First Review Drops : French Magazine PC Jeux

[mandrake776]

It was in reply to squinty saying that those sceptical about the game hate every aspect of it regardless of whether it's good or bad, therefore it was referring to the sceptics by default.

This is the silliest thing and I'm dropping it.

 

[Blackfyre]

If someone doesn't like most of the aspects that the publisher shows off in their marketing campaign for it, it's pretty reasonable to assume that they won't like the game itself.

Yes when it concerns the game concept itself, people like it or not. But with the information we have so far and not trying the game first hand its hardly possible to judge gameplay elements and do an review of the game. How does it play for one.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

No its nothing like it.

Both are defense mechanisms against the fact that reality is a bitch.

Did i miss an early realise somewhere or do you judge the game based on the few hours of gameplay, previews and screenshots ?

As a matter of fact I do. What do you expect me to base my judgement prior to wasting 60 bucks on it? The non-existing demo?

It is all the more damning, to me, that the info we do have, the info they chose to release as representative of their game, manages to amass so much glaring stupidity. And keep in mind that I mentioned nothing about the game's quality, only its inconsistence with the originals, because even if it is the most glorious bit of software ever devised by men (and I seriously doubt Bethesda's ability to come close to plain old "good") it still does not fit the series.

 

[Ausir]

Yes when it concerns the game concept itself, people like it or not. But with the information we have so far and not trying the game first hand its hardly possible to judge gameplay elements and do an review of the game. How does it play for one.

Of course it's too early to fully review the game. But it's silly to say that it's too early to judge individual elements of the gameplay, some of which we know lots about.

Have you decided already to buy the game based on the available information? If so, it's equally possible to make an informed decision not to buy it based on the same info.

 

[Blackfyre]

What do you expect me to base my judgement prior to wasting 60 bucks on it? The non-existing demo?

well i asume there gonna be a fload of reviews out soon including NMAs own to get an objective idea of the game

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Has there been some sort of international genetic change which makes people allergic to turn-based, isometric games?

How many pen and paper turn based games that sold well you know off in recent years ?
Face it this gameplay concept aint popular, it was 10 years ago when the development resources where more limited, including the tech. Games moved forward for better or worse.

Just because production ceases doesn't mean that the demand disappeared. I'd argue that such a game would do quite well in today's market given the popularity of TRPGs on consoles.

I'm not proposing an unworkable business model, just a less profitable one.

Can you give me an example of a successful developer using that model ?

He misworded the argument, it doesn't have to be a less profitable one (especially propotionally speaking) but rather a lower investment one. The shining example of this would be Popcap Games, though they are also the most mainstream company out there. An example more to what you're looking for would be something like Atlas.

How many pen and paper turn based games have been produced and marketed by leading developers in recent years ?

you call it over--commercialisation i call it less popular; thy produce a concept that appeals to a broader audience. There is a reason that turn based games haven't been produced and lack of innovation ain't it. Less people gonna like it.

Correlation does not imply causation.

Larger companies, with larger margins, could easily take smaller profits

because you are assuming turn based games do sell, yet just the fact there are none to be had might point you are wrong.

To add Civ. or total war in the same line as fallout is silly, those are strategy games and have nothing to do with possible fps implementations

Indeed, a better example are TRPGs for consoles (which are all japanese I'd add). The TRPG market is thriving and so are the companies that make them (Atlas, NIS, ect) so there is no reason that a western studio couldn't tap into that audience with a Fallout-esc game. Yes, they are different but I'd be surprised if it didn't take with a good portion of the market.

Fallout 1/2 were PC games (okay, and Mac), in the days when PCs were less ubiquitous.

yet even then thy wherent bestsellers and you had those: Age of Empires, Jedi Knight II, TA, Quake 2, Tomb Raider 2 to name a few that had larger audience

You're arguing what is most profitable, not what is profitable and sustainable. That said, I haven't looked at the production costs and sales figures for those games so I can't say that they were more profitable (though I'd guess they were). These days games have out of control production costs so one could easily make the games they want if they simply budgeted their game(s) properly.

but I'd rather you didn't get them from a Fallout sequel...

turn based iso gameplay isn't all what Fallout was, i belive there was more to it, the core its retro post apo. universe. Now how much of this beth let in fa3 i will tell once i play the game

What you beleive is irrelevant, what Fallout was designed to be is what matters. It was designed to be a computer game that brougth the PnP experience to the PC and did so with a post-apoch setting. Yes, the setting is required for a sequel but the PnP emulation was the main goal of the project and thus is even more important than the setting.

I think the original Fallout would have been just as good with Real-Time combat, or Tactics-style "continuous turn-based".

I don't think that anyone has a problem with RTwP as an option as long as they don't screw the balance for TB.

And, therefore, only FPS should be made? Because you don't like tactical combat?

not because i dont like it but if the majority of gamers prefer FPS style and it would be silly from any company to neglect that market share. As i said i belive hp & p turn based combat is a thing of the past there where none or a few games in the last decade to prove me elsewise and even Fallout stands more as an exception nowdays. I might be wrong , a game just that might be miracle realised and successful but till this day there are no factors other that speculation to point elsewhere.

KotR and KotR2 are both PnP based games (d20) with RTwP combat that have been very successful. No one has said that RTwP couldn't be an option for gameplay, just that it needs to have a well designed TB system.

This is the worst post.

You seems to dislike a lot of posts/posters on NMA. Why are you still here?

The underlying point that it was an inflamitory and uneccesary post is valid, even if his response to it was poor.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Development costs have gone steadily up

Because of expensive 3D engines and hype, both not necessary for a good game.

The only real option is to make the game more appealing to a mass market

Indies. Seems like there is another option isn't it? AAA games is not where it's all at.

regardless of what you think of their efforts, they are making an attempt

Good that you know it for a fact and it's not just an opinion as valid as mine that they're not even trying.

 

[mandrake776]

Because of expensive 3D engines and hype, both not necessary for a good game.

They already have the engine, don't they? Development costs are there for more things than just that.

Indies. Seems like there is another option isn't it? AAA games is not where it's all at.

You really think that indie games make the same profit as AAA games? Especially for a developer like Bethesda?

Good that you know it for a fact and it's not just an opinion as valid as mine that they're not even trying.

You might think they're failing horribly, but to say that they're not trying? I can't imagine.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Because of expensive 3D engines and hype, both not necessary for a good game.

They already have the engine, don't they? Development costs are there for more things than just that.

Not Bethesda and not most companies, most pay a license fee to use a pre-existing one (such as the source engine, gamebryo, quake, unreal, ect.).

Indies. Seems like there is another option isn't it? AAA games is not where it's all at.

You really think that indie games make the same profit as AAA games? Especially for a developer like Bethesda?

They don't have to but there is a third option, middle sized companies like Atlas who don't have massive development budgets and don't (usually) have massive sales, they thrive by making games for their little corner of the market (mostly their fans but they do get new ones). It's a false dichotomy to say that one must either make AAA titles or B titles, there are still A and AA titles to be made.

 

[mandrake776]

They don't have to but there is a third option, middle sized companies like Atlas who don't have massive development budgets and don't (usually) have massive sales, they thrive by making games for their little corner of the market (mostly their fans but they do get new ones). It's a false dichotomy to say that one must either make AAA titles or B titles, there are still A and AA titles to be made.

Do you mean Atlus? Or is there another company I don't know? I'm not making fun of spelling, I want to know if this is something I know about before I respond.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

They don't have to but there is a third option, middle sized companies like Atlas who don't have massive development budgets and don't (usually) have massive sales, they thrive by making games for their little corner of the market (mostly their fans but they do get new ones). It's a false dichotomy to say that one must either make AAA titles or B titles, there are still A and AA titles to be made.

Do you mean Atlus? Or is there another company I don't know? I'm not making fun of spelling, I want to know if this is something I know about before I respond.

Yeah, my bad. They aren't the only company that do it but they are the one that pops into my head first. Another example might actually be a lot of the games that EA releases, a lot of them are average or mediocre but it allows them to try making low budget games that are different (though not many) and mostly builds up their budget for blockbusters.

 

[mandrake776]

No big deal, especially as it's an odd spelling.

Atlus does ludicrously low print runs, minimizing their losses.

I didn't say that the only option was AAA or indie, but I feel that for a company that usually cranks out a single AAA title every few years, that doing it in a different way isn't their business model. Not that it's not possible, but that it may not have even occurred to them, or alternately that the time and energy they'd have to put in to make the story and setting good, they might as well make a AAA title anyway.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Atlus does ludicrously low print runs, minimizing their losses.

Indeed. This works out for all of their games except their hits, and they tend to fail to print more of those... Regardless, it's profitable.

I didn't say that the only option was AAA or indie, but I feel that for a company that usually cranks out a single AAA title every few years, that doing it in a different way isn't their business model. Not that it's not possible, but that it may not have even occurred to them, or alternately that the time and energy they'd have to put in to make the story and setting good, they might as well make a AAA title anyway.

Indeed. I think the real thing that they'd have trouble with is budgeting (always the hard part), which would likely require them to split up their team to work on multiple projects but I also think that you're probably right that it may not have occured to them. It's also quite possible that the execs won't allow it as it would mean getting profit in much smaller chunks.

 

[mandrake776]

Indeed. I think the real thing that they'd have trouble with is budgeting (always the hard part), which would likely require them to split up their team to work on multiple projects but I also think that you're probably right that it may not have occured to them. It's also quite possible that the execs won't allow it as it would mean getting profit in much smaller chunks.

Yeah, this is mostly what I'm saying. This might not be the best choice for how to make a Fallout game, but there are good reasons that they did it, and that it looks good regardless (that last bit is my opinion).

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Yeah, this is mostly what I'm saying. This might not be the best choice for how to make a Fallout game, but there are good reasons that they did it, and that it looks good regardless (that last bit is my opinion).

Actually the real trick would be to do both, possibly outsourcing the TB/RTwP (at least TB but RTwP to appeal to broader market) TPP game while doing Fallout Prime themselves.