed. The situation is the same as with then new Bond films... good in its own right but doesn't mesh with the history of the series and doesn't really have any place being a part of it.
But like I said, still good. Talking without having played the game is just dumb Mat.
loved the first fallout (the only arpuhguh i've ever completed). that, quake 1 and kingpin were installed on the borrowed machine i had at the time and i played them all far too much. with the old fallout, i was quite happy to suspend disbelief and sit there clicking away like some joystick-flicking paraplegic, making a bloody mess of wherever the desert took me.
enjoying fallout 3 too (lots), but as a sequel the style feels transplanted and watered down. personally i'd have liked a different style of game altogether (e.g. an fps) in the fallout universe rather than the iffy reinvention of something that wasn't broken. the IP was more than strong enough to carry it and the field would've been left open for a proper 'retro' sequel at some point.
edit:
google says interplay sold the rights for under $6million, i'd blame them before blaming bethesda for being bethesda (who seem to have spotted a good opportunity to make money from selling the same thing twice). my liking for fallout is skewing my evaluation but i'm sure you could work more than $6million out of it.
btw, wikipedia says fallout was based on wasteland and that the guy who made that has the rights to make another one.