Fallout 3 at E3 - Armchair Empire

If you apply a technical criteria for something to be called a sequel, then FO3 might not be one. But there is no such critera; Fallout 3 is therefor a sequel.
Click to expand...
There are criteria, like, oh I don't know... emulating p&p rpgs, so, turn-based combat, character skill uber alles and playable isometric view.
 
Salkinius said:
Do one have to rewrite everything one says in previous posts.
Click to expand...

Have you considered the possibility that you didn't make much sense there either?

If you apply a technical criteria for something to be called a sequel, then FO3 might not be one. But there is no such critera; Fallout 3 is therefor a sequel.

[Tactics is a] spinn off, which is somehting completely different than a sequel or a prequel.
Click to expand...

My contradiction meter is now trying to take itself apart just to stop the pain.
 
Salkinius said:
Everything I say seem infected for this thread.. So I'll just leave it be. Should I continue, I feel that I could fall into a troll trap.
Click to expand...
Ignoring that the first sentence doesn't make any sense (is English your second language? I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's a serious question), I find it funny that people who are shown to be contradicting themselves get so defensive and basically resort to attacking the others (implying that everyone here is somehow trolling or trying to "trap" you). You either need to clarify your statements so that they don't seem to contradict one another, or you need to retract one. Unless you're a politician, of course.

You said:
Granted that FO3 might not be a true sequel in a technical sense, but it's still a sequel in the true and general meaning of the word.

Tactics is not a sequel because the game emphesizes on a completely different subject, story and characters than the previous two games.
Click to expand...
Those two statements directly contradict one another. Not only that, but your reasoning on why Tactics is not a sequel directly implicates Bethesda's Fallout 3 not being a sequel. It has a completely different story and different characters than the first two. Of course, according to that logic, Fallout 2 could be said to not be a sequel, since it had a different story and different characters.

Videogame sequels != movie / book sequels. Movies and books are all about plot and characters. Good RPG games generally have these, of course, but they also have that thing that defines a game: gameplay. To say that a game's gameplay is not essential to it is ludicrous, when gameplay makes a game a game.

Also, I've yet to see my questions answered: why does it seem to be too much to expect a modern, updated version of Fallout's turn-based combat system? The only reason Bethesda has stated is that "it's not what they do well." Which reads to me like "we bought the rights to make a game that we already know we can't do well, which is pretty damn idiotic really." Also, why can't Fallout be Fallout? Why does it have to be "updated" to "next-gen," which really just means hybridized with Beth's previous game, Oblivion? Because developers assume that's the only kind of thing consumers can stomach nowadays?

FO3 might be an okay shoot-em-up, post-apocalypic faux-RPG. But slapping the Fallout name on the box opens it up to comparison to the originals, so quit acting like it's unreasonable for people to do so. And it's not our fault that, in these comparisons, FO3 is found to be seriously lacking so far.
 
Kyuu said:
Salkinius said:
Everything I say seem infected for this thread.. So I'll just leave it be. Should I continue, I feel that I could fall into a troll trap.
Click to expand...
Ignoring that the first sentence doesn't make any sense (is English your second language? I'm not trying to be a jerk, it's a serious question), I find it funny that people who are shown to be contradicting themselves get so defensive and basically resort to attacking the others (implying that everyone here is somehow trolling or trying to "trap" you). You either need to clarify your statements so that they don't seem to contradict one another, or you need to retract one. Unless you're a politician, of course.
Click to expand...

It is my second language... and I'm not contradicting myself at all, at least I don't think so :wink: . I don't think that the primarly reason FO:tactics is a spin off rather than a sequel is because of its gameplay. I could be wrong. Tactics is a classic spin off, taking the world and feel of its predecessers and making something completely different.

Then why couldn't FO3 just be a spin off? Sure it could, but it can also be a sequel and that 's the path Bethesda has taken. So it is a sequel, a true one or not. I think Bethesda made a good move making it a sequel rather than a spin off, something which hasn't really succeeded previously (regarding fallout).

Think of the "free" attention a sequel brings rather than a spinn off. And you got to admit that Bethesda really has brought life into the series, even though you might think they are killing it at the same time....


...I'm stopping here. I realise that I can't prove my point to you guys. And I don't know if it's valid or not. I just know that FO:Tactics and FO:BoS are spin offs, while FO3 is a sequel. A change of gameplay might not generaly allow the status of a sequel, but then FO3 is the exception that confirms the rule. FO3 is a sequel and I'm happy about it. I believe that it will be all that I ever hoped it to be, a true sequel when it comes to the atmosphere of Fallout. You might think otherwise, I can't care less.
 
*urgh*
Salkinius, you've chosen a completely arbitrary definition of 'sequel' to "prove" that Fallout 3 really is a sequel. Yet your definition is completely arbitrary, and only focuses on setting which is hardly the only hallmark of a sequel.
One could even say that gameplay defines a sequel, since otherwise Tactics would've been a sequel as well. You're trying desperately to try to justify your argument, but it's not working. Hell, you even resort to the non-argument 'Fallotu 3 is the exception that confirms the rule'. What the fuck?

Regardless, your definition of sequel is just as useful or useless as ours, yet your upholding as the only true definition is absolutely ridiculous.
 
I think Salkinius's trying to say that since this will be an rpg game, then it isn't a new genre, and is a sequel, as opposed to being an entirely different and unrelated genre like tactics and POS.

I don't know if I agree... but thats what I got out of what he said. I suppose that right there, though, is a matter of personal opinion. Although, I tend to think that whoever owns the copyright gets to make the official declaration, whether I like it or not.
 
xdarkyrex said:
I think Salkinius's trying to say that since this will be an rpg game, then it isn't a new genre, and is a sequel, as opposed to being an entirely different and unrelated genre like tactics and POS.

I don't know if I agree... but thats what I got out of what he said.
Click to expand...

Here, try again.

Salkinius said:
A sequel is nothing more than a game, movie, book or some other creative work that is set in the same universe as the original and plays out after the previous work. /../ So it has nothing to do with gameplay or any other technical issues.
Click to expand...
 
xdarkyrex said:
I think Salkinius's trying to say that since this will be an rpg game, then it isn't a new genre, and is a sequel, as opposed to being an entirely different and unrelated genre like tactics and POS.
Click to expand...
Heh...
action RPGs and tabletop style RPGs are so different that they can be called a different genre.
 
Per said:
xdarkyrex said:
I think Salkinius's trying to say that since this will be an rpg game, then it isn't a new genre, and is a sequel, as opposed to being an entirely different and unrelated genre like tactics and POS.

I don't know if I agree... but thats what I got out of what he said.
Click to expand...

Here, try again.

Salkinius said:
A sequel is nothing more than a game, movie, book or some other creative work that is set in the same universe as the original and plays out after the previous work. /../ So it has nothing to do with gameplay or any other technical issues.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

My bad, that guy's as dense as a brick. I missed that.
Honestly, the qualifications of a sequel are, as sander mentioned, arbitrary and subjective. To him that may be a sequel... but it sure as hell ain't for me.

Sorrow said:
xdarkyrex said:
I think Salkinius's trying to say that since this will be an rpg game, then it isn't a new genre, and is a sequel, as opposed to being an entirely different and unrelated genre like tactics and POS.
Click to expand...
Heh...
action RPGs and tabletop style RPGs are so different that they can be called a different genre.
Click to expand...

Eh, but I don't think that ctrpg and a crpg are THAT different. The difference only happens in view, and I hardly think changing a camera is enough to consider a game a completely new genre.
 
Even if you think that ctrpgs and crpgs aren't verry different (I dissagree with that, look at Baldur's Gate and Temple of Elemental Evil) then still action rpgs and crpgs are as close to each other like sport games to sim games.
 
Black said:
Even if you think that ctrpgs and crpgs aren't verry different (I dissagree with that, look at Baldur's Gate and Temple of Elemental Evil) then still action rpgs and crpgs are as close to each other like sport games to sim games.
Click to expand...

Well that distinction is tough, as many sports games are BECOMING sim games more and more.




Oh and i read something-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel

I dunno if I agree with it... but whatever.
 
Black said:
xdarkyrex said:
Well that distinction is tough, as many sports games are BECOMING sim games more and more.
Click to expand...
Then if a sport game becomes a sim game then it's not more a sport game, right?
Click to expand...

Actually, sports only defines the subject matter, while a sim game defines the style of play.

I'd technically classify most sports games these days as "sports sims" ;)
 
Black said:
xdarkyrex said:
Well that distinction is tough, as many sports games are BECOMING sim games more and more.
Click to expand...
Then if a sport game becomes a sim game then it's not more a sport game, right?

Oh and i read something-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequel

I dunno if I agree with it... but whatever.
Click to expand...
Meh, Wikipedia is cool for some info but in this case it's...
Well, Salkinius used wiki-logic.
Click to expand...

Yes I used Wiki to find a definition to help my argument... Don't see the wrong in doing that. I first thought it to be a sensible definition, but I found it to lack in references to sequels or prequels that changed game design from it's predecessors. So I backed down from trying to claim that FO3 was a sequel based on wiki.

The fact still remains that FO3 is a sequel, becuase Bethesda says it is. End of story.
 
Salkinius said:
The fact still remains that FO3 is a sequel, becuase Bethesda says it is. End of story.
Click to expand...

Let's use this logic then.
Van Buren was Fallout 3 because Black Isle said it was.
Therefore Bethesda's game cannot be Fallout 3.
 
Vault 69er said:
Salkinius said:
The fact still remains that FO3 is a sequel, becuase Bethesda says it is. End of story.
Click to expand...

Let's use this logic then.
Van Buren was Fallout 3 because Black Isle said it was.
Therefore Bethesda's game cannot be Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

Van Buren was never completed

Bethesda owns the right to the name Fallout 3
 
Salkinius said:
Vault 69er said:
Salkinius said:
The fact still remains that FO3 is a sequel, becuase Bethesda says it is. End of story.
Click to expand...

Let's use this logic then.
Van Buren was Fallout 3 because Black Isle said it was.
Therefore Bethesda's game cannot be Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

Van Buren was never completed

Bethesda owns the right to the name Fallout 3
Click to expand...
Fallout 3 in name. It won't use the same gameplay, is set in a different location that isn't (or shouldn't be) too connected to the first two games, uses a completely different view, and doesn't seem to take into account things from the first two games that will probably lead to it being declared non canon by the fans of the series. It's also being worked on by a completely new team with no relation to the previous team.

Doesn't strike me as the successor to the first two games.
 
Well... let's first look at some game sequels in the past, and compare them.

Might and Magic... same general gameplay mechanics, unrelated stories, different worlds, similiar appearance (artistically).

Final Fantasy... same general gameplay mechanics, unrelated stories, same universe/different worlds, similiar appearance.

TES... continued lore, mention of past events, same continent, slightly differing appearance in places.

Grandia... same general gameplay mechanics, unrelated stories, same universe/different worlds, similiar appearance.

AD&D Dragonlance Silver Box series... continued storylines, varying degrees of similiarity in gameplay, same locale in the same universe, dealing with literary heroes, similiar appearance in stills/various appearances in gameplay.

Phantasy Star & PSO... same gameplay mechanics, same storyline, nods to previous notable characters, same universe/different worlds, similiar appearance.

Warcraft... same genre, same appearance, same gamplay, same universe.

---

Now, let's look at some spin-offs and see what differs

TES: Adventures... same continent, same lore, differing gameplay style, differing gameplay mechanics, generally differing appearance

FF Tactics... vastly different gameplay, different storyline, same universe/different world, similiar appearance.

FFX2... a continued storyline from a previous game (and hence, makes it a spin-off, since the series is defined by being non-sequels)

Grandia Tactics... vastly different gameplay, different storyline, same universe/different world, similiar appearance.

PSO: CARD Revolution... similar in concept, yet vastly different in execution, of gameplay mechanics; same storyline; nods to previous notable characters; same universe/different worlds, similiar appearance.

Heroes of Might and Magic... different gameplay, different storylines (I believe), different worlds (I believe) [someone correct me if I'm wrong], somewhat different appearance.

AD&D Dragonlance Gold Box series... same (or similiar) gameplay mechanics to each other (but vastly differing from the Silver Box games), related stories to each other (but long after the events of the Silver Box games), same locales within a given universe, dealing with PC heroes, similiar or differing appearance in stills/differing appearance in gameplay.

World of Warcraft... different genre, same appearance, different gamplay, same universe.

---

Reflecting upon that, I see that previous games always kept a majority of elements consistant within the series, and only the most defining traits remained consistant within the spin-off (to ensure that it is still 'feels part of that universe'), whether those main traits are gameplay style, main characters, setting, or whatnot.

So, with all that being said, let's look at FO1, 2, T, BoS, and 3...

1 and 2: Similiar gameplay, similiar appearance, continued storyline, similiar locales within a continent, continued lore, same genre.

Tactics: Slightly different combat gameplay, vastly different non-combat gameplay, similiar appearance, tangent storyline, different locales within a continent, continued lore, different genre.

BoS: Vastly different gameplay, vastly different appearance, tangent storyline, different locales within a continent, ignored lore, different genre.

3: Considerably different gameplay, considerably different appearance, possibly a tangent storyline (or, could remain true, only time will tell), different locales within a continent, possibly ignored lore (again, only time will tell on this point, but so far it's not looking good), different genre.

In light of previous games, I would say, that despite the fact that FO3 is numbered as a sequel, it's predecessors (both in the series, and historically) seem to point at the fact that it is, indeed, a spin-off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top