 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
| It kind of depends what you came to the table expecting. by fucking newbie 05/25/2013, 12:13am PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| I was maybe spoiled by the franchise, I dunno, but the character interaction was woodenly and the many, many areas in which potential was wasted were a downer. But the loss of potential isn't there for people who didn't play that shit, or remember it, or want more than some fun.
I had the other games in fresher memory, as I like Fallout as a franchise for no good reason - I'm even stupid enough to make stabs at playing pen and paper games in the setting. So it's like this: one clever super-mutant with dialogue? Relations between the strange critters in the wasteland could have been better explored, rather than two lines from Sarah Lyons about hurr them civilians and a genocidal enclave leadership with their FEV mcguffin. Minimum use of Liam Neeson was bad enough, and then of course his character died. Minimal interaction with ghouls and boring-ass racism at that, compared to the design docs for Interplay's Fallout 3 (codenamed Van Buren) where we would've gotten a Joseph Conrad retread with serious potential to make for interesting confrontations. Fallout 3 was ultimately fun enough, but I gave them a pass rather than vitriol because it seemed like they'd just managed to get the feel of the Franchise right enough to make a wasteland setting. It's being off the mark was forgivable, but then NV came along and seemed slow and ill-fitting in all the right places. They did both have uncanny valley models, and the list of voice actors was horribly short, and the conversations were dumbed down from the earlier games. You tell me if it bothered you. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
