• 4am@lemmy.zip
    395·
    7 days ago

    New Vegas is the McChicken?

    …has the McChicken helped people realize they’re trans?!?

  • MeatPilot@sh.itjust.works
    242·
    6 days ago

    My interpretation based on how my body handles McDonald’s food. Let me know if this matches up with what they are going for?

    1. Diarrhea
    2. Diarrhea
    3. Diarrhea and Mild Stroke
    4. Diarrhea and Depression
    5. Diarrhea, Depression, and Vomiting
    • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
      8·
      6 days ago

      they are ribs. they got bones, but like you expect them and plan to eat around them. and if you add your own sauces damn are they good

  • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
    7·
    7 days ago

    I get the idea, but the way it’s used here seems atrocious. Is Fallout 3 even that big compared to the other titles?

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.socialEnglish
      8·
      6 days ago

      Fallout 3 is a weird one because it’s definitely a good game and a halfway decent RPG at least on the same level as Oblivion; but as a fan of Fallout prior to its release, it doesn’t give any of the same vibes as Fallout. Different sense of humor, different cultural things since it’s set on the otherside of the country as the originals, and kinda just feels like a serial killer murdered Fallout and wore its skin like a suit.

      If it was called something else, I think I would have more fondness toward it.

      • FerretyFever0@fedia.io
        2·
        6 days ago

        It was enjoyable enough, I liked certain parts of it quite a bit. A decent number of the quests had interesting elements, although there were very few of them. The gameplay was okay, and I’m glad that New Vegas kept almost all of it. The map was annoying as hell to get around, which annoyed me a bit. The start of the game was the best of any of the open world games in my opinion. Some of the main quest was a little boring, but I loved the simulated town, it was probably the most fun I had in the game. It was a bit grittier than Fallout 4 ended up being, which was both a good thing and a bad thing.

        My more controversial opinion is that Fallout 4 has significantly better content than 3. The locations have a lot more interesting bits of lore. Some of the sidequests are a bit more fun to play through. The companions have a lot more depth. The main quests were worse though. By a lot.

      • rumschlumpel@feddit.org
        2·
        6 days ago

        True, 3 is definitely worth playing, and I could never really get into Fallout1+2 (I like isometric RPGs, but the old Fallouts are kinda clunky and I prefer my turn-based combat to be party-based). But even from my couple of hours playing Fallout1+2, it’s very clear that the vibe is completely different from the Bethesda-owned installments.

      • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 days ago

        it was the one that turned it into a 3d. also NV had better perks. I cannot get TTW to work on my PC for some reason but I really want to give 3 a try with that.

    • FerretyFever0@fedia.io
      7·
      6 days ago

      It’s significantly smaller than 4, by an insane amount. I’d say that in terms of content, it has slightly less than New Vegas, but significantly less depth. It’s worth playing, but ehhhh.