Quake3World

Jackal wrote:

o'dium wrote:Anybody found the ol'faithful (I think its called)? Its a laser minigun and it does some insane damage per hit. It rips enemies apart so easily, I'm in love with it...

Nearly got all my bobble heads, only have 2 more to find

EDIT: Which reminds me... I have the Chinese Assault Rifle that starts with an "X", holds about 35 rounds per clip and does more damage, but is there a better combat Shotgun out there anybody has found...?

Yeah there is. It's called "The Terrible Shotgun". You get it from the shopkeeper (ie: you have to kill him) in that Raider town - I can't remember its name. The one where they have the captured Berserker guy.

I have a bad feeling i repaired my normal weapon with it at some stage... Meh...

Dr_Watson wrote:

Geebs wrote: Then again, what it lacks in variety, it makes up in detail; there's a good range of nicely morbid quests; for much of the early part of the game, you never really spend much time with more than a third of your health, which reminded me of system shock 2; it's possible to get your arse kicked for wandering into the wrong place; they've balanced travel time well with stuff to do; you can tell that the world's well designed because there's always an interesting looking building/cave/mast/whatever near to where you're going which will make you wander off and explore. There's a big range of kit and the weapons are nicely designed and balanced.

If you think of it as a post-apocalyptic Deus Ex, or a much less twitchy and broken STALKER, it's a riot.

oh yeah, the environment is well made, though it does seem like the "wasteland" has a bit too many boxes full of shit just kinda laying around everywhere for being 200 years after the war (like wtf i have over 100 stimpacks and a locker full of every gun with hundreds to thousands of rounds and i'm only lvl 14). And like I said its not a bad game, the things it does well are very likable; just wish they'd had the balls to make it an RPG not an action adventure. Oh and Deus Ex was way better as an RPG shooter. They at least had the stones to make your weapon proficiency effect your ability to fire a gun accurately. I mean seriously, in Fallout3 the weapon skills affect the damage the weapon does, not your characters ability to use it? sure... that makes perfect sense :/ ... if I have a 15 in big guns I want rockets to go wildly off track ~85% of the time.

Hmm, in Deus Ex it was pretty easy to continue to use the GEP gun without much training in it because of the ridiculous splash damage.... as long as you didn't blow your own legs off with it first. Plus there was this problem where you play as this genetically engineered super-agent with a lifetime's training behind him, who can't hit the side of a fucking barn at the start of the game.

As far as I can tell (as I still refuse to buy the game), while it may be a good game, it's not a good Fallout game.
This is enough to prevent me giving Bethesda any money whatsoever.
It's like turning Baldur's Gate into an FPS or Planescape Torment into a Diablo clone.

Fortunately for Bethesda, it appeals to the mass market who know no better when it comes to the RPG genre.

RIP Troika.

Oh come on Mat.

lol elitists.


i personally stayed away from the realtime might and magics, till i was extremely bored and started on mm6 (the first one not to use turn based combat). it turned out to be a great game regardless

Jackal wrote:Oh come on Mat.

Okay then, prove me wrong; prove to me that it's accurate in comparison to the last games besides superficial details, and I'll eat my words and buy the game.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to, as even though I've not played the game, I've hungrily consumed every spoilerific media that's come my way, and it really is little more than Oblivion with guns.
The talking heads are nowhere near as emotive as they were in the original games, the dialogue is passable at best, laughable at worst, and the main quest is appalling, let alone idiotic.
For example, as your last action in the game, you're presented with a choice:
Sacrifice yourself by stepping into the radiation flooded chamber and entering the code (Good).
Say "Fuck that!" and send goody-two-shoes Sarah Lyons to her doom (Cowardly).
Or sabotage the whole water purification project thing (Evil).

However, the really stupid thing here is that at the end, you may very well have a radiation immune super mutant with you, but is there the intelligent option to send him in and sacrifice no-one?
Nope.

Great writing there Pagliarulo, you overrated hack.

Quake 3 was nothing like Quake 1 or 2, yet here we are, 10 years later, posting on a Quake 3 message board...

Just because things change it doesnt mean things are shit EVERY time...

Yeah, Quake 3 completely changed the perspective the game was played from and the way combat was resolved... oh wai...
o'dium, stay out of gameplay discussions. You only end up embarrassing yourself.
Stick to specularity and other such bollocks.

I'll leave the looking like a cunt part to you then, eh chap?

Come off it... Quake 3 was a different game, focused on arena matches, online. It wasn't like the single player originals. Wow,the view was the same, great catch...

Games evolve. So Fallout 3 doesn't hit your g-spot in just the right way, who cares? Its a great game in its own right. Sure, its not EXACTLY like the older ones, but it still deserves to hold the title. Its not like they made it an under water adventure where you play a dolphin named skipper...

Honestly, kids today...

Did you even play the old games o'dium?

Yes, I did. I have them here next to me.

Did you know RE4 was nothing like the originals? Name the best in the series.

Did you know Prince Of Persia: The Sands of Time went all 3d, and wasn't a side scroller? Name the best in the series.

Did you know Mario started out as a simple sprite based platformer with levels? Try telling me Mario 64 wasn't the best.

Seriously, you don't seem to get that sometimes, things change, they evolve. I'm not gonna sit here and argue that all the changes were great, I honestly dont think so. Some of them were complete nonsense and I have no clue how simple issues got past QA. But saying Fallout 3 is anything less than a 9 out of 10 just because YOU dont like it is quite silly.

Fallout 3 is not an evolution. It's a game almost exactly the same as the last game made by Bethesda.
It even uses the same melee animations that Oblivion used, that's how cheap and creatively bankrupt Bethesda are.

Change is good when handled by those with talent. Bethesda have none.

See, I would have been really impressed with Bethesda if they'd been brave enough to step outside of their safe zone and make a game more remeniscent of the originals.
It certainly would have challenged them a lot more than Fallout 3 in its current state.

And the real problem is that the mass market has been fed the wrong image of what an RPG should be.
Sometimes, things that are different from the norm are so good they become the norm.
Bethesda just don't have the ability to innovate to such a degree.

Forgive me, but I always thought a role playing game was where I played a role that I got to pick... I can do that any way I want in Fallout 3...

I guess that means... Well what exactly?

Mat, regardless of everything you're saying ultimately you don't have a leg to stand on because you haven't played the game.

I'd honestly suggest you pick it up and give it a go. If you don't like it after that, no problem, I like it and I'll play it enough for both of us.

And don't say you've played Oblivion so that should cover it. They are two different games with some of the same mechanics.

Just try it.

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.

Look, no matter what, I'm not going to endorse what Bethesda have done to one of my favourite game series by lining their pockets with my hard-earned. They haven't evolved Fallout at all; they've just continued applying the Elder Scrolls template to someone else's IP. Daggerfall essentially embodies everything that Bethesda has done since in gameplay principles, and that came out a year before the original Fallout.
"Bethesda; Bethesda never changes". THAT should have been the strapline of Fallout 3.
The only way I'm going to play this game is if I can pick a PC copy up second hand, and second-hand PC sales in the UK are non-existent.

Why limit myself to PC?
I'm not going to fool myself that this game doesn't have to be fixed by the community.
I've got Morrowind and Oblivion to judge Bethesda by there.

You're still pre-judging the game though. I get that you're pissed that they've meddled with your favorite franchisee but ultimately you can't have an informed oppinion without experiencing the game.

Then maybe they should provide a demo?
Oh, that's right, Bethesda don't do demos.
It's simple. I'm not going to pay Bethesda a cent for something I may not enjoy. They need to provide me with some way of evaluating their product before I give them anything.

How the fuck do you demo an open world game...? Theres a reason there isn't a crackdown/GTA4/Oblivion demo too you know...

It's a bit sad how some people can get hung up on a principle, and miss out on a otherwise very pleasurable experience. This is the dark side of fanboyism.

Sure, I agree that the game has been dumbed down for the console market, but face it; traditional PC gaming is effectively dead when it comes to AAA titles, and it has been for quite a while.

That won't stop me from enjoying this particular game though, perhaps because I try to judge it on it's own merit instead of being stuck in some rose-tinted reverie.

o'dium wrote:Theres a reason there isn't a crackdown demo too you know...

Thank you for proving me right o'dium

Mat Linnett wrote:Then maybe they should provide a demo?
Oh, that's right, Bethesda don't do demos.
It's simple. I'm not going to pay Bethesda a cent for something I may not enjoy. They need to provide me with some way of evaluating their product before I give them anything.

I don't see why they should have to really pander to anyone to be honest. I guess if you don't want to play it then it's not a big deal. You're missing out on a very good game however.
It's just a very foreign thing to me. I've thoroughly enjoyed everything Bethesda has done and I'm having a really hard time reconciling that with your vehement oppinion that they are they devil apparently.

Oh, and Grudge:
You're happy with this continuous lowering of standards?
You're happy to accept an inferior product if it even just gives you a glimpse of former glory?
You don't want games producers to strive for excellence?

Also, don't fool yourself that Fallout 3 is a traditional PC game. It was built from the ground up with the 360 as the lead development platform.

Left 4 Dead is a traditional PC game, and that pulls no punches when it comes to providing a superior experience.
World of Goo proves that creative spirit is alive and well and flourishing in the PC gaming industry.
The Civilization series continues to uphold a gold standard in strategy gaming and does it while selling millions.

If you think PC gaming is dying and that intelligent gaming has no place in today's market, you're simply playing the wrong games.

I would also contend that the REAL dark side of fanboyism is blindly buying whatever slop the big players thrust your way and never complaining about the consistently lowering quality.

Nah, I'm glad you're enjoying it Jackal. Don't get me wrong, by all accounts, I hear it's a good game; but I also hear it's not really a Fallout game.
As I wanted Fallout 3, not an Elder Scrolls FPS, I'm going to ignore it, in much the same way I ignored Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

Regarding Oblivion, initially I enjoyed it, but after a while, the poor production standards became glaringly obvious, and even just looking at screenshots and videos of Fallout 3, I can see those low standards are still present. Faces look bland and emotionless, animation is incredibly poor, combat AI is laughable when compared to modern FPS titles, dialogue is restrained by the need to voice every last line, voice actors with a small range are used to voice an entire population, and bugs are numerous.

With the announcement of a construction kit today, and the enthusiasm of the traditional Fallout community, maybe it'll resemble something more like Fallout in a couple of years, and maybe I'll play it then.

Maybe.

Mat Linnett wrote:Oh, and Grudge:
You're happy with this continuous lowering of standards?
You're happy to accept an inferior product if it even just gives you a glimpse of former glory?
You don't want games producers to strive for excellence?

Also, don't fool yourself that Fallout 3 is a traditional PC game. It was built from the ground up with the 360 as the lead development platform.

Left 4 Dead is a traditional PC game, and that pulls no punches when it comes to providing a superior experience.
World of Goo proves that creative spirit is alive and well and flourishing in the PC gaming industry.
The Civilization series continues to uphold a gold standard in strategy gaming and does it while selling millions.

If you think PC gaming is dying and that intelligent gaming has no place in today's market, you're simply playing the wrong games.

I would also contend that the REAL dark side of fanboyism is blindly buying whatever slop the big players thrust your way and never complaining about the consistently lowering quality.

Your definition of quality is very subjective. I'd rather say they have different qualities. You may prefer the qualities of the old games, and I happen to prefer the qualities of the new one. What you are saying is basically "I don't like this new Tool album because it doesn't sound like Nirvana".

And um, I did say that Fallout 3 was targeted at consoles.

And I was talking about AAA titles.

Btw, have you heard about Civilization Revolution?