I tot BOS = Bundle of Sheet. Hehe.

Fallout 2 was much better than Fallout 1. No time limit, no rush, no nothing. I literally spent 10 years in the wasteland after I got myself a gauss rifle and powered armor relatively early in the game.

Come to think about it, I do hope Bethesda don't treat fallout as something like elder scrolls in a bombed out world. It isn't. The thing about fallout, the appeal is not just open-ended gameplay. It's the irony inside the game that matters. All the jokes, the unique atmosphere, the sheer fragility of life in the wastelands (in which you can run into a city and simply gun down everybody), the incredulously impossible sci-fi stuff back from the 50's and 60's, the style... everything. It is not just an open-ended rpg. It's so much more than that.

I'm really doubtful whether Bethesda could re-capture the feel of it. Cross my fingers!

I think people who really call themsevles "fans of fallout" should actually read this article:

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic...der=asc&start=0

Kinda shocked after reading how Bethesda treated the Elder Scrolls franchise, and worried for the Fallout franchise too. Before reading the previews on Gamespot and this thread I still thought Bethesda would have saved the Fallout franchise but after taking one look at the graphics and reading what Todd meant by "humor" and "irony", all hopes for a true Fallout sequel died.

High hopes fall hard.

You misunderstand. Fallout fans DO NOT WANT an FPS out of fallout. There's a reason to turn-based combat, and a good one too. Tactical reasons.

And I'm kind of figuring how they are going to tackle this problem - what will gunnery skills and perception matter when you can head shot a person in real time with skills learnt from CS and Quake 3 Arena?

PS: TES = The Elder Scrolls.

I guess you didn't understand what my grieve is all about. Take a look at fallout 1, then take a look at fallout 3. One is an RPG, another is oblivion with guns. Ok, maybe it is more than just oblivion with guns, but definately when you bring an isometric shooter into the FPS arena you're gonna kill a lot of the old and familiar atmosphere. Fallout isn't about a post apoclayptic world lined with vehicle wrecks and ruins, littered with people with big guns. No, my friend, that is STALKER you're talking about.

What did I like about fallout? I didn't know exactly what it was, I just loved the theme. The game itself wasn't too great - I mean, planescape torment, in terms of gameplay and story was much better than fallout will ever be, but the sheer fun you can extract out of fallout makes it worthwhile. I mean, how many games let you walk into New Reno and discover you aint got enough cash for a weapon, then decide to kill the shopkeeper without alerting the whole town, then loot his body for some serious hardware? I got my first assault rifle that way, until I realized I could walk all the way to San Fran to get a power armor and gauss rifle instead.

but still, the theme. The whole thing about fallout being unforgettable is the theme that the entire game was built upon. It wasn't the technological marvels, the cool visuals, the newest 3D technology... it was the theme itself that mattered. I still remembered the feeling of invulnerability of seeing my SMG tear a bandit into shreds, his arms flailing lifelessly as the hail of bullets ripped him open. Granted, Beth could give us the violence in fallout 3, but it won't feel right - it is an FPS, and growing up playing Wolf3d, Doom, Quake, Duke Nukem and Half life I'm all but numb to the violence in an FPS.

I'm not crying about Beth killing fallout. The moment I heard they won the bid I knew it was over, didn't even wanted to give them a chance to proof themselves. 3 years later, I was proven right. They had indeed missed the crucial things that made fallout stick to my heart, and while I will still play fallout 3 I won't expect them to ever come close to what fallout did.

Heck, let me just say this - I enjoyed STALKER. I really did. Even wrote a short fanfic on it. And if Beth wants to give us something in between Oblivion and STALKER, I'd rather play the respective games than accept something that is only in between.

Let's see how VATS turn out to be.

Well I understand your point. I know I'm being anal here, but err... tactics is not an RPG. I enjoyed it, but I never finished it because I lost interest when I got to the part with the tank/vehicle. Never really felt the story was anywhere close to the series (if it had one in the first place). But anyway, I understand your point.

I'll try to answer your post in chunks. Right now, the violence in FO3 is already over the top. As I've said, gore in FPS is not something foreign to me. I've had enough of gibs all over the place playing the Quake series, and frankly, that don't impress me anymore. But violence the way fallout did it, was fresh and completely new to me. That was the difference. Violence in FPS was normal at the time Fallout came out, but in RPG, it was always watered down. That was why it had such a lasting impact on me - the first RPG to ever let me feel satisfied of going all the trouble, the countless reloads as I travelled down from Arroyo to San Fran, then east to the military base and northwest to the Enclave base just to get the gauss rifle. The mutilated bodies made it all worthwhile.

YES, if beth KEPT fallout in turn-based, I'd be happy. I don't mind it having a first-person perspective, if you notice in my post. I just don't want what used to be a highly tactical turn-based game to turn into a FPS shooter. That was my primary concern. If they want to do first person, I'd be skeptical at first but if they kept the turn-base in it I'd be a happy man again. So priority goes like this - atmosphere, theme, turn-based, violence, then finally, view.

So to answer your question, no, if Beth turned oblivion into a turn-based iso RPG I wouldn't give a damn. Am not a fan of TES, never did, never will. Didn't liked the world, hated the atmosphere. Actually come to think of it, I kind of got sick of baldur's gate's generic fantasy atmosphere too, but it was the story that gripped me.

Like I said, if I wanted a post-apoclayptic shooter I'd play STALKER. At least it's got bugs that made it funny.

But I do agree with what you said - the thing we all loved about fallout is how it presented a bleak future lined with people making fun of it inside the game to us. Life sucks, but the people in fallout seems to always have a way to make a joke out of it. Iguana on a stick... I mean, how over-the-top can it get?

I think it is gonna work like this - you get a whole list of options and each option, depending on your speech skill, will have a success percentage. not sure if this is exactly what they are talking about... but I'm guessing at the very least this will be it.

lol hey even retards get a chance in the wasteland, don't you hear? Bethesda's terraforming the fallout universe. Political correctness is the main issue.

Well said. Like I've reiterated, if I want a generic post-apoclayptic shooter/RPG, I'd play STALKER. Nuff said.

Fallout is so much more than just post-apoclayptic with 50's decos. No. It was post-apoclayptic the way the 50's thought it'd be. And don't forget the whole ironic shebang - the 50's was supposed to be the "good kid" age, where movies, songs and games were all watered down, naive, and totally unrealistic. Don't forget that captain america came from that era, and in its beginning stages it was naive as hell. There was a clear seperation between good and evil, and people always expect the good guys to win.

But fallout, despite placing itself in that era, gave us realism beyond the imaginations of the 50's people. It had the look and feel of that era, but it was more bad boy with its violence, humor, whores, kids, grave digging and so forth. Oh so much more bad boy. To put it in an analogy, it's like walking to our beloved Prime Minister and shoving a dildo up his arse, then screaming "you got punk'd!!!!!!". And GET AWAY WITH IT.

It's not just about post apoclayptic. Heck, fallout 2 derived a little from the fallout theme (too much easter eggs) and was bombarded by the fan base. Imagine that. I wonder what kind of nukes would be falling in Bethesda after they release fallout 3.

Actually I think a lot of people on this thread don't get it when we try to explain why we don't like where FO3 is going. All they see is, whoa, nice graphics! Nice wasteland! Nice characters! Wow, so much gore! You get to blow heads up!

Sigh... does this proofs that people nowadays value eye-candy more than actualy gameplay and the actual game itself?

Planescape Torment had an incredible story. Did it sell like Doom 3? No. Baldur's Gate had an incredible story. Did it sell like Doom 3? No. Fallout had an increadible GAME in it. Did it sell like Doom 3? No.

Yes, Oblivion: The Fallout Scrolls looks nice in the demo, and had lots of action, but none of the biggest concern of the fan base were answered, or even acknowledged. They snubbed the TES fans when they made Morrowind, so why expect them to start now with the fallout fan base?

Actually, I beg to differ. Doom 3 received tons of hype before it came out, but none of the mentioned RPG got any spotlight at all before they are released. Fallout practically ended up in the bargain bins before the masses actually knew of its existence. Most that first bought fallout were fans of wasteland, and even then the news didn't spread. It was much later that fallout actually became a hit, and most of us here played fallout 2 first before we got our hands on the original fallout. Baldur's gate fared a little better, even won many awards for it, but like you said, the RPG market is much smaller than the FPS market.

Get where I'm going? Yeah RPG is a niche, and not many would take the time to actually play a well written game - one that had tons of dialog and a thick back history for people to dig into. We don't like to read, don't like to think. That's why there are more people playing FPS than RPG. For game companies, niche means risk. And risk means possibility of less sales. To offset this risk, Bethesda choose to bastardize fallout with FPS, and put more emphasis on eye-candy than on recreating the atmosphere.

That's where I am saddened with.

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

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

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

Did I say everything else will remain the same? Please don't shove words down my throat. My whole point in that argument is that FO3's VATS does not work well as a replacement for turn-based combat, which is integral to the SPECIAL system and part of the thing that defined the original series. If you want to take that out, fine, give us a fine substitute. Real time might cut it if they knew how. But VATS is definately not the answer.

I bid you to re-read my post. I quoted the examples of changing stances and leaning out of doorways as a question of whether VATS allowed other movement other than shooting, because I think if it did it'll be great. I never used those examples as a mean to say VATS can't do what Fallout can.

I mentioned changing stances AND leaning out of hallways because those WERE features of a typical FPS. Crouching and leaning are pretty much in most shooters nowadays, and if they make it as a FPP I would expect those to be in there or else I'd be getting the idea that the player character has very stiff knees. The main point is with whether VATS allowed movement other than shooting because that actually matters a lot tactically, which I have given an example of in my previous post.

Neither did Fallout had it in the first place. Who mentioned that NOT having control over your characters is an issue in this debate?

That's like saying which part of Half Life's combat is truly memorable and unique to HL, since Doom and Quake had it before it came out? Many loved Fallout for being turn-based. The original developed insisted on keeping it isometric and turn-based in their Van Buren. What will the fans of say... Diablo say if suddenly it was turned into a strategy/tactical paused-timed/turn-based game, and then called Diablo 3?

Fair enough if you call VATS as called shots. And like I said in a way earlier post, I am skeptical of how it will work, but if it works I'll eat my words.

Well then, it's your opinion to mine. I'll leave it as that.

Let's leave the previous issues behind. No point discussing it further - we're merely reiterating our points.

As to your question, well if you place it that way, of course I would choose the latter for obvious reasons - the lesser of two evils.

I think a better way to ask the questions would be:

I would DEFINATELY choose the latter. I just don't think either one applies to FO3 that Beth is trying to promote.

Prostitute takes a critical hit to the groin for 364 points. Her child bearing days are over.

Deathclaw takes a critical hit to the eye for 213 points. It is blinded, obviously.

Or something like that... can't remember the exact wordings

And I've got the urge to start a massacre in New Reno again. Good thing that the fallout mechanics don't allow people to escape from the city. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LOL that sounds funny. I might try that too.. INT 1 brawler. Damn, I guess it's time to go back and have fun again.

Each to his own then.

Actually I thought it was quite fun until I hit max levels for my character. That's when I lost interest. Can't remember the storyline either.