View Single Post

Default 

September 5th, 2007, 20:39
Originally Posted by txa1265 View Post
That is the best approach - and similar to what I recommend for people approaching Bioshock. Do you see 'System Shock III' anywhere on the label? No? Good, forget about the prior games and just enjoy this one for what it offers rather than constantly worrying if this or that lives up to the legacy of the originals.

Because it can't, won't and never will … even if it does.
No, I don't see System Shock 3 (III) on the box for Bioshock. However, Ken Levine never claimed to be making System Shock 3. He always said that he was making Bioshock, s spirtual succesor to both System Shock 1+2.

Bethesda is claiming to make a Fallout 3 game, a sequel to a game formerly known as Fallout (if you were to tease Bethesda a little ). As such we, the public, expects a game in the same vein or around the same depths etc. as in the previus Fallout games. We didn't foresee that Bethsoft would make the Brotherhood of Steel noble knights of the wasteland as well as we did not foresee that Bethesda would tell us that supermutants are the main bad guys in the game. This reeks of the Xboxgame, Brotherhood of Steel, to me.

And who told Bethsoft to put exploding cars? in the game? Todd maybe, because you know, explosions are cool….

As Brother None has been saying over and ver again (and I agree with more and more): Certain things such as the Fatman, the toilet drinking, the exploding cars, the Megatob Bomb and maybe more, breaks verisimilitude in the game…

It could still be a good game, though…just not a good fallout game…
Last edited by aries100; September 5th, 2007 at 21:58. Reason: spelling
aries100 is offline

aries100

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team RPGWatch Donor

#13

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark, Europe
Posts: 2,019