Alphadrop said:I call it "Fallout East"
They could say Fallout 3 is only a working title, that would give them some leverage to change it.
Falloutz - East Coast Stylez
Yo.
PlayStation Universe interviews Pete Hines
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Falloutz - East Coast Stylez
Yo.
PaladinHeart said:
Danm, Stalker is not a RPG, it's a FPS with RPG elements to it, to add a little depth i think. The fact that you put Stalker right next to Oblivion should tell you more about the so called "Rpgs" Bethesda makes than anything else (Morrowind was better though, they are going down hill).
I mean Stalker had more dialogue choices in some conversations, and options to get out of a quest than Oblivion had (those one liners were annoying).
Let's just hope the dialogues will be better in Fallout 3, although i doubt it.
It was useless to you. I didn't find it to be useless as I used it quite a lot. I'm not saying the other views weren't useful too and occasionally necessary (I really wouldn't mind having different perspective options in a Fallout game), but ariel was not useless like it is in Fallout 3. It was a functional option in GTA III (regardless of your opinions on usefulness), it will not be functional to that extent in Fallout 3.eff-out said:
In Fallout? Or did you mean in Fallout 3?
Are you serious, ookami? I'm pretty sure eff-out is right. I tried GTA III while driving with helicopter view for a bit but soon found it unplayable as the camera would not adapt to buildings blocking the view: soon as you rode into a tunnel or under an overhanging building you would not be able to see yourself.
They removed/replaced it with cinematic mode later. Pretty sure it was never meant to function.
They removed/replaced it with cinematic mode later. Pretty sure it was never meant to function.
*sigh* I really hate people that are intentionally obtuse.
Look. GTA worked because the core game wasn't changed by moving the camera position. GTA was still a live-action cops and robbers type game.
In the case of GTA the camera angle change actually served the core game better than their old engine did. It's not like GTA was a turn based game, that they turned into real-time, along with a perspective change. They didn't have to touch the core game.
The same can not be said of Fallout 3. This really isn't up for debate. Truth is truth.
They took the easy way out. They reskinned Oblivion. Had they actually wanted to try something new, they would have modified their engine to actually make a Fallout game, and not an Oblivion Total Conversion.
Look. GTA worked because the core game wasn't changed by moving the camera position. GTA was still a live-action cops and robbers type game.
In the case of GTA the camera angle change actually served the core game better than their old engine did. It's not like GTA was a turn based game, that they turned into real-time, along with a perspective change. They didn't have to touch the core game.
The same can not be said of Fallout 3. This really isn't up for debate. Truth is truth.
They took the easy way out. They reskinned Oblivion. Had they actually wanted to try something new, they would have modified their engine to actually make a Fallout game, and not an Oblivion Total Conversion.
Serious enough. I already said it wasn't 100%, but it certainly wasn't 'near useless' or I wouldn't have used it. The point is that it was still there and it was more functional than it will be in FO3. The reason that GTA III's aerial view was still functional to that point is because they didn't jack around with the core gameplay the way that Bethesda has been doing with FO3.Brother None said:
Wouldn't it be great if Bethesda would even concede enough to make it a functional option?
Eyenixon said:
I don't get it.
Brother None said:
Maybe I should have said "relative dearth". Way more King Arthur castles than Don Johnson wastelands. All I was saying.
Brother None said:
Maybe, but you might be more forgiving and optimistic if the setting was more important than the camera angle (oversimplifying, I know). Anyway, it applied to topic tangentially at least.
Brother None said:
I think the division comes in what we recognize as the core elements of fallout's design, you can quote the intent, and that's one perspective. I am quoting my interpretation. Any art school will tell you that the artist's statement does not inform the art, it informs the artist.
People enjoy the painting and take what they want from it, they don't have to know it's supposed to be a picture of Manuel Noriega.
eff-out said:
Relative to what? If you say "relative to the other variable", then pen and paper emulating RPGs are "relatively" in the biggest slump. I'm not seeing how you could argue to prefer a post-apocalyptic RPGFPS to a sword'n'sorcery p&p-emulating when currently there are no less than 5 AA-to-AAA post-apocalyptic titles in development, many of them RPGs or with RPG elements. The only major sword'n'sorcery game that springs to mind is Dragon Age. So where's the dearth?
eff-out said:
Really, you think we'd be more forgiving of a Fallout sequel that changes the post-apocalyptic setting into a sci-fi one as long as it keeps the pen and paper mechanics?
Not really. We're not forgiving of any major deviations from the core philosophy.
eff-out said:
Our argument is objective. Yours is subjective. That means ours is useful when yours - at best - will end up with a lot of "that doesn't matter because my opinion is..." The only real reason to object to the objective argument over the subjective one is if the objective argument doesn't suit your needs, as it is in your case.
But heck, even if the subjective argument was a good one - and post-modernism is too dead for it to be - it is not even remotely useful. Internet is full of nonsensical arguments based on opinion over fact, we have no wish to support the trend.
And I can not only quote the intent, I can point and say "that's what it is". It is turn-based. It is isometric. That's not intent, that's reality.
Brother None said:
If you make a detailed list of everything about fallout and compared it to a detailed list of everything about fallout 3 you would have more similarities than differences. It is your intent to prove that the differences are more important than the similarities and that can not be done objectively.
eff-out said:
What? What made you think this is a zero-sum game? It is my intent to point out that amongst the changes made by Bethesda are not just details but also core design elements of Fallout. One way to prove that is common sense (combat mechanics tend to be a core element), another way is design intent.
But you make it sound like a zero-sum, "bad outweighs the good" thing. That's really missing the point.
PaladinHeart
Mildly Dipped
I've seen NMA point out the things that Fallout 3 gets right. It's not a "notice everything wrong and ignore everything that's right" attitude here.
But even if they get it 90% right, it should be pointed out that the 10% is not right and needs fixing. When it is pointed out that these things aren't being done right, and the act of people pointing this out is being ignored because "we're going to do what we do best" then it'd be pretty stupid to not expect a little flak from that.
Fallout fans have every right to complain, and even the right to refuse to buy the product if it does not meet their expectations.
If a new Zelda game is made, and it happens to be missing Link, and someone points this out to the developers and they ignore it, then it's just as valid a complaint as any other complaint about any game sequel that does something different than the original.
Here's a good example of me nitpicking. I purchased and played through the bargain bin Fear collection. I was disappointed that the 2nd expansion started out with a different character. I wanted to see what happened to the original protagonist at the end of the previous game. If Fear 2 does not continue the original character's story, then I have every right to complain and even refuse to buy the product, which I will... but I will expect to see it at some point in the future for $20.
That's an extreme point though, and not nearly as much as Fallout fans are asking for. Losing the isometric TB style gameplay is a huge deviation from the series, and it's wrong.
Of course, they did purchase the Fallout IP and that gives them the right to do so, but that doesn't mean Fallout fans should just change their taste in video games.
If I were to purchase, say, the rights to produce Half-Life 3 (yeah right, but just as an example) then I would expect to make nothing less than a better game than Half-Life 2 that is a FPS with: gunplay, interesting puzzles involving the environment and various ways to manipulate the environment, interesting NPC's, and of course Gordon Freeman as the player and a continuation of the ongoing Half-Life storyline.
Being a TB tactical game, however, I've always felt that the Fallout series would benefit from giving the player control over what the rest of your party does in combat. I know there are Fallout fans who don't even like that idea. Look at the poor reception of Fallout Tactics, despite being a somewhat decent game (although it did get a lot of things wrong). The way I see it, is if a character is going to let you mess with their stuff, then I don't see why they wouldn't also allow you to tell them how to behave in combat.
How would I implement this, then, knowing many people don't like the idea? I would use the Charisma characteristic to determine just how much influence you have over your followers. 1-4 = no options, but they'll take stuff you give them and toss out or sell what they don't like, depending on their personality 5-7 = they will allow some inventory control and limited combat orders, but no direct control. If you develop a good relationship then they may eventually be fully under your direct control, as long as you treat them nicely... 8-10 - same as 5-7, but easier to gain influence with said NPC's and certain NPC's would require you to have 9 or even 10 charisma before they would trust you, better balancing the characteristic with a great ally that a pure fighting PC would never have access to. Some characters would never allow any control, of course, just because they're like that. x]
See, using this method you still allow players to be loners, if they wish, and this opens up a lot of avenues for even more choices and consequences, and even quests involving these allies. Helping one ally might even destroy a path of quests you normally could have taken, and/or give you more quests and/or give you access to another ally and/or deny allies. Sadly, we can't have anything like this in Fallout 3 because FPS style helpers/allies could never be controlled and ALWAYS have very poor AI. Usually much worse than the enemies you'll come up against.
Bottom line: People should complain because feedback, both positive and negative, is integral to good game design. Just look at Blizzard for a good example. They hand placed everything in their gameplay video just to get feedback on what people do and don't like. If you don't listen to the consumers then you're destined to fail.
Edit: This post is way too long. >.< But it's late and I'm too lazy to trim it.
But even if they get it 90% right, it should be pointed out that the 10% is not right and needs fixing. When it is pointed out that these things aren't being done right, and the act of people pointing this out is being ignored because "we're going to do what we do best" then it'd be pretty stupid to not expect a little flak from that.
Fallout fans have every right to complain, and even the right to refuse to buy the product if it does not meet their expectations.
If a new Zelda game is made, and it happens to be missing Link, and someone points this out to the developers and they ignore it, then it's just as valid a complaint as any other complaint about any game sequel that does something different than the original.
Here's a good example of me nitpicking. I purchased and played through the bargain bin Fear collection. I was disappointed that the 2nd expansion started out with a different character. I wanted to see what happened to the original protagonist at the end of the previous game. If Fear 2 does not continue the original character's story, then I have every right to complain and even refuse to buy the product, which I will... but I will expect to see it at some point in the future for $20.
That's an extreme point though, and not nearly as much as Fallout fans are asking for. Losing the isometric TB style gameplay is a huge deviation from the series, and it's wrong.
Of course, they did purchase the Fallout IP and that gives them the right to do so, but that doesn't mean Fallout fans should just change their taste in video games.
If I were to purchase, say, the rights to produce Half-Life 3 (yeah right, but just as an example) then I would expect to make nothing less than a better game than Half-Life 2 that is a FPS with: gunplay, interesting puzzles involving the environment and various ways to manipulate the environment, interesting NPC's, and of course Gordon Freeman as the player and a continuation of the ongoing Half-Life storyline.
Being a TB tactical game, however, I've always felt that the Fallout series would benefit from giving the player control over what the rest of your party does in combat. I know there are Fallout fans who don't even like that idea. Look at the poor reception of Fallout Tactics, despite being a somewhat decent game (although it did get a lot of things wrong). The way I see it, is if a character is going to let you mess with their stuff, then I don't see why they wouldn't also allow you to tell them how to behave in combat.
How would I implement this, then, knowing many people don't like the idea? I would use the Charisma characteristic to determine just how much influence you have over your followers. 1-4 = no options, but they'll take stuff you give them and toss out or sell what they don't like, depending on their personality 5-7 = they will allow some inventory control and limited combat orders, but no direct control. If you develop a good relationship then they may eventually be fully under your direct control, as long as you treat them nicely... 8-10 - same as 5-7, but easier to gain influence with said NPC's and certain NPC's would require you to have 9 or even 10 charisma before they would trust you, better balancing the characteristic with a great ally that a pure fighting PC would never have access to. Some characters would never allow any control, of course, just because they're like that. x]
See, using this method you still allow players to be loners, if they wish, and this opens up a lot of avenues for even more choices and consequences, and even quests involving these allies. Helping one ally might even destroy a path of quests you normally could have taken, and/or give you more quests and/or give you access to another ally and/or deny allies. Sadly, we can't have anything like this in Fallout 3 because FPS style helpers/allies could never be controlled and ALWAYS have very poor AI. Usually much worse than the enemies you'll come up against.
Bottom line: People should complain because feedback, both positive and negative, is integral to good game design. Just look at Blizzard for a good example. They hand placed everything in their gameplay video just to get feedback on what people do and don't like. If you don't listen to the consumers then you're destined to fail.
Edit: This post is way too long. >.< But it's late and I'm too lazy to trim it.
eff-out said:
To a certain extent. That's why we discuss them using logic over personal opinion, pointing to facts rather than personal experience. Because again, just saying they're subjective is not going to get anyone anywhere.
We do our best to determine what the core elements are by striving to understand the intent and the reality of the game. We're certainly open to people making arguments within that framework, but once you move outside of that framework and go into "it's all subjective", all you're doing is killing the debate in a pointless, non-constructive manner.
eff-out said:
Incorrect. Bethesda is claiming to adopt what they (and others) see as "fun" in Fallout, they're smarter than trying to claim to be adapting all of Fallout because they know they'll get called on that lie.
eff-out said:
You're still not listening. I'm not trying to prove it's a bad idea, I am proving that it is inconsistent with Fallout's original core philosophy.
That said, this is also split.
EnglishMuffin
Still Mildly Glowing
Remember when that gun went "Choo choo!" Yeah, that was great. Oh and do you also remember when you killed all those people and kept hearing "Cha-ching Cha-ching!" Good times were had by all.
Let's just face it, good decisions are good decisions.
Pu..ma man he flies like a moron!
Let's just face it, good decisions are good decisions.
Pu..ma man he flies like a moron!
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Bethesda even refuses marketing feedback (I got warned for giving some) and have been unresponsive to any other feedback and blacklisted STG for criticizing problems with ST: Legacy so...PaladinHeart said:
Zelda has not had any major overhauls in gameplay since Zelda 2 (which was a flop and the gameplay was abandoned). They have added to the core gameplay, made it 3-D, and added other methods of combat (Majora's Mask was the first with the Zora, Goron, and Deku masks) but the core gameplay is very much intact. The Zelda serries is a great example of how to evolve gameplay in a serries which isn't to say that everything that they've done is good but that it's adding (positively or negatively) to the core gameplay instead of changing it.eff-out said:
EnglishMuffin said:
Puma Man didn't fly, man, he made "cat-like leaps"
Totally
Interesting:
360 Gamer UK on FO3"......it's a little and depressing to look at, and perhaps feels less console-y than we've become accustomed to but there is more to see and do here than we imagined."
also Pete Hines "its very important to us to get the 'feel' of fallout right. To bring out those moments from the original games in ways that feel familiar, but new."
360 Gamer UK on FO3"......it's a little and depressing to look at, and perhaps feels less console-y than we've become accustomed to but there is more to see and do here than we imagined."
also Pete Hines "its very important to us to get the 'feel' of fallout right. To bring out those moments from the original games in ways that feel familiar, but new."