Role-Player
A Smooth-Skin
Macaco said:
MadDog -[TO said:
Word.
Just wait and see. Don't start going all medieval before you hear official news.
First Fo3 release date posted
- Thread starter Odin
- Start date
A Smooth-Skin
Word.
Just wait and see. Don't start going all medieval before you hear official news.
As others have said - I think there is no way this can be achived. (besides - as long as Bethesda dosen't come out and says it - there is no such thing 
)
The date becomes even more unrealstic when considering they have annoucned that Elder Scroll IV will be developed simultanious as well.
Now I don't know the size of Bethesda, but I don't think this will be possible.
Unless of course - Fallout 3 will be "Morrwind With Guns" (tm) and they will skate over it and just try and recapitalize on the name Fallout (as I think many of us fear).
But then again - I'm sure we can also find sites with release dates for Duke Nuk'em For(n)ever
)The date becomes even more unrealstic when considering they have annoucned that Elder Scroll IV will be developed simultanious as well.
Now I don't know the size of Bethesda, but I don't think this will be possible.
Unless of course - Fallout 3 will be "Morrwind With Guns" (tm) and they will skate over it and just try and recapitalize on the name Fallout (as I think many of us fear).
But then again - I'm sure we can also find sites with release dates for Duke Nuk'em For(n)ever
SumsoluS
The Punchinator
O_o
PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Ah, a Beth employee.
Welcome.
So what do you do at Bethesda, since Im assuming you do something related to FO3.
Welcome.
So what do you do at Bethesda, since Im assuming you do something related to FO3.
PsychoSniper said:
Found this over at the Beth forums:
Profile for kathode
Member # 21
Name Gavin
Title A valid Win32 application
Total Posts 4206
Homepage
Occupation Associate Producer
Hobbies
Location Rockville, MD
Bio
ICQ Number
Registered on 05/30/00 12:00 PM
I would imagine he would probably have a decent feel for what's being put out.
SumsoluS
The Punchinator
right ill take the first watch in stalking kath's house in the bushes, seeya in a month!
Oooh... a Bethseda Ass. Prod.?
What brings you to the home of us "glittering gems of hatred" (::giggles:: I just love that phrase)?
I think I just lost a bet.
Ah, hell. Welcome be. Mind the fap.
What brings you to the home of us "glittering gems of hatred" (::giggles:: I just love that phrase)?
I think I just lost a bet.
Ah, hell. Welcome be. Mind the fap.
PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Graphics matter. But complex graphics arnt nessacary, afterall the FRM files used in the animations for FO/FO2 are essentily compressed .BMP files.
Just keep it simplle, but make it look nice.
Alongt with good gameplay.
And on topic
That seems to imply that thesource for this thread was BSing us.
Just keep it simplle, but make it look nice.
Alongt with good gameplay.
And on topic
kathode said:
That seems to imply that thesource for this thread was BSing us.
i'm sorry if i expressed myself in not so good of a fassion:\ oh well.. bah...
well, that's not what i was saying... we all love fallout of course, not for the amazing and jaw dropping graphics... heck, i would settle for a fallout 3 with the fallout engine right now
the gameplay is without a doubt the most important... but it shouldn't take away from the graphics. what i'm saying is, that for a game which will be released in about 2006-2007+ (the 2005 thing is horsecrap... no way it's gonna happen), the van buren engine, which started development as soon as fallout 2 was finished, is quite old. fallout 3 SHOULD have awesome and appropriate graphics for the release date, ofcourse with the gameplay we all love and can't live without(hell yeah!) intact.
well, that's not what i was saying... we all love fallout of course, not for the amazing and jaw dropping graphics... heck, i would settle for a fallout 3 with the fallout engine right now
the gameplay is without a doubt the most important... but it shouldn't take away from the graphics. what i'm saying is, that for a game which will be released in about 2006-2007+ (the 2005 thing is horsecrap... no way it's gonna happen), the van buren engine, which started development as soon as fallout 2 was finished, is quite old. fallout 3 SHOULD have awesome and appropriate graphics for the release date, ofcourse with the gameplay we all love and can't live without(hell yeah!) intact.
The thing is:
People are more likely to buy a game if it looks awesome. They might not play it for long and eventually mouth-to-mouth propaganda might stop more people from buying it once it's known that the game itself sucks. The purchases start of high, might even climb a bit, but eventually drop towards zero (especially if another game with better graphics comes out shortly after).
If a game has mediocre or bad graphics but is overall an awesome experience with a deep and thrilling atmosphere, at first only a few will buy it, but eventually people would start hyping it (mouth-to-mouth propaganda again) and the purchase rates would slowly grow and eventually remain constant. Even if the rates drop, they might eventually grow again and even years after the first release people would still be buying it. Depending on the focus group such a game can be as successful as StarCraft (it was successful enough that Blizzard would still release updates and patches years after it went gold, and it is still a discipline at many LANs these days) or the Fallouts (although they were successful only in a niche market, there's an awful lot of people who know it and out of those there's an incredibly high percentage of people who like it or even love it, I'd suspect that out of 10 people who played either game through roughly 9 people liked it or loved it).
The former kind of game will bring in some money IF it manages to build up a good hype (the longer the game is hyped the better, but as of a certain time the hype might die off) and might even sell enough to become a GOTY (which means nothing these days), but will last only until someone releases a more shiny game (and if the game itself is done too badly and the graphics really are all there is about the game, it might even stop selling very early despite the eye candy -- happened so with C&C2: TS, which tried to live off its hype and failed miserably).
The latter can establish a good and faithful community or "fanbase" willing to buy sequels as long as the sequels can live up to the standard set by the initial games. As proven with FO: Tactics, the "fans" might even allow a couple of spin-offs to be successful as long as the company doesn't stop producing worthy sequels (heck, had IPLY really produced FO3 rather than FOBOS, they'd even have been able to sell a FO:T 2).
It's also a question of which kind of reputation you eventually build up. Had IPLY not comitted suicide by focussing on consoles, they might have become known as a quality producer of good RPGs. If they hadn't developed games for a niche market but for a more mainstream one like FPS or RTS, they might have been known for quality games on those markets -- given that they would really have developed quality FPS or RTS games, which I doubt.
Westwood (which succeeded with C&C and C&C: RA, but then went downhill) became known for the first RTS games successful with the mainstream market as did Blizzard (which became known with WarCraft 2, then established itself with StarCraft). Until they screwed up (two names: C&C2 and SC: Ghost) they had a rabid fanbase willing to buy anything.
Actually this all boils down to a simple rule of thumb:
If you need quick money and can afford a huge investment, produce a game that focusses on looks -- but keep in mind that you are gambling because any second someone could come up with something that looks twice as impressive.
If you want to establish yourself on a market, produce a satisfying game with a deep atmosphere without relying too much on the looks. Be prepared for low sales in the first months, but if you did your job well, you might succeed -- as long as you don't betray your newly founded fanbase.
People are more likely to buy a game if it looks awesome. They might not play it for long and eventually mouth-to-mouth propaganda might stop more people from buying it once it's known that the game itself sucks. The purchases start of high, might even climb a bit, but eventually drop towards zero (especially if another game with better graphics comes out shortly after).
If a game has mediocre or bad graphics but is overall an awesome experience with a deep and thrilling atmosphere, at first only a few will buy it, but eventually people would start hyping it (mouth-to-mouth propaganda again) and the purchase rates would slowly grow and eventually remain constant. Even if the rates drop, they might eventually grow again and even years after the first release people would still be buying it. Depending on the focus group such a game can be as successful as StarCraft (it was successful enough that Blizzard would still release updates and patches years after it went gold, and it is still a discipline at many LANs these days) or the Fallouts (although they were successful only in a niche market, there's an awful lot of people who know it and out of those there's an incredibly high percentage of people who like it or even love it, I'd suspect that out of 10 people who played either game through roughly 9 people liked it or loved it).
The former kind of game will bring in some money IF it manages to build up a good hype (the longer the game is hyped the better, but as of a certain time the hype might die off) and might even sell enough to become a GOTY (which means nothing these days), but will last only until someone releases a more shiny game (and if the game itself is done too badly and the graphics really are all there is about the game, it might even stop selling very early despite the eye candy -- happened so with C&C2: TS, which tried to live off its hype and failed miserably).
The latter can establish a good and faithful community or "fanbase" willing to buy sequels as long as the sequels can live up to the standard set by the initial games. As proven with FO: Tactics, the "fans" might even allow a couple of spin-offs to be successful as long as the company doesn't stop producing worthy sequels (heck, had IPLY really produced FO3 rather than FOBOS, they'd even have been able to sell a FO:T 2).
It's also a question of which kind of reputation you eventually build up. Had IPLY not comitted suicide by focussing on consoles, they might have become known as a quality producer of good RPGs. If they hadn't developed games for a niche market but for a more mainstream one like FPS or RTS, they might have been known for quality games on those markets -- given that they would really have developed quality FPS or RTS games, which I doubt.
Westwood (which succeeded with C&C and C&C: RA, but then went downhill) became known for the first RTS games successful with the mainstream market as did Blizzard (which became known with WarCraft 2, then established itself with StarCraft). Until they screwed up (two names: C&C2 and SC: Ghost) they had a rabid fanbase willing to buy anything.
Actually this all boils down to a simple rule of thumb:
If you need quick money and can afford a huge investment, produce a game that focusses on looks -- but keep in mind that you are gambling because any second someone could come up with something that looks twice as impressive.
If you want to establish yourself on a market, produce a satisfying game with a deep atmosphere without relying too much on the looks. Be prepared for low sales in the first months, but if you did your job well, you might succeed -- as long as you don't betray your newly founded fanbase.
Xandax said:
I think i read somewhere that they're hiring and making a second team to develop FO3, so the parallel development isn't such a big factor on the timeline to getting the game(s) ready.
And welcome kath, it's good to know you folks look this way sometimes. By the way could you confirm what i just said?
pretty excellent to see a Bethesda employee coming to the fanbase and clearing something up. by just doing the latter, you kicked the flying shit out of Chuck Cuevas' PR skills. can't speak for everyone, but that makes me alittle less worried.
if you're up to making something else clear, can you say whether or not Bethesda has possesion of Van Buren? i know Pete Hines says everyone wants to start a new Fallout 3 from scratch, so i'm not asking so i can demand it gets finished if you do have it. i'm asking because its whereabouts're totally unknown, and it'd be sort of nice to know it isn't in a storage locker or landfill.
if you're up to making something else clear, can you say whether or not Bethesda has possesion of Van Buren? i know Pete Hines says everyone wants to start a new Fallout 3 from scratch, so i'm not asking so i can demand it gets finished if you do have it. i'm asking because its whereabouts're totally unknown, and it'd be sort of nice to know it isn't in a storage locker or landfill.
Kamaz
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Whats so *old* about VanBuren? I kinda like it (except for main-menu screen and multiplayer options..oh well, and main HUD) and if Feargus is going to boost up NeverwinterNights - really old engine - with some new DX9 crap - why the hell Beth. wouldnt? I bet BioWare would be still using upgraded Infintiy if there wasnt that 3D thing required by progress. Now, that practically all games - even Puzzles - are with 3D engine I cannot see why VanBuren could be too old to have some face-lift, some shader-touches and PolygonCount++. It would cost a hell less development time to use this engine, I think. The main argument against VB being used for Fallowind is because its been developed by other people. I can immagine there is not very clear documentation and getting into some-ones code would be rather painful.
The other reason why Beth is not willing to use VB is maybe because they dont like the design direction which VB took..Cannot blame them for that, though I liked those things I read about VB's planned world. Ahh..
And the last thing - maybe VanBuren is passed along with BaldursGate3 license, because its actually the Jefferson, isnt it? And BG3's developer not yet announced...so it could be that...
Anyways, yes, kath, show the light [in the end of tunnel].
The other reason why Beth is not willing to use VB is maybe because they dont like the design direction which VB took..Cannot blame them for that, though I liked those things I read about VB's planned world. Ahh..
And the last thing - maybe VanBuren is passed along with BaldursGate3 license, because its actually the Jefferson, isnt it? And BG3's developer not yet announced...so it could be that...
Anyways, yes, kath, show the light [in the end of tunnel].
PsychoSniper
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Kamaz, the VanBuren engine is unfinished, and undocumented.
That means that unless you were on the Dev team, you wont know how to use it or modify it, and said Dev team is scatterd among differnt companys now.
That means that unless you were on the Dev team, you wont know how to use it or modify it, and said Dev team is scatterd among differnt companys now.
EnderWiggin
First time out of the vault
Behtesda was pretty clear that they're not using anything from VanBuren. IMDB releases dates when they speculate a movie is going to be released all the time. I imagine this site is speculating a release date.
Pete has said FO3 will more than likely use new technology. I'd wager the new engine is still 6 months out minimum, even if they've been working on it a while. That gives them 6 months for preproduction.
They sure don't seem to be in a rush to make any basic decisions on the product.
And while I know that most people on NMA are against Bethesda having the license, I'm trying to reserve judgement, and I won't hold anything against singular Bethesda devs. I'm glad they're brave enough to come over here and stay in touch with the community.
I hope we see MORE Bethesda employees here. The fans may have preferred that the license go elsewhere, but we have to deal with what is. I think the best course of action is to deal reasonably and maturly with Bethesda in hopes that they listen to the fan input and incorporate it so we can see a FO3 we'll enjoy playing.
(I know that our ideal FO3 probably isn't going to happen, but they may put out a good FO3 regardless).
Pete has said FO3 will more than likely use new technology. I'd wager the new engine is still 6 months out minimum, even if they've been working on it a while. That gives them 6 months for preproduction.
They sure don't seem to be in a rush to make any basic decisions on the product.
And while I know that most people on NMA are against Bethesda having the license, I'm trying to reserve judgement, and I won't hold anything against singular Bethesda devs. I'm glad they're brave enough to come over here and stay in touch with the community.
I hope we see MORE Bethesda employees here. The fans may have preferred that the license go elsewhere, but we have to deal with what is. I think the best course of action is to deal reasonably and maturly with Bethesda in hopes that they listen to the fan input and incorporate it so we can see a FO3 we'll enjoy playing.
(I know that our ideal FO3 probably isn't going to happen, but they may put out a good FO3 regardless).
Wild_qwerty
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
PsychoSniper said:
Compressed???? I wish! Those little sods arent really compressed at all, thats why they're so huge, of course thats also why they zipp up so well