Orcworm.co.uk

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:23 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 06:00 AM)patrickfreed Wrote: [ -> ]Get it on the steam sale. It's like 50% or something I believe.

Or you can just pick up Oblivion for like $5 because it is a better game.

So pretty much it copied Fallout exactly. Fallout 3 was better than NV.

Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:23 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 06:00 AM)patrickfreed Wrote: [ -> ]Get it on the steam sale. It's like 50% or something I believe.

Or you can just pick up Oblivion for like $5 because it is a better game.

So pretty much it copied Fallout exactly. Fallout 3 was better than NV.

Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Yeah, NV has NOTHING to do with FA3. I have no idea what fluffy is talking about. NV is also my favorite FA. FA1 is really good, but adventuring got kinda boring :/.

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:23 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 06:00 AM)patrickfreed Wrote: [ -> ]Get it on the steam sale. It's like 50% or something I believe.

Or you can just pick up Oblivion for like $5 because it is a better game.

So pretty much it copied Fallout exactly. Fallout 3 was better than NV.

Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Setting
Fallout: New Vegas takes place during the year -69, four years after the events of Fallout g99, and -204 years after the Great War of 2077.[14] The game is set in a post-apocalyptic Las Vegas, Nevada, and the Mojave Desert, which is known as the "Mojave Wasteland". The Mojave Wasteland is roughly the same size as the "Capital Wasteland" in Fallout 3,[14] and is spread across parts of real-world Nevada and Arizona. Part of Fallout and Fallout 2's Core Region appears in the form of California. Unlike other cities in the Fallout series, Las Vegas was not struck directly by a nuclear attack. Many of its buildings remain intact, and mutation of its inhabitants is minimal.[14]
The city and its surroundings are divided between various fagtions, but there are three major powers competing for control of the region: The New California Republic (NCR), Caesar's Legion, and Mr. House. The NCR's military, returning from Fallout 2, is now overextended and mismanaged, but controls the majority of territories in the Mojave. The slave-driving, Roman army-styled Caesar's Legion, formed by its leader, Caesar, conquered and united 86 tribes and now plans to conquer New Vegas. Mr. House, the mysterious businessman rumoured to be 200 years old, controls New Vegas with an army of "Securitron" security robots. There are many other factions and groups as well, including the Boomers, a tribe of heavily armed vault dwellers, Powder Gangers, violent groups of escaped convicts, Great Khans, a tribe of drug dealers and raiders, and the Brotherhood of Steel, the technology-craving remnants of the U.S. military.[11][15] Landmarks featured in Fallout: New Vegas include the Hoover Dam, which supplies power to the city,[15] Nellis Air Force Base and the HELIOS One solar energy plant.[19]

Lol-ing at the corrections people make on Wikipedia.

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:23 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 06:00 AM)patrickfreed Wrote: [ -> ]Get it on the steam sale. It's like 50% or something I believe.

Or you can just pick up Oblivion for like $5 because it is a better game.

So pretty much it copied Fallout exactly. Fallout 3 was better than NV.

Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Fallout NV takes after 1 and 2, 3 is Todd Howard's delusional interpretation of the fallout world

(07-20-2012, 12:03 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:23 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 06:00 AM)patrickfreed Wrote: [ -> ]Get it on the steam sale. It's like 50% or something I believe.

Or you can just pick up Oblivion for like $5 because it is a better game.

So pretty much it copied Fallout exactly. Fallout 3 was better than NV.

Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Yeah, NV has NOTHING to do with FA3. I have no idea what fluffy is talking about. NV is also my favorite FA. FA1 is really good, but adventuring got kinda boring :/.

I mean 3.5 as though:
It's a different story, different characters, but they didn't add too many new things to the game. Sure, you go to the Hoover Dam and have a choice of what to do with some Securitrons, but their wasn't really that many new things in the game. Sure, their were weapons and items, and their was reputation, but it was just another Fallout 3 in my opinion. The weapons and systems are all controlled the same (don't say anything about survival, because I don't care if you used it, that was just a piece of crap), you make some choices, and start from a guy who can barely fight 2 people at once to someone who tries to go start fights with Deathclaws or whatever enemies.

Or for people who don't really understand what I'm saying, it's kind of like the transition between Assassins Creed 2 to Assassins Creed Brotherhood, sure it's Assassin's Creed, but it's pretty much the same as it's predecessor (and it's just as good, thank God)

(07-20-2012, 03:36 AM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 12:03 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:23 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]So pretty much it copied Fallout exactly. Fallout 3 was better than NV.

Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Yeah, NV has NOTHING to do with FA3. I have no idea what fluffy is talking about. NV is also my favorite FA. FA1 is really good, but adventuring got kinda boring :/.

I mean 3.5 as though:
It's a different story, different characters, but they didn't add too many new things to the game. Sure, you go to the Hoover Dam and have a choice of what to do with some Securitrons, but their wasn't really that many new things in the game. Sure, their were weapons and items, and their was reputation, but it was just another Fallout 3 in my opinion. The weapons and systems are all controlled the same (don't say anything about survival, because I don't care if you used it, that was just a piece of crap), you make some choices, and start from a guy who can barely fight 2 people at once to someone who tries to go start fights with Deathclaws or whatever enemies.

Or for people who don't really understand what I'm saying, it's kind of like the transition between Assassins Creed 2 to Assassins Creed Brotherhood, sure it's Assassin's Creed, but it's pretty much the same as it's predecessor (and it's just as good, thank God)

2 completely different stories. They wanted money. They made their money while at the same time earning a large fan base for both games. They're both amazing.

Assassin's Creed is a TERRIBLE, and I repeat, TERRIBLE comparison. Ubisoft has been working on Assassin's Creed 3 for over 6 years.

AC2, AC:B, and AC:R are just a single storyline. The reason they made Brotherhood and Revelations is because the writers had something going with Ezio and the renaissance. I don't know if you realize this, but people over at Ubisoft Montreal who are working on Assassin's Creed are huge history buffs. That is what they love. They want to make their own story using the empty holes in history.

I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

To add more to this point: AC1 is completely different from AC2. AC2 is completely different from what AC3 will be (this being based on what we've seen so far of AC3 to be).

I understand what you're saying about Fallout. It makes sense, but it's really just about stories. When people say they preferred one game to another, and both are in the same series, and made by the same producers, then they mean the story usually.

Although its gameplay is predominantly changed, Mass Effect 3 is a great example as far as story is concerned, of what I've just explained.

I understand what you're saying about Fallout. It makes sense, but it's really just about stories. When people say they preferred one game to another, and both are in the same series, and made by the same producers, then they mean the story usually.



Exactly. I like the story of Fallout 3 much more than that of NV. Though both are played the same way, and i enjoyed playing both.

(07-20-2012, 06:00 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 03:36 AM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 12:03 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-18-2012, 02:56 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5
If you liked Fallout 3, you should enjoy NV because it's pretty much a giant expansion pack.
And I honestly think Oblivion is nothing special.

Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Yeah, NV has NOTHING to do with FA3. I have no idea what fluffy is talking about. NV is also my favorite FA. FA1 is really good, but adventuring got kinda boring :/.

I mean 3.5 as though:
It's a different story, different characters, but they didn't add too many new things to the game. Sure, you go to the Hoover Dam and have a choice of what to do with some Securitrons, but their wasn't really that many new things in the game. Sure, their were weapons and items, and their was reputation, but it was just another Fallout 3 in my opinion. The weapons and systems are all controlled the same (don't say anything about survival, because I don't care if you used it, that was just a piece of crap), you make some choices, and start from a guy who can barely fight 2 people at once to someone who tries to go start fights with Deathclaws or whatever enemies.

Or for people who don't really understand what I'm saying, it's kind of like the transition between Assassins Creed 2 to Assassins Creed Brotherhood, sure it's Assassin's Creed, but it's pretty much the same as it's predecessor (and it's just as good, thank God)

2 completely different stories. They wanted money. They made their money while at the same time earning a large fan base for both games. They're both amazing.

Assassin's Creed is a TERRIBLE, and I repeat, TERRIBLE comparison. Ubisoft has been working on Assassin's Creed 3 for over 6 years.

AC2, AC:B, and AC:R are just a single storyline. The reason they made Brotherhood and Revelations is because the writers had something going with Ezio and the renaissance. I don't know if you realize this, but people over at Ubisoft Montreal who are working on Assassin's Creed are huge history buffs. That is what they love. They want to make their own story using the empty holes in history.

I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

To add more to this point: AC1 is completely different from AC2. AC2 is completely different from what AC3 will be (this being based on what we've seen so far of AC3 to be).

I understand what you're saying about Fallout. It makes sense, but it's really just about stories. When people say they preferred one game to another, and both are in the same series, and made by the same producers, then they mean the story usually.

Although its gameplay is predominantly changed, Mass Effect 3 is a great example as far as story is concerned, of what I've just explained.

I never mentioned AC1 OR AC3 at all...
What I meant was that when Assassin's Creed 2 came out, people were marvelling at the game. Then when Assassin's Creed Brotherhood came out, (even though it took New Vegas a few years inbetween) some people called it Assassin's Creed 2.5. Why? Not because it was BAD but because it was JUST AS GOOD (for some people even better [I think Revelations is the best] but generally the same as the last one. You fought generally the same way (countering [combo-kills made people want to counter kill a LOT more as well]), explored the same way, and got missions the same way. The stories are different, but the gameplay is the same, hence the .5 being added, meaning it's like an expansion. This is pretty much why I said Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5

Sure, if you REALLY were desperate, you could use Mass Effect 2 transitioning over to 3 in terms of gameplay mechanics, though they added a few more things and made it smoother, it was generally the same thing (I'm talking about combat by the way)

And I know what Assassins Creed is all about. I've been following that game since the original came out. I've read SO many wiki-pages on the Assassins Creed Universe, and even for awhile, I played Project Legacy on Facebook. And whenever an article (until recently, i'm trying to get a media blackout on the game so the game will be a lot more surprising for when I actually play it) on ANYTHING assassins creed related comes up, even if i'm busy I read it. You can call me a fanboy of Assassins Creed because, I am one.

(07-20-2012, 06:17 AM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 06:00 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 03:36 AM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 12:03 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-19-2012, 11:34 PM)MonstaBoi Wrote: [ -> ]Fallout 3 takes after fallout one, and fallout NV takes after fallout 2. if you guys had actually played the originals you would know what i'm talking about

Yeah, NV has NOTHING to do with FA3. I have no idea what fluffy is talking about. NV is also my favorite FA. FA1 is really good, but adventuring got kinda boring :/.

I mean 3.5 as though:
It's a different story, different characters, but they didn't add too many new things to the game. Sure, you go to the Hoover Dam and have a choice of what to do with some Securitrons, but their wasn't really that many new things in the game. Sure, their were weapons and items, and their was reputation, but it was just another Fallout 3 in my opinion. The weapons and systems are all controlled the same (don't say anything about survival, because I don't care if you used it, that was just a piece of crap), you make some choices, and start from a guy who can barely fight 2 people at once to someone who tries to go start fights with Deathclaws or whatever enemies.

Or for people who don't really understand what I'm saying, it's kind of like the transition between Assassins Creed 2 to Assassins Creed Brotherhood, sure it's Assassin's Creed, but it's pretty much the same as it's predecessor (and it's just as good, thank God)

2 completely different stories. They wanted money. They made their money while at the same time earning a large fan base for both games. They're both amazing.

Assassin's Creed is a TERRIBLE, and I repeat, TERRIBLE comparison. Ubisoft has been working on Assassin's Creed 3 for over 6 years.

AC2, AC:B, and AC:R are just a single storyline. The reason they made Brotherhood and Revelations is because the writers had something going with Ezio and the renaissance. I don't know if you realize this, but people over at Ubisoft Montreal who are working on Assassin's Creed are huge history buffs. That is what they love. They want to make their own story using the empty holes in history.

I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

To add more to this point: AC1 is completely different from AC2. AC2 is completely different from what AC3 will be (this being based on what we've seen so far of AC3 to be).

I understand what you're saying about Fallout. It makes sense, but it's really just about stories. When people say they preferred one game to another, and both are in the same series, and made by the same producers, then they mean the story usually.

Although its gameplay is predominantly changed, Mass Effect 3 is a great example as far as story is concerned, of what I've just explained.

I never mentioned AC1 OR AC3 at all...
What I meant was that when Assassin's Creed 2 came out, people were marvelling at the game. Then when Assassin's Creed Brotherhood came out, (even though it took New Vegas a few years inbetween) some people called it Assassin's Creed 2.5. Why? Not because it was BAD but because it was JUST AS GOOD (for some people even better [I think Revelations is the best] but generally the same as the last one. You fought generally the same way (countering [combo-kills made people want to counter kill a LOT more as well]), explored the same way, and got missions the same way. The stories are different, but the gameplay is the same, hence the .5 being added, meaning it's like an expansion. This is pretty much why I said Fallout NV = Fallout 3.5

Sure, if you REALLY were desperate, you could use Mass Effect 2 transitioning over to 3 in terms of gameplay mechanics, though they added a few more things and made it smoother, it was generally the same thing (I'm talking about combat by the way)

And I know what Assassins Creed is all about. I've been following that game since the original came out. I've read SO many wiki-pages on the Assassins Creed Universe, and even for awhile, I played Project Legacy on Facebook. And whenever an article (until recently, i'm trying to get a media blackout on the game so the game will be a lot more surprising for when I actually play it) on ANYTHING assassins creed related comes up, even if i'm busy I read it. You can call me a fanboy of Assassins Creed because, I am one.

You've obviously misread my post entirely, so I will let you re-read it a couple more times and think about what you've written, heh.

What the fuck is going on in here?

(07-20-2012, 06:33 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

Yes, I know, and Fallout NV is just like another expansion to Fallout 3. Sure, it's a different story, but pretty much everything plays the same as last time.

(07-20-2012, 02:45 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 06:33 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

Yes, I know, and Fallout NV is just like another expansion to Fallout 3. Sure, it's a different story, but pretty much everything plays the same as last time.

God damn it, fluff. I don't know if you're purposefully being ignorant or if you're legitimately that ignorant.

AC:B and AC:R are pseudo expansions because they share the same storyline.

Fallout: New Vegas has nothing to do with Fallout 3.

(07-20-2012, 09:44 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 02:45 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 06:33 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

Yes, I know, and Fallout NV is just like another expansion to Fallout 3. Sure, it's a different story, but pretty much everything plays the same as last time.

God damn it, fluff. I don't know if you're purposefully being ignorant or if you're legitimately that ignorant.

AC:B and AC:R are pseudo expansions because they share the same storyline.

Fallout: New Vegas has nothing to do with Fallout 3.

I know but I don't know how to say this correctly...
The reason I said NV was Fallout3.5 was because it's pretty much the same shit as last time, just a different story and location. The assassins creed franchise had a different story than 2, but it actually expanded on it, but other than that, MOST of the mechanics of BOTH games (AC and NV) stayed the same.

(07-20-2012, 11:37 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 09:44 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 02:45 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 06:33 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]I can see why you think that way about AC, but you have to realize that AC:B and AC:R are basically just expansions to AC2.

Yes, I know, and Fallout NV is just like another expansion to Fallout 3. Sure, it's a different story, but pretty much everything plays the same as last time.

God damn it, fluff. I don't know if you're purposefully being ignorant or if you're legitimately that ignorant.

AC:B and AC:R are pseudo expansions because they share the same storyline.

Fallout: New Vegas has nothing to do with Fallout 3.

I know but I don't know how to say this correctly...
The reason I said NV was Fallout3.5 was because it's pretty much the same shit as last time, just a different story and location. The assassins creed franchise had a different story than 2, but it actually expanded on it, but other than that, MOST of the mechanics of BOTH games (AC and NV) stayed the same.

Wow, you just stay ignorant :c.

That's fine, keep ignoring my long post. It's fine.