Some Thoughts about new fallout

[Guest]

Alright, I think I see way too many emotions going around. Lets think rationaly for a moment please. So the next Fallout game is not a "true" RPG, but does this matter, is it the RPG element that makes Fallout good, I don't think so. It is the feeling of the game, the emotions it stirs in people, the immersiveness of it not the fact that it is and RPG oh sure maybe being and RPG helps the game, but not in any major way, and who says the next fallout will be bad because it is a 3d person tactical psuedoRPG, it might even help the game. We have not had any expireince with Fallout in another genre so how can we know if it to be good or bad, we don't. The people who made Fallout made an excellent game that is one of the best games ever created, if they made Fallout 1 and 2 such a good game who says they can't do it again. They probably will do it again, but I do not know and am not trying to predict. And its not like its giving up ALL the RPG elements, from what I have read there are still NPC's and Character Development. In fact Character Development is a key part of an RPG. If they did not have that it would no longer be an RPG, but they are keeping it, so they are not giving up ALL aspects of an RPG. And has anybody ever said that they are NOT going to make FO3, ever? No, no one has, so there is still a chance that FO3 will be made. So lets just wait and hope for the best. Because nobody knows what the game will be like, it could turn out to be a great game or a horrible game, but for now lets just hope for the best, because we cannot predict what it will be like without playing it.

More on this MIGHT come later when I have time.


Skynet Security Systems Logging off.....

 

[Guest]

the new game dose not sound like it is suposed to kill the fallout RPG aspect of the game it sounds like it is mearly an exspantion into the fallout realm like i sead on the FO3 bord it sounds like it is going to be like X-com a tactical sqwad based wargame with limited chericter dev. my worys is that in adding vehicals into the game as well as new envorments that Interplay could be weaking the francise hears hoping that it dosent turn into a bad C&C clone or some other abomnation

 

[Roshambo]

Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

"Well, look at it this way.

If they made an official title for Wasteland, and it turned out to be a racing game, how would the fans feel?

I know 100% of those that have played Wasteland since 1984 would be thoroughly disgusted.

But aside from that, my biggest beef is that they are making something with the NAME of Fallout, but none of the standards set forth by it.

Fallout was not combat-intensive, wasn't meant to be, originally. You could finish the game without killing a thing. That's because if you wanted to play the role of a thief or a diplomat, or whatever, you could.

Now, let's get into the technical beefs.

1. They use the BOS because that is one of the only groups that might have the tech to make/repair cars/weapons (among some others).

2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely gone. So now it's a strategy/shooter amidst blasted buildings. Nevermind the original PURPOSE for having a post-apocalyptic setting. Right now, I doubt that even half of Interplay even knows what Wasteland is anymore. BIS does, I know that.

3. The storyline would conflict, or there would be continuity problems. Unless they abandon story completely (another standard of Wasteland/Fallout) in favor of mindless killing or come up with some cheap trick to answer that problem.

Now, if people persist in bringing up how HOM&M was successful, then you have to take a look at things:

1. HOM&M didn't deviate that far from the standards of M&M.

2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.

3. HOM&M complimented M&M, as it kept the basics that M&M had. Fallout Tactics: POS is making new rules, making the tech/weapons more available, etc. It's going COUNTER to what Fallout was, not complimenting like HOM&M did. 9/10 of what they are boasting of in features is purely anathema to the standards of a "wasteland" game.

So if it's not staying to the standards and basis of Fallout, and going counter to the original, then it's nothing more than a futuristic shooter amidst ruined buildings. All with the Fallout name attached, so people would buy it, hoping it might be something akin to the original Fallout.

Unfortunately, what they are changing/emphasizing will push away most of the fans.

As I've said before, it's not Fallout, save for by name/places. ANY other similarities it might of had to the original Fallout are gone."


"But I do seriously hope that it will draw combat away from Fo3.

However...with this installment of "Fallout", it will just continue to make the rest more combat inensive.

As new fans play Fallout Tactics: POS, it will make the focus of Fallout to be combat-intensive, whether it was intended to or not. Once you get people to think the name means a game where you kill things, story takes a back burner in their eyes. So Fo3 would suffer, or people would be forever bitching how Fallout 3 didn't have enough combat in it, or too much story.

My biggest kick was that people expected Diablow-like gameplay and storyline from Planescape: Torment after playing Baldur's Gate. They were used to "go here, kill this, retrieve that". They were the ones that complained that PS:T was too wordy. They weren't wanting an RPG anymore, they were expecting a hack-and-slash. Guess what Fallout Tactics: POS will have an influence on the other Fallout games, or at least on those who were like those who played BG and expected PS:T to be the same way? Yes, it will change things, or what the game means.

Now you know why I hate Fallout Tactics: Piece of Shit, because it WILL UNDOUBTEDLY put the focus of the game and fan base FAR from where it was originally intended.

Fallout, the game that brought back the traditions of a Classic RPG and did so well because of that....

Rest in Peace."

 

[Guest]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-12-00 AT 09:01PM (GMT)[p]Ahh, but do you know this as a fact. All your doing is assuming (unless you are Omnipotenet or an oracle). I reiterate before, they never said fallout 3 will nver be made. How do you know it will be bad? I do not know if it will be good, but how do you know if this will be bad? It could be a great game, or a bad game, but we do not know. All I am saying is that we should wait and see and hope for the best. I mean they were kinda setting us up for a powerplay like this, BOS, NCR, New Reno, Rememnants of Enclave, Remnamts of Masters Army. Who says it is not good too try new things. We do not want Fallout to fall into the trap of stale sequels, all with the same story line. This could be benificail to the series actually. Another point is that people should not buy Fallout because it is an RPG or a Tactical game. They should buy it for the enviorment, charcaters, adventures and the feeling for the game. If they buy it for this it will not matter what Genere it moves into from RPG to FPS, al that they will care about is if the feeling remains. That is a true fan of the series one that cares about the feeling of the game not the Genre. Also, who cares if these people you speak of buy FO: BOS because they want a shooter game. The shooter aspect WILL NOT EFFECT THE ORIGINAL FANS OF THE GAME. These people buy FO: BOS, they play it like the "kill part" and get FO3 don't like it too littel killing. Big Deal, who really cares. And how do you know that it will Undoubtley hurt the series?

That is all for now Until Next Time



Skynet Security Systems Logging off....

 

[Roshambo]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

Why do you think many were bitching about Planescape: Torment having too many words?

Because they were expecting it to have the same hack-and-slash play of Baldur's Gate, since the engine was so close. Now you don't care about a game that has the name of Fallout, but instead would put an emphasis on combat, something that Fallout was not meant to be. It was meant to have an emphasis on the story and different kinds of playability. So yes, there will be kiddies that will play Fallout BOS, and perhaps those that come before it.

And just like another game series (quite a few, actually), the fans without a clue will drool over the irrelevant parts of a game, not caring if the game itself truly does suck.

FInal Fantasy and Ultima, to name a couple of examples. They turned to shit because they decided to cash in on trends and not care what makes a game. And why did they decided to cash in on the trendy stuff? Because they lost focus of what the game was supposed to be.

How do I know this?
Because I have played games longer than most people on this board have been alive. I have seen trends, I have seen the rise and downfall of series and seen some become great, while others follow trends and become as irrelevant and enjoyable as a wet fart.

 

[Guest]

i think were missing the point by using the BOS instead of some other org. or person you are alowing for tactical combat. one the BOS is a mill org. (heance they kill people/things) two the BOS is crusading to build a better world hence they can go and min. or shote things that are oposed to it (the jap. saying the nail that sticks out has to be hammerd down, an interesting coralary to it is the yacasa saying its better to the hammer then the nail) finoly nothing has changed there is nothing wrong with useing a post apocoliptic seting that all ready exsistes as an RPG format battletech was origonaly a board game and look were it has gone (with only mild biching and moning by its fans) what im saying is that the game is in the hands of god the disiners and the people in charge lets hope god and the disiners wins out over the eavel burocrats looking for a profit

 

[Guest]

I have absolutely no problem with that the next fallout is not a RPG. Did you guys ever play Wasteland? It had some tactical combat elements in it. You had more than just one character to manage, you could tell each character what to do in combat, you had to plan what's good for the whole squad. And it was a great game.

 

[Guest]

i've never played it (wasteland) but i'll bet u had more choices than "hmmm should i attack the left corner or the right corner first?"
if pos goes ahead it has a very good chance of wrecking fallout 3, because it will get a new fanbase (like roshambo said) & since they're a fresh stupid fan base, they will buy anything they can get their grubby little hands on)

greenhair could u work on your spelling a bit, you have some excellent points & sound like a well informed person.
not trying to offend u tho

 

[Guest]

no blood no foul the spelling however is the laber of a life time i like to think of it as an acsent (probibly along the lines a of a southern draw for all that it dose for the pres. my intelegence)

 

[Guest]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-13-00 AT 10:49PM (GMT)[p][font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON May-13-00 AT 10:44 PM (GMT)

I loved Planesacpe: Torment and Baldur's gate. I think they were both landmark games. Fallout was a landmark game. All we are doing is specualting here. Trends in the gaming industry do not matter. It is like the stock maket, even though there is a patteren (The Chaos Theory states that in Chaos there is order) it is too large for us too comprehend without the aid of computers. Oh sure you can make predictions based on what you know, but It really does not matter because in the end It could go any direction. We do not know what the game will be like. question: are you saying that the mood, feeling, and the emotions a game stirs in you are irrelevent? Maybe I misunderstood your letter, please correct me if I am wrong. While the RPG element adds something to the game, a 3d person Tactical could add something else to the game that an RPG could not, just as an RPG can add things to the game a 3dPT cannot.

Until next time
Skynet Security Systems Logging off....
PS what is the point of calling it FO Tactic: POS(i do know what it means)? I really do not see the point. Oh and did you like Baldur's Gate? Oh and this is nothing personal Just Business

 

[Roshambo]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

>
>I loved Planesacpe: Torment and Baldur's
>gate. I think they
>were both landmark games.
>Fallout was a landmark game.

So did I. However, PS:T has more in common with Fallout and Baldur's Gate has more in common with Diablo. It is undeniable that Baldur's Gate is indeed an inferior game in comparasin to PS:T. But why does Badur's Gate become so popular? Because it had a focus on combat, no matter what part of the game you are in - you are persistantly killing things. At that point, the story just becomes a veak polish on top of it, hoping that the players would buy the story in light of the slashfest. Thus, the reason why those who bitched about too many words in PS:T are upset, because they were expecting a Diablo/Nox/DarkStone/Baldur's Gate slashfest. Games where you can kill just about anything like a mindless little drone and not have any repercussions like in a REAL CRPG - Fallout, Fallout 2, PS:T, etc.

> All we are doing
>is specualting here. Trends
>in the gaming industry do
>not matter.

WRONG.
Eye-candy, hack and slash, FPS, all arguably trendy material.
Final Fantasy aided in the "dumbing-down" of RPGs, so did Diablo. I appreciate what Diablo has to offer, but it has no right in being called an RPG. Swords and sorcery doesn't make an RPG, neither does level systems. The story and interaction and moulding around the character that the story does is so much more important. Which FF and Diablo lacked. In FF, you just push buttons to get to the next tidbit of animation, trudging through montonous battles, and whatever you hold holy help you if you were in the least bit narcoleptic or bored easily. In Diablo, the story might as well not exist, as it's just there as an EXCUSE for the hackfest. It's watered-down and lame. A game that came out more than 13 years before it had better RPG-quality than Diablo. Had a better story, better gameplay, nonlinearity to a point, and had many other features which still surpass some games that are created today in shoddy craftsmanship, have swords thrown in, and are called "RPG".
That champion is called Wasteland.
Released in 1984. And STILL surpasses most RPG games released today. All but in graphics. Says a lot, no?

But why did FF and Diablo become so popular?

Trends.

Eye-candy, multiplayer, etc.

They appealed to all of the cattle that moo'd over all the pretty colors and multiplayer capabilities, seeing whom can kill whom. Allowing their sociopathic tendencies to run free, letting them do whatever they want without having to think about real-life, or what passed for that in the game.

Did Fallout or PS:T do any of that? No. The graphics were not 3-d rendering for the most part, they didn't rely on ultra-high system specs. They had what made a game. What you did in the game reflected back in the story - and I don't mean "if you kill X critter, the plot changes", it goes much further than that. Were the games enjoyable and Classic, Real, RPGs?
Without a doubt.

Hence my next point: Losing Focus.

>It is
>like the stock maket, even
>though there is a
>patteren (The Chaos Theory states
>that in Chaos there is
>order) it is too
>large for us too comprehend
>without the aid of computers.
> Oh sure you can
>make predictions based on what
>you know, but It
>really does not matter because
>in the end It could
>go any direction. We
>do not know what the
>game will be like.
> question: are you saying
>that the mood, feeling, and
>the emotions a game stirs
>in you are irrelevent?
>Maybe I misunderstood your letter,
>please correct me if I
>am wrong. While the
>RPG element adds something to
>the game, a 3d
>person Tactical could add something
>else to the game that
>an RPG could not, just
>as an RPG can add
>things to the game a
>3dPT cannot.

As with any game, if you change it's genre even slightly, and especially to a genre that is as deep-rooted as Pong. And a bit older too.
RPG games (most notably D&D) have existed before the first shooter. They have existed before the original FPS, and, before the first computer-strategy game.

Now, my main quarrel is not that it's focus is going towards pure combat (which in itself is arguably one reason why some are peeved), but that when you mess with something, you are going to alienate somebody. Fallout was a return to Classic RPGs. PS:T was in-depth enough to merit the same praise. I haven't seen Barry Day's opinion on this, but I can imagine he's about as upset about it as I am. To put it to a point, it's considered sacriligious.

About the only thing that could further upset some of the old-schoolers, is that Interplay would buy the rights to another title for Wasteland and make a racing game out of it.

Fallout was a return to the old-school. In-depth story, good gameplay, etc. It stood out above the eye-candied stodge that other companies were spewing forth. I just see this as following what's popular.

But it's all fine and dandy, since NWC did it well with HOM&M, nevermind the fact that most of the old-schoolers have quit playing M&M since it went real-time for the most part. So based upon HOM&M, it would work, right?

News flash:
People didn't buy Fallout for the comabt. If they did, then they are missing the point entirely of an RPG.

M&M has always ben combat-intensive, so a change to a strategy game wasn't that different.

>Until next time
>Skynet Security Systems Logging off....
>PS what is the point
>of calling it FO Tactic:
>POS(i do know what it
>means)? I really do
>not see the point.
>Oh and did you like
>Baldur's Gate? Oh and
>this is nothing personal Just
>Business

Because it's not Fallout anymore. Only in name and places/characters. Anything that it resembled to the concepts of the original are lost. The purpose for being in a wasteland is lost. So you are now going to be fighting amidst ruined buildings, nevermind the other important facts of a wasteland setting. I think you can also guess that I kind of liked BG, but it really was just a complicated Diablo/Nox/DarkStone clone. The story and interactions were not deep enough, thus is why it failed in many old-school eyes, especially against PS:T.

Most of the features described in the Features List of Fallout Tactics: BOS are more apt to describe a shooter or a pure combat game. Nevermind the roots of the game.

So, the bottom line:

It's just a strategy game with the looks/name/situational concepts of Fallout, using the Fallout name to gain in sales and popularity and drawing the crowd that is anathema to most RPG-players. We thought we had more than enough twinks and munchkins on before this got mentioned, now how do you think it would be AFTER this game is released. I know it's going to be released nevermind what the fans and those that the original Fallout was made for say, but I just loathe all the kiddies this is going to bring to the world of Fallout. First, the idea of a story would be enough to push most of them away. But when Fo3 is put into production, you will undoubtedly see all those kids lining up on your message-boards suggesting uber-twinked guns, APCs, etc. etc. As if we haven't had enough of that allready...

*holds his head in his hands, muttering out a prolonged "Ohhhh....fuck.....no more twinks, please....."

 

[Roshambo]

>So the next Fallout game
>is not a "true" RPG,
>but does this matter, is
>it the RPG element that
>makes Fallout good, I
>don't think so.

Do you have the slightest idea of why Fallout was made?

Apparently not.

 

[Miroslav]

Oh my

Rosh, just a thumb up for ya! I mean man, I never saw someone defending a game like Rosh did with Fallout now.
And I never saw someone like Skynet defending a game (Tactics) which hasn't been released yet, we even don't have any info except some screenshots. I say give peace a chance! yep, certanly, but I really don't have any oppinion on Tactics yet. I played Jagged Alliance, and not to mention Xcom, with great joy. Now a mix of Fallout and these games... Hmmm, why not? On the other hand, I'm dyyyyyyyyying for FALLOUT ROLE PLAYING SEQUEL... Who knows, maybe I'll be happy when Vampire gets released and Pool of Radiance... But they're not post nuclear... I mean they'll be fun, but the spirit of reality isn't there.
--
Confused Miroslav, miroslav@gamestats.com
No Mutants Allowed - Fallout WebSite
http://fallout.gamestats.com/

 

[Grifman]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

>"Well, look at it this way.
>
>
>If they made an official title
>for Wasteland, and it turned
>out to be a racing
>game, how would the fans
>feel?

But this isn't a racing game. That analogy is inaccurate and ludicrous.

>
>I know 100% of those that
>have played Wasteland since 1984
>would be thoroughly disgusted.

Sure, if it were a racing game. But like I said, that is an inaccurate analogy.

>
>But aside from that, my biggest
>beef is that they are
>making something with the NAME
>of Fallout, but none of
>the standards set forth by
>it.

How do you know about what standards they are using - the game isn't even out yet. The fact that Chris Taylor of the original FO is on board should count for something, right?

>
>Fallout was not combat-intensive, wasn't meant
>to be, originally. You could
>finish the game without killing
>a thing. That's because if
>you wanted to play the
>role of a thief or
>a diplomat, or whatever, you
>could.

You're right. But what says they can't or shouldn't extend the franchise? What's wrong with a tactical combat game if it is done well?

>
>Now, let's get into the technical
>beefs.

Sure, let's.

>
>1. They use the BOS because
>that is one of the
>only groups that might have
>the tech to make/repair cars/weapons
>(among some others).

Yeah, so that's a beef?!

>
>2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely
>gone. So now it's a
>strategy/shooter amidst blasted buildings. Nevermind
>the original PURPOSE for having
>a post-apocalyptic setting. Right now,
>I doubt that even half
>of Interplay even knows what
>Wasteland is anymore. BIS does,
>I know that.

How is the post apoc theme gone? That comment makes no sense. So what's your point? And please don't continue to be inaccurate about this game. It is not some click fest FP "shooter". It a tactical combat game a la JA2 or XCOM - both of which are classics and great games.

I think such a game, fighting mutants, centaurs, floaters, etc in the Wasteland would be great. No one has done such a game. Seems pretty unique to me - and very post apoc

>
>3. The storyline would conflict, or
>there would be continuity problems.
>Unless they abandon story completely
>(another standard of Wasteland/Fallout) in
>favor of mindless killing or
>come up with some cheap
>trick to answer that problem.

I fail to see the logic of this comment. Please explain why there would be conflicts with the story line. This could easily take place during the fighting of the Masters Army, or against another threat that arose before or even after the Enclave. There's still plenty of ground to cover that hasn't even been touched.

>
>
>Now, if people persist in bringing
>up how HOM&M was successful,
>then you have to take
>a look at things:
>
>1. HOM&M didn't deviate that far
>from the standards of M&M.
>
>
>2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.

What does it change? It's still the the Post Apoc world. The only thing is that this is a tactical combat game with RPG elements rather than an RPG with combat elements. I think the Fallout atmosphere will add alot.

You'r main complaint seems to be that it isn't FO3. So what's the big deal? What is wrong with a tactical combat game with RPG elements in the FO universe, if it is done well?

>
>3. HOM&M complimented M&M, as it
>kept the basics that M&M
>had. Fallout Tactics: POS is
>making new rules, making the
>tech/weapons more available, etc. It's
>going COUNTER to what Fallout
>was, not complimenting like HOM&M
>did. 9/10 of what they
>are boasting of in features
>is purely anathema to the
>standards of a "wasteland" game.

What is going to counter to the Fallout world? Can you give me specifics instead of generalities? What is an anathema here? You just rant and rant. This game is a perfect compliment to the Fallout universe. If they are not going to do an RPG, then what would be better than this?

I just think you are complaining because you don't have Fallout 3 instead, which this game takes nothing from, development wise.

>
>
>So if it's not staying to
>the standards and basis of
>Fallout, and going counter to
>the original, then it's nothing
>more than a futuristic shooter
>amidst ruined buildings. All with
>the Fallout name attached, so
>people would buy it, hoping
>it might be something akin
>to the original Fallout.

Again, you are not describing the game accurately. It is not a "shooter". It is not RT, and it is not FP. It is a tactical combat game with RPG elements. It is operating in the Fallout universe, so I fail to see how it is counter to the basis of Fallout or its standards.

Just because it is not an RPG does not make your comments about "standards" and "basis" true. From what I have read it seems totally consistent with the FO story and universe - it's just not an RPG.

>
>Unfortunately, what they are changing/emphasizing will
>push away most of the
>fans.

Not me - and not according to the poll at Duck and Cover.

>
>As I've said before, it's not
>Fallout, save for by name/places.
>ANY other similarities it might
>of had to the original
>Fallout are gone."

No one has said it is the original Fallout. You're making it out be something no one has said it will be. This makes it pretty clear that you are not letting this game stand on its own, but are just upset it isn't FO3.

I see alot similiar - as if names and places, and a consistent universe don't count. The _only_ thing not consistent is that it is not an RPG. Really, this complaint is getting a bit old.


>
>
>"But I do seriously hope that
>it will draw combat away
>from Fo3.
>
>However...with this installment of "Fallout", it
>will just continue to make
>the rest more combat inensive.

And your proof of such an assertion is? Do you really think BIS if they make FO3 are just going to make it a "shooter" as you call it?

>
>
>As new fans play Fallout Tactics:
>POS, it will make the
>focus of Fallout to be
>combat-intensive, whether it was intended
>to or not. Once you
>get people to think the
>name means a game where
>you kill things, story takes
>a back burner in their
>eyes. So Fo3 would suffer,
>or people would be forever
>bitching how Fallout 3 didn't
>have enough combat in it,
>or too much story.

Again, that is an unsupported assertion. You totally ignore the opposite, that it might draw other people into the FO universe, making FO3 mor likely and a bigger hit, which might give us a FO4. Have you thought about that possibility?


>
>My biggest kick was that people
>expected Diablow-like gameplay and storyline
>from Planescape: Torment after playing
>Baldur's Gate. They were used
>to "go here, kill this,
>retrieve that". They were the
>ones that complained that PS:T
>was too wordy. They weren't
>wanting an RPG anymore, they
>were expecting a hack-and-slash. Guess
>what Fallout Tactics: POS will
>have an influence on the
>other Fallout games, or at
>least on those who were
>like those who played BG
>and expected PS:T to be
>the same way? Yes, it
>will change things, or what
>the game means.

Well, so what if the Diablo people wanted hack and slash? A PS:T or FO will never appeal to that crowd. Does that mean the games we like are going to disappear? Perhaps not if we can expand the fan base with games like this.


>
>Now you know why I hate
>Fallout Tactics: Piece of Shit,
>because it WILL UNDOUBTEDLY put
>the focus of the game
>and fan base FAR from
>where it was originally intended.

No it might expand the universe. It is a different game and I think most people, unlike you, will realize that. It is a tactical combat game, not an RPG. Just like FO is an RPG, not a tactical combat game.

And answer this - if it is as good as JA2 or XCom, is it still a "POS"? Were those games "POS". Really, as I said before the complaint that this game is not an RPG is getting old.

Do you read anything that BIS puts out? Do you read their "Secret Project" notes. They are clearly RPG lovers. If they do a FO3, it will be an RPG. I really doubt that this game is going to cause FO3 to be some "shooter" RPG.

>
>
>Fallout, the game that brought back
>the traditions of a Classic
>RPG and did so well
>because of that....
>
>Rest in Peace."

Ya just can't please some people.

 

[Grifman]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

(snip)

>So, the bottom line:
>
>It's just a strategy game with
>the looks/name/situational concepts of Fallout,
>using the Fallout name to
>gain in sales and popularity
>and drawing the crowd that
>is anathema to most RPG-players.
> We thought we had
>more than enough twinks and
>munchkins on before this got
>mentioned, now how do you
>think it would be AFTER
>this game is released.
>I know it's going to
>be released nevermind what the
>fans and those that the
>original Fallout was made for
>say, but I just loathe
>all the kiddies this is
>going to bring to the
>world of Fallout. First,
>the idea of a story
>would be enough to push
>most of them away.
>But when Fo3 is put
>into production, you will undoubtedly
>see all those kids lining
>up on your message-boards suggesting
>uber-twinked guns, APCs, etc. etc.
> As if we haven't
>had enough of that allready...
>
>
>*holds his head in his hands,
>muttering out a prolonged "Ohhhh....fuck.....no
>more twinks, please....."

Ok I understand you a little bit better. But you're mistaken on a crucial point. You keep talking about the kiddies who love Diablo, etc. and worry that this game is going to appeal to them, water down FO, etc.

I just don't see it. As far as I can tell, FO: BOS is going to be a game like JA2/XCOM. None of which is a "kiddie" game, which suggests to me that you, perhaps, are not familiar with them. They are pretty much hardcore strat games - the C&C crowd is not attracted to them. The kiddies that love Diablo/BG are not going to be attracted to a "thinking man's" strategy game, which is what these games are. That is why I think your concern is misplaced. If anything it might draw some hardcore strat fans into the RPG genre.

 

[Roshambo]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

>>"Well, look at it this way.
>>
>>
>>If they made an official title
>>for Wasteland, and it turned
>>out to be a racing
>>game, how would the fans
>>feel?
>
>But this isn't a racing game.
> That analogy is inaccurate
>and ludicrous.

No, the point I was making was that of cross-genre movement. Obviously you missed that point.

>>
>>I know 100% of those that
>>have played Wasteland since 1984
>>would be thoroughly disgusted.
>
>Sure, if it were a racing
>game. But like I
>said, that is an inaccurate
>analogy.

Like I said, you missed the point entirely.

>>
>>But aside from that, my biggest
>>beef is that they are
>>making something with the NAME
>>of Fallout, but none of
>>the standards set forth by
>>it.
>
>How do you know about what
>standards they are using -
>the game isn't even out
>yet. The fact that
>Chris Taylor of the original
>FO is on board should
>count for something, right?

It will be an advanced-tech hack-and-slash. The emphasis is on combat. Fallout's emphasis was on the story.

>>Fallout was not combat-intensive, wasn't meant
>>to be, originally. You could
>>finish the game without killing
>>a thing. That's because if
>>you wanted to play the
>>role of a thief or
>>a diplomat, or whatever, you
>>could.
>
>You're right. But what says
>they can't or shouldn't extend
>the franchise? What's wrong
>with a tactical combat game
>if it is done well?

Then why not a shooter, a racing game, a sim, etc. etc.

Gotta love trendy cross-genre....

>>
>>Now, let's get into the technical
>>beefs.
>
>Sure, let's.
>
>>
>>1. They use the BOS because
>>that is one of the
>>only groups that might have
>>the tech to make/repair cars/weapons
>>(among some others).
>
>Yeah, so that's a beef?!

The BOS was trying to keep a little bit out of sight, and to themselves. They didn't want to get into any full-blown conflicts.

Oops, story clash number one.

>>2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely
>>gone. So now it's a
>>strategy/shooter amidst blasted buildings. Nevermind
>>the original PURPOSE for having
>>a post-apocalyptic setting. Right now,
>>I doubt that even half
>>of Interplay even knows what
>>Wasteland is anymore. BIS does,
>>I know that.
>
>How is the post apoc theme
>gone? That comment makes
>no sense. So what's
>your point? And please
>don't continue to be inaccurate
>about this game. It
>is not some click fest
>FP "shooter". It a
>tactical combat game a la
>JA2 or XCOM - both
>of which are classics and
>great games.
>
>I think such a game, fighting
>mutants, centaurs, floaters, etc in
>the Wasteland would be great.
> No one has done
>such a game. Seems
>pretty unique to me -
>and very post apoc

Now here is where I stop saing you are naive, and start saying you are stupid. So you go out and kill shit. HOW FUCKING ORIGINAL IS THAT?! So, in essence it will be like playing X-Com in a wasteland map area. You kill different monsters. So if we made something that featured Zelda-type monsters in a strategy game, we'd have a hit too, by your logic.

I know it's a tactical game, but aside from the scenery and the overlaid story, it will have naught else to do with a wasteland setting. Apparently, the meaning is lost on you.

From your statements, I can easily see that you are not of the old-school.

>>
>>3. The storyline would conflict, or
>>there would be continuity problems.
>>Unless they abandon story completely
>>(another standard of Wasteland/Fallout) in
>>favor of mindless killing or
>>come up with some cheap
>>trick to answer that problem.
>
>I fail to see the logic
>of this comment. Please
>explain why there would be
>conflicts with the story line.
> This could easily take
>place during the fighting of
>the Masters Army, or against
>another threat that arose before
>or even after the Enclave.
> There's still plenty of
>ground to cover that hasn't
>even been touched.

*sigh*
Which Fo3 will have to ignore the presence of FT: BOS.

>>Now, if people persist in bringing
>>up how HOM&M was successful,
>>then you have to take
>>a look at things:
>>
>>1. HOM&M didn't deviate that far
>>from the standards of M&M.
>>
>>
>>2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.
>
>What does it change? It's
>still the the Post Apoc
>world. The only thing
>is that this is a
>tactical combat game with RPG
>elements rather than an RPG
>with combat elements. I
>think the Fallout atmosphere will
>add alot.

Fighting amidst ruined buildigs. Who cares?
It might as well BE X-Com, but with a different setting.

Can you say "clone"?

>You'r main complaint seems to be
>that it isn't FO3.
>So what's the big deal?
> What is wrong with
>a tactical combat game with
>RPG elements in the FO
>universe, if it is done
>well?

Again, let's just make a shooter, a racer, a sim, etc. By your logic, it's allright to do so.

>>3. HOM&M complimented M&M, as it
>>kept the basics that M&M
>>had. Fallout Tactics: POS is
>>making new rules, making the
>>tech/weapons more available, etc. It's
>>going COUNTER to what Fallout
>>was, not complimenting like HOM&M
>>did. 9/10 of what they
>>are boasting of in features
>>is purely anathema to the
>>standards of a "wasteland" game.
>
>What is going to counter to
>the Fallout world? Can
>you give me specifics instead
>of generalities? What is an
>anathema here? You just
>rant and rant. This game
>is a perfect compliment to
>the Fallout universe. If
>they are not going to
>do an RPG, then what
>would be better than this?

You kill things. Big whoop. Fallout was not intended to be a combat game, it stressed the story. For you not to see the inherent problems makes it clear that you are a "new" RPG player. "Perfect compliment", by stressing something that was not the focus of the originals?

As I asked Skynet, do you have a clue as to why Fallout was made?

>I just think you are complaining
>because you don't have Fallout
>3 instead, which this game
>takes nothing from, development wise.

Wrong. I see this as giving into trendy cross-genre movement. It has nothing to do with the original aside from the name and some of the setting.

>>
>>So if it's not staying to
>>the standards and basis of
>>Fallout, and going counter to
>>the original, then it's nothing
>>more than a futuristic shooter
>>amidst ruined buildings. All with
>>the Fallout name attached, so
>>people would buy it, hoping
>>it might be something akin
>>to the original Fallout.
>
>Again, you are not describing the
>game accurately. It is not
>a "shooter". It is
>not RT, and it is
>not FP. It is
>a tactical combat game with
>RPG elements. It is
>operating in the Fallout universe,
>so I fail to see
>how it is counter to
>the basis of Fallout or
>its standards.

Again, if you can only see that Fallout was made for the combat, I pity you.

>Just because it is not an
>RPG does not make your
>comments about "standards" and "basis"
>true. From what I
>have read it seems totally
>consistent with the FO story
>and universe - it's just
>not an RPG.
>
>>
>>Unfortunately, what they are changing/emphasizing will
>>push away most of the
>>fans.
>
>Not me - and not according
>to the poll at Duck
>and Cover.

Cattle come in herds. I said fans. OF which, the old-school return to Classic RPGs is what the intent of Fallout was.

>>As I've said before, it's not
>>Fallout, save for by name/places.
>>ANY other similarities it might
>>of had to the original
>>Fallout are gone."
>
>No one has said it is
>the original Fallout. You're
>making it out be something
>no one has said it
>will be. This makes
>it pretty clear that you
>are not letting this game
>stand on its own, but
>are just upset it isn't
>FO3.
>
>I see alot similiar - as
>if names and places, and
>a consistent universe don't count.
> The _only_ thing not
>consistent is that it is
>not an RPG. Really,
>this complaint is getting a
>bit old.
>
>
>>
>>
>>"But I do seriously hope that
>>it will draw combat away
>>from Fo3.
>>
>>However...with this installment of "Fallout", it
>>will just continue to make
>>the rest more combat inensive.
>
>And your proof of such an
>assertion is? Do you
>really think BIS if they
>make FO3 are just going
>to make it a "shooter"
>as you call it?

No, as people get into the Fallout universe by playing a combat-intensive game, they will think it the focus and demand the sequels be like that, or complain that they are not like the first one.
Hence, those that complained when PS:T had too many words in their eyes, because they were expecting a hack and slash.

>>As new fans play Fallout Tactics:
>>POS, it will make the
>>focus of Fallout to be
>>combat-intensive, whether it was intended
>>to or not. Once you
>>get people to think the
>>name means a game where
>>you kill things, story takes
>>a back burner in their
>>eyes. So Fo3 would suffer,
>>or people would be forever
>>bitching how Fallout 3 didn't
>>have enough combat in it,
>>or too much story.
>
>Again, that is an unsupported assertion.
> You totally ignore the
>opposite, that it might draw
>other people into the FO
>universe, making FO3 mor likely
>and a bigger hit, which
>might give us a FO4.
> Have you thought about
>that possibility?

Oh, yes. Draw in those that like to kill things, so we can listen to how they complain about not having super guns and having to go through dialog.

>>
>>My biggest kick was that people
>>expected Diablow-like gameplay and storyline
>>from Planescape: Torment after playing
>>Baldur's Gate. They were used
>>to "go here, kill this,
>>retrieve that". They were the
>>ones that complained that PS:T
>>was too wordy. They weren't
>>wanting an RPG anymore, they
>>were expecting a hack-and-slash. Guess
>>what Fallout Tactics: POS will
>>have an influence on the
>>other Fallout games, or at
>>least on those who were
>>like those who played BG
>>and expected PS:T to be
>>the same way? Yes, it
>>will change things, or what
>>the game means.
>
>Well, so what if the Diablo
>people wanted hack and slash?
> A PS:T or FO
>will never appeal to that
>crowd. Does that mean
>the games we like are
>going to disappear? Perhaps
>not if we can expand
>the fan base with games
>like this.

Now here you really show how naive you can be.
If you make a game into an RPG, then follow it up with a cross-genre, and the cross-genre does much better than the others...

Marketing and the higher-ups will say screw the one that makes the less money, in favor of what rakes it in. So yes, if BOS is an immense hit and appeals to the droves of hack and slash kiddies, then Fo3 is as good as dead.

>>
>>Now you know why I hate
>>Fallout Tactics: Piece of Shit,
>>because it WILL UNDOUBTEDLY put
>>the focus of the game
>>and fan base FAR from
>>where it was originally intended.
>
>No it might expand the universe.
> It is a different
>game and I think most
>people, unlike you, will realize
>that. It is a
>tactical combat game, not an
>RPG. Just like FO
>is an RPG, not a
>tactical combat game.
>
>And answer this - if it
>is as good as JA2
>or XCom, is it still
>a "POS"? Were those
>games "POS". Really, as
>I said before the complaint
>that this game is not
>an RPG is getting old.

Fallout Arena: Killing Tournament.
Why stop at one cross genre, as it would only help and expand the universe, as per your point.
If you believe that, you are incredibly naive.

>Do you read anything that BIS
>puts out? Do you
>read their "Secret Project" notes.
> They are clearly RPG
>lovers. If they do
>a FO3, it will be
>an RPG. I really
>doubt that this game is
>going to cause FO3 to
>be some "shooter" RPG.

But if Interplay Marketing and management decide to make something that makes more money, we will see BOS 2 more likely than another real Fallout sequel.

>>Fallout, the game that brought back
>>the traditions of a Classic
>>RPG and did so well
>>because of that....
>>
>>Rest in Peace."
>
>Ya just can't please some people.
>

 

[Roshambo]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

>
>(snip)
>
>>So, the bottom line:
>>
>>It's just a strategy game with
>>the looks/name/situational concepts of Fallout,
>>using the Fallout name to
>>gain in sales and popularity
>>and drawing the crowd that
>>is anathema to most RPG-players.
>> We thought we had
>>more than enough twinks and
>>munchkins on before this got
>>mentioned, now how do you
>>think it would be AFTER
>>this game is released.
>>I know it's going to
>>be released nevermind what the
>>fans and those that the
>>original Fallout was made for
>>say, but I just loathe
>>all the kiddies this is
>>going to bring to the
>>world of Fallout. First,
>>the idea of a story
>>would be enough to push
>>most of them away.
>>But when Fo3 is put
>>into production, you will undoubtedly
>>see all those kids lining
>>up on your message-boards suggesting
>>uber-twinked guns, APCs, etc. etc.
>> As if we haven't
>>had enough of that allready...
>>
>>
>>*holds his head in his hands,
>>muttering out a prolonged "Ohhhh....fuck.....no
>>more twinks, please....."
>
>Ok I understand you a little
>bit better. But you're
>mistaken on a crucial point.
> You keep talking about
>the kiddies who love Diablo,
>etc. and worry that this
>game is going to appeal
>to them, water down FO,
>etc.
>
>I just don't see it.
>As far as I can
>tell, FO: BOS is going
>to be a game like
>JA2/XCOM. None of which
>is a "kiddie" game, which
>suggests to me that you,
>perhaps, are not familiar with
>them. They are pretty
>much hardcore strat games -
>the C&C crowd is not
>attracted to them. The
>kiddies that love Diablo/BG are
>not going to be attracted
>to a "thinking man's" strategy
>game, which is what these
>games are. That is
>why I think your concern
>is misplaced. If anything
>it might draw some hardcore
>strat fans into the RPG
>genre.


I really hope that this is true.
I have seen too many of the series I like go downhill by falling prey to trendy crap, and I did get a bit hostile in my reply to your response in this same thread. Sorry about that.

Though, I seriously do hope it's like X-Com Apocalypse.

All I see this as, is a strategy game with a Fallout shell.

A complete mockery.

It will have nothing to do with the others, because it's linear, it's a combat game, and it is a cross-genre. A lot of the meaning and soul of the game is lost when it moves over.

Think Total Annhiliation could do an RPG?
Not likely.
There are some boundaries that are best not crossed.

 

[Grifman]

RE: Here's a couple mirror posts from DAC:

>>>"Well, look at it this way.
>>>
>>>
>>>If they made an official title
>>>for Wasteland, and it turned
>>>out to be a racing
>>>game, how would the fans
>>>feel?
>>
>>But this isn't a racing game.
>> That analogy is inaccurate
>>and ludicrous.
>
>No, the point I was making
>was that of cross-genre movement.
> Obviously you missed that
>point.

No, I got the point. But you used the most ridiculous analogy to try and make it. Racing has nothing to do with the Fallout universe. The BOS and combat does.

>
>>>
>>>I know 100% of those that
>>>have played Wasteland since 1984
>>>would be thoroughly disgusted.
>>
>>Sure, if it were a racing
>>game. But like I
>>said, that is an inaccurate
>>analogy.
>
>Like I said, you missed the
>point entirely.

Like I said, your point was silly and ridiculous. So I guess you missed my point entirely too

>
>>>
>>>But aside from that, my biggest
>>>beef is that they are
>>>making something with the NAME
>>>of Fallout, but none of
>>>the standards set forth by
>>>it.
>>
>>How do you know about what
>>standards they are using -
>>the game isn't even out
>>yet. The fact that
>>Chris Taylor of the original
>>FO is on board should
>>count for something, right?
>
>It will be an advanced-tech hack-and-slash.
> The emphasis is on
>combat. Fallout's emphasis was
>on the story.

Again, mischaracterization. I doubt that JA2 and Xcom are considered hack and slash. Besides the game is _not_ an RPG. It is silly to condemn a game for what it is not trying to be.


>
>>>Fallout was not combat-intensive, wasn't meant
>>>to be, originally. You could
>>>finish the game without killing
>>>a thing. That's because if
>>>you wanted to play the
>>>role of a thief or
>>>a diplomat, or whatever, you
>>>could.
>>
>>You're right. But what says
>>they can't or shouldn't extend
>>the franchise? What's wrong
>>with a tactical combat game
>>if it is done well?
>
>Then why not a shooter, a
>racing game, a sim, etc.
>etc.

I have no problem with them developing any game that fits in the FO universe Though I doubt that racing or a sim would fit or be successful.


>
>Gotta love trendy cross-genre....
>
>>>
>>>Now, let's get into the technical
>>>beefs.
>>
>>Sure, let's.
>>
>>>
>>>1. They use the BOS because
>>>that is one of the
>>>only groups that might have
>>>the tech to make/repair cars/weapons
>>>(among some others).
>>
>>Yeah, so that's a beef?!
>
>The BOS was trying to keep
>a little bit out of
>sight, and to themselves.
>They didn't want to get
>into any full-blown conflicts.
>
>Oops, story clash number one.

Ooops, we actually know very little about the BOS history, only a bare outline. They did fight the Masters Army, and who knows what happened after that? Do you? Or what happened after the Enclave. If you can't answer those questions, then you don't know there is a conflict

So go ahead and tell me what happened during those time periods then.

>
>>>2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely
>>>gone. So now it's a
>>>strategy/shooter amidst blasted buildings. Nevermind
>>>the original PURPOSE for having
>>>a post-apocalyptic setting. Right now,
>>>I doubt that even half
>>>of Interplay even knows what
>>>Wasteland is anymore. BIS does,
>>>I know that.
>>
>>How is the post apoc theme
>>gone? That comment makes
>>no sense. So what's
>>your point? And please
>>don't continue to be inaccurate
>>about this game. It
>>is not some click fest
>>FP "shooter". It a
>>tactical combat game a la
>>JA2 or XCOM - both
>>of which are classics and
>>great games.
>>
>>I think such a game, fighting
>>mutants, centaurs, floaters, etc in
>>the Wasteland would be great.
>> No one has done
>>such a game. Seems
>>pretty unique to me -
>>and very post apoc
>
>Now here is where I stop
>saing you are naive, and
>start saying you are stupid.
> So you go out
>and kill shit. HOW
>FUCKING ORIGINAL IS THAT?!

Who's stupid? Where did I say original? Perhaps you have trouble reading? Perhaps you're losing it here

BTW since it has never been done before, I will say it now, a combat game in a post apoc world is original. You can call me stupid now if it will make you feel better

>So, in essence it will
>be like playing X-Com in
>a wasteland map area.
>You kill different monsters.
>So if we made something
>that featured Zelda-type monsters in
>a strategy game, we'd have
>a hit too, by your
>logic.

I don't know whether it will be a hit. I just don't have a problem with it.

Though about right now I am hoping it will be a massive hit, if only to tick off you off

>
>I know it's a tactical game,
>but aside from the scenery
>and the overlaid story, it
>will have naught else to
>do with a wasteland setting.
> Apparently, the meaning is
>lost on you.

The problem you have is that it is not an RPG. That fact that that does not bother is apparently lost on you So, why does it have to be an RPG?

>
>From your statements, I can easily
>see that you are not
>of the old-school.

I'm glad you can see at least one thing easily

Nah, I'm just not of the emotionally overwrought school

>
>>>
>>>3. The storyline would conflict, or
>>>there would be continuity problems.
>>>Unless they abandon story completely
>>>(another standard of Wasteland/Fallout) in
>>>favor of mindless killing or
>>>come up with some cheap
>>>trick to answer that problem.
>>
>>I fail to see the logic
>>of this comment. Please
>>explain why there would be
>>conflicts with the story line.
>> This could easily take
>>place during the fighting of
>>the Masters Army, or against
>>another threat that arose before
>>or even after the Enclave.
>> There's still plenty of
>>ground to cover that hasn't
>>even been touched.
>
>*sigh*
>Which Fo3 will have to ignore
>the presence of FT: BOS.

*sigh* I don't understand. Why will it have to be ignored? FO3 might even take place somewhere else in the US and have nothing to do with old storyline. Or this story might have to do with an expansion of the BOS into another area of the US. There are _lots_ of possibilities.

You just don't like them.

>
>
>>>Now, if people persist in bringing
>>>up how HOM&M was successful,
>>>then you have to take
>>>a look at things:
>>>
>>>1. HOM&M didn't deviate that far
>>>from the standards of M&M.
>>>
>>>
>>>2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.

It doesn't change anything other than it is not an RPG. There is nothing in BOS that says FO3 cannot/willnot be made.

And frankly, if done well, I'd love a "futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings" myself.

>>
>>What does it change? It's
>>still the the Post Apoc
>>world. The only thing
>>is that this is a
>>tactical combat game with RPG
>>elements rather than an RPG
>>with combat elements. I
>>think the Fallout atmosphere will
>>add alot.
>
>Fighting amidst ruined buildigs. Who
>cares?
>It might as well BE X-Com,
>but with a different setting.
>
>
>Can you say "clone"?

If done well, can you say, "Sounds great!"

But I think you'd say "Less filling!"

>
>>You'r main complaint seems to be
>>that it isn't FO3.
>>So what's the big deal?
>> What is wrong with
>>a tactical combat game with
>>RPG elements in the FO
>>universe, if it is done
>>well?
>
>Again, let's just make a shooter,
>a racer, a sim, etc.
> By your logic, it's
>allright to do so.

I see no problem with a closely related game, which this one is. A racer or sim would make little sense given the universe.

>
>>>3. HOM&M complimented M&M, as it
>>>kept the basics that M&M
>>>had. Fallout Tactics: POS is
>>>making new rules, making the
>>>tech/weapons more available, etc. It's
>>>going COUNTER to what Fallout
>>>was, not complimenting like HOM&M
>>>did. 9/10 of what they
>>>are boasting of in features
>>>is purely anathema to the
>>>standards of a "wasteland" game.
>>
>>What is going to counter to
>>the Fallout world? Can
>>you give me specifics instead
>>of generalities? What is an
>>anathema here? You just
>>rant and rant. This game
>>is a perfect compliment to
>>the Fallout universe. If
>>they are not going to
>>do an RPG, then what
>>would be better than this?
>
>You kill things. Big whoop.
> Fallout was not intended
>to be a combat game,
>it stressed the story.
>For you not to see
>the inherent problems makes it
>clear that you are a
>"new" RPG player. "Perfect
>compliment", by stressing something that
>was not the focus of
>the originals?

So why does every Fallout game have to be an RPG?

A compliment by its very nature is similar but different, btw. So, yes it would be a compliment - just one you don't like.

>
>As I asked Skynet, do you
>have a clue as to
>why Fallout was made?

To tell a story, to let the player play a role in the Wasteland, to be someone else. To be a part of a different, seemingly living universe. To have an impact on the world in which he participates. Good enough?

But none of that means I can't enjoy a tactical combat game in the Fallout universe.

>
>>I just think you are complaining
>>because you don't have Fallout
>>3 instead, which this game
>>takes nothing from, development wise.
>
>Wrong. I see this as
>giving into trendy cross-genre movement.
> It has nothing to
>do with the original aside
>from the name and some
>of the setting.
>
>>>
>>>So if it's not staying to
>>>the standards and basis of
>>>Fallout, and going counter to
>>>the original, then it's nothing
>>>more than a futuristic shooter
>>>amidst ruined buildings. All with
>>>the Fallout name attached, so
>>>people would buy it, hoping
>>>it might be something akin
>>>to the original Fallout.
>>
>>Again, you are not describing the
>>game accurately. It is not
>>a "shooter". It is
>>not RT, and it is
>>not FP. It is
>>a tactical combat game with
>>RPG elements. It is
>>operating in the Fallout universe,
>>so I fail to see
>>how it is counter to
>>the basis of Fallout or
>>its standards.
>
>Again, if you can only see
>that Fallout was made for
>the combat, I pity you.

No Fallout wasn't just about combat which is what made it so interesting, but this game isn't a Fallout RPG, for the millioneth time - and I have no problem with that, no matter how much I'd love to have FO3.

Gosh, there are perhaps some things I should be pitied about, maybe, but this isn't one of them. It's not like it's a crucial part of life is it?

Perhaps you need to step away from that keyboard and take a chill man if you are pitying someone about their opinion of a _game_ . . .

Maybe even role play real life for a while . . .

>
>
>>Just because it is not an
>>RPG does not make your
>>comments about "standards" and "basis"
>>true. From what I
>>have read it seems totally
>>consistent with the FO story
>>and universe - it's just
>>not an RPG.
>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, what they are changing/emphasizing will
>>>push away most of the
>>>fans.
>>
>>Not me - and not according
>>to the poll at Duck
>>and Cover.
>
>Cattle come in herds. I
>said fans. OF which,
>the old-school return to Classic
>RPGs is what the intent
>of Fallout was.

Yeah, let's just call everyone who disagrees with us "cattle" when it disproves your assertion, right?

Easy way out. And just some more pompousity on your part.

>
>>>As I've said before, it's not
>>>Fallout, save for by name/places.
>>>ANY other similarities it might
>>>of had to the original
>>>Fallout are gone."
>>
>>No one has said it is
>>the original Fallout. You're
>>making it out be something
>>no one has said it
>>will be. This makes
>>it pretty clear that you
>>are not letting this game
>>stand on its own, but
>>are just upset it isn't
>>FO3.
>>
>>I see alot similiar - as
>>if names and places, and
>>a consistent universe don't count.
>> The _only_ thing not
>>consistent is that it is
>>not an RPG. Really,
>>this complaint is getting a
>>bit old.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"But I do seriously hope that
>>>it will draw combat away
>>>from Fo3.
>>>
>>>However...with this installment of "Fallout", it
>>>will just continue to make
>>>the rest more combat inensive.
>>
>>And your proof of such an
>>assertion is? Do you
>>really think BIS if they
>>make FO3 are just going
>>to make it a "shooter"
>>as you call it?
>
>No, as people get into the
>Fallout universe by playing a
>combat-intensive game, they will think
>it the focus and demand
>the sequels be like that,
>or complain that they are
>not like the first one.
>
>Hence, those that complained when PS:T
>had too many words in
>their eyes, because they were
>expecting a hack and slash.
>
>
>>>As new fans play Fallout Tactics:
>>>POS, it will make the
>>>focus of Fallout to be
>>>combat-intensive, whether it was intended
>>>to or not. Once you
>>>get people to think the
>>>name means a game where
>>>you kill things, story takes
>>>a back burner in their
>>>eyes. So Fo3 would suffer,
>>>or people would be forever
>>>bitching how Fallout 3 didn't
>>>have enough combat in it,
>>>or too much story.
>>
>>Again, that is an unsupported assertion.
>> You totally ignore the
>>opposite, that it might draw
>>other people into the FO
>>universe, making FO3 mor likely
>>and a bigger hit, which
>>might give us a FO4.
>> Have you thought about
>>that possibility?
>
>Oh, yes. Draw in those
>that like to kill things,
>so we can listen to
>how they complain about not
>having super guns and having
>to go through dialog.

Diablo/BG fans will not play BOS. It is more like Xcom/JA2, both of which are hardcore strat games, and appeal to hardcore gamers. Just the type of people that might like a Fallout if introduced to it. And how do I know so. Because I am one.

I love hardcore strat games. Picked FO on a whim because I like the genre and I got it cheap. I think a well done strat game could draw in others like me.

Unless "old school" RPGers with an innate sense of superiority drive us off? Think that is a good idea?

>
>>>
>>>My biggest kick was that people
>>>expected Diablow-like gameplay and storyline
>>>from Planescape: Torment after playing
>>>Baldur's Gate. They were used
>>>to "go here, kill this,
>>>retrieve that". They were the
>>>ones that complained that PS:T
>>>was too wordy. They weren't
>>>wanting an RPG anymore, they
>>>were expecting a hack-and-slash. Guess
>>>what Fallout Tactics: POS will
>>>have an influence on the
>>>other Fallout games, or at
>>>least on those who were
>>>like those who played BG
>>>and expected PS:T to be
>>>the same way? Yes, it
>>>will change things, or what
>>>the game means.

>>Well, so what if the Diablo
>>people wanted hack and slash?
>> A PS:T or FO
>>will never appeal to that
>>crowd. Does that mean
>>the games we like are
>>going to disappear? Perhaps
>>not if we can expand
>>the fan base with games
>>like this.
>
>Now here you really show how
>naive you can be.

And how pompous you can be.

>If you make a game into
>an RPG, then follow it
>up with a cross-genre, and
>the cross-genre does much better
>than the others...
>
>Marketing and the higher-ups will say
>screw the one that makes
>the less money, in favor
>of what rakes it in.
> So yes, if BOS
>is an immense hit and
>appeals to the droves of
>hack and slash kiddies, then
>Fo3 is as good as
>dead.

You know as little about the stratgame genre as you claim I know about the RPG genre. You really are "naive". Hack and slash kiddies have never been drawn to JA2/Xcom type games. Those games are played by hardcore strat gamers - as I noted above, just the type that might be attracted to a Fallout RPG, like I was.

>
>>>
>>>Now you know why I hate
>>>Fallout Tactics: Piece of Shit,
>>>because it WILL UNDOUBTEDLY put
>>>the focus of the game
>>>and fan base FAR from
>>>where it was originally intended.
>>
>>No it might expand the universe.
>> It is a different
>>game and I think most
>>people, unlike you, will realize
>>that. It is a
>>tactical combat game, not an
>>RPG. Just like FO
>>is an RPG, not a
>>tactical combat game.
>>
>>And answer this - if it
>>is as good as JA2
>>or XCom, is it still
>>a "POS"? Were those
>>games "POS". Really, as
>>I said before the complaint
>>that this game is not
>>an RPG is getting old.
>
>Fallout Arena: Killing Tournament.
>Why stop at one cross genre,
>as it would only help
>and expand the universe, as
>per your point.
>If you believe that, you are
>incredibly naive.

You really like throwing that "naive" word around don't you. Well, perhaps with your all knowing sense of superiority, "pompous" describes you best.

Go ahead, if you want, keep up that "old school" sense of superiority. Drive away those that might be allies, who might be attracted to your genre, like myself.

Yeah, that's a smart way to get better RPG's.

Maybe I should go try Diablo instead - if you hate it, it's got to have something going for it, right? Is that really what you want? If not, then I suggest you get off your high horse.

>
>>Do you read anything that BIS
>>puts out? Do you
>>read their "Secret Project" notes.
>> They are clearly RPG
>>lovers. If they do
>>a FO3, it will be
>>an RPG. I really
>>doubt that this game is
>>going to cause FO3 to
>>be some "shooter" RPG.
>
>But if Interplay Marketing and management
>decide to make something that
>makes more money, we will
>see BOS 2 more likely
>than another real Fallout sequel.

And in the end, there is little you or I can do about it, other than support good games.

>
>
>>>Fallout, the game that brought back
>>>the traditions of a Classic
>>>RPG and did so well
>>>because of that....
>>>
>>>Rest in Peace."
>>
>>Ya just can't please some people.
>>

 

[Guest]

Mooo mooooo

>>No, the point I was making
>>was that of cross-genre movement.
>> Obviously you missed that
>>point.
>
>No, I got the point.
>But you used the most
>ridiculous analogy to try and
>make it. Racing has
>nothing to do with the
>Fallout universe. The BOS
>and combat does.

A tactical strategy is just as un-Fallout as a racing game. Just as how FOT:BOS is taking a tiny facet and making it completely different I can tie in a racing game too:

"With the lack of cars in the world, only a few have them and compete against each other in huge desert races. Since this is the future and all that is at stake is money, there are no rules, so have fun!"

I just tied it into Fallout. Is it Fallout however? Is it a high quality standard of RPG we have come to expect from Fallout, that we base other RPGs off of? Not no, HELL NO. And that's what FOT:BOS does.

>>
>>>>
>>>>I know 100% of those that
>>>>have played Wasteland since 1984
>>>>would be thoroughly disgusted.
>>>
>>>Sure, if it were a racing
>>>game. But like I
>>>said, that is an inaccurate
>>>analogy.
>>
>>Like I said, you missed the
>>point entirely.
>
>Like I said, your point was
>silly and ridiculous. So I
>guess you missed my point
>entirely too

It isn't an inaccurate analogy. FOT:BOS is just as stupid an idea, as immense a clash of genre, to Fallout as a racing game would be.

>>>>But aside from that, my biggest
>>>>beef is that they are
>>>>making something with the NAME
>>>>of Fallout, but none of
>>>>the standards set forth by
>>>>it.
>>>
>>>How do you know about what
>>>standards they are using -
>>>the game isn't even out
>>>yet. The fact that
>>>Chris Taylor of the original
>>>FO is on board should
>>>count for something, right?
>>
>>It will be an advanced-tech hack-and-slash.
>> The emphasis is on
>>combat. Fallout's emphasis was
>>on the story.
>
>Again, mischaracterization. I doubt that
>JA2 and Xcom are considered
>hack and slash.

Hack and slash is meant to mean "combat oriented," not to mean real-time 3rd person killing. Your game fits right in.

>Besides
>the game is _not_ an
>RPG. It is silly
>to condemn a game for
>what it is not trying
>to be.

And that's exactly what's wrong with it.

>>>>Fallout was not combat-intensive, wasn't meant
>>>>to be, originally. You could
>>>>finish the game without killing
>>>>a thing. That's because if
>>>>you wanted to play the
>>>>role of a thief or
>>>>a diplomat, or whatever, you
>>>>could.
>>>
>>>You're right. But what says
>>>they can't or shouldn't extend
>>>the franchise? What's wrong
>>>with a tactical combat game
>>>if it is done well?
>>
>>Then why not a shooter, a
>>racing game, a sim, etc.
>>etc.
>
>I have no problem with them
>developing any game that fits
>in the FO universe
> Though I doubt that
>racing or a sim would
>fit or be successful.

Your game fits in about as well as any of the aforementioned "ideas." Hell I could link them all to fit in the "Fallout Universe" but geez, does that make it anything more than a game with Fallout motif, a sorry excuse for a connection to the rest of Fallout, and the Fallout name?

>>>>1. They use the BOS because
>>>>that is one of the
>>>>only groups that might have
>>>>the tech to make/repair cars/weapons
>>>>(among some others).
>>>
>>>Yeah, so that's a beef?!
>>
>>The BOS was trying to keep
>>a little bit out of
>>sight, and to themselves.
>>They didn't want to get
>>into any full-blown conflicts.
>>
>>Oops, story clash number one.
>
>Ooops, we actually know very little
>about the BOS history, only
>a bare outline. They
>did fight the Masters Army,
>and who knows what happened
>after that? Do you?
> Or what happened after
>the Enclave. If you
>can't answer those questions, then
>you don't know there is
>a conflict

I suppose you could also have a conflict in the remnants of south-east Asia too correct? Hell ANYTHING could happen technically, oh wait, how about throwing this conflict say, 20 years before Fallout 1? Your game will simply be an anomoly in the chain of events surrounding Fallout.

And we're not dicussing what went on, we're discussing the character of the BOS itself, that they like to keep to themselves, have a low profile.

>So go ahead and tell me
>what happened during those time
>periods then.

>>>>2. Post-apocalyptic theme is now entirely
>>>>gone. So now it's a
>>>>strategy/shooter amidst blasted buildings. Nevermind
>>>>the original PURPOSE for having
>>>>a post-apocalyptic setting. Right now,
>>>>I doubt that even half
>>>>of Interplay even knows what
>>>>Wasteland is anymore. BIS does,
>>>>I know that.
>>>
>>>How is the post apoc theme
>>>gone? That comment makes
>>>no sense. So what's
>>>your point? And please
>>>don't continue to be inaccurate
>>>about this game. It
>>>is not some click fest
>>>FP "shooter". It a
>>>tactical combat game a la
>>>JA2 or XCOM - both
>>>of which are classics and
>>>great games.
>>>
>>>I think such a game, fighting
>>>mutants, centaurs, floaters, etc in
>>>the Wasteland would be great.
>>> No one has done
>>>such a game. Seems
>>>pretty unique to me -
>>>and very post apoc
>>
>>Now here is where I stop
>>saing you are naive, and
>>start saying you are stupid.
>> So you go out
>>and kill shit. HOW
>>FUCKING ORIGINAL IS THAT?!
>
>Who's stupid? Where did I
>say original? Perhaps you
>have trouble reading? Perhaps
>you're losing it here

Look above: "No one has done such a thing" and "seems pretty unique to me." The definition for "original" is "something that has never been done or created before." Who's losing it here?

>BTW since it has never been
>done before, I will say
>it now, a combat game
>in a post apoc world
>is original. You can
>call me stupid now if
>it will make you feel
>better

Okay, and how original is Duke Nukem compared to DOOM? You still do the same thing: Kill stuff.

Your game is as original as a MOD of XCOM to look like Fallout. That is NOT originality.

Originality is a change of concept and gameplay. According to you, FOT:BOS is the same as XCom in a Post-Apoc world. Is that originality?

>>I know it's a tactical game,
>>but aside from the scenery
>>and the overlaid story, it
>>will have naught else to
>>do with a wasteland setting.
>> Apparently, the meaning is
>>lost on you.
>
>The problem you have is that
>it is not an RPG.
> That fact that that
>does not bother is apparently
>lost on you
>So, why does it have
>to be an RPG?
>
>>
>>From your statements, I can easily
>>see that you are not
>>of the old-school.
>
>I'm glad you can see at
>least one thing easily

Which shows how mindless and clueless you are to what Fallout had created. Maybe you should talk to someone at BIS and get a clue.

I'm even wondering if you know what "old-school" even means.

>Nah, I'm just not of the
>emotionally overwrought school

No need to wonder now.

>>*sigh*
>>Which Fo3 will have to ignore
>>the presence of FT: BOS.
>
>*sigh* I don't understand. Why
>will it have to be
>ignored? FO3 might even
>take place somewhere else in
>the US and have nothing
>to do with old storyline.
> Or this story might
>have to do with an
>expansion of the BOS into
>another area of the US.
>There are _lots_ of possibilities.

Haven't been around the block much lately huh?

Here's a good example: Ultima Online and Ultima.

If you ever visit the Ultima community you will learn that UO is considered an anomoly, a shunned game with the Ultima name attached.

Why? Because it is simple not Ultima. It may take place *somewhere* if not *nowhere* in the Ultima *planet* have Ultima *classes* and names, but it is still not Ultima in *essence*. Ultima was considered a high-power RPG of its time, a game that people had come to know as a quality RPG.

UO was a good idea in conception: An online game where you can interact with your buddies over the internet and engross yourself in the Ultima world. Instead what did they get? A game that wasn't even CLOSE to Ultima. Instead of an engrossing storyline you go to your buddy's guild and gain levels in a room, instead of taking part in the lives of the characters around you, you try to dodge PKs.

And now the rest of Ultima's universe ignores this little anomoly because it simply doesn't fit into Ultima *anywhere*, in concept or in story. It's simply a milking machine created to soak up the cash from Online cattle, people with no conception of what Ultima is/was.

And now the people who play UO believe that's all that Ultima really is: a shabby online game, they have no clue as to what Ultima is.

> 2. The chasm between Fallout->Fallout Tactics: POS is much greater than that of M&M->HOM&M. Namely because BOS changes everything the Fallout world has been known for. As I said before, it's now a futuristic strategy amidst blasted buildings. The Wasteland feel will not even touch that game.
>
>It doesn't change anything other than
>it is not an RPG.

And that changes everything.

> There is nothing in
>BOS that says FO3 cannot/willnot
>be made.

But there is something that says that FOT:BOS should NOT be made.

>And frankly, if done well, I'd
>love a "futuristic strategy amidst
>blasted buildings" myself.

I wonder if you've even played Fallout.. maybe your friend told you the storyline? You seem to have no cognition of Fallout other than its motif.

>>Fighting amidst ruined buildigs. Who
>>cares?
>>It might as well BE X-Com,
>>but with a different setting.
>>
>>
>>Can you say "clone"?
>
>If done well, can you say,
>"Sounds great!"
>
>But I think you'd say "Less
>filling!"

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

An unoriginal game under any other motif is still a clone.

>>Again, let's just make a shooter,
>>a racer, a sim, etc.
>> By your logic, it's
>>allright to do so.
>
>I see no problem with a
>closely related game, which this
>one is. A racer
>or sim would make little
>sense given the universe.

Closely related? Hardly. Since when does tactical strategy and RPG mix?

>>You kill things. Big whoop.
>> Fallout was not intended
>>to be a combat game,
>>it stressed the story.
>>For you not to see
>>the inherent problems makes it
>>clear that you are a
>>"new" RPG player. "Perfect
>>compliment", by stressing something that
>>was not the focus of
>>the originals?
>
>So why does every Fallout game
>have to be an RPG?

Because Fallout is a story, not a world. It is a story of the Vault Dweller and his lineage within a Fallout World. It's taking Calvin and Hobbes and making a book about his uncle.

>A compliment by its very nature
>is similar but different, btw.
> So, yes it would
>be a compliment - just
>one you don't like.

Compliments are also supposed to be beneficial. FOT:BOS is a cash cow. Interplay management looked at Fallout and said to themselves: Hey, the basic structure has been laid out, we have our basic interface, and have already worked out the combat algorithms, let's just make a quick game and some quick revenue off the strategy community.

This is not complimenting to Fallout's lineage.

>>As I asked Skynet, do you
>>have a clue as to
>>why Fallout was made?
>
>To tell a story, to let
>the player play a role
>in the Wasteland, to be
>someone else. To be
>a part of a different,
>seemingly living universe. To
>have an impact on the
>world in which he participates.
> Good enough?

Good, at least you have some inkling to what Fallout is.

>But none of that means I
>can't enjoy a tactical combat
>game in the Fallout universe.

And hell, that doesn't mean I can't enjoy a RACING game in the Fallout universe either. Or wait, how about that Mechwarrior idea I had? BOS vs the Chinese scientists.

Tell me what's wrong with that?

>>>Again, you are not describing the
>>>game accurately. It is not
>>>a "shooter". It is
>>>not RT, and it is
>>>not FP. It is
>>>a tactical combat game with
>>>RPG elements. It is
>>>operating in the Fallout universe,
>>>so I fail to see
>>>how it is counter to
>>>the basis of Fallout or
>>>its standards.
>>
>>Again, if you can only see
>>that Fallout was made for
>>the combat, I pity you.
>
>No Fallout wasn't just about combat
>which is what made it
>so interesting, but this game
>isn't a Fallout RPG, for
>the millioneth time - and
>I have no problem with
>that, no matter how much
>I'd love to have FO3.

And for not being an RPG, that's what's wrong with it.

>Gosh, there are perhaps some things
>I should be pitied about,
>maybe, but this isn't one
>of them. It's not
>like it's a crucial part
>of life is it?

No, but we are not debating that are we? And he's pitying YOU for lacking the cognition to see that Fallout created something new from something old: a true to P&P RPG with something that set it appart: It didn't require combat. Thus the game achieved something that really hadn't been done for CRPGs.

And now a contradicting variant on Fallout is being made. What does this say? It says that Fallout is not combat oriented.

>Perhaps you need to step away
>from that keyboard and take
>a chill man if you
>are pitying someone about their
>opinion of a _game_ .

It's not the opinion, it's the lack of cognition behind the opinion.

>Maybe even role play real life
>for a while . .

Hilarious, he can't come up with a real argument so he's using the cliché "I have a life and you don't" routine. Get off it.

>>Cattle come in herds. I
>>said fans. OF which,
>>the old-school return to Classic
>>RPGs is what the intent
>>of Fallout was.
>
>Yeah, let's just call everyone who
>disagrees with us "cattle" when
>it disproves your assertion, right?

No, it's meant to imply the dramatic push for killing games. These "cattle" are the people who have no sense or want of an enveloping story or game.

They are the kind of people who would rather watch TV than read a good book. Laziness of mind.

It is a proven fact that the intelligence of a group of people goes as the inverse of the number of people in the group. Also, the more something has in common with many people, the more basic it is.

This is the case with many games, notable shooters. Nearly every gamer likes shooters, hell I like them in their genre. Fallout appeals to a certain type of people. Expand the Fallout universe and you'll have people buying the games they like, not the other games in the universe.

>Easy way out. And just
>some more pompousity on your
>part.

Mooo mooooo..

I guess to you, a demand for mind-enlarging games is considered pompous. Tell me, did you get most of the analogies in Fallout?

>>Oh, yes. Draw in those
>>that like to kill things,
>>so we can listen to
>>how they complain about not
>>having super guns and having
>>to go through dialog.
>
>Diablo/BG fans will not play BOS.
> It is more like
>Xcom/JA2, both of which are
>hardcore strat games, and appeal
>to hardcore gamers.

Correction: Tactical strategy players.

> Just
>the type of people that
>might like a Fallout if
>introduced to it. And
>how do I know so.
> Because I am one.

No, they bought the game because they like strategy games, what would make them want to buy a game completely out of their genre? Will they try the older Fallout games? Probably not, hell most aren't even on game shelves anymore.

>I love hardcore strat games.
>Picked FO on a whim
>because I like the genre
>and I got it cheap.
> I think a well
>done strat game could draw
>in others like me.

Draw in others that just buy a game because it was cheap?

I bought Fallout because it was a dynamic RPG. I wanted a high quality of RPG games. I was sick of games that relied on tried-and-proven tactics that get old. People who buy RPGs especially of the class associated with Fallout, buy the game because they're looking for that type of game.

>Unless "old school" RPGers with an
>innate sense of superiority drive
>us off? Think that
>is a good idea?

A little defensive are we? We want to preserve what makes a game great. Not promoting what makes a game popular.

Compare teeny-bopper music to classical. What is more sophisicated and higher quality? But what is more popular now?

>>>Well, so what if the Diablo
>>>people wanted hack and slash?
>>> A PS:T or FO
>>>will never appeal to that
>>>crowd. Does that mean
>>>the games we like are
>>>going to disappear? Perhaps
>>>not if we can expand
>>>the fan base with games
>>>like this.
>>
>>Now here you really show how
>>naive you can be.
>
>And how pompous you can be.

You're being naive because you expect that making this game will only promote the other games and FO3. It won't. In fact all it does is make people want to play *OTHER* tactical strategies. You'll see more players flocking to XCOM after this, not to Fallout RPGs.

Don't you see this? Stop the naivity.

>>Marketing and the higher-ups will say
>>screw the one that makes
>>the less money, in favor
>>of what rakes it in.
>> So yes, if BOS
>>is an immense hit and
>>appeals to the droves of
>>hack and slash kiddies, then
>>Fo3 is as good as
>>dead.
>
>You know as little about the
>stratgame genre as you claim
>I know about the RPG
>genre. You really are
>"naive". Hack and slash
>kiddies have never been drawn
>to JA2/Xcom type games.
>Those games are played by
>hardcore strat gamers - as
>I noted above, just the
>type that might be attracted
>to a Fallout RPG, like
>I was.

FOT:BOS is hack and slash. The emphasis is to kill, not develope your character and storyline. It's a hack and slash as opposed to RTS-type because you're controlling the same characters all the time but trying to kill stuff.

Naive people would call that an RPG, much like calling those "RPG" mod maps made in Starcraft RPGs.

>>Fallout Arena: Killing Tournament.
>>Why stop at one cross genre,
>>as it would only help
>>and expand the universe, as
>>per your point.
>>If you believe that, you are
>>incredibly naive.
>
>You really like throwing that "naive"
>word around don't you.

If the shoe fits...

>Well, perhaps with your all
>knowing sense of superiority, "pompous"
>describes you best.

So it's called pomposity if someone wants to preserve something of a higher standard from drifting with the masses?

>Go ahead, if you want, keep
>up that "old school" sense
>of superiority. Drive away
>those that might be allies,
>who might be attracted to
>your genre, like myself.

Allies? You speak of this like a war. The fact is that people stick to their genre. If they want tactical strategy, they'll stick to it. "Fallout" isn't going to draw people to FOT:BOS, hell most of the people buying FOT:BOS have never even played the other two. It's like UO, about 95% of the UO players have never played Ultima. Like sticks with like.

>Yeah, that's a smart way to
>get better RPG's.

It's a better way to PRESERVE better games.

>Maybe I should go try Diablo
>instead - if you hate
>it, it's got to have
>something going for it, right?
> Is that really what
>you want? If not,
>then I suggest you get
>off your high horse.

Actually, Diablo may appeal to your shallow mind. You obviously have no mind for Fallout, or even an RPG. I wonder if you even read books.

>>But if Interplay Marketing and management
>>decide to make something that
>>makes more money, we will
>>see BOS 2 more likely
>>than another real Fallout sequel.
>
>And in the end, there is
>little you or I can
>do about it, other than
>support good games.

And that's a sad thing. I guess as the decisions move higher up the connectivity between decision and product goes down. Fallout is only a name to Interplay.

>>>>Fallout, the game that brought back
>>>>the traditions of a Classic
>>>>RPG and did so well
>>>>because of that....
>>>>
>>>>Rest in Peace."
>>>
>>>Ya just can't please some people.
>>>

It helps if it has something to please them with.

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

---

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

 

[Guest]

>no blood no foul the spelling
>however is the laber of
>a life time i like
>to think of it as
>an acsent (probibly along the
>lines a of a southern
>draw for all that it
>dose for the pres. my
>intelegence)

Let’s see what we can do for you greenhair. Is this the point you were trying to get across?

No blood, no foul. The spelling is the labor of a lifetime and I like to think of it as an accent probably along the lines of a southern drawl (for all that it does for the prestige of my intelligence).


http://www.321website.com/members/home/data/joecafe/Doc38.jpg