安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
The original games didn't have good guys. Even the player character wasn't objectively "good". The Enclave was a very believable badguy- even today military and police personnel tend to think of themselves as "other" from the citizenry, but add a technological and physical divide and they'd almost certainly develop SOME sort of combination messiah/superiority complex. The Master's Army was a bit less well done but still alright, I suppose- The Master's goal was unification of all of humanity into what it perceived as the perfect organism for surviving the irradiated wasteland (which was either super mutants, or to simply merge them with The Master itself) .
FO3 has really hacky writing with a very black-and-white worldview, and a lot of the moral choices in the game are "do you want to be a total ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ or not". NV isn't immune it, either; Caesar's Legion was the most saturday-morning-cartoon villain conceivable (and Caesar himself was remarkably underwhelming as a character). Still, it was a step in the right direction (the NCR was delightfully bureaucratic, House was a fine example of someone who saw themselves as a messiah [justifably?], and the BoS were properly morally grey), and I /really/ hope Bethesda take a look at that sort of tone, that sort of storytelling, and take that as a model for FO4 instead of ENCLAV WANT 2 KILL PPL BROHOOD OF STEEL STOP DEM
As far as gameplay... I mean I don't really hold bethesda games as paragons of gameplay. The engine is always buggy and visually uninteresting (ENBs help tho). Gunplay sucked in both of the modern fallout games, which looks to have been fixed in 4. Bethesda doesn't do dungeons well- FO3's consisted mainly of a series of hallways filled with everyones favorite trash mob, feral ghouls, and Skyrim's are just big loops filled with Draugr. NV avoids the traditional dungeon for the most part, thankfully- there are quite a few of them (and they're equally as uninspiring as 3's), but they're optional by and large.
So I mean it's a tossup. I like the Black Isles games far more from a storytelling and tone standpoint, but I like more modern-style games more than CRPGs. I'm optimistic for FO4, because they seem to have fixed most of my gameplay gripes (and the power armor looks orgasmic if it isn't some ♥♥♥♥♥♥ setpiece-only thing), and if they can get that particular Fallout style down then it'll definitely sway me more to liking the modern ones the most.
Because I played them. How else would I figure?
Everyone should at least play them, that much should not be questioned because they have their merits, but they suffer the same degradation as every other game over time. The primary problem with isometrics, and the original Fallouts are no different, is that while giving the illusion of being very tactical games they are really quite the opposite. Without the ability for you to react immediately to the movements of your enemies and the enemy's ability to immediately react to yours all you do is attempt to "trap" each other in stupid situations based upon AP limitation, and that isn't strategy, it's exploitation.
You know, never once in my military career did I ever have one of my buddies tell me "this one time in combat, I just felt I had no energy left, and so I just stood in one place and let the enemies walk up to me and take free shots at me." When a game creates a situation where you can be stranded in the middle of nowhere, standing up without cover and the ability to only take 5-7 steps without attacking at all, that's not tactical, that's nonsense. Did it work for it's time? Absolutely, because technology was "quaint," and is it a good game? Absolutely, it's story works, and despite the wonky gameplay it can be enjoyable, but would a game exactly like Fallout 1 be as successful as the modern incarnations of the series? Absolutely not, regardless of what those who suffer blinding nostalgia will tell you.
Nostalgia isn't necessarily a bad thing, we all have it, even I think the original Shadowrun was much better than the new versions, but despite that nostalgia I haven't spent months on the Shadowrun boards making that opinion as often as I can, and the same could not be said about some of the nostalgic people on this board, as they take every chance they get to flame a game they've yet to even play merely because the box will say "Bethesda" on it.
This new game can't be as bad as NV. Surely.
Since then, it has only gotten better over time by mods.
So be cynical all you want, but I wager many of you will again fall in love with the new system Bethesda comes out with. Only time will tell.
i think they just had not finished it in time(. the lead director (or whatever) itsself released a mod to get rid of at least some balancing stuff.
yeah i too. i have no problem with the 3d stuff of course. but bethesdas "simplification" is as ugly as a radroach in the kitchen.
...and we want the Head Dev to put himself in the game as Boss Barowner/brothelkeeper
...NOW!! Come BACK, Brian Fargo...