Again, you're comparing apples to oranges. There are obviously more FPS fans than CRPG fans. Are you now blaming every FPS fan out there who doesn't like CRPGs for the lackluster sales of CRPGs in general? That's pretty asinine. In very much the same way, I could blame the demise of Adventure games on Doom 3 disregarding the fact that the majority of ppl just don't dig adventure titles.

If you really want to compare, compare it to Oblivion where for the most part, it DOES sell itself more on eye-candy and is in fact an RPG.

Anyway, Doom 3 came out in 2004 at the height of E3 (Where everyone and their uncle was riding high on hype machines). The other examples you gave was when the gaming industry in general was still rather small (Late 90s). Obviously Doom 3 will get more hype since game marketing is far more pronounced now than it was back then. If you really want to compare, use Oblivion or Neverwinter Nights as a yardstick, of which both DID have VERY large amounts of hype behind them and sold like hot cakes as well.

Why is the mere fact of making Fallout into an FPS suddenly going to mean that they're not going to recreate the atmosphere? Are you saying that simply because its an FPS, it cannot create the same atmosphere that Fallout had? If anything, in first-person, you could actually make a more engaging atmosphere since you would be experiencing first hand the post-apocalyptic world instead of having a really obscure "God's eye" view with only your imagination to create an image of what its like based on the blurry visuals and narrative. Again, it really looks like you have a beef with Fallout turning into an FPS, simply because it is no longer turn-based and in isometric view.

Man, this place is turning into NMA...

---

Added on July 18, 2007, 11:11 amOh yeah, more E3 impressions on Fallout 3... Mmm, 40's kitsch music and mini nukes...

This post has been edited by H@H@: Jul 18 2007, 11:12 AM

Now that's something i can agree with.
FO 2 had more talking heads but i always wanted more. I want to see that turbo plasma rifle in all its full glory.

Sometimes change is good. Look what GTA III did for the franchise.

yes and no

you can view things in a first person perspective and what not, but for the sake of that we have to sacrifice tons of stuff. killing kids, nailing whoes, making toast out of the first citizen, drug addicts, drugs and what not. the point is those stuff are the ones that make fallout, fallout, that makes new reno the best damn place to make a fool of your character.

if we are to take those away, we get a normal rpg that is sooo right. that is sooo politically correct, sooo clean that it spoils the fun out of fallout being fallout. you cant have that porn star tag and smirk on it each time you see it pop up. no you cant make children melt and watch gleefully.

its those things that i worry,and fallout would bejust another fps rpg in the post nuke setting

This post has been edited by +3kk!: Jul 18 2007, 11:50 AM

Wow, you do realize I was just dissecting his post and nothing else right? I don't believe I saw anything in soggie's post that suggest such things would be left out.

Speaking of which, let me dissect yours now.

You believe what made Fallout, Fallout was the fact that it was politically incorrect. If that's the case, wouldn't GTA be the game you should be playing? It WAY more politically incorrect than Fallout and has far more shock value in place.

Is Fallout really all about getting it on with the hoes (Go play GTA 3), shooting children in the face (Go play the upcoming Bioshock), becoming a junkie (Become a vampire in Oblivion), becoming a porn star and setting people on fire (RtCW)? If that's the case, then all Fallout had going for it was shock value and it probably needs to find something new and controversial to do.

Again let me say this... HOW THE HELL DOES IT BECOMING AN FPS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS? Can you not shoot children in the face in first person? Can you not set ppl on fire in first person? Can you not become a drug addict in first person? I'm not gonna touch on getting it on with the hoes simply because it technically wasn't in Fallout (Screen turning black doesn't count... Go try Gothic 2)

This whole "OMG, the essence of Fallout will be lost because its in FPS" complaints are becoming more and more asinine the more I hear it.

Did Fallout have a lot of politically incorrect elements in the game? Yes. Was that ALL there was to the game? No; If it were, I'd just go play GTA.

First, FPS means first person shooter. Fallout 3 is going to be in first person, but its still going to be an RPG (we hope lar) so until proven otherwise stop calling it an FPS. That sends chills down my spine.

2nd

Alot of fallout fans never considered reno to be the thing that makes fallout 'fallout'. Amongst unwashed villagers it was generally felt that reno took the whole violence, drugs and sex thing as far as it was acceptable. If you think what makes fallout so enjoyable is 'killing kids, nailing etc' I think you'd enjoy postal more then fallout.

What made fallout enjoyable (for me, and I think, the majority of unwashed villagers) was actually
1. its unique atmosphere
2. its character design system, which allows for multiple play styles
3. its attempt to simulate RP combat using a hex grid system and turn based combat

Given Bethesda's track record and the antics of Todd and Pete, I'm going to say that the atmosphere will be a hit or miss thing, and they will fumble badly on the other two points. How so?

Bethesda has never been known to make a world that feels alive. Yes, they have massive worlds, with lots of NPCs, huge tracts of land to explore, dungeons to crawl, but everything lacked life. NPCs from Daggerfall were like cardboard cutouts, and this didn't improve much in Morrowind. Oblivion didn't have NPCs, it had polygons. Want prove? How many characters from fallout do we remember fondly? Harold, Marcus, Myron (Moron),Tandi, the list goes on. I can't remember a single NPC from daggerfall, can remember vivec and that alcohol guzzling commander of yours (it made me laugh when morrowind fans said he was a great character because he punctuated his dialog with 'hics' and had bottles stashed under his bed), and that idiotic illegitimate prince whose name I can't remember. I fear beth's take of the Fallout universe will include lots of swearing (swearing is cool anf funny! according to todd), and nothing else.

On to character design. Beth already plans to scrape intelligence's effect on dialogue choices. No more dumb character goo goo ga ga-ing in the wasteland. Why make a smart character then? In fallout you could never reduce int. to a score of 1 unless you were prepared to though it out without conversation, hence requiring most builts to be at least of an 'average intelligence', much like the real world. Now we can have retards carrying out word perfect conversations while having the strenght of giants.

To further touch on character design would need a mention of FP combat. You either make combat twitch based, or stats based. If its twitch based then what do attributes like perception and agility mean? Oh yes, VATS... However! If I'm good enough I wouldn't have to use VATS at all, and beth, being the console monkeys they are, seems to fully intend VATS as a way to appease the hardcore fan. Until I actually see a demo or read Desslock or Brother None's first hand experience with VATS, to me its only going to be a gimmick.

I have a lot more rants, and have posted on many more fallout forums, but the bottomline is, Bethesda is not a company suited to making fallout. Sure I'll buy the game, but wether I'll call it fallout or not depends on the final product bethesda delivers. I'll give them a chance, at the very least, to prove me wrong.

And if you're wondering what the unwashed villagers are/were... HOW DARE YOU CALL YOURSELF A FALLOUT FAN.


This has been argued before. A FP perspective may very well allow you to be more immersed in the game, but at what cost? The inablitity to have true strategic, RPG style hex based combat is one. And if you tell me 'hex based TB combat is out of date', then don't play fallout, go play some other FPS, but leave fallout to us, the fans! Yes, to me fallout wasn't only about the setting, the atmosphere. Combat and viewpoint played a big role as well, and was, indeed, the 'essence' of fallout. You may think its assinine, but I certainly don't.

This post has been edited by dishwasher: Jul 18 2007, 12:32 PM

I recently read somewhere that if you did in fact reduce your Int to 1, when speaking to NPCs which would otherwise speak in caveman (Grunts and so forth), you actually speak to them in perfect Queen's English! So, no. Playing with an Int of 1 is still playable

Ok, I have no problem with ppl arguing about the effect FP on the combat mechanics (As it is related). But the two posts I quoted earlier brought in totally unrelated things like atmosphere and environment, etc. which are totally asinine. Its like they're using everything but the kitchen sink to try and make First Person look like the devil that will kill Fallout.

If they want to throw bricks at Beth for switching to FP, then fine... But if they want to use moronic excuses for it, I am obviously going to call them on it.

Anyway, Fallout didn't have much strategic gameplay value simply because you only controlled yourself; Your party members acted independent of you. Hell, Baldur's Gate had more strategic depth and it was in real-time. Sorry, but the better TB combat throne is definitely owned by X-Com.

Aye, I think we're losing track here. Let's backtrack.

I said originally, that the point I'm so upset is that Bethesda's preview focused on graphics and gore, and did little to address the outstanding issues of matching the atmosphere to the old fallout universe. Then I made a point to say that games with excellent graphics and eye candies consistently outdid games that did not have that but had great gameplay, and went on to cite Planescape, Baldur's Gate and Fallout VS Doom as examples. So I don't think I'm comparing oranges to apples. Hope you understood my views.

As I've reiterated again and again, I did not think making Fallout into FPS is the main issue here. My "beef" is with the elimination of the turn-based combat, and so far I know turn-based and FPS don't mix well together. Why am I so perked up with the elimination of turn-based? I guess I've explained it in a previous post.

PS: Neverwinter Nights sold like hot cakes, and guess what the advertising was all about? D&D in 3D. Super spell effects, nice big toolkit. When it came out, it was an eye fest, but nothing can be said about the story. Again proofs that games that are good on the outside but empty in the inside WILL do well in the market, which was my point in the first place. And that was why I believe Bethesda is putting so much emphasis on the looks, gore and action, to the point where the actual Fallout issues weren't addressed. Given Bethesda's reputation, I don't think they'll have much to say on that front - they are not reknowned for their capability to create engaging RPGs (Don't cite me Morrowind and Oblivion. The story itself never won any praise at all).

So in conclusion, I did NOT say FPP (first person perspective) will ruin fallout. Never did in my post did I mention that. What I DID say is the taking away turn-based combat is my real pain, and even if they left it in turn-based will never work with FPP. My SECOND beef was with Bethesda not answering the long-standing questions of the original fan base sufficiently, and instead choose to showcase the game like it is a technical marvel. Yeah, technologically, its great, and maybe even exciting when your adrenaline gets pumping. Heck, I won't kid you, I actually thought of a FPP Fallout spinoff before, meant to be a Q3 mod, but abandoned it when I realized I know nothing about code at that time. But to call it a sequel to Fallout 3, and focusing it on the fact that it is a FPP, is a huge fumble. What fans wanted to hear is the efforts that Beth did to acknowledge their existence, and concerns.

Can you imagine the insult when Todd said "hardcore fans would be happy to know this and know that" when they have been snubbing the fan base for years? Just compare how Black Isle treated the fan base and how Beth treated the fan base, and you should get the answer.

This post has been edited by soggie: Jul 18 2007, 03:42 PM

Again, you cannot compare games of different genres in this case. It just isn't fair as not everyone likes FPS', RPGs. RTS' and so forth. If Doom 3 was an RPG, the sales figures might be different... Then again, it is from id

And this would be a more proper comparison for other RPGs in terms of sales.

Well, what's this then:

Well you didn't say ruin, but you used bastardize instead, which probably sounds even worst.

Erm, what exactly are you expecting from them then? You say they keep touting their technology and them not avowing the existence and concerns of fans... So, tell me, what are these concerns and how would you like them to address them? They made quite a lot of comments on the quests style and environment at the recent E3, so what did they leave out really?

I'd just like to add that:
NMA != The majority fanbase

They're hardcore fanatics who just want Fallout 2.5 with better graphics.

Bethesda just want your Fallout character stats max-up aka power gamer style like how the stats are raised by using more of it. Morrowind & Oblivion style. Nothing else. Its as simple as that and that just plain sucks in an RPG sense. At least Dungeon Siege implementation is better that we focus on only one skillset from the start or be gimped for life.

So...with this style of character development. The jack of all trades and master of all. What does it make the game? Mainstream!

Indeed. I'm guesing you never went that far down the int. scale? You could carry out a perfect conversation with that cow herd in fallout 2, albeit in brackets. i.e. goo goo goog, gagag aowowow (hi, how are you?)
Fallout's strategic play wasn't in party combat. It was on making good decisions with your character, for example when to take the risk of a headshot or when to just splatter your foe with a burst from an SMG. Indeed the removal of controlable party member made combat much different from other games. While in baldurs gate you could line up your entire party with fighters at the front and mages at the back, in fallout you were at the mercy of the artificial intelligence, making every one of your decisions even more important. Ever saved a near dead Sulik by pulling the attention of a raider off him? Plus, you had to watch that you never stepped out in front of Ian while he had an SMG.
As someone put it on the Bethesda forums, the hardcore fallout fans will never be happy unless they were given a spruced up version of the original fallout. Indeed I feel as tho I am one of those fans mentioned; I'm not happy with the direction fallout 3 is heading. However, seeing how futile arguing and ranting about it had become, with the same old arguments being rehashed over and over again, I have simply stepped back and will just await the finished product before I judge.

Either way, Bethesda aren't helping the issue by not answering any fan questions at all. Fallout fans are known in the industry as some of the most rabib ones, and worst yet, they had a real rapport with the original fallout developers. Black Isle gave us stuff like the fallout bible and the developers met with fansites to talk about the game. Bethesda won't even answer their own forums. In fact, Bethesda's PR department is of the mind that if anyone gives negative comments on one of their games, they would block that gaming sites URL from their forums, even banning known users of those sites. Knowing the fallout community, you can imagine the backlash a move like this can create.

Another thing... Bethesda has a terrible track record when it comes to promoting their games. They lied about Oblivion during production, and, at least in the minds of hardcore fallout fans, will probably lie about fallout 3 again. That is why everything bethesda releases to the public has been dissected, minced up, put together and dissected again by fans. When it was said fallout 3 would have conversation similiar to Oblivion, fans screamed 'wiki words!' even tho later it was shown fallout 3 would have full conversation. I don't blame the fans, I blame the company for loosing the confidence of their customers.

One last point. While NMA doesn't represent the majority of the fanbase (actually we don't know that; since the majority of fans hasn't showed up yet, do they actually exist?), you have to respect them for keeping a community alive for 10 years when the last real fallout game was released 9 years ago. How can you blame them when they've been waiting 9 years for something obviously very important to them? Besides, the main poster at NMA, Brother None, actually makes very sensible post, never at all rants, and usually give credit to Bethesda when its due. The community isn't as rabid as some outsiders would think. We just have a couple of black sheeps is all.

---

Added on July 18, 2007, 7:13 pmBethesda has already stripped out the Elder Scrolls skill based character system and implemented SPECIAL. Its not a complete implementation. Yes, the potential for abuse and power gaming is there, but then again it was there in fallout 1, and was worst in fallout 2. Remember going all the way to Neveda to get the Mk. II power armor at the start of the game? Get your facts right, or you'll be seen as just another fanboy ranting that he won't get his fallout 2.5.

Also, I will never get people who use the word 'mainstream' as a replacement for 'mediocre'. Why so anxious to prove that you're different and cannot accept the normal standards the rest of humanity set?

This post has been edited by dishwasher: Jul 18 2007, 07:13 PM

Yeah, I was pretty high strung back then and that never really crossed my mind

Just wanted to point out that the game does have multiple ways to be played. My bro played with the Jinxed trait and his combat was so riddled with misfires that he eventually settled for barehanded fighting and each battle takes hours to finish.
Interesting way of looking at the combat; Never really thought about it that way. Subconsciously, yes... But not actively.

I dunno... I always thought that the combat was too unpredictable to use any strategy. After you've seen a half-naked tribesman take 2 damage from a minigun at 6 feet or a guy in Power Armour getting riddled with bullets half-way across the screen, you sort of give up on really thinking about combat.

But I suppose this dynamic would carry over pretty well in FP. It would be awesome actually ("Point the Gauss gun AWAY from me when I'm wailing on this dude with my power fists!")
Well, after they pulled a Molyneux (Overhype a game with features and then fall short) with Oblivion, I suppose they're being careful this time around.

That being said, keeping mum isn't that good off an alternative either.

It has potential for abuse but it doesn't disrupts the game. You still have to go all the way to get it and its a pretty dangerous journey.. It could be fun to. What do you expect as a low level passing through the high level terrain? That vs in Oblivion, casting low level fire spells gazillion times and rest when the mana is out just to max out your destructions skills is stupid. And you could repeat it for every major skills available and all this without moving an inch. So which one is worse? Tell me.

Why are we talking about oblivion? We're talkinga bout fallout 3 and its has been confirmed that its using SPECIAL, and will be an XP based system, not skill based. I'm not happy with alot of things been done in fallout 3, but at least I get the facts right, then make my point.

Yes, all your facts are from the previews but nothing on those is substantiated in the official website. So please don't go out and say its the final word or with that dumb authoritativeness you have put it as it still can be altered since the game is nowhere near release.

You do realize that the game has a playable demo thats been shown to gaming sites and magazines, as well as in E3? Do you even have any valid points other then calling me dumb? Ad hominem replies will get you nothing but disrespect. Until you actually make a valid point, please don't bother replying.

Can I just say, without getting into an argument myself, that I actually enjoyed the way Fallout 1 & 2 played, and I wouldn't mind if fallout 3 looked exactly the same as the previous 2...

Actually, I was giving an example of why games that placed an emphasis on visuals more than actual gameplay itself, regardless of what their genre is, consistently did well in the market. And my point was Beth followed the masses, and focused on selling more of the game AKA Oblivion-hype-machine, instead of actually reassuring us that they will give us a game worthy of the Fallout legend. I had my last word on this - we're going way too offtrack on this topic. If you don't agree, then that's fine, we agree to disagree then.

Bastardize means taking the features of two different things and mixing them together, often ending up with a jack-of-all-trade-but-master-of-none situation. Will the current FO3 system appease FPS players? Hardly, since they can't rely on their own skills to score satisfactory hits. Can it appease to the turn-based RPG crowd? Nope, don't think so, even with the VATS turned on. I'm looking at VATS the same way I am looking at Final Fantasy 7's guardian forces (or was it 6? I can't remember). Nice on the first view, and on the third cast you'd wish there was a fast-forward button. Nice concept, don't excite me much, don't see any point of having it tactics-wise.

In fallout we used to be able to calculate EXACTLY how much action points we need to step from a corridor, fire a called shot, then duck back into the corridor again to avoid fire or lure the enemy nearer. Can I move in VATS? Don't think so. Can I change stances? Doubtful. Can I lean over the wall? Maybe, but Beth never mentioned that, or anybody even saw any signs of that coming in the Beth forums.

I didn't say ruin, I just said FPP will NOT mix well with turn-based, and even with paused-based combat I don't think it will be easy to create a satisfactory combat system out of it. If they manage to impress me by proving me wrong, then I'll eat my words and sing praises for it. Right now I'm just skeptical.

This is what the Beth people said about Fallout's humor: "You know, the humour in Fallout 3 is that you can get a weapon and blow a guy to a bloody mess, then when you pull up your interface, you see a little smiling cartoon character holding his thumb up. Like that's funny... funny not in terms of jokes or winks at the camera and such..."

Did they hit the point? Missed by a mile, in my humble opinion. Ok, so fallout humor is out. What's next? Quests?

I haven't heard Todd mentioning about the possibility of talking your way through all situations. So far the demo is combat heavy - almost everything involves guns and gore. Great, that's fine, but no mention of playing the game the peaceful way? Yeah I know this doesn't sound right but having that possibility is one of the things that I'd like to see them implement in Fallout. What's the point of having SPECIAL and speech skills when you have to resort to the gun every now and then?

I'm glad they have a whole dialogue tree in it, but perplexed when hearing the rumor that regardless of your intelligence you still get the full dialogue tree. Hope they get this one right.

One final note - as long as Beth decides to snub the fan base, and not provide more interaction with them, none of the old fan base will be happy. Good luck with creating a new fan base, which from the current run of positive previews from all around the world, will be entirely possible. Keeping them tho, might be a problem.

---

Added on July 19, 2007, 11:02 amLet's do something different:

What ridiculous thing do you want to see in Fallout 3?

Come, the most ridiculous post gets a carton of jet!!!!!

This post has been edited by soggie: Jul 19 2007, 11:02 AM

Really?
Farcry wasn't flying off store shelves despite being the prettiest looking game at the time of release.
Giants: Citizen Kabuto sold like ass despite being one of the first few games to utilize T&L (And thus look the prettiest)
Act of War: Direct Action was considered the prettiest looking RTS when it came out and it didn't really set the market on fire.
Quake 4 which used the same engine as Doom 3 and looked better than it, sold marginally less than Doom 3.
Everquest 2 which looks at least 3 times better than World of Warcraft is hardly making a dent in the world of MMOs.

While eye candy may be a major factor in the sales of a game, it isn't the ONLY factor. I still don't agree with using Doom 3 to compare the sales of RPGs. Its like saying that the top Heavyweight fighter can beat the asses of ALL Featherweight fighters just because he has better teeth totally disregarding the fact that they're in different classes.

Nice change on the word play but where I come from "bastardize" means to ruin something good by merging something totally different. Well, can't fault your own definition but whatever.

Technically, that's more to do with the change from TB combat to Real Time combat rather than FPP.

Ok, I know you guys are still peeved at the change, but I mean... those things you stated are characteristic of typical TB style games. Its not really that unique to Fallout. Get over it.

PS. You had stances in Fallout? I didn't play Tactics, so I dunno.

That sorta works I guess. The relative innocence of the 50s interspersed with the sadistic realities of the wasteland was a constant theme in Fallout.

I did say that my main concern was with the elimination of turn-based combat and the introduction of the VATS as a substitute. Never did I say that those characteristics were unique to fallout. My point in that two paragraphs (which are on the same topic, mind you), is that VATS is not a good substitute for turn-based and will not appease to the old fan base who loved the AP/turn-based system for the exact reasons why fallout wasn't paused-timed or real-timed in the very first place. Having the option NOT to fight in real-time pretty much eliminates the need to choose any perks that gives you extra AP (or reduces its usage), at least on paper.

That was an EXAMPLE, my friend.

Right. So did "drink water to heal bullet wounds" too. And Mr.Handy talking bad about you behind your back. And ticket robots roaming tunnels killing people without tickets. Welcome to Fallout 3, the cliche fest!

EDIT:

Actually, on the last paragraph, I felt bad about being sarcastic and not replying to your point. So here's the proper reply - violence mixed with innocent 50's is NOT humor. That has a name of its own and it is called setting. How Todd Howard saw that as humor, I have no idea, but if this is what they define as humor in the game, I'm not laughing.

Humor in Fallout is in the people (and sometimes, the game mechanics itself) not being capable of taking themselves seriously. Over-the-top humor does not equate to over-the-top violence. I never burst out laughing when playing Fallout and Fallout 2. Humor in the Fallout universe is much more subtle and more... how to say... innuendo? Hope I got the spelling right.

This post has been edited by soggie: Jul 19 2007, 12:52 PM

Again, its no longer in TB, so obviously the TB related perks/traits will be replaced with something else. Why are you under the impression that the combat will only be switched to real-time while everything else remains the same?

We're smack dab in the middle of talking about the features of Fallout's TB combat and you suddenly decided to throw in a completely unrelated example? I mean, you used that as ammo against VATS when it wasn't a feature of Fallout to begin with! Excuse me for being picky about incorrect examples

I mean, VATS doesn't allow you to manage your team members during combat therefore it is going to be TEH SUCK! But wait, its a feature that most TB games have but not Fallout, so why would I be bringing it up?


This does bring an interesting question to mind:
What part of Fallout's combat mechanic which was truly memorable and unique to Fallout? I mean, TB is TB and lots of other games use it, so its not that big a deal... But anything else?

IMHO, its primarily the Aimed Shot system which is pretty much what the VATS system is for. That's pretty much "Fallout's combat" for me and Beth have it covered. Implementation is still a big question mark, but hey at least "that" is still there.



Its called satire really. Where irony and subtlety with a touch of social commentary are used. I mean, I chuckled when I saw the intro for Fallout 2 (Where they totally downplay the effects of living for decades underground) and in some parts of the Fallout 2 manual (Which is supposed to function as a survival guide).

It isn't meant to be in your face and the example Todd Howard gave isn't really that outstanding... Bad example, yes, but against the spirit of Fallout, I don't think by much.