Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Melissia wrote:
How the feth people can call SR3 "just crap" when EA's still vomiting out call of duty clone-clones on the market, I will never know.

Different horses for different courses. As long as you're enjoying the game that you bought that's all that matters

0.o Are the graphics bad? I didn't notice. Apparently every game these days has to have eye popping detail. Though again, I think that it looks pretty good...

 Wyrmalla wrote:
0.o Are the graphics bad? I didn't notice. Apparently every game these days has to have eye popping detail. Though again, I think that it looks pretty good...

Nope. I think the graphics for SR4 are quite nice, actually.

nomotog wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
How the feth people can call SR3 "just crap" when EA's still vomiting out call of duty clone-clones on the market, I will never know.

It's the same way people called fallout 3 crap. A follow up to a beloved game that radically departs from the establish formula. It might be a good game, but everyone is too bun hurt to appreciate it because they keep going over how it should have been done.

Fo3 was crap because it was crap. Stupid storyline (which doesn't make any sense), bad gameplay (hurr durr behemoth and deathclaws die to my bare fists) and other than visual look of scenery the game was simply crap.

SR3 on the other hand was too over the top (and I like over the top, just cause 2 and red faction guerilla are awesome). You are given infinate predator missiles right at the start of the game. SR4 goes the same route. The devs even said that to compete with your godlike abilities they added even more over the top enemies.

I really wanted San Andreas with ragdolls.

Sure it has a dub-step gun, but wheres the robot dinosaurs and dildo lazers?

Give it time it's still in development.

/e: wohps.

 illuknisaa wrote:

nomotog wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
How the feth people can call SR3 "just crap" when EA's still vomiting out call of duty clone-clones on the market, I will never know.

It's the same way people called fallout 3 crap. A follow up to a beloved game that radically departs from the establish formula. It might be a good game, but everyone is too bun hurt to appreciate it because they keep going over how it should have been done.

Fo3 was crap because it was crap. Stupid storyline (which doesn't make any sense), bad gameplay (hurr durr behemoth and deathclaws die to my bare fists) and other than visual look of scenery the game was simply crap.

SR3 on the other hand was too over the top (and I like over the top, just cause 2 and red faction guerilla are awesome). You are given infinate predator missiles right at the start of the game. SR4 goes the same route. The devs even said that to compete with your godlike abilities they added even more over the top enemies.

I really wanted San Andreas with ragdolls.

Being over the top wasn't the problem I had with 3, The OTT stuff works and is fun. The problem is literally everything else.I have a list of complaints a mile long. From petty to fundamental flaws.

 illuknisaa wrote:
Fo3 was crap

Wait what.

Sure, New Vegas was better, but Fallout 3 was still a great game. The storyline made enough sense for post-apocalyptic science fiction (I had absolutely no trouble following it, and I enjoyed it well enough), the gameplay was okay (NV was better in terms of balance, mind you), and... frankly, I thought the scenery was the LEAST interesting part.

SR3 being over the top is what made it fun. Instead of being a boring, run of the mill silly "hurr, we're gangstas, yo" crapfest it was a game that knew it was silly, and decided to run with it for the sake of maximum fun. Much better than some gakky GTA clone.

 Rolt wrote:
Sure it has a dub-step gun, but wheres the robot dinosaurs and dildo lazers?

Maybe we broke the prototype when we used The Penetrator in SR3

I've come back to playing Fallout 3 after having played New Vegas and Skyrim. Its not crap, but I can say that it does come across as not quite as polished a product as the latter games. The dialogue and story for one do come across as a little ...well Hollywood/childish at times (and a little stiff too), but I can say it still holds up as a good game. I'd love to see what they do with the game using the latest engine. ...And then see what Obsidian does with it when they make their New Vegas sequel (i.e. the version made for fans of the older games/complex storytelling).

I'm fine with Saints Row 4 being crazy. In fact playing the Third I felt as though it should have been more weird. I mean if they were going to do it at all they should have turned it up to eleven. That said I appreciate the first two games, as do I love the first two Fallout's (and felt NV was better), but that's not to say I'm disliking the latest game. =P

 Melissia wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
Fo3 was crap

Wait what.

Sure, New Vegas was better, but Fallout 3 was still a great game. The storyline made enough sense for post-apocalyptic science fiction (I had absolutely no trouble following it, and I enjoyed it well enough), the gameplay was okay (NV was better in terms of balance, mind you), and... frankly, I thought the scenery was the LEAST interesting part.

SR3 being over the top is what made it fun. Instead of being a boring, run of the mill silly "hurr, we're gangstas, yo" crapfest it was a game that knew it was silly, and decided to run with it for the sake of maximum fun. Much better than some gakky GTA clone.

fo3's storyline doesn't make any sense. Story is based on the fact that there is no food so why would move to live in the wasteland when:

1. There is no food.
2. You weren't born there. (101 wasn't opened from the inside and they didn't have any reason to go out)
3. There loads things that are propably going to eat/kill you.

What makes fo3 (or any other bethesda game since morrowind) great?

Instead of being a boring, run of the mill silly "hurr, we're gangstas, yo" crapfest

What other games has had "gangstas yo"? Ones I know are Saints row 1 and 2 and gta san andreas (which I think is one of the best games ever made).

I only played sr3 during the free weekend. The fart jokes got old pretty fast and most missions were nothing but "shoot everyone" missions.

SR3 was fun, but I felt like the combat let it down. The car chases in particular - they just felt pointless because no matter what you did, the enemies were just going to keep spawning and attacking you. Sometimes that's okay, but as the default state it just gets boring. I found myself sitting in the car wondering if I should even bother firing at the pursuing enemies because it won't make any difference.

I hope SR4 can address that, because really, aren't the car chases most of the point in these games?!

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 illuknisaa wrote:
Fo3 was crap

Wait what.

Sure, New Vegas was better, but Fallout 3 was still a great game. The storyline made enough sense for post-apocalyptic science fiction (I had absolutely no trouble following it, and I enjoyed it well enough), the gameplay was okay (NV was better in terms of balance, mind you), and... frankly, I thought the scenery was the LEAST interesting part.

SR3 being over the top is what made it fun. Instead of being a boring, run of the mill silly "hurr, we're gangstas, yo" crapfest it was a game that knew it was silly, and decided to run with it for the sake of maximum fun. Much better than some gakky GTA clone.

fo3's storyline doesn't make any sense. Story is based on the fact that there is no food so why would move to live in the wasteland when:

1. There is no food.
2. You weren't born there. (101 wasn't opened from the inside and they didn't have any reason to go out)
3. There loads things that are propably going to eat/kill you.

How can you criticize the story when you don't even know what the story is? The whole point you left the vault was to find your dad not because you're concerned about food or danger, of course you would know this if you had actually played the game or looked up some info on it like a review,

video or article.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even then, you're a vault dweller why would you know about the wasteland? You wouldn't know it's dangerous and also there is food in the wasteland just there's not a whole lot of it, but again you would know this if you had played the game or done some research..

Enough arguing over a game that some people think is crap and some don't and have a look at a A genuinely crap game.

 Squigsquasher wrote:
Enough arguing over a game that some people think is crap and some don't and have a look at a A genuinely crap game.

It's a racing game without linear paths, it's not timed so you can explore the scenery whilst you race, and who wants working physics in their games anyway?

11/10. Big Rigs, you're winner!

 illuknisaa wrote:
fo3's storyline doesn't make any sense.

Made perfect sense to me-- again, I had no problems following it. As for the food situation, they actually DID cover that a bit, if you piad any attention to it. But then again, I'm not stuck up on a single idea for a game's story and OH HOW FETHING DARE THEY DEVIATE FROM THAT, so I guess I'm a bit more open to actually paying attention to things like details.

 illuknisaa wrote:
What makes fo3 (or any other bethesda game since morrowind) great?

I enjoyed playing them, for one. But nothing I say will convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to put any effort in to explaining. Suffice it to say, if you're intent on hating it for the sake of hating it, you'll certainly succeed, like you're doing now.

Also, are you honestly saying Skyrim isn't good? Because sir, I might have to challenge you to a duel

tl;dr: Stop whining about games you haven't played. You don't see me ranting about how battlefield 3 sucks do you

OT - one of the side quests in F3 actually deals with the consequences of opening the vault. And the vaults can open from the inside....it's just the overseer got orders not to.

On topic. Loving the look of SR4, I am a little bit skeptical of the over the top play. Also thinking that the PC might be able to go back to stillport.

Dubstep gun. Looks fun. Lots of little easter eggs and references to other games. For example the touch shatter of DN3D.

My problem with Saints Row 3 was pretty simple: I wanted Saints Row 2 Plus. I wanted everything we had in Saints Row 2, plus three years of advances. Instead for every new thing they added, they took two away.

I want Saints Row to be everything good about 3rd person sandbox games.

I want them to learn from GTA4 and let you evade pursuit by ditching the car the cops are looking for and keeping out of sight of the police by running through some random apartment building. I want to have the option to take public transport if I don't feel like a few kilometers of boring freeway driving.

I want them to learn from Saints Row 2, that being given a wardrobe full of clothes and being free to combine them as you wish is better than being forced to buy "Hat Worn Sideways" as a separate item from "Hat Worn Forwards", or "Jacket Over Shirt" separately from "Jacket w/o Shirt". And I want them to learn that letting people replay their favourite missions is better than a sandbox game that runs out of game.

 AlexHolker wrote:
My problem with Saints Row 3 was pretty simple: I wanted Saints Row 2 Plus. I wanted everything we had in Saints Row 2, plus three years of advances. Instead for every new thing they added, they took two away.

I want Saints Row to be everything good about 3rd person sandbox games.

I want them to learn from GTA4 and let you evade pursuit by ditching the car the cops are looking for and keeping out of sight of the police by running through some random apartment building. I want to have the option to take public transport if I don't feel like a few kilometers of boring freeway driving.

I want them to learn from Saints Row 2, that being given a wardrobe full of clothes and being free to combine them as you wish is better than being forced to buy "Hat Worn Sideways" as a separate item from "Hat Worn Forwards", or "Jacket Over Shirt" separately from "Jacket w/o Shirt". And I want them to learn that letting people replay their favourite missions is better than a sandbox game that runs out of game.

That was one of the biggest complaints for me also.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:
My problem with Saints Row 3 was pretty simple: I wanted Saints Row 2 Plus. I wanted everything we had in Saints Row 2, plus three years of advances. Instead for every new thing they added, they took two away.

I want Saints Row to be everything good about 3rd person sandbox games.

I want them to learn from GTA4 and let you evade pursuit by ditching the car the cops are looking for and keeping out of sight of the police by running through some random apartment building. I want to have the option to take public transport if I don't feel like a few kilometers of boring freeway driving.

I want them to learn from Saints Row 2, that being given a wardrobe full of clothes and being free to combine them as you wish is better than being forced to buy "Hat Worn Sideways" as a separate item from "Hat Worn Forwards", or "Jacket Over Shirt" separately from "Jacket w/o Shirt". And I want them to learn that letting people replay their favourite missions is better than a sandbox game that runs out of game.

That was one of the biggest complaints for me also.

Same here too.

The problem with sandbox games, is inevitably you are going to run out of programming space, whether it's procedurely generated or pre-programmed.