Orcworm.co.uk

(07-20-2012, 11:50 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Last try:
How you play the game stayed the exact same, added a few new elements but nothing ground-breaking, that's about it. It doesn't matter if the game shares the same OVERALL storyline or if they affect each other, they both play the same way, making it KIND OF like a giant expansion pack...

(07-21-2012, 02:59 AM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 11:50 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

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

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

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

Last try:
How you play the game stayed the exact same, added a few new elements but nothing ground-breaking, that's about it. It doesn't matter if the game shares the same OVERALL storyline or if they affect each other, they both play the same way, making it KIND OF like a giant expansion pack...

That's the thing. It's not at all like an expansion because the games are irrelevant.

The Da Vinci Disappearance DLC is a direct expansion of AC:B.

It continues the side story of a major character in the story. That's a true expansion.

Halo 3's map packs are direct expansions of Halo 3. It's pretty self-explanatory; No need to go into further detail.

FA:NV can't even be considered a pseudo-expansions simply because it's completely irrelevant.

By your logic, you're saying that MW2 and MW3 are great expansions of CoD: Modern Warfare, when they simply aren't. They were made as games with a different story irrelevant, but in the same world and context to the previous one(s).

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 02:59 AM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-20-2012, 11:50 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

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

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

Last try:
How you play the game stayed the exact same, added a few new elements but nothing ground-breaking, that's about it. It doesn't matter if the game shares the same OVERALL storyline or if they affect each other, they both play the same way, making it KIND OF like a giant expansion pack...

That's the thing. It's not at all like an expansion because the games are irrelevant.

The Da Vinci Disappearance DLC is a direct expansion of AC:B.

It continues the side story of a major character in the story. That's a true expansion.

Halo 3's map packs are direct expansions of Halo 3. It's pretty self-explanatory; No need to go into further detail.

FA:NV can't even be considered a pseudo-expansions simply because it's completely irrelevant.

By your logic, you're saying that MW2 and MW3 are great expansions of CoD: Modern Warfare, when they simply aren't. They were made as games with a different story irrelevant, but in the same world and context to the previous one(s).

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

The games don't have to be relevant. It doesn't matter if the story is the same or not. Fallout NV was just more Fallout 3. Though the story may not have been as motivating for some, or more-so for others, it was just the same thing. You start out as a VERY weak guy, who progresses through the ___ Wasteland. You obtain weapons and "apparel", making you able to survive longer. You level up. You play almost the SAME way as you did last time around. Though it was a big game, there was not too much innovation, or at least things you really did differently.
Now let's take Halo 3's Mythic map pack. What did we get? A few new maps, and a few new things to play around with (man cannons). That doesn't make or break a game, especially when all it really added were a few new locations and some "nifty" tools. Nothing groundbreaking.
Sure, it's a seperate game/expansion, but at the end of the day, it's just another Fallout 3, except with a different location, different characters you meet, and weapons with different names. It's the same as it was around last time. You could have a game where you start in the US. However, they can make another game, which stars a different person in pretty much the same scenario, just with another location (UK). Sure, they added a few new things but it's nothing you really notice, nothing too special. You're just doing what you did last time around. It could sell as a 20 hour expansion if they really wanted it to, but they decided to turn it into it's own game. That's what NV is. Just add's more "texture" or "flavor" to the Fallout Universe.

(07-20-2012, 11:50 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]That's fine, keep ignoring my long post. It's fine.

Im sorry! Its just....Your avatar...

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

Mw1= Makarovs...Father right?
mw2 = makarov
mw3 = RIGHT AFTER mw2 ended...

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

WRONG SIR

Go play the games again. Makarov was in CoD 4, you just didn't see him.
He was a part of Zakhaev's political group but not targeted as the antagonist because he only became its leader when Zakhaev was killed.

God that is a hard name to spell.

(07-21-2012, 06:39 PM)TheAndrewTaco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

WRONG SIR

Go play the games again. Makarov was in CoD 4, you just didn't see him.
He was a part of Zakhaev's political group but not targeted as the antagonist because he only became its leader when Zakhaev was killed.

God that is a hard name to spell.

Don't have that game, i might borrow from my friend later...

(07-21-2012, 06:39 PM)TheAndrewTaco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

WRONG SIR

Go play the games again. Makarov was in CoD 4, you just didn't see him.
He was a part of Zakhaev's political group but not targeted as the antagonist because he only became its leader when Zakhaev was killed.

God that is a hard name to spell.

Yes, but he isn't the main antagonist. The stories are all related, but not part of the same storyline.

(07-21-2012, 07:32 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 06:39 PM)TheAndrewTaco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:28 AM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]-snip-

Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

WRONG SIR

Go play the games again. Makarov was in CoD 4, you just didn't see him.
He was a part of Zakhaev's political group but not targeted as the antagonist because he only became its leader when Zakhaev was killed.

God that is a hard name to spell.

Yes, but he isn't the main antagonist. The stories are all related, but not part of the same storyline.

Aren't 2 and 3 TECHNICALLY the same storyline? Cause 3 is just continuing and wrapping up 2.

(07-21-2012, 10:00 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 07:32 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 06:39 PM)TheAndrewTaco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 03:42 AM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, weren't the stories in MW2 and 3 completely relevant to Cod4....? Makarov and all that shit.

MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

WRONG SIR

Go play the games again. Makarov was in CoD 4, you just didn't see him.
He was a part of Zakhaev's political group but not targeted as the antagonist because he only became its leader when Zakhaev was killed.

God that is a hard name to spell.

Yes, but he isn't the main antagonist. The stories are all related, but not part of the same storyline.

Aren't 2 and 3 TECHNICALLY the same storyline? Cause 3 is just continuing and wrapping up 2.

That's what i would think.

(07-21-2012, 10:07 PM)Thatguheye Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 10:00 PM)thefluffyswan Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 07:32 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 06:39 PM)TheAndrewTaco Wrote: [ -> ]

(07-21-2012, 12:03 PM)MrKrellyn Wrote: [ -> ]MW1: No Makarov
MW2: Makarov, completely diff storyline
MW3: Makarov, diff storyline

In MW3, he's the same primary antagonist, but you are playing characters from a different set/group. Imagine the The Walking Dead video game in contrast to the show. Yeah.

WRONG SIR

Go play the games again. Makarov was in CoD 4, you just didn't see him.
He was a part of Zakhaev's political group but not targeted as the antagonist because he only became its leader when Zakhaev was killed.

God that is a hard name to spell.

Yes, but he isn't the main antagonist. The stories are all related, but not part of the same storyline.

Aren't 2 and 3 TECHNICALLY the same storyline? Cause 3 is just continuing and wrapping up 2.

That's what i would think.

Different storylines involving the same antagonist. It's just the way MW was made. Different people throughout the game, throughout each.

I'm trying to think of another game with a similar situation, but I just can't. There are movies, though, where the protagonist fails in the main plan, as it were, and someone picks up in a different movie, but under completely different circumstances and a completely different concept.

That's MW3 to MW2.