Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[E. Albright]

I think the recent posters naming FO3 as an FPS with RPG elements hit the nail on the head. FO 1 and 2 were games with combat; the engine and gameplay were designed to allow for combat. FO3 looks to be a combat game that has some accommodation for non-combat elements tacked on.

Also, to the directly-above poster: your biases are clear, as are those of the posters (such as myself) who do consider FO a classic... even those nutters (again including myself) who looked at FO1 as WL2. I don't think anyone could possibly dream of calling FO3 WL4.

My own take: FO3 is as properly FO3 as Wizardry: Nemesis would have been Wizardry 8. I find the parallels telling.

[McDoomhammer]

The original Fallout was pretty awful. I don't know why people insist on calling it a 'classic'. Fallout 2 was much better, but really, both games had their flaws (you get real acquainted with the flaws when trying to get the best ending for each town >< Lots of saving and reloading).

What's wrong with Fallout 3 being a little bit different? What's with the real-time hatred? Personally, I don't think I could stand to play another turn based Fallout. Maybe it's just me, but real-time just feels more natural.

And really, all this anti-oblivion hate. Does it stem from the fact that oblivion was a successful, popular and good game? There's no way in hell that Oblivion can be thought of as "awful" or sub-par. It really set the standard for the next generation of games. So if you feel that Bethesda makes sub-par games, then well, you should stop playing games then.

... why am I bothering defending Fallout 3 when the thread is titled the way it is. ^^;;;

I have to take some exception to that.  Oblivion pushed the envelope in terms of graphics, but that's all.  In many ways, it was a stripped-down version of the game it sequelled, and just as much defined by its flaws as Fallout.

[Brendan]

Does it stem from the fact that oblivion was a successful, popular and good game?

Yes, we're all very jealous of Bethesda for making a commercially successful game. Deep down in our hearts, we all wish we made fat stacks of cash selling sub-par roleplaying games.

[Wooty]

I played through Fallout 1&2 recently, and I loved them both. I've never played an RPG before where you had so many options and so little of a clearly defined plot that you had to follow. The greatest thing about it was the sheer amount of stuff you could do, and how it was loaded with whatever X-rated crap and random parodies they could fit in.
I just can't see how they can do anything but follow the vauge theme of Fallout with an FPS. It's like if someone tried to turn the Die Hard series into a cartoon, or a TV show. It's going to be damn hard to make it anything like the originals, much less make it any good.

Just my two cents.

[Skyrage]

I played through Fallout 1&2 recently, and I loved them both. I've never played an RPG before where you had so many options and so little of a clearly defined plot that you had to follow. The greatest thing about it was the sheer amount of stuff you could do, and how it was loaded with whatever X-rated crap and random parodies they could fit in.
I just can't see how they can do anything but follow the vauge theme of Fallout with an FPS. It's like if someone tried to turn the Die Hard series into a cartoon, or a TV show. It's going to be damn hard to make it anything like the originals, much less make it any good.

Just my two cents.

QFT. It's true that Fallout 1/2 had their problems as well. They were far from perfect games, that's for certain but they still had a very high quality about them when it came to gameplay.

What will Fallout 3 have? So far we've pretty much only seen combat hype and nothing else. Not a shred of any gameplay which even comes close to any of the strong points that Fallout 1/2 had.

[Fualkner]

Ugh. UGH I say. You guys want:

1. Engaging storylines
2. Turn-based combat
3. Roleplaying / Multiple interesting choices for each situation

Hmm... Are there any games like the one I just described... OHYAH THAT'S RIGHT. Every single Pencil and Paper RPG ever made. Why not go play one of those, instead of cynically whining about how shitty this is gonna be. If you know you are going to hate it, then quit bitching. I just don't get it. Of course you aren't going to listen, because you are too ground in now, like a dog on a tasty shoe. You know it isn't your place to ruin it, but you're going to rip it to shreds anyway, because you enjoy destroying fun for other people, you sick, sick sadists.

[Soulwynd]

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=45725

[Soulwynd]

1. Engaging storylines
2. Turn-based combat
3. Roleplaying / Multiple interesting choices for each situation

So you want.

1. Bland/Stupid Story lines
2. Less thinking and more shooting
3. Oh shit, I did something wrong, lemme go back and undo it.
(Alternative) 3. Oh yeah, no matter what I do I'm stuck in this path.

Here's a game for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAsXVTQaam8

[Fualkner]

1. Engaging storylines
2. Turn-based combat
3. Roleplaying / Multiple interesting choices for each situation

So you want.

1. Bland/Stupid Story lines
2. Less thinking and more shooting
3. Oh shit, I did something wrong, lemme go back and undo it.
(Alternative) 3. Oh yeah, no matter what I do I'm stuck in this path.

Never said that.

1. Obviously not, but story isn't a dealbreaker. Just like if I want good graphics I'll go watch a movie, if I want a good story I'll read a book.
2. I've got my shooters, I've got my thinkers. If this is a shooter, so be it. I can tell you are one of those "GAMES ARE ART" guys. Some are, this isn't one of them. At least, doesn't look like it will be.
3. Name one game that actually stopped anyone with knowledge of copy/paste that doesn't let you do that.
(Alt.) 3. One storyline allows the ability to make it deeper. Again, look at number 1.

See, here's my theory. You, Soulwynd, are lashing out at me because you want this game to feel like a Pencil and Paper RPG. Unfortunetly, you have no friends (that play PnP RPG's) or are just lack the creativity to play one. I'm very sorry for you, and I'd like to invite you to join us for our game of Paranoia. You can get more information on the Random Nonsense thread.

[Wooty]

You could easily go back and copy/paste save/load in fallout, but about 95% of the quests could be failed or botched in many different ways and not effect anything but the quest reward, people involved, and the end status of that area. In a game with no choices, if you fail a quest you're either going to have to reload or redo it. Theres no, 'You only saved one person', 'You failed to save anyone and now Jimbob hates you', 'You saved everyone and got $500', 'You lied and cheated Jimbob out of his $500', 'You pickpocketed Jimbob and got $700', 'You talked to Jimbob while hanging out with a mutant and now he hates you because he's racist'. 'You had super high stats and skill and managed to convince Jimbob to be the hero and save them himself.' Unless you were looking at a walkthrough for Fallout, you didn't even know if what you did was the best thing to do, and there's a good chance you were satisfied for a reward half of what it could have been in most of the quests you did. In a generic FPS like fallout 3 looks like its going to be, it's either QUEST FAILED UNGRATS or QUEST SUCESS CONGRATSULATIONS. You will either have the best outcome or you'll be copy pasting. Deeper plotline? Once you play through a choiceless game once, you'ce uncovered and watched and played the entire plotline .There's nothing else to see. There's nothing to explore. There's nothing to go back and try again. The plotline becomes a series of cutscences where you hit 'escape' at the start of each one because you already know what happens.

[Fualkner]

Seems you put gaming on a high pedestal there. Why not put your money where your mouth is, and make a game? Then I'll mercilessly judge in on ridiculously high criteria. Fun stuff, eh? You spend months/years on a project that you have fun playing, and it gets to me. All I do is bitch and moan about how good it "could have been".

So, come on guys. You know so much better, you fix it. Make me a Fallout 3. Not a mod for Fallout 2. Whole new game. I expect a story with minute near-microscopic paths I can take, and a faithful reproduction of the game's system in FO2. However, I also want new stuff, or else I'll get bored too easily. Keep in mind I have the cash you need to survive. If you don't like me, fine, go over to that group over there. Yah, the huge roving bands of FPS'ers. Maybe if the game is faithful enough, I might buy it. Maybe. But those guys are easier to please, so go make some cash with them. Or stay cool with me.

  how could you even expect different?

[Sean Mirrsen]

If people wanted Fallout 3 as an FPS, they could have modded Morrowind aeons ago. Like I said, go make "Fallout:Decontamination" as an FPS, but give us Fallout 3 as a true-to-genre RPG.

Games that "please the crowd" and make cash is why people that like good games hate big publishers like EA. These games go fast, like fast food, and don't leave much behind them. I've got several hundred games sitting on a shelf, and I don't touch them because I can't remember any exceedingly good things about them. But I still keep Arcanum. And Total Annihilation. And Flatout 2. These games actually had gameplay, something to remember them for, and something that would make you play them again. When most of the game is walking around shooting everything that looks odd at you, that's hardly worth remembering.

Btw, turn-based combat is not REQUIRED. See, for example, Arcanum. Yes, you can, for more complex fights, use the turn-based system. But I always found the realtime variant a lot better for fighting single enemies. Unless I wanted to throw 40 Molotovs at the said enemy, anyway. There's nothing inherently wrong with an RPG having realtime combat, it's just that usually, having ONLY realtime combat presumes that there's not much to do in said combat, except whack the enemy repeatedly. You either need an interface breakthrough, or pausable combat, to pull off complex stunts mid-battle. Done badly, it can also cause stuff like Morrowind's alchemy, where you can mix potions inbetween hammerstrikes. A lot depends on balancing and proper implementation here, and I just don't believe in Bethesda enough to believe they can do it.

[Impending Doom]

*sigh*

I'm still waiting (and probably will be for some time) for a review of this game that says something other than either "This game is the second coming of Christ and you should get it because I said so." or "This game is the worst catastrophe mankind has ever/will ever know and you should never even look at it because I said so." I'd write that review, but I haven't played the game.

Personally, I had almost as much fun (almost, mind you) playing Oblivion as I did when I played Morrowind. Also, I'm going to buy Spore, and you know what? I'll probably enjoy playing it, too.

How can this be, you ask?

Because I don't give a good goddamn what anybody else thinks/tells me I should think about anything. I waited, ignored all the reviews, bought the games, and formed my own opinion based on my own personal experience, rather than what the latest polls said. But most importantly, once I had formed my opinion, I didn't go around telling other people I was right. Yes, in the technical sense, I was right: They were both good games that I would enjoy. But I didn't try to extend that to everyone else and say "This is a good game. You WILL enjoy it or else!"

Personally, I have absolutely no opinion of this game as of yet, because I have no evidence. I respect all of your opinions, though I may question where your evidence comes from(I respect opinions, not blatant rejection/criticism of proven facts.) What I most certainly do not respect is that so many of you criticize others for having an opinion that conflicts with your own.

Just my own 2 pence, which, if past efforts in other places are anytning to go by, will get me compared to some evil dictator or another here shortly.

[Asehujiko]

And how exactly are they supposed to show off the branching storyline in 5x 2min videos? The branching dialogue seemed deep enough for what little material they had the chance to show. And where did the idea come from that f3 will have binary quests only? Stop being so overprotective of f2 and hate anything that might have a chance of being slightly different then it.

[Earthquake Damage]

1. Obviously not, but story isn't a dealbreaker. Just like if I want good graphics I'll go watch a movie, if I want a good story I'll read a book.
2. I've got my shooters, I've got my thinkers. If this is a shooter, so be it. I can tell you are one of those "GAMES ARE ART" guys. Some are, this isn't one of them. At least, doesn't look like it will be.
3. Name one game that actually stopped anyone with knowledge of copy/paste that doesn't let you do that.
(Alt.) 3. One storyline allows the ability to make it deeper. Again, look at number 1.

I'd like to address point 1:  Books are a classic medium for storytelling, but they are not the only medium for storytelling.  In fact, movies and video games can be far more vivid and engaging than any book.  That's not to say they necessarily are.

Also, on the last point:  Given the same resources, yes, a linear story can be much deeper than a branching and/or non-linear one.  However, I don't think the average game storyline receives the attention necessary to benefit from linearity.