Nope, we're not the only ones hehe...

You want to see REAL Fallout 3 (and Bethesda) bashing, then head over to NO MUTANTS ALLOWED...your friendly hardcore Fallout community where thousands of Fallout fans criticize and lambast at Bethesda's attempt in rejuvenating the Fallout franchise...They are harsh yet speak the TRUTH!!

http://www.nma-fallout.com/

Beware you have been warned...

This post has been edited by Enclave Recruit: Jul 24 2008, 06:10 PM

Thing is, the transistion of RPG to FPS, especially a turn-based one, will mean you gotta change or sacrifice some of the core systems. If Agility only affect action points from now on, why would you care to put points into it if you are confident that you don't need VATS? Or, how do you calculate sequence? WHat's the role of perception beyond VATS? This, to me, is where everything falls apart.

BTW, 3rd person view means you gotta rely 100% on VATS.

Your definition of RPG is correct, but that is only for pencil-and-papers. Besides, what we loved in Fallout wasn't just the system. Granted, that was part of the fun, but most of the fun comes from the other stuff that Beth discarded - mainly the turn-based combat. Also, the quirky characters, the funny easter eggs, the black humor, and the freedom to run around the wasteland the way you see fit. It was the general theme that made it special.

The thing about isometric view is that the less details you see, the more forgiving you are, and ironically, the easier it is to immerse yourself into the game world. Current technologies are not up to the - real immersion level that Beth claimed they had yet, and to change to FP view is just opening a big can of worms that shows more of the defects than the gems.

Or it might just be me hating the animations and Beth's arrogance and ignorance.

Fair post, and i get where you coming from. I think the answer to your questions is dependent on the person playing the game. Whether he wants to rely on Vats or spontaneous real time combat. This is where the game seems a little interesting to me. Besides having a character i can tweak and upgrade, the game allows you to play 2 separate modes; real time or Vats. I really do not know how the other skills gonna work out and i doubt anyone would know for certain.

Well VATS is kinda hybrid of turn based and rtc so maybe that will keep the original fall out concepts. I havent played the game and i think 30 mins demo is what available atm and really, you cant derive any conclusions from a 30 min demo. It might have a better story, interesting characters etc.

Fully understand what you saying in regards to isometric view. Tho im not the kinda person to get so worked out on little defects. Its the gameplay and controls that matters to me. I wouldnt mind F3 in isometric view or any other views, as im quite open minded when it comes to games. Maybe i have been spoiled with years of playing mmo and fps that i have gotten so used to the idea of 3rd and first person perspective.

they should at least try to do something like NWN2 ..

and let's just hope they don't spoil FO3 further by bundling it with mod DK .. seriously, FO has its own world. i don't need people publishing batmobile mod for it.

you mean a "NUKLEAR" powered batmobile. *snigger*

Besides, they don't even know how to name their arsenal. Nuclear grenades, yeah rite. I hope Bethesda bankrupts and die after releasing FO3. They have to stop damning the RPG community with the FPS style. None of their games sold well except for TES, and since the development cost will be astronomical, they will be lined up behind Iron Lore. it seems very likely 'cuz all their profits from TES 4 is used to buy the franchise.

This post has been edited by soitsuagain: Jul 25 2008, 07:15 PM

Actually F03 has 2 views (first person & third person), according to reviewers both are equally balanced (not just Fps like oblivion)

Very few RPG games venture into FPS view but i can name a few
- Gothic 3 (huge failure - so many bugs it makes you cry) A new installment are coming up (with revamped staff of course)
- Hellgate london (great innovation by ex-diablo developer bill roper but like gothic 3 huge dissapointment)

Now the ever famous Third person view :
- Two worlds (i really like this game at the begining, great story... but its repititive gameplay & bold statement by its developer :
"world of Two-worlds is huger than oblivion" yeah so ,there is not much interaction like oblivion did by Bethesda
- Neverwinter nights (very good by bioware) watch below
- Neverwinter nights 2 (apart from its story & campaign tool) i will not recommend this (bugs, poor camera, graphics)
- Witcher (This is one of the best RPG i have ever played BUT super long loading times, when i brew my coffee & came back still loading)
- Mass effect (very good again by bioware, except a bit repetitive)

Now according to metacritic (it aggregates all critics review) It score way over 90+++. In the post 2000 year only Mass effect & few others even reach the point (like kotor 1).

I have no doubt Bethesda will deliver (apart from few bugs) at Graphical level, story, voice-over (so many talented ones) & gameplay (variety)
However judging from an interview F03 when reach ending, the game just finish like that (with credits rolling) i really like oblivion concept of running around after game ends (so many thing to explore)

I thought Fallout & Fallout 2 also the same can continue even you finish the game ? I think they will apply to this if Oblivion has that.

im not sure what you're trying to say here.. that FO3 has a score over 90+? o_O the game isnt even out yet.. everything right now is just hype. d:

plus. you cant call the 2 views balanced. im assuming you've seen the demo, the 3rd person view is over the shoulder AND blocking half the screen. not exactly what the fallout fans are looking for.

overall the gameplay mechanics are a little weird. until it comes out and its been tested. i dont think im that excited about it anymore.

fallout3 mmo anyone? d:

I think everyone fails to mention one thing that they didn't bring from the previous Fallout games and it is the most crucial part.

RON PERLMAN!

If you are wondering who he is, he is the actor that plays Hellboy but more importantly, he is the voice for the intros that says "War ... war never changes ..."

Ok I think you need to get some facts right first.

We all know FO3 has 2 views. Nobody denied that. The question is, are those two views workable and actually add to the enjoyment of the game or taking away from it? Fallout was turn-based. Isometric turn-based combat, and in FO3, this was discarded for real-time shooting with a glorified pause. In terms of combat, this had totally changed.

Now to the question of first person or third person. Regardless of which, you are putting the player closer to the world, for the sake of immersion. Here's the bummer - if you're gonna do that, you better make sure you got the details right. And judging from the animations we saw in the gameplay footage, I can be 100% sure immersion is the last thing you'll find. Unless of course we all walk like stick figures in the real world and stare at things with glazed eyes and a poker face.

Now, about Beth delivering. Remember Oblivion? Remember the hype generated on the Radiance AI? And remember how it got glaring reviews from all around the world saying that it is the next best RPG of the year? Well, when it came out, Radiance AI didn't seem to work the way it was supposed to work. In fact, it is a terribly dumbed-down system from the ones they saw in the demo.

Now, the same thing is happening AGAIN for Fallout. Beth pulls the hype machine, shuns websites and journalists who are critical towards them, and get good previews in for F3. Which doesn't exactly reflects how the REAL F3 feels like.

And since when is Beth ever good at voice-overs? They have a horrible voice acting cast, judging from Morrowind and Oblivion. Gameplay? Oh my god, I played Morrowind and Oblivion for like an hour before I ditched it for something better. Like mindless FPS games. You'd think a "rich" world like Elder Scrolls would have a lot of substance in it? I found it to be boring, bland, with uninteresting characters and uninspiring storylines.

Delivering on graphical level? Definately. Beth has a record of building beautiful static worlds... just not believable animations. Story? Since when was storylines and dialogues a strong point for Beth? Voice-overs... nuff said. Gameplay? What gameplay? You mean the horrible level scaling thingy? Or the shove-pencil-into-crouch-key-to-improve-stealth-without-actually-doing-anything kind of gameplay?

Personally, I think FO3 will be a flop. I'll still play it like a sucker, but then I'll never buy original for FO3.

---

Added on July 28, 2008, 12:39 pmActually, he IS in FO3. Narrating the beginning of it.

This post has been edited by soggie: Jul 28 2008, 12:39 PM

Seriously, Oblivion is the only first person view game i fall asleep while playing.
As an FPS it's action has nothing special, true FPS like FarCry blows it into oblivion and as an RPG it's role play elements are very weak compared to Morrowind or other modern RPGs like KOTOR.
I am worrying... history might repeat himself for Fallout 3...

I think the old school & classic first person RPG like Lands of Lore 1-2, Wizardry & etc is more true to RPG. Most modern first person view RPG is a first person action game in disguise

We can't even give plus points as the mobs don't look the way they should if Beth is so "focused' on their immersion looks. Right, like Oblivion even the people from one side of the world to the other end have the same features. Not to forget the same voice. Just being the same race doesn't mean that they have to look the same despite their so called 'advanced' facial generation in the character generation screen. As of now, Doom 3 is still better and that was a 2004 game.

Actually FO3 was not out yet, so i can only comment from E3 demo & Bethesda latest past game (oblivion).
It true that oblivion was not perfect (bugs, 3rd person view) but how many other games can match this feat
- aggregate score of 94% on both game ranking & metacritic .
- editor choice for IGN, Gamespy, Gamespot, Pc gamer Us & uk.
- sold over 3 million copies by January 2007.

Can you name a decent / better action-Rpg game that can match Oblivion ?

and not to mention other post-review which came out after they realized that oblivion is just simply boring

i used your 'metacritic' and searched for Diablo. also a 94%. d:

and look at the awards!

* Game of the Year - Computer Gaming World
* Game of the Year - Computer Game Entertainment

* Role-Playing Game of the Year - Computer Games Strategy Plus
* Role-Playing Game of the Year - Computer Net Player
* Role-Playing Game of the Year - Online Game Review
* Role-Playing Game of the Year - Gamecenter
* Role-Playing Game of the Year - runner-up - PC Gamer

* 1998 Best Role-Playing Game - Software Publishers Association
* 1998 Best Multiplayer Online Game - Software Publishers Association
* Best Role-playing Game of the Year, Editor's Choice Awards - PC Games
* Ranked second Best Role-Playing game of All Time - Gamecenter

* Editors' Choice Award - PC Gamer
* CG Choice Award - Computer Gaming World
* #5 Reader's Top 50 - PC Gamer

* A+ rating - GamePen
* 90 Percent rating - PC Gamer
* 10 out of 10 rating - Computer Net Player
* 10 out of 10 rating - Online Game Review
* 9.6 out of 10 rating - Gamespot
* 5 out of 5 rating - Gamecenter
* 4.5 out of 5 rating - Computer Gaming World

taken from blizzard's website. d:

i cant find the figures for the sales though. im assuming by diablo2's sales figures which hit 4 million, i think 3 million was achievable.

btw. those figures for sales of oblivion. are they for the pc+ps3+360? d:

what im trying to say is that critics and game magazine reviews arent everything. alot of times these reviews are done in the least amount of time, the industry is one where the fastest reviews win. the quality of the game isnt really tested. they probably just touched the surface and decided hey, its a nice game. had they spent more time they might have tried to kill themselves. it works vice versa as well. games which are good arent played thoroughly enough and are given mediocre reviews, and thus dont get the "ratings" that you are so proud that oblivion has.

ps. used metacritic again, and found that Zelda twilight princess had a score of 95%! zomg! it beat oblivion! FO3 should totally be made using the Zelda engine! D:

d:

This post has been edited by kyLL: Jul 29 2008, 12:08 AM

I guess you never heard of the PR hype machine. US journalists are easy to impress - they are essentially simple and stupid people. GORE!!!!!! VIOLENCE!!!!!! GRAPHICS!!!!!!! OH MY GOD THAT IS THE GAME OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!!!

Hence Gears Of War comes to mind.

Well you are not comparing like with like at all :
Diablo 2 : great game but how many eons ago.
It uses isometric view (not first or third person view) .
Zelda series : It was not a sand-box title at all to begin with. It was more of an adventure game than RPG like Final Fantasy.

I am sure plenty of games that can outstripped oblivion (like GTA 4) but regarding the genre (oblivion has no real clear competitor) like God of War which are still the the "king-pin" of action adventure game.

The closest game i can think of that (uses 1st & 3rd person view) that can match oblivion is Hellgate (do you have fun playing it ? ).

Definitely oblivion was not "perfect" but the high ranking bcos its like "one of a kind" feel.
There are couple of games that tries to imitate oblivion (like two worlds) failed considerably.

zzz.

This post has been edited by kyLL: Jul 30 2008, 01:46 AM