7th May 2008, 5:45 PM
In this case, that discussion doesn't really apply. This isn't a sequel, it's just a new game that is vaguely in the same universe as the old ones.
If the other type of Fallout game still existed, I wouldn't mind this one. For instance, even if you don't like FPSes or third-person action adventures, who cares if they made Crusaders of Might & Magic and Warriors of Might & Magic? They also made a new M&M RPG and Heroes of Might & Magic III. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance wasn't bad just because it was an action-RPG, it was actually pretty fun... it wasn't Baldur's Gate and would have been better without that name on it, but it was pretty fun. But it wasn't instead of a real BG game... well, it wasn't at that point. Later on of course BG3 and Fallout 3 were canned, while FOBOS and Dark Alliance 2 were finished, so BGDA was a bad sign... but on its own it wasn't a problem. It was only an issue because of the later closing of the main RPG division.
Also, I don't have just one opinion on the issue of whether changes in games are good or bad. If the game is fun, you don't mind more of it... take Mega Man for the NES for instance. All six are good games. Other times though, I want more new... for instance Age of Empires II, which disappointed me in comparison to a Blizzard RTS sequel (and the AoE expansion packs were pathetic compared to Blizzard). It really depends on whether the changes worked or not... like how Mega Man X adding wall climbing worked. But they also increased the difficulty level, and then increased it again and again later on, which wasn't so good... the NES games, if you go back and play them, aren't that hard. They are actually fun. In fact, MM5 and MM6 are probably even too easy. But Mega Man 8 (particularly the castle), MM&Bass, X5 and X6, the Zero games... they went overboard in the opposite direction.
Oh yeah, and your post tone here sounds a little bit different from at NeoGAF... :)
If the other type of Fallout game still existed, I wouldn't mind this one. For instance, even if you don't like FPSes or third-person action adventures, who cares if they made Crusaders of Might & Magic and Warriors of Might & Magic? They also made a new M&M RPG and Heroes of Might & Magic III. Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance wasn't bad just because it was an action-RPG, it was actually pretty fun... it wasn't Baldur's Gate and would have been better without that name on it, but it was pretty fun. But it wasn't instead of a real BG game... well, it wasn't at that point. Later on of course BG3 and Fallout 3 were canned, while FOBOS and Dark Alliance 2 were finished, so BGDA was a bad sign... but on its own it wasn't a problem. It was only an issue because of the later closing of the main RPG division.
Also, I don't have just one opinion on the issue of whether changes in games are good or bad. If the game is fun, you don't mind more of it... take Mega Man for the NES for instance. All six are good games. Other times though, I want more new... for instance Age of Empires II, which disappointed me in comparison to a Blizzard RTS sequel (and the AoE expansion packs were pathetic compared to Blizzard). It really depends on whether the changes worked or not... like how Mega Man X adding wall climbing worked. But they also increased the difficulty level, and then increased it again and again later on, which wasn't so good... the NES games, if you go back and play them, aren't that hard. They are actually fun. In fact, MM5 and MM6 are probably even too easy. But Mega Man 8 (particularly the castle), MM&Bass, X5 and X6, the Zero games... they went overboard in the opposite direction.
Oh yeah, and your post tone here sounds a little bit different from at NeoGAF... :)
![[Image: logo_bos_79x76.jpg]](https://www.tendocity.net/logo_bos_79x76.jpg){kind=logo}