kangarootoo Comments

Page 1 of 335

  • Blood Bowl dev is making World of Darkness spin-off Werewolf: The Apocalypse

  • kangarootoo 20/01/2017

    I like the WW:A setting, and I really like the previous output of this studio, so good news all round. Reply +1
  • Developer admits "we screwed it" after game website exposes review blacklist threat

  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    @PlugMonkey

    All I started off doing was saying that I thought the developer's approach was a mistake, and also that their request was unreasonable.

    Then several other people decided that because their threat was rubbish, it wasn't a threat, and I responded saying that it clearly was because the actions match the defined meaning of the word (and I stand by that - and in the case of your niece, you didn't feel threatened because her threat was rubbish, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a threat - and given her attempts to try and con you out of your tea money with nothing but air, you may one day regret not calling the police. Spare the jail cell, spoil the child, I believe the saying goes).

    Whether the article is not really my concern or responsibility. I am however an official member of the Semantics Police, and I am therefore responsible for maintaining the correct use of words (don't even get me started on subjective things not becoming objective just because there is consensus).


    "I see a badly worded appeal for mutual professionalism"

    This may be core to our disagreement, because I don't see that I'm afraid. Any developer saying to a reviewer "Don't give us a negative review" is not appealing to professionalism. The implication is that a very negative review must be trolling or otherwise unfair, and whilst that is possible, it is not the only explanation and is an attempt to discredit any negative review. Not acceptable.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    @Porko_Rossi

    The Czech Republic isn't in Russia. It isn't even near to it, the shortest route between going through at least two other countries.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    @PlugMonkey

    "If it is indeed intended as a threat, then it is the worst threat ever."

    Absolutely, but that is something else. A very rubbish cup of tea doesn't stop being a cup of tea just 'cos it is ineffectual at quenching the desire the a lovely cup of tea.


    "should consider whether X is five times as expensive"

    Again I agree, but we all know there are lots of very good small scale games that don't cost much. I honestly believe that the assumption that they are bring compared to large scale studios is just a straw man put forward by the developers. It might be voiced out of desperation, but that also doesn't change what it is.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    @GreyBeard

    See my other reply. I agree that the threat has no teeth, but it is a threat all the same.

    The issue I have with it, is that it leaves no space for a very negative review being a legitimate assessment of the game.

    The course taken was "If you rate our game fairly, and the result is a very negative review, we won't allow you to review our future works." Rather than "If we get very negative reviews, we will endeavour to make our next game better."

    Again I say, it being quite a rubbish threat doesn't change what it is.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    @SuperSoupy

    "You make it sound like they're mobsters"

    I didn't make it sound like that or any what followed. I plainly stated what happened.

    A threat does not have to be menacing. They are simply saying, if you give us a bad review, we won't deal with you in the future. I completely with everyone that has said this works against the dev more than it does any reviewer, but it is laying out a condition, and saying there will be retribution (however toothless that retribution may be in this case) if that condition is not met. I'm sorry, but that is the definition of a threat.
    Reply -1
  • kangarootoo 18/01/2017

    @SuperSoupy

    Withholding keys is not a threat....

    ...but threatening to withhold keys unless a reviewer behaves in the way they want (which is what happened here), is definitely a threat.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 18/01/2017

    I understand they may be frustrated at what they see as unfair comparisons to larger titles, but I'm afraid I can't have sympathy and I'll explain why. For those that don't know, I work in game dev myself, so I'm speaking from the heart when I say I strongly believe in the following principle...

    Gamers don't pay for my sweat and tears. They don't pay for the hours I have spent. They don't pay for the size of my studio, or the size of the marketing budget for my current project.

    With the occasional exception (such as a kickstarter backed for altruistic reasons), gamers pay for the game experience. No game deserves a bonus point for an emotive development backstory.

    Now occasionally you get the odd reviewer or comment that seems excessive, or disingenuous. That is unfortunately what working in a creative industry gets you, and anyone that works in this industry would do well to get a thick skin.

    On the specific point the develop raises about comparison, well that is subjective quality for you. Whether a game is good or not is subjective, and true to its dictionary definition, subjective means there has to be other subjects against which the item in question can be compared. Of course gamers compare to other games, because those other games are competing for their money. Bottom line, if a review says "You're better off buying X instead of this" you can't argue with that on the basis that you deserve charity.

    A bit of a long post, and a bit ranty. I don't mean to rant and I wish all devs well, it isn't an easy business. However I also believe strongly that the quality of your output is what you should be judged on. That can sometimes be difficult and frustrating, but it is the only criteria that matters. To try and coerce a good review score from a reviewer by any means other than the quality of your output is not acceptable, be that a threat or a bribe.
    Reply +28
  • The new Call of Cthulhu looks promising

  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    @AnsemsApprentice

    "but that dialogue is edging on laughable"

    To be fair, a lot of the dialogue in the original material is pretty "unique".
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 19/01/2017

    I love a bit of Cthulhu, and I also thought Styx was excellent, so this bodes well. Reply +1
  • Writing Lara Croft

  • kangarootoo 18/01/2017

    @Sunjammer

    "I think her achilles heel is seemingly never -writing for the game-, but rather her own narrative aspirations"

    Much as I know how tough writing for games is, and how much I want to support anyone doing so, I did also get that vibe from some of the comments in this interview. I think one of the hardest parts of hiring a good writer for games, is finding one that understands how interactivity is king, and how the story cannot go up against fun mechanics and expect to win.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 18/01/2017

    @Golgo

    "Also, she can light a roaring fire at first strike from wet matches in the pouring rain after swimming."

    You know I tend to think that when people start complaining about minor realism issues in a game that has huge non-realistic aspects (the lighting of wet matches in a game that contains ancient island magic that creates thunder storms.... for example), they have reached the point of just sticking the boot in for amusement rather than constructive critique.

    The point about repetitive dialogue fair enough, but does anyone including yourself really care about authentic fire making practices? I can't even think of a game that involves lighting something with matches in which it is an arduous pain in the arse as it is in real life.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 18/01/2017

    @andrewsqual

    Those were the responses I touched on in my earlier comment. I am convinced the executive producer who made those comments was off the mark and winging it. I don't believe the writers would have agreed at the time. The reason the whole thing blew up was not so much because of the original imagery, but his ill-considered opining on it afterwards.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 17/01/2017

    @Master09

    "Focusing on killing rather than puzzles is one core of the problem. That unfortunately is "modern". Batman Arkham games you don't kill at all, but the games are fun and have lots of action."

    I'd say there are two different things being discussed here. One is the balance between action and puzzle gameplay, and the other is whether the many many many enemies that have their heads comprehensively kicked in (or in the last game, are driven over), are dead at the end of it or not. I'd argue the later has nothing to do with the former, and Batman is every bit a "modern" game, if that definition is "contains a lot of violent action gameplay". As it happens, the Arkham games do have have a good balance between puzzles and action, but that is unrelated to whether the enemies wake up the day after with a headache.
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 17/01/2017

    I really liked the first of the new TR games. I played it through on XB360, and then (drunkenly, but never mind that) bought it again on PS4 and played it to 100% the second time around.

    That said, my thoughts.

    1. Let's get this out of the way first. The trailer controversy started with the trailer, but it was the first response to a question about it that created the explosion that followed, and rightly so as the response was idiotic. In the context of the game, and the character that was attacking, that scene was not so out of place.

    SPOILERS
    2. Although Lara Croft is a capable heroine, the first reboot game was still in the end a damsel in distress story. That was a real shame, and my biggest gripe with the plot. Lara being a woman herself doesn't change the fact that in the end, a shrill and somewhat incapable woman had to be rescued, from being tied to a post and offered up for sacrifice no less.
    SPOILERS END

    3. I don't envy her position. Everybody thinks they can write a story, and you can tell from some of what she said about varying experience and power, that she encountered some high ranking purse holders who exercised creative control over her work.

    4. That said, any story written for a game has to fit the gameplay, and perhaps some of the disagreements centred on that area. It is no good writing a story is supposed to be the slow burn transformation of an archaeology student into a killer, and then complain that an action game messed with the plan by needing shooting gameplay early on. That conflict could easily be predicted, and probably was. That said I'm not saying it is an easy problem to solve - if the mandate is an origin story within a shooting game, the conflict is going to be hard to avoid.


    I still haven't played to the second new game, but I will.
    Reply +4
  • Watch: Here's how Far Cry's Primal and Blood Dragon might connect to the rest of the series

  • kangarootoo 16/01/2017

    I think I want Aoife saying "What a FAAAIL" as a ringtone*


    *Full disclosure, I don't use a ringtone. My phone is always on silent. The idea stands though.
    Reply +1
  • Evil Ryu and Violent Ken are in Ultra Street Fighter 2 for Nintendo Switch

  • kangarootoo 13/01/2017

    Are these genuinely new characters, with different moves and so on, or just the same characters that have journeyed through the Hue and Brightness controls in Photoshop? Reply 0
  • UK online shop says it will honour 198.50 Nintendo Switch pre-orders

  • kangarootoo 13/01/2017

    @George-Roper

    If that turns out to be the case, no doubt you'll be first back to the thread to update everyone ;)
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 13/01/2017

    "What is easy is to dismiss GameSeek's statement as little more than a relatively costly publicity stunt."

    Easy... or idiotic? Anyone who would dismiss a company honouring pre-order purchases for which money has been taken, as a publicity stunt, is just digging for something negative to say.
    Reply +2
  • Sony closes Rigs studio Guerrilla Cambridge

  • kangarootoo 12/01/2017

    @ghostof82

    "I still say if they reduced the price of games, publishers would get more sales and bigger profits."

    If it were really that simple, do you really believe that hundreds of professionals across the would not have worked it out by now?

    Seriously, what are the sheer odds that you are right and they are all wrong, about something so trivial as pricing?
    Reply +3
  • Glacier White PlayStation 4 slim model announced, released this month

  • kangarootoo 10/01/2017

    @tomphillipsEG

    I swear by my the George Foreman grill range, but to get one without removable heating plates is a class 1 error. Take it from one that knows.
    Reply 0
  • Overwatch webcomic not released in Russia over gay character

  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @MickeyV

    Intelligence is a bit different though, as we accept it as not only being a present state, but also a metric that varies in value. For the intelligence of something to be measured, some agreed definition of intelligence must in the first instance be present.

    So a wooden chair is not intelligent or dumb, as intelligence is not present and measurable.

    Rational is not a present state, but more of a principle, a method of decision making if you like. A thing (like a decision) does not contain logic or not contain logic, it just IS one of the other. Just like "science" is a principle, a scientific method. Some isn't science or not science (though we refer to refer to study subjects as "science", that is kind of a contraction of "area of study focussed on the application of the scientific method to chemistry" or something).

    If a decision is based on logic it is rational, if it is not based on logic it is irrational. That means I suppose that a decision can of course be more or less rational than another, if a number of factors contribute to the outcome of each, some of which are logic based and some of which are not.

    Man, nobody does Xmas like us :)
    Reply +2
  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @MickeyV

    "and therefore more or less stupid, lacking in intelligence"

    But that isn't what rational means. It isn't about intelligence, it is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic".


    "But anyway, we're literally arguing semantics now"

    Yay! The Rolls Royce of arguments :)
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @Zh1vago

    So if I've understood you correctly, what you're saying is that you wouldn't happy with a child seeing a comic that shows a man and a woman kissing either?
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @MickeyV

    Awwww, but I rely on being snarky quite heavily. Quite right though, I apologise. Merry Christmas :)

    My point (and hence the dictionary related dickishness) is that the words are exactly in opposition.

    We tend to use irrational in common discussion to mean "insane, poorly judged, off the handle" etc. Just as we tend to view the word "criticism" as negative, when it is not necessarily so.

    So if you quit your job to get a new one, and the decision is not rational, then the decision is by the very definition of the words "irrational". Now it isn't bonkers. It isn't necessarily even ill advised. But it IS irrational, because the decision (in your example case) is not based on rational thought. So a belief or action based on feeling, according to the reference we rely on to tell us what words mean, is by definition irrational (just not emotively, excessively so..... except when it is, which is often the case with religious belief).

    Anyone who knows me on here knows I am pedant for words. I can't help it, and I get dickish and a tad (or a lot) superior about it sometimes (or often). This is mainly because I am obsessive in nature, but also because in any debate like this, we have to stick to an agreed set of semantic rules or we (in the worst case) can't communicate meaningfully.

    So I think we agree that I'm right and you're wrong? Excellent ;)


    And as for bigotry and narrow mindedness existing in science, and in circles within which people claim to follow the scientific method, ABSOLUTELY! :) This is because people are flawed, driven by emotion and bias, and in fact at our core we are irrational beings however much we try not to be (hence me being an arse sometimes when I could just politely explain my logic with no need for flippancy).
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @frazzl

    "The absence of scientific evidence is not scientific evidence of absence"

    Quite so, and one of my favourite phrases.

    However, the scientific approach is not "if there is no proof something doesn't exist, we'll leave the door open and believe that it does". It is simply that we choose only to believe in things we can prove, despite the possibility that unproven things may still be true, because statically history has shown that to be the best approach to such a degree that we can rely on it in everything we do of a practical nature.

    The number of instances where people believed things without proof, to later have those things proved false, far outweighs the times when a random punt without evidence turned out to be true. I'm going to make up a big number now and say it with confidence. I'm going to say that the ratio is 1 billion to 1 against. Probably even more than that. Let's say 10 billion billion. Yeah, that sounds good :)
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @MickeyV

    If you don't think that irrational is the antithesis of rational, you need a new dictionary.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @mr_moti

    I should be clear. I have no interest in converting anyone to aetheism, none at all. I am simply taking part in a debate. I really don't care whether anyone changes their mind, I mean it.

    As for the right to believe in God, people are absolutely entitled to belief things that are made up. Just as I have the right to point out that there is no evidence to the contrary.

    Here is the contradiction I am seeing. Some people get annoyed when their faith is questioned, but it they truly believed blindly, contradiction would not matter to them. I tend to think that when people get annoyed at their faith being scrutinised, it is because they know deep down it makes no sense, but the delusion makes them happy and so they wish to maintain it.

    Believe what you want if it makes you happy and doesn't drive you to harm anyone else (for some, their belief does drive them to harm others, which is how this discussion started). I'd much rather you were a kind person that believed in fairy tales than an aetheist who is cruel (and there are plenty of those about too).
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @MickeyV

    I'm not sure we disagree. You seem to be suggesting that religious belief is not a scientific decision, and that is my point also.

    I dispute however that just because Scientists (capital S for the profession) sometimes go with feeling, such as in matters of faith, that they are still being "scientific" in that moment.

    So maybe I am going too far to say a real scientist can't be religious..... but not by much. Put it this way. If science is your vocation, it seems bizarre to me that one would cast that aside when considering something so fundamental as how the universe was created, or whether there is "a plan".

    I'm being serious. How can anyone who claims science as their calling, just sometimes belief things to be true despite the absence of evidence? How do they rationalise the absolutely fundamental contradiction betweeen blind faith and the scientific method?
    Reply +3
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @metalmike25

    Thanks to @Les for saving me much typing :)

    There is Scientist as a profession, and scientific scrutiny as an approach to gauging truth. A Scientist that believes in God is not being scientific with regards to their faith.

    It is not arrogant to say so, it is simply that the defined meaning of the word scientific is not compatable with belief that is not based on evidence.
    Reply +1
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @EverilCorwell

    "You can believe in a god and still be a person of science"

    I'm honestly not sure how that can genuinely be true. I'll explain.

    Fundamentally, a "person of science" DOES NOT accept a thing to be true until sufficient evidence has been shown to exist such that the thing can reasonably be said to be proved.

    That is the core of scientific thought. If a person is not evidence focused, they are not a person of science, because evidence based truth IS science.


    Now, the existence of God is not remotely proved by evidence, by any measure that can be considered scientific and reliable. Therefore if a person of science believes in God, they are not applying the scientific rigour they may apply elsewhere in their lives, to their faith. If they were, they COULD NOT believe in God, because the evidence to back that belief does not exist.

    It is like me saying I am vegetarian, except that sometimes I eat meat. The definition and the act directly contradict each other, and are mutually exclusive, unless we start dicking about with the semantics.

    Now I realise that some people say "I am a scientist, but I believe in God". This is an example of what I mean by dicking about with the semantics. If a person says they are a scientist, but they also believe in God, they are messing with the accepted meanings of either the word "scientist" or the word "God".
    Reply +18
  • Denied: Valve didn't go for that Half-Life 3 plea with its own Steam Awards

  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @WezH

    "Valve needs to put the fans out their misery!"

    At the risk of sounding harsh, the misery is self inflicted. If everybody that wants HL3 just stops thinking about it and plays something else, the problem is literally solved. Valve are under no obligation to say anything. They really aren't. The problem people are having is of their own making.
    Reply +2
  • Crytek breaks silence, closes multiple studios

  • kangarootoo 22/12/2016

    @system11

    It isn't always that simple. If a business tries to be financially successful, but things don't work out and the cash flow isn't there, they can't magic money into existing.

    I don't know what happened in this case, but if the business was simply losing money, unfortunate as that is, there is little that can be done when the money runs out. Better to close a studio, let people claim redundancy, and move on, than continue to employ them without regular payment.

    My point is that there doesn't always have to be a villain. Sometimes things just don't work out.
    Reply 0
  • Assassin's Creed film review

  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @vert1go

    That is by far the worst analogy I have ever read. It is almost as if you picked a terrible and inappropriate analogy to leverage a point of view that couldn't be defended on its own merits, by steering the discussion away from the original point and toward your loaded invention.


    ...so this is the bit in the internet discussion where I talk about strawmen.
    Reply +6
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @BobbyDeNiro

    Some might suggest that you need to have seen the film to have an opinion that is not worthless. If simply having "an opinion" is the bar you set, may I refer you to the common phrase about opinions and arses.
    Reply +4
  • kangarootoo 21/12/2016

    @BobbyDeNiro

    "This is absolute horse shit"

    So I guess you've seen it, in order to have an opinion about it.

    "I wouldn't see it if someone paid me."

    Oh.
    Reply +63
  • Enter the Dragon (32): graph paper, games and growing up

  • kangarootoo 19/12/2016

    A friend of mine had a Dragon 32 when I was a kid. The only game I can remember is a text adventure called Forbidden City (which we called forcity, as that was the abbreviated name of the executable that you launched), which was all typed in from exactly the sort of in-magazine listing described in the article, I believe from an endless list of comma separated four digit numbers.

    I am going to go out on a limb here and ask if anyone else remembers that game?
    Reply 0
  • Space Hulk: Deathwing review

  • kangarootoo 19/12/2016

    I deleted my previous comment, as I reasonably decided the discussion I was entering was simply not a good use of my life :) Reply +13
  • Watch Dogs 2 patch makes "Pull over now!" policewoman chill out

  • kangarootoo 18/12/2016

    @Renato84

    I don't disagree with your broad point, but I am still of the mind that if your game has a mechanic in it, shooting in this case, that mechanic should be competant. And it isn't like Watch Dogs is Firewatch - whilst it isn't a shooter in the same terms as say Doom, it is still quite shooting based, and so its shooting mechanics must be refined.
    Reply 0
  • kangarootoo 16/12/2016

    @Renato84

    I think you are confusing poor shooting mechanics with no shooting mechanics. Whether a game is about stealth or explosions, all of its mechanics should be well designed.
    Reply 0
  • Elite Dangerous headed to PlayStation 4 in Q2 2017

  • kangarootoo 09/12/2016

    Another +1 for PSVR support, and if you'd like to support my Thrustmaster PS4 HOTAS stick, that would also be peachy :) Reply +1
  • Russian MPs call for FIFA 17 ban over "gay propaganda"

  • kangarootoo 07/12/2016

    @AgentDaleCooper

    On what you said to another commenter, why do you consider exposure to straight sexuality to be "preserving childhood", but exposure to gay sexuality to not be? I am going to go out on a limb here , and predict that your answer will be based on cyclical logic.
    Reply +7
  • kangarootoo 07/12/2016

    @AgentDaleCooper

    Sorry, that is no answer at all.

    Let me try and decipher what you just said. Please honestly correct me if I've got this wrong.

    The human race depends on procreation, which is inherrently hetro, and if children are educated to treat non-hetro people as equals, that may convince some of thise kids to grow up LGBT, and that will put the future of our species at risk.

    Oh man, where to begin. Where oh where to begin. I'll just have to scatter gun it.

    1. Learning to treat other humans as equal regardless if their sexual orientation has nothing to do with your own sexual orientation.

    2. People don't learn to be gay, they simply are gay, or straight, or something else. Learning that other orientations exist, and are OK, dies not make anyone gay. It CAN however make life easier/tolerable for a kid that discovers they are LGBT as they grow up.

    3. Gay people have kids. I'm sure I don't have to explain the myriad of ways that this can occur, as you seem like a smart chap.
    Reply +11
  • kangarootoo 06/12/2016

    @AgentDaleCooper

    Is seeing hetrosexual life promoted every day in every way, in media of all kinds, a contentious issue when children become exposed to it? Serious question.
    Reply +9
  • kangarootoo 06/12/2016

    @AgentDaleCooper

    "Plenty of people all around the globe do object to LGBT culture being actively promoted on TV and in their schools, and they're perfectly entitled to"

    No they aren't.

    Let's be clear here. Not all opinions are equal, some are simply wrong, misinformed, based on ignorance and fear, or simply based on incorrect information, and we should call them out as such. Those that object to LGBT culture being "promoted" (i.e. supported as equal) are wrong, and that is what we should call them. The idea that people are entitled to be wrong, is a misunderstanding of freedom of speech and belief, and is not to be supported.
    Reply +10
  • Why I think big console game sales are down

  • kangarootoo 30/11/2016

    @Bagpuss

    I think the price for the core game is kind of reasonable. I don't mean that I can happily drop 55 on a game every other week, but when you consider the cost of making the things, and what games used to cost (you could easily pay 40 for a console game in the late 80s, FORTY QUID! Accounting for inflation, that is probably a million dollars in modern money).

    The season passes and DLC however, I am totally with you there. Open world game costs 50 and gives you maybe 20 hours of gameplay. Season pass /special edition costs 25 and gives you about 3 hours more.

    And not even close to the best 3 hours. When will we as an industry realise that horde and survival modes are sub-par nonsense, costing literally pennies to make and looking like it, and consign them to the bin where they belong? In a game where I explore levels and shoot things, the idea that putting me in a big room and asking me to shoot things, and then asking me to pay for the privilege, is like being given cold tea with an umbrella in it (I haven't thought that metaphor through at all, let's all just agree horde modes are a bad idea).
    Reply +26
  • kangarootoo 30/11/2016

    I think the last CoD game I was "excited" about was CoD 1.

    Has it taken this long for us to realise that CoD's increasing journey down the path of boring near-future military scifi is..... boring?

    Dishonored 2 underperforming is a shame, but I'm part of the problem as I was very much looking forward to it but still haven't bought it. I literally have too many other games on the go, and I don't need another one just now.
    Reply +4
  • Ubisoft's VR line-up will support cross-platform play

  • kangarootoo 30/11/2016

    I rather like the look of Star Trek: Bridge Crew. Anyone who has played Artemis will know the sort of vibe that can develop. Reply +5
  • kangarootoo 30/11/2016

    Strong work Ubisoft. Reply +2
  • Oblivion is now backwards compatible on Xbox One

  • kangarootoo 30/11/2016

    Oblivion was the first thing I played on my first HDTV, and still the only XB game for which I got all achievements.... until I bought DLC, and that suddenly turned my clean slate into 1000/1250 :(

    Stopped playing at around 120 hours.

    The enemy scaling was just silly (bandits running up to you on a deserted road, all dressed in glass armour, and looking like they were on the same mission to save the world that you were), and chock full of the terrible animation that has is pretty much part of the ES genre), but aside from that an excellent game.

    Playing Skyrim on PS4 now, which I never finished on last gen due to its annoying preference for miles of landscape that is too bloody steep to walk on, but also still an excellent roaming about type game.


    Regards my comment about animation, it has struck me that I think we have become blind to the character animation and character development in general within Bethesda RPG games. They do an amazing job of building a world, and I love both ES games and Fallout, but by Buddha they cannot make a character with life in it. NPCs running about like marionettes, conversations with characters that sound like they are reading a bus time table, NPCs in a giant world all voiced by about 5 actors who don't even put on a different voice each time (not the actor's fault, I know full well the influence that good voice direction has on such things).

    And as I said above, it is like we've become blind to it all, like it has just become part of the genre. Look at the characters in Witcher 3, and see how much life is in even the randoms you meet by the side of the road. Look at the opening sequence of The Last of Us for how to put emotion into the beginning of the end of the world, and then look at Fallout 4's opening sequence with characters puppeting their way along a road shouting "Noooooooo!"

    To reiterate, I love ES games and Fallout, and I'm glad I've become blind to their character flaws. Worthy of note and discussion though. Somebody disagree with me! :)
    Reply +2