Fallout 3 will stink like Deus Ex 2.

[Drift3r]

Kobymu you pretty much summed up my point of view in regards to the original Fallout games. They had many parts that just worked well together and to remove big chunks and replace them with "Oblivion" style FPS game play will hurt this new game more then help it. Fallout also had a very deep and meaningful story with consequences and a world that was morbid at times but very funny with it's dark humor. I'll be honest in saying that at first the turn based combat game play turned me off but the more I played the game the more I began to love and appreciate the nature of turn based battles using the S.P.E.C.I.A.L CRPG system. Of which it was specifically designed and tailored to work on PC's unlike DnD rules.

The game just meshed well with that system and the story telling mechanics and other game play aspects also connected into this system just as neatly as the TB game play. I think the days of CRPG games like Fallout 1-2, Baldur's Gate 1-2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, KOTOR, Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, etc.... where you had a deep story with good game play elements that meshed well with everything else in a game are pretty much over and done with IMHO. I have yet to see a CRPG put out nowadays on the PC ( includes even Oblivion which I thought was just boring as hell ) that is worth playing.

 

[hdeck]

Originally posted by: natep
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
It's not about 2D vs. 3D, turn based vs. realtime, or even isometric vs. 3rd person vs. 1st person.

It's about:

"I saw a mudcrab today."

"Horrible creatures."

*snort*

"Have you heard that the Fighters' guild is hiring new members?"

"No."

"Ok."

"Bye."

"Bye."

Time for the Simon Says conversation influence game!

"You don't scare me."

"That's good. How'd it go again?"

"Amazing."

"Don't try to manipulate me."

Time to go poke some level-scaled monsters!
</blockquote>

This is exactly where Bethesda will fail, if anywhere. That dialog.

too bad fallout 3 doesn't have level-scaled monsters.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Drift3r
Kobymu you pretty much summed up my point of view in regards to the original Fallout games. They had many parts that just worked well together and to remove big chunks and replace them with "Oblivion" style FPS game play will hurt this new game more then help it. Fallout also had a very deep and meaningful story with consequences and a world that was morbid at times but very funny with it's dark humor. I'll be honest in saying that at first the turn based combat game play turned me off but the more I played the game the more I began to love and appreciate the nature of turn based battles using the S.P.E.C.I.A.L CRPG system. Of which it was specifically designed and tailored to work on PC's unlike DnD rules.

The game just meshed well with that system and the story telling mechanics and other game play aspects also connected into this system just as neatly as the TB game play. I think the days of CRPG games like Fallout 1-2, Baldur's Gate 1-2, Arcanum, Planescape: Torment, KOTOR, Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, etc.... where you had a deep story with good game play elements that meshed well with everything else in a game are pretty much over and done with IMHO. I have yet to see a CRPG put out nowadays on the PC ( includes even Oblivion which I thought was just boring as hell ) that is worth playing.

The funniest thing in this whole debacle is that every one is infatuated with the fallout atmosphere, humor and setting, yet they don?t understand that only a small percentage of that was communicated through the 'immersion' of "teh graphic" and voice over.

Not only did Fallout managed to convey all that atmosphere and humor through the old, obsolete, static and boring isometric turn based, it needed these elements, it was an insightful decision made by the original developers because it help them to communicate that "feeling".

But yet people will uses every excuses in the book in order to justify the move to an FPS like game play, some will let you to believe it was due to technological limitation and Black Isle Studios didn?t have a choice but to make the game like that (and guess what, Bethesda is actually using that excuse, it is almost their official reasoning to make Fallout3 FPS like, weird I know), other will just simply refuse to acknowledge that some things are just better from different perspective and/or insist that the only way to make a game a good game is to make it in 3D, its like game play is only secondary to presentation, but that is general trend that the whole gaming industry is suffering from these days ? appearance over substance, good game play may make a game a better game (imagine that) but graphic help to sell it more, and that what counts in the bottom line.

The saddest part however is I don?t think RPG fans understand just how much the game industry is moving away from them, its almost unbelievable, the RPG game genre is reduced to a subgenre of action game (the so called action RPG) almost in its entirety.

Not only does game sites and magazines rate RPG by graphics and action, in other words just like they rate action games, even though RPG are NOT action games, it is like even game developers don?t even know anymore the basic, fundamental concept of what RPG is all about.

http://www.joergspielt.de/pete-hines-en/

Jörg: But what if the old Fallout fans do not like it? Won?t they look for the isometric top-down-view instead of Gears of War?

Pete Hines: There are lots of Fallout fans. I?m a Fallout fan! I am personally interested in another game set in that universe, that is true to the kind of game experience that the first two titles provided! I?m not married to the perspective, I?m not married to whether combat is turn based or real time or a sort of hybrid. If you?re someone that believes it has to be isometric and turn based, then you?ll probably be unhappy. But if you?re interested in another game in that great, rich universe, that has great texture and tone and characters, then hopefully Fallout 3 will be something which will resonate with you. At the end of the day, we can?t make a game that?s all things to all people.

Jörg: And of course you want to sell some numbers which would hardly be possible with an old school tactical game.

Pete Hines: Probably not. But we really felt 3D was the best thing to go for, was the best for the Fallout experience. Because I?m really in this world, I?m really doing this, instead of just looking at those characters down there.

1) He is a fallout fan.
2) He want to make a Fallout3 "that is true to the kind of game experience that the first two titles provided!" by making it a RT FPP (it like he saying "I'm making a race car that will give me the same driving experience that a jeep does").
3) He thinks "3D was the best thing to go for" and that it is "the best for the Fallout experience", but that is just because, as we all know it, 3D is the only true form in which you make computer games, if it is not 3D it is automatically worse, apparently.

But to top it all off this is what he thinks RPG is all about:
4) "Because *I?m* really in this world, *I?m* really doing this". Or in other words, he thinks a good RPG should like be a simulation, it's like the concept of role playing is beyond him, he understands RPG as a 'self playing game' instead of 'role playing game'.

 

[apoppin]

what you got to remember is that MOST gamers *don't care* about the old-RPGs ... or that Fallout3 will be "true" to Fallout
-i am just looking forward to a new great game

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable
-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business and we'd have to wait for the fans to patch it.

Feel free to complain all you want ... the reality is that Bethesda IS making Fallout3 the way THEY want to make it and i am just glad to see another new game with great potential and likely to be polished and relatively bug-free on release
--My suggestion to "purists" is just don't buy F3 ... maybe Bethesda will go out out of business as a result of your protest.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what you got to remember is that MOST gamers *don't care* about the old-RPGs ... or that Fallout3 will be "true" to Fallout
-i am just looking forward to a new great game

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable
-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business and we'd have to wait for the fans to patch it.

Feel free to complain all you want ... the reality is that Bethesda IS making Fallout3 the way THEY want to make it and i am just glad to see another new game with great potential and likely to be polished and relatively bug-free on release
--My suggestion to "purists" is just don't buy F3 ... maybe Bethesda will go out out of business as a result of your protest.

Now that's what I call solidarity. :salute;

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: apoppin
what you got to remember is that MOST gamers *don't care* about the old-RPGs ... or that Fallout3 will be "true" to Fallout
-i am just looking forward to a new great game

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable
-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business and we'd have to wait for the fans to patch it.

Feel free to complain all you want ... the reality is that Bethesda IS making Fallout3 the way THEY want to make it and i am just glad to see another new game with great potential and likely to be polished and relatively bug-free on release
--My suggestion to "purists" is just don't buy F3 ... maybe Bethesda will go out out of business as a result of your protest.

Now that's what I call solidarity. :salute;

it seemed like a one-finger salute and i didn't think it was a thumb

*All* i am saying is that you can bitch and moan all you want but you are not changing anything ... Bethesda IS doing Fallout3 the way they want to and the *only thing* you can do is organize a boycott of it.

Most gamers don't care about your "true" version of Fallout3 [judging by the posts here] ... personally i don't and am looking forward to the "dumbed-down" version ... better than nothing ... it *might* be a great game in its OWN right.

EDIT: sorry about the "edit" ... i didn't DO anything to your post .. just left my "tracks"

 

[Starbuck1975]

Not only did Fallout managed to convey all that atmosphere and humor through the old, obsolete, static and boring isometric turn based, it needed these elements, it was an insightful decision made by the original developers because it help them to communicate that "feeling".

Or it could just be that the obsolete, statis and boring isometric turn based view was the most practical solution at the time...10 years ago, fully immersive and 3D first person perspective RPGs were simply unviable...the technology was not there to support it...at the time. developers could create far more detailed and realistic environments in 2D from an isometric perspective...but I don't think a Fallout game has to necessarily remain isometric.

It really begs the question as to what defines a "good" RPG. I would contend that character development, story, atmosphere and an immersive game world are all critical components...if Bethesda nails those elements with the Fallout licence, what's the big deal?

Planescape is by far my favorite RPG of all time, but that is because the story was interesting and the game world was very unique.

Also I don't think the industry is moving away from RPGs...like all genres, the gameplay elements that define an RPG are starting to blur...games such as Deus Ex, STALKER and the upcoming BioShock all blur the lines between FPS and RPG. Sacred, KOTOR, and Neverwinter Nights 2 are all recent additions to the RPG community that still maintain an isometric view.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: natep
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
It's not about 2D vs. 3D, turn based vs. realtime, or even isometric vs. 3rd person vs. 1st person.

It's about:

"I saw a mudcrab today."

"Horrible creatures."

*snort*

"Have you heard that the Fighters' guild is hiring new members?"

"No."

"Ok."

"Bye."

"Bye."

Time for the Simon Says conversation influence game!

"You don't scare me."

"That's good. How'd it go again?"

"Amazing."

"Don't try to manipulate me."

Time to go poke some level-scaled monsters!
</blockquote>

This is exactly where Bethesda will fail, if anywhere. That dialog.

too bad fallout 3 doesn't have level-scaled monsters.

congrats on completely missing the point...

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: apoppin
what you got to remember is that MOST gamers *don't care* about the old-RPGs ... or that Fallout3 will be "true" to Fallout

Most gamers should care. Why?

-i am just looking forward to a new great game

Do you get in now?

No? I go into details shortly.

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable

We? Are you a Fallout fan?

Also, can you backup that claim, or is it that you can see into the future?

Just as a reminder, Fallout was and IS considered a master piece, a game that pushed the boundaries, one of the best games of all times by many and then some. Still convinced that it will never happen if Bethesda wouldn?t have bought the rights?

-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business

...

and we'd have to wait for the fans to patch it.

Hmmm... Interesting PoV. the fans that will BT it are the fans that will patch it?

Feel free to complain all you want ... the reality is that Bethesda IS making Fallout3 the way THEY want to make it

A sad reality, for you as much as mine, and it is so because -

and i am just glad to see another new game with great potential and likely to be polished and relatively bug-free on release

It's ok to ask for just bug free and polished, its also ok to ask for more of the same. And its ok to ask for a sequel to be a sequel and not a spin off, just as it is ok to ask for a spinoff.

*All* i am saying is that you can bitch and moan all you want but you are not changing anything ... Bethesda IS doing Fallout3 the way they want to and the *only thing* you can do is organize a boycott of it.

I can do more then that, and doing it.

Most gamers don't care about your "true" version of Fallout3 [judging by the posts here] ... personally i don't and am looking forward to the "dumbed-down" version ... better than nothing ... it *might* be a great game in its OWN right.

Here is the thing, by allowing your need for what looks like a good game right now, and at the expense of another good game at that, you making a compromise that you shouldn?t. The computer game industry isn?t too small for the both of us, or more precisely, it doesn't have to be, it rolls hundreds of million of dollars every year.

The problem is the game industry is moving into an assembly line like industry, games are not being designed anymore. Game companies are fallowing a formula they think will give them the best investment return, but aren't pushing the envelop like the original Fallout did.

Genres used to matter, you had action, strategy, RPG, adventure and so on, forget about RPG for a moment and look at strategy, the strategy genre today is comprised of Civilization and RTSs.

Everything is turning into everything else.

Your gaming needs doesn't have to come at the expense of my gaming needs, but by continually allowing game developers delude genres, game-play and gaming experience into a some kind of genre-less blend, you are not only putting your own gaming needs on top of others, you are helping the industry reach a point where innovation isn?t needed anymore, as long as *you* get your 2 FPSs and an action-RPG a year, your good.

Computer games have so much to evolve to, but all the gamers are, for some reason, willing to compromise for just better graphics and bug free, year after year. it ok to ask for more, especially from tripleA companies. In regard to Fallout, It is still considered the best RPG, 10 years after its introduction. 10 years! And RPG didn?t get stuck there, it deteriorated.

If you are, personally, willing to settle, expecting from your games to *just* a polished bug free 3D environment, that is your choice, but at least have the decency to not presume that your gaming needs, because it seems to be in alignment to the majority of gamers, (and they are not) should be all that counts. And you should know better then throwing unsupported numbers (10,000 -20,000) without something to backup it up.

One last thing for now, would it bothered THAT MUCH if Fallout3 would be considered a spin-off instead of a sequel? will it hurt you gaming needs THAT MUCH?

/i'll be damned if i ever manage to post something this big without typos :frown:

 

[EvilComputer92]

Well I was late to the whole Oblivion thing, in fact I just got it about 3 weeks ago. It's graphics and the size of the game world are great.(X1900 with Qarl's Texture Pack) Honestly though, the game falls flat in terms of most of the dialog and quests. I got pretty far in the DB questline and finished the Theives Guild one, which was my favorite. Played it up to 60 hours at which point it started to get repetitive, in terms of dialog especially. The only other RPG i've played is NWN 1, which I enjoyed more than Oblivon overall. Deus Ex was also great, though I'm not sure if thats an RPG. I'm actually hopeful for Fallout 3, since I enjoy it's semi futuristic setting much more than traditional fantasy setting.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Or it could just be that the obsolete, statis and boring isometric turn based view was the most practical solution at the time...10 years ago, fully immersive and 3D first person perspective RPGs were simply unviable...the technology was not there to support it...at the time. developers could create far more detailed and realistic environments in 2D from an isometric perspective...but I don't think a Fallout game has to necessarily remain isometric.

You don't make a game 3D 'just because'. presentation is something that should be considered in the preproduction stage, as in "what is the best fitting form for this game" or "which medium is the most complementary to the game experience I'm trying to create", in game design you shouldn?t have defaults.

It really begs the question as to what defines a "good" RPG. I would contend that character development, story, atmosphere and an immersive game world are all critical components...if Bethesda nails those elements with the Fallout licence, what's the big deal?

It's not that complicated. A good RPGs should allow you to role-play, the better it allows you to do so, the better it is, RPG-ness wise, people usually mix a good game and a good RPG when it comes to RPGs, BG (not 2) was a good game but wasn?t a good RPG. BG didn?t offer enough role playing hooks throughout the game, it was a good game, but from an RPG perspective it could have done better, see BG2.

Also I don't think the industry is moving away from RPGs...like all genres, the gameplay elements that define an RPG are starting to blur...games such as Deus Ex, STALKER and the upcoming BioShock all blur the lines between FPS and RPG. Sacred, KOTOR, and Neverwinter Nights 2 are all recent additions to the RPG community that still maintain an isometric view.

That because most gamers confuse RPG game play with a game feature list, to put it in the most simple way.

RPG isn't levels or stat, these are the means that RPG uses in order to reach a final goal. Think of it like someone that wants to move from point A to point B, he can walk, cycle, take the bus, drive himself, charter a helicopter, take the train and so on. However, the means of transportation isn?t the destination, that bicycle, the bus, the car, the train, his own two feet, none of these are point B.

Think about hit points (sometime referred as health points) or more commonly known as HP, FPSs has them, strategy has them, platform action games have them, even beat them up (fighting games) have them, yet none of these games are considered RPG, even though RPG more or less invented them.

A feature list doesn't make a game of a specific genre, just like a machine with engine, wheels, a gear and seats doesn't make a car, in order for that machine to be considered a car it also has to allow you to *drive* it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

RPG isn't levels or stat, these are the means that RPG uses in order to reach a final goal. Think of it like someone that wants to move from point A to point B, he can walk, cycle, take the bus, drive himself, charter a helicopter, take the train and so on. However, the means of transportation isn?t the destination, that bicycle, the bus, the car, the train, his own two feet, none of these are point B.

Arguably, every game is a journey from point A to point B...a good RPG offers a flexible game world such that players can choose a path that fits their game style...similarly, a good RPG reflects the experience gained in that journey through development of the character, whether it be through stats, equipment, upgrades, etc.

Think about hit points (sometime referred as health points) or more commonly known as HP, FPSs has them, strategy has them, platform action games have them, even beat them up (fighting games) have them, yet none of these games are considered RPG, even though RPG more or less invented them.

Health bars have been around for a long time...even some old arcade games had health bars well before consoles and PCs made gaming at home practical...honestly, health bars are the only way to reflect damage to a character, vehicle or otherwise in a game environment when faced with enemy NPCs or online adversaries.

A good RPGs should allow you to role-play, the better it allows you to do so, the better it is, RPG-ness wise, people usually mix a good game and a good RPG when it comes to RPGs, BG (not 2) was a good game but wasn?t a good RPG. BG didn?t offer enough role playing hooks throughout the game, it was a good game, but from an RPG perspective it could have done better, see BG2.

I am assuming BG = Baldur's Gate...see I think BG was an exceptional RPG and an exceptional game...I found the original Fallout series to be exceptional RPGs, but utterly frustrating from a gameplay perspective.

 

[Wheelock]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Final Fantasy 6 -> 7: Worse
Zelda Link to the Past -> Orcarina of Time: Even
Super Metroid -> Metroid Prime: Worse
Super Mario World -> Mario 64: Worse

Street Fighter 2D --> Street Fighter EX: WORSE!

I say it's even with FFVI and FFVII, though, if not an improvement. IMHO, of course.

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

RPG isn't levels or stat, these are the means that RPG uses in order to reach a final goal. Think of it like someone that wants to move from point A to point B, he can walk, cycle, take the bus, drive himself, charter a helicopter, take the train and so on. However, the means of transportation isn?t the destination, that bicycle, the bus, the car, the train, his own two feet, none of these are point B.

Arguably, every game is a journey from point A to point B...a good RPG offers a flexible game world such that players can choose a path that fits their game style...similarly, a good RPG reflects the experience gained in that journey through development of the character, whether it be through stats, equipment, upgrades, etc.

Ummm.... No. You really miss my point there. Game mechanics/feature doesn't determinant genre, it support it, and it doesn't make or unmake a game a curtain genre. Giving your avatar health doesn't make a game an RPG just like giving it levels, attributes and/or skill set doesn't make a game an RPG.

Reward establishment is a feature, and as you mention does effect game play in the sense it changes the way you play, for example in a FPS level with a lot of med-kits player will usually play more advantageously then in a level with few med-kits. That's why reward establishment is considered a lesser game design element, it changes the way you play only, it doesn't change how you play in the sense that it is still a FPS, and your only options is still just shooting stuff, it doesn't change the game play.

The way you play is encompassed by how you *can* play. The - "how you play" is called game-play, the - "way you play" is called playing style.

Think about monopoly, if the board has more or less places, the player had more or less option (property to buy), but it doesn't change the basic fact that every turn you need to roll the dice to establish you next position, the game play is still the same.

Reward establishment is a part in any game, it is not an RPG maker, just like attributes and levels, and some strategy games feature both these elements, yet they aren't Role Playing Games.

If an FPS gives you the opportunity to establish attributes to your avatar, it doesn't make the game a RPG hybrid, FPS with stats are just that, FPS with stats. the stats don't make that FPS an RPG "like", feature are not fiery dust, in order for a game to be an RPG you need to be able to role play in it.

Sure character development is important, by not all by it self, it needs to be connected to something. If it is just there in order for the player to battle stronger foes, it doesn't make the game an RPG. It makes it is either tactical game (TB) or an action game (RT) with stats. In a FPS getting a new weapon is the equivalent of raising a level in a RPG, you get better, but it is still not an RPG. Character progression doesn't make a game an RPG.

Again ?

a feature list doesn't make a game of a specific genre, just like a machine with engine, wheels, a gear and seats doesn't make a car, in order for that machine to be considered a car it also has to allow you to *drive* it.

If you are making an RPG, then first thing first, you need to be able to role play in it. It is right there, in the beginning of the acronym, the letter R, there is a reason its there. what you are referring to stats playing games ? SPG, or something of the sort, not RPG.

There is nothing stopping game developers from creating an RPG where you create the character, but it does not get better over the course of the game. And as long as you can role play that character you created, it will be an RPG.

Game play != game features.

Think about hit points (sometime referred as health points) or more commonly known as HP, FPSs has them, strategy has them, platform action games have them, even beat them up (fighting games) have them, yet none of these games are considered RPG, even though RPG more or less invented them.

Health bars have been around for a long time...even some old arcade games had health bars well before consoles and PCs made gaming at home practical...honestly, health bars are the only way to reflect damage to a character, vehicle or otherwise in a game environment when faced with enemy NPCs or online adversaries.

This is the exact problem I'm describing. There are RPG systems that have OTHER injury systems, HP is just one way to go about it, there ARE others.

http://www.rpg.net/columns/oneshot/oneshot10.phtml
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9183.phtml
http://www.moglit.demon.co.uk/rpg/combat.htm
http://www.geocities.com/sege1...d/HTML/tl3b.htm#COMBAT

The fact it is the only mechanism YOU KNOW OF, doesn?t make it the ONLY ONE. You acting like there are finite number of possibilities, and we already invented them all, there is no more NEWER options, If you stop thinking about games as something you make out of lego pieces, and understand some basic concepts on game design, then maybe you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

[VERTIGGO]

My suggestion is STOP MAKING PC GAMES THAT ARE OH BY THE WAY AVAILABLE ON PS3 AND XBOX AS WELL! Yay! That's marketing for "graphics are limited and unimaginative, controls clunky, interaction lame, and AI... wait what is AI again?"

Seriously, I'm not trying to flame. Console portability severely handicaps development of PC titles.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: apoppin
what you got to remember is that MOST gamers *don't care* about the old-RPGs ... or that Fallout3 will be "true" to Fallout

Most gamers should care. Why?

i am just stating what i believe to be fact they don't ... whether they "should" is another matter entirely

-i am just looking forward to a new great game

Do you get in now?

No? I go into details shortly.

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable

We? Are you a Fallout fan?

Also, can you backup that claim, or is it that you can see into the future?

Just as a reminder, Fallout was and IS considered a master piece, a game that pushed the boundaries, one of the best games of all times by many and then some. Still convinced that it will never happen if Bethesda wouldn?t have bought the rights?[/quote]
absolutely convinced that it now takes a studio of Bethesda's stature to pull something like this off.

-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business

...

and we'd have to wait for the fans to patch it.

Hmmm... Interesting PoV. the fans that will BT it are the fans that will patch it?[/quote]
i didn't say that ... i am exaggerating to make a point ... a pure rpg made exactly the way *you* want it is unlikely to be the commercial success that Bethesda's F3 will be and yes, it will be pirated in large numbers. ... Actually i am psychic.

Feel free to complain all you want ... the reality is that Bethesda IS making Fallout3 the way THEY want to make it

A sad reality, for you as much as mine, and it is so because -
[/quote]But is isn't sad for me - just for you. i loved DE and i liked DE2 even though DE2 wasn't the sequel the OP wanted.

and i am just glad to see another new game with great potential and likely to be polished and relatively bug-free on release

It's ok to ask for just bug free and polished, its also ok to ask for more of the same. And its ok to ask for a sequel to be a sequel and not a spin off, just as it is ok to ask for a spinoff.[/quote]
A spin-off is fine with me - it might be GotY

*All* i am saying is that you can bitch and moan all you want but you are not changing anything ... Bethesda IS doing Fallout3 the way they want to and the *only thing* you can do is organize a boycott of it.

I can do more then that, and doing it.[/quote]
Really ... what do you have in mind?

Most gamers don't care about your "true" version of Fallout3 [judging by the posts here] ... personally i don't and am looking forward to the "dumbed-down" version ... better than nothing ... it *might* be a great game in its OWN right.

Here is the thing, by allowing your need for what looks like a good game right now, and at the expense of another good game at that, you making a compromise that you shouldn?t. The computer game industry isn?t too small for the both of us, or more precisely, it doesn't have to be, it rolls hundreds of million of dollars every year.

The problem is the game industry is moving into an assembly line like industry, games are not being designed anymore. Game companies are fallowing a formula they think will give them the best investment return, but aren't pushing the envelop like the original Fallout did.

Genres used to matter, you had action, strategy, RPG, adventure and so on, forget about RPG for a moment and look at strategy, the strategy genre today is comprised of Civilization and RTSs.

Everything is turning into everything else.

Your gaming needs doesn't have to come at the expense of my gaming needs, but by continually allowing game developers delude genres, game-play and gaming experience into a some kind of genre-less blend, you are not only putting your own gaming needs on top of others, you are helping the industry reach a point where innovation isn?t needed anymore, as long as *you* get your 2 FPSs and an action-RPG a year, your good.

Computer games have so much to evolve to, but all the gamers are, for some reason, willing to compromise for just better graphics and bug free, year after year. it ok to ask for more, especially from tripleA companies. In regard to Fallout, It is still considered the best RPG, 10 years after its introduction. 10 years! And RPG didn?t get stuck there, it deteriorated.

If you are, personally, willing to settle, expecting from your games to *just* a polished bug free 3D environment, that is your choice, but at least have the decency to not presume that your gaming needs, because it seems to be in alignment to the majority of gamers, (and they are not) should be all that counts. And you should know better then throwing unsupported numbers (10,000 -20,000) without something to backup it up.

One last thing for now, would it bothered THAT MUCH if Fallout3 would be considered a spin-off instead of a sequel? will it hurt you gaming needs THAT MUCH?

/i'll be damned if i ever manage to post something this big without typos :frown:[/quote]
Thank-you for your PoV ... you already know mine

 

[kobymu]

Originally posted by: apoppin
...

Is that an official retraction of the claim you cant support with links and numbers?

To reiterate the claim you haven't supported yet

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable

-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: hdeck

Originally posted by: natep
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
It's not about 2D vs. 3D, turn based vs. realtime, or even isometric vs. 3rd person vs. 1st person.

It's about:

"I saw a mudcrab today."

"Horrible creatures."

*snort*

"Have you heard that the Fighters' guild is hiring new members?"

"No."

"Ok."

"Bye."

"Bye."

Time for the Simon Says conversation influence game!

"You don't scare me."

"That's good. How'd it go again?"

"Amazing."

"Don't try to manipulate me."

Time to go poke some level-scaled monsters!
</blockquote>

This is exactly where Bethesda will fail, if anywhere. That dialog.

.

This is exactly my complaint about Oblivion. I could not get into the damn story for anything. I mean nothing of it was interesting, engaging, immersing, at all

 

[kobymu]

:laugh: Bethesda - a game company you can trust.

 

[R3MF]

Originally posted by: Pugnate


This is f!%!% bull@$%t. Where have I smelled this crap before? Oh yea, Deus Ex 2.

Oh and reinvent sounds like, we can't design anything other than what we are used to.

Fallout is a top-down turn based RPG, nothing like Oblivion.

It may seem like I am overreacting, but I've stopped giving console developers the benefit of the doubt.

this is what Bethesda do, they tear-down and rebuild every new game, having tried to assess the core appeal of its predecessor.

if you want Fallout 2.1 you will be in for a severe disappointment!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: kobymu

Originally posted by: apoppin
...

Is that an official retraction of the claim you cant support with links and numbers?

To reiterate the claim you haven't supported yet

if we waited for a "true" fallout3 we would NEVER see it[period] as it is not commercially viable

-kobymu and maybe 20,000 other RPGers would really care ... and 10,000 of those would probably BT it instead of buying it and the studio would be out of business

no of course not

i guess you still don't understand my point
... or don't want to

 

[Dethfrumbelo]

Bethesda paid $5.75 million for the Fallout IP, so they can do anything they want with it. Why they couldn't just create their own post-apocalyptic RPG-lite action game independent of Fallout, I don't know. That $5.75 million would be better spent on some decent writers and voice-over people. Fans of FO1 & 2 aren't going to be swayed by the name alone, and the Oblivion fans couldn't care less about Fallout for the most part. They could've called it The Apocalypse Scrolls and it would sell just as many copies.

The original creators of Fallout, Boyarksy, Cain, Anderson, etc., actually wanted to get together with Bethesda on FO3 (and I guess that means they wanted to get paid as well), but Bethesda rejected the offer.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Bethesda paid $5.75 million for the Fallout IP, so they can do anything they want with it. Why they couldn't just create their own post-apocalyptic RPG-lite action game independent of Fallout, I don't know. That $5.75 million would be better spent on some decent writers and voice-over people. Fans of FO1 & 2 aren't going to be swayed by the name alone, and the Oblivion fans couldn't care less about Fallout for the most part. They could've called it The Apocalypse Scrolls and it would sell just as many copies.

The original creators of Fallout, Boyarksy, Cain, Anderson, etc., actually wanted to get together with Bethesda on FO3 (and I guess that means they wanted to get paid as well), but Bethesda rejected the offer.

you ask 'why'

It's what the movie studios do ... their bean counters say you are wrong and it IS worth at least $5.75 million in profits from extra sales by using the Fallout IP. ... and like the successful movie studios, Bethesda is rolling in dough ... raking in the green ... stuffing their coffers and spending like mad .. they have to 'hit' while they are hot.

Now - if we take your line of reasoning out a bit further - perhaps the Original Creators of Fallout should get their butts busy with some money-backers and create a true follow-up to Fallout and use another name.
Something like Bioshock as the "spiritual successor" to the SystemShock universe.

That way everyone can have their cake and eat it also
:gift:

 

[DaveSimmons]

Wasteland and Fallout 1-2 are 3 of my favorite RPGs of all time, but I've seen many people post here and elsewhere that the graphics look awful if you didn't play them years ago so you can see them now through nostalgia-tinted glasses.

I could see Fallout 2.1 working on a PSP or DS Lite where people are more used to little sprites for characters, but on PCs and consoles people now want 3D. I replayed Fallout 1 again this year and even found myself trying to zoom in like I can in Neverwinter Nights.

Also, from what I've read Fallout 1-2 were very successful with critics but only moderately successful in sales.

So 3D is the right choice for a game that's trying to make a profit.

I don't have a huge amount of hope, but if Bethesda can do a better job of creating a story (especially the dialogue) than in Morrowind and Oblivion, they may end up making a worthy Fallout game.

 

[40sTheme]

Can you guys let it rest and just see how the game is? I swear, people get worked up before we've even seen any indication of what the game is like. Settle down.