This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Luciana
Pages: 1 ... 408409410 411412 ... 442
12271
« on: March 16, 2015, 02:27:43 PM »
I suppose that's what happens when you change the setting to an area with no previous development.
I suppose Todd Could have made some sort of history about people actually forming militias and trying to fight against the raiders, super mutants ect. But no.
Nobody tried to improve anything until Mary Sue Dad came along.
I suppose, but it might have been viewed as a lost cause too, especially with the Commonwealth up north. I mean, wasn't The Pitt crap too until the BoS trudged through? I imagine the same is in Washington.
12272
« on: March 16, 2015, 02:26:43 PM »
FNV was better in every way
Fite me faggots
*punches Cindy in her jew nose*
12273
« on: March 16, 2015, 01:28:00 PM »
Nobody gives a fuck about the first two games.
Bitch, we both know you like it too. I've seen that Fallout map of yours.
Where? Also, who are you? I have been trying to figure that out for a while.
I'm the one who knocks. And I just know you're enough of a Fallout fan that you've either played the original ones or read the lore on them. And I got the picture from Bungle.
12274
« on: March 16, 2015, 12:58:45 PM »
Yes, exactly. The Enclave didn't do shit for DC (because their bad guys), and the Brotherhood only showed up from the west 160 years after the war. Even then the Brotherhood didn't do much to help civilize DC until 200 years after the war.
It still doesn't explain why DC didn't turn from anarchy in anywhere near the time it took for the west.
I also think that just because one area is more civilized, doesn't mean another is. Fallout 3 had settlements like the first game, in that there were only towns/area's that had their own power, but nothing huge like a government. That paired with the amount of crazy Super Mutant breedings and Raiders (I hated that they were just genetic 'raiders'. Give em a name) just kept the place in anarchy. I mean, there are places in today's world where it's just anarchy and has been like that for a long damn time. So I don't think it's outlandish to think that there is no huge government there, and the brotherhood originated in California and 2000 miles across unknown land after everything got reset to 0 is a big deal. So naturally it'd be slower.
12275
« on: March 16, 2015, 12:52:02 PM »
Nobody gives a fuck about the first two games.
Bitch, we both know you like it too. I've seen that Fallout map of yours.
12276
« on: March 15, 2015, 08:15:17 PM »
>New Vegas devs
Yeah, I'm completely aware Obsidian developed NV. That doesn't provide any evidence as to how they developed or put in creative input into Fallout 1 or 2.
The link I gave you had people who worked on a lot of stuff for Fallout 1 or 2. They had some input on some of the things going into the game such as the examples I brought up earlier. You can look it up by the power of google.
12277
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:54:47 PM »
no, i know they spied on them but they didn't physically steal any nukes
what does this have to do with anything?
If you can't figure that out, all hope is lost. 
12278
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:52:39 PM »
This thread amuses me. Please flood, continue. 
12279
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:50:49 PM »
no, i know they spied on them but they didn't physically steal any nukes
12280
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:44:34 PM »
They both really filter you down certain paths. Both games have their flaws but yeah, when I get a better PC I'm using mods for both and enjoying a better playthrough.
12281
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:28:37 PM »
I already said I'd stream >:C
how dare you impede on muh territory.
12282
« on: March 15, 2015, 07:27:17 PM »
Spoiler Fallout NV was the successor, and therefore is just better by default, what with ironsights, perk improvements, higher level cap, longer and multipathed story, etc, etc.
But... Fallout 3 is the one I love more, play more, and enjoy more. It's got more "stuff" in it, even if DC is pretty much a Famous-landmark-and-Metro-simulator. There's far more undiscovered locations, each with either a comedic touch (The Feral Ghoul who loves plungers under an overpass), depressing (the radio tower broadcasts, like the one with the injured boy, or the secret chinese outpost) or just rewarding (The Keller Tapes and the Quest for the Holy MIRV).
I hate when people go "But it's been 200 years, DC wouldn't be a wasteland, New Vegas is more realistic". What a load o' shite. DC got hit by several nukes, as shown by the damage done to the Pentagon, White House, and several military installations, whereas New Vegas got off relatively scott-free because of House's fucking laser defence system, and yet still New Vegas is somehow fucked up anyway to a lesser extent. If anything, Fallout 3 shows a truer representation of what the series was advertised as, a post-apocalyptic scenario, not a retro-futuristic western with casinos.
That said, I concede that Fallout 3 falls on some accounts. Story is pretty much going to be the same, with your only choice being help the White Knights of the Brotherhood of Steel, or get shot at and looked-on with contempt by the yucky Outcasts and Enclave, or get battered around by the stupid green hulks. Oh, and Little Lamplight. God I hate that place, full of fucking kids who evict everyone past 16 yet still exist after 200 years...I'd rather now dwell on that.
Quality post my friend. I really wanna play some FO3 again simply for the metro's. They handled that so well in that game.
12283
« on: March 15, 2015, 05:24:09 PM »
Halo 2 and 3.
2 more so. They just had her face and hair right to me.
12284
« on: March 15, 2015, 05:17:13 PM »
Whereas The Enclave were essentially just the mustache twirling bad guys that Bethesda purposefully wanted you to dislike.
Well in Bethesda's defense, this is the same people from Fallout 2 who wanted to gas the whole planet and wipe out like 99% of the population because they were "mutated". So naturally they're gonna be just as bad in Fallout 2 as they are in 3. Need I remind you they just slaughtered a whole vault in Fallout 2.
People seem to forget that Obsidian were the ones that made those guys insanely evil, not Bethesda.
Um, what?
Fallout 2 was developed by Black Isle Studios, not Obsidian.
Yeah, which shut down and they moved over to Obsidian. Guys that made the first 2 Fallout's made NV.
I genuinely cannot find evidence for this assertion anywhere.
You really don't think the guys who made the first two fallouts aren't the ones who made NV? They added a lot of cut content from 2 like the talking toaster, and a lot of the Van Burn stuff (Caesar's Legion) made it in NV. A number of other things were plans for the earlier game. Obviously not all of them, but a few of the higher up devs did. http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_developersYou can find some more info there if you want.
12285
« on: March 15, 2015, 05:14:58 PM »
Sweet sweet xenophobia
12286
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:48:51 PM »
As a fan of Resident Evil games, I can say 4 wasn't really a "horror" game.
Ok, we get it. RE 4 isn't like the other games. But it needed to change otherwise the series would have died out. It may not be a horror game. But RE 4 is the main reason we still have Resident Evil today. Just saying.
Uhm... you mean the series that completely got rid of everything it did that made it popular? The one that made it more action and we got 5 (which wasn't a bad game, just a terrible title for Resident Evil) and 6?
Yeah, REEEEAL lucky we got 4. Once you got to that island bit in 4, everything horror about that game was done. Since then it's been nothing but a mess and it needs a reboot at this point.
Honestly I think it should too. All I was saying was that Resident Evil was getting stale and they needed to change it up. RE 4 was still a fantastic game and it feels like Capcom is atleast trying to make things better by re-releasing RE Remake on next gen and Revelations 2 being more horror focused.
Because they realized Revelations 1 did well because *GASP* turns out their fans LOVE the more slow paced build up horror that it was built upon! WHO KNEW?!?!?! That's the problem with games that get to big for themselves. They try to capture an audience they never had, which will be fickle at best, and then isolate all the fans they originally had. Example: Dead Space 3
12287
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:45:58 PM »
I don't understand why it's a "one or the other" mentality. People treat Fallout 3 like it's the scum of the earth when they forget if it wasn't even for that game, Fallout would be a dead franchise that didn't even hit the mainstream eye and get popular support.
I like NV better but I still enjoyed Fallout 3. I don't understand over the years why you either have to like one or hate one. It's stupid.
12288
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:44:49 PM »
Whereas The Enclave were essentially just the mustache twirling bad guys that Bethesda purposefully wanted you to dislike.
Well in Bethesda's defense, this is the same people from Fallout 2 who wanted to gas the whole planet and wipe out like 99% of the population because they were "mutated". So naturally they're gonna be just as bad in Fallout 2 as they are in 3. Need I remind you they just slaughtered a whole vault in Fallout 2.
People seem to forget that Obsidian were the ones that made those guys insanely evil, not Bethesda.
Um, what?
Fallout 2 was developed by Black Isle Studios, not Obsidian.
Yeah, which shut down and they moved over to Obsidian. Guys that made the first 2 Fallout's made NV.
12289
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:21:00 PM »
Whereas The Enclave were essentially just the mustache twirling bad guys that Bethesda purposefully wanted you to dislike.
Well in Bethesda's defense, this is the same people from Fallout 2 who wanted to gas the whole planet and wipe out like 99% of the population because they were "mutated". So naturally they're gonna be just as bad in Fallout 2 as they are in 3. Need I remind you they just slaughtered a whole vault in Fallout 2. People seem to forget that Obsidian were the ones that made those guys insanely evil, not Bethesda.
12290
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:19:08 PM »
Fallout 3 was a good post-apocalyptic aRPG, just not a good Fallout game.
Fallout 3 was the best Fallout game, actually.
> Not saying Fallout 2 ;~;
12291
« on: March 15, 2015, 04:18:01 PM »
Fallout 3 is a better game. It has a much better atmosphere, more interesting NPCs (besides companions), and the quests were more fun. The setting was also far superior and more interesting to explore, which is what the game is about. New Vegas obviously improved on some gameplay features, and the actual quests for your companions were great. Sequels are supposed to improve things obviously.
Fallout 3 just did a better job of putting you into a post-apocalyptic setting. I am glad that Bethesda is developing the next game and not Obsidian.
I think Fallout 3 did the radio and atmosphere much better, but I think the main story to NV was far better. Both have their pro's and con's. Now let's just remove those silly green and orange filters for the new game.
12292
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:36:12 AM »
That would be kind of pointless seeing as NATO does the exact same thing but with the Yanks involved too (And a few others >.>)
America runs NATO like Germany runs the EU.
Both claims are bullshit.
The second one more so.
No I'm right. Accept it or die. Using my ISIS logic.
12293
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:31:02 AM »
and the inevitable dark souls 3 returns to that diversity
I think Dark Souls 2 proved they're out of ideas for the series and need to move on to other things Souls related. If they do a 3 then it needs to be a prequel to DS1 because DS2 did the AMAZING idea of "lol what you do doesn't matter, cycles :^)"
12294
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:28:55 AM »
I forgot how much more wonky the combat is in dark souls 1 is than dark souls 2
How much more superior* you mean.
debatable. Each one does things well and poorly
I'd say that DS2 added some decent mechanics, but it doesn't do anything well or better, imo.
I think Dark Souls 2 did everything combat related better. What with the animations, the 360 degree's you can move when locking on, etc etc. Except for the hit boxes. For some unknown reason, the hit boxes in Dark Souls 2 are sooooo horrible. Edit: Dark Souls 1 also handled great swords better. It swung at the enemy instead of the direction you were facing. Of course you can get around that in DS2 by not locking on, but still it's bad.
12295
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:27:18 AM »
As a fan of Resident Evil games, I can say 4 wasn't really a "horror" game.
Ok, we get it. RE 4 isn't like the other games. But it needed to change otherwise the series would have died out. It may not be a horror game. But RE 4 is the main reason we still have Resident Evil today. Just saying.
Uhm... you mean the series that completely got rid of everything it did that made it popular? The one that made it more action and we got 5 (which wasn't a bad game, just a terrible title for Resident Evil) and 6? Yeah, REEEEAL lucky we got 4. Once you got to that island bit in 4, everything horror about that game was done. Since then it's been nothing but a mess and it needs a reboot at this point.
12296
« on: March 15, 2015, 02:24:08 AM »
Daft stop stalking people.
12297
« on: March 15, 2015, 12:24:56 AM »
That would be kind of pointless seeing as NATO does the exact same thing but with the Yanks involved too (And a few others >.>)
America runs NATO like Germany runs the EU.
12298
« on: March 14, 2015, 02:49:22 PM »
Who actually supports Ted Cruz? The dude is a radical right wing nut job who literally looks like a pig (Animal Farm, hurray!). I lean more democrat but if I had to choose a Republican, it wouldn't be a radical. Same with democrats.
12299
« on: March 14, 2015, 02:44:51 PM »
I'd honestly be forced to leave the country if Hillary wins.
You must be joking.
Why would he be? Just because he's not another liberal sheep riding the Clinton cock train? Hillary would be a terrible and absolutely untrustworthy president.
Why?
You seriously need that to be explained? Especially after Bill Clinton and his awesome ability to lie, the email scandals, and so forth?
But hey, dat economy. Bush W didn't ex-... well more so Cheney. He really ran stuff. The dick.
2500 people slaughtered in Iraq and thousands more civvies all because "muh democracy".
Why are you talking about Bush? I'm talking about Clinton.
Just comparing the two since one was right after the other, ya dig? I don't think Clinton was THAT bad, I mean heck, everyone forgets JFK fucked Marilyn Monroe
12300
« on: March 14, 2015, 10:17:18 AM »
I'd honestly be forced to leave the country if Hillary wins.
You must be joking.
Why would he be? Just because he's not another liberal sheep riding the Clinton cock train? Hillary would be a terrible and absolutely untrustworthy president.
Why?
You seriously need that to be explained? Especially after Bill Clinton and his awesome ability to lie, the email scandals, and so forth?
But hey, dat economy. Bush W didn't ex-... well more so Cheney. He really ran stuff. The dick. 2500 people slaughtered in Iraq and thousands more civvies all because "muh democracy".
Pages: 1 ... 408409410 411412 ... 442
|
Show Posts