Look, I'm 14. I was still in diapers when this game was at its high. The only other Fallout game I've ever played is 3. And yet I loved every second of this one.
Maybe it's because some things--MOST elements, actually--have lasted for an entire decade, living on in the other Fallout games. But this is where it all began.
[media][/media]
Welcome to the first part of the first subseries of the new series I'll be doing: Gaming of the Ages. In this series, I'll be playing some of the greatest games to walk the Earth, but that some of us forgot to play, or just haven't played in a long time.. Hope you enjoy :smile.gif:
lQQPw&feature=channel_video_title[/media]
I love you for this.
I just thought about getting Fallout 1, 2 and 3, but I'm too lazy to play them. But now I can watch you play them. At least the first one. Are you going to play the other ones too?
I'll be playing 1 and 2, not sure about 3 as there's already many, many plays of that
For example, giving you a tutorial is already aid.
Or teaching you indirectly a new technique by making it obviously needed at one point and then used exessively for a few rooms, then a few rooms not at all, then exessively for one and then add it as part of the normal amount of needed techniques.
Just saying "now go play, don't die" is just bad game-design.
Best example would be Demon Soulds. It offers a tutorial and that way aid the player in the early phase - but I doubt, anyone would call that game "easy", right?
You're both correct, but nobody's perfect. Yes, Fallout did have its flaws, but it was the dawn of a new era of RPGs.
He never said that. He said that games are too easy nowadays. Warranted, it was a bit of a non-sequiter, but I personally find to be at least partially true.
For example, giving you a tutorial is already aid.
in-game tutorials are a sign of bad game design, not the other way around. If anything, the "tutorial" needs to be merged into part of the game "startup". You know those games that make you go through some stupid training ******** completely separate from the game itself? Those are stupid, and bad design. Something like- say, fallout 3's starting where you learn VATS by way of killing rad-roaches as "target practice" with your father is a good way of doing it.
Just saying "now go play, don't die" is just bad game-design.
That's ridiculous. For a complex game, I agree, but as a blanket statement that's just silly.
Maybe it's because some things--MOST elements, actually--have lasted for an entire decade, living on in the other Fallout games. But this is where it all began.
[media][/media]
Welcome to the first part of the first subseries of the new series I'll be doing: Gaming of the Ages. In this series, I'll be playing some of the greatest games to walk the Earth, but that some of us forgot to play, or just haven't played in a long time.. Hope you enjoy :smile.gif:
lQQPw&feature=channel_video_title[/media]
I'll be playing 1 and 2, not sure about 3 as there's already many, many plays of that
You're both correct, but nobody's perfect. Yes, Fallout did have its flaws, but it was the dawn of a new era of RPGs.
He never said that. He said that games are too easy nowadays. Warranted, it was a bit of a non-sequiter, but I personally find to be at least partially true.
in-game tutorials are a sign of bad game design, not the other way around. If anything, the "tutorial" needs to be merged into part of the game "startup". You know those games that make you go through some stupid training ******** completely separate from the game itself? Those are stupid, and bad design. Something like- say, fallout 3's starting where you learn VATS by way of killing rad-roaches as "target practice" with your father is a good way of doing it.
That's ridiculous. For a complex game, I agree, but as a blanket statement that's just silly.