Print

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

[Solara]

quote:Originally posted by Funkadelic Jive Turkey:
<STRONG>Regarding the Fallout 3 bit: My take on it is that it'll be a good mass appeal game and will alienate the core fan base.</STRONG>

That's my worry too, since that seems to be pretty much exactly what Oblivion did. Not to say it was a bad game at all, just kind...shallow, I guess would be the right word. As far as Fallout 3 goes, I'm trying to give Beth the benefit of the doubt and but I already learned my lesson about rushing out and buying a game just because it's the long-awaited next installment of a series I love. I sincerely hope it'll be a wonderful game in the spirit of the originals but if I have to deal with crushing disappointment I'd prefer not to lose $60 as well. (I'll just spend the money on booze and weep while clutching my copy of Fallout 2 instead... )

[ February 14, 2008: Message edited by: Solara ]

[a1s]

a lot of people keep saying that we should cut Bethesda with making the new fallout game, because they are a different company. but let me ask you this: why not develop some other post-apocalyptic game? There is after all no patent on that stuff- make it 3d, make it real time, make something that is cool for it's own reasons. So why not?
The answer is simple:they want to cash in on old fans (which is okay- that's how things are done). But that implies that the games should be alike, after all we are not buying a game because it's name sounds cool, but for what we expect inside. The whole reason everyone is so pissed at FT:BoS was that it wasn't fallout. Because honestly it's a solid squad level tactical game, 6 out of 10 arbitrary objects at least, I've played worse. that console thing was, as far as I know, genuinely bad, but than again- I haven't played it. this however is beside the point.

So the way I see it we have a right to expect stuff, and a right to be pissed at  F3 not actually being fallout (if it isn't).

[Jonathan S. Fox]

quote:Originally posted by a1s:
<STRONG>a lot of people keep saying that we should cut Bethesda with making the new fallout game, because they are a different company. but let me ask you this: why not develop some other post-apocalyptic game? There is after all no patent on that stuff- make it 3d, make it real time, make something that is cool for it's own reasons. So why not?
The answer is simple:they want to cash in on old fans (which is okay- that's how things are done). But that implies that the games should be alike, after all we are not buying a game because it's name sounds cool, but for what we expect inside. The whole reason everyone is so pissed at FT:BoS was that it wasn't fallout. Because honestly it's a solid squad level tactical game, 6 out of 10 arbitrary objects at least, I've played worse. that console thing was, as far as I know, genuinely bad, but than again- I haven't played it. this however is beside the point.

So the way I see it we have a right to expect stuff, and a right to be pissed at  F3 not actually being fallout (if it isn't).</STRONG>

Interplay/Black Isle basically wanted to make a sequel to Wasteland, but they didn't own the property, so they made Fallout instead. Bethesda wanted to make a sequel to Fallout, and they didn't own the property, but they could afford to license it. Then they bought it -- they'll take it, they'll own it, they'll care for it. They may "mass marketize" it, certainly.

And it's definately not some cynical executive position to exploit a victimized fanbase -- if they just wanted to milk a fanbase for money, they'd continue to work Elder Scrolls, which has a better sales record than Fallout ever did. Understand, dev houses are staffed to the brim with people in love with video games so much that they've made a career out of it. And game developers tend to be the types whose lives revolve around their jobs. If Bethesda decided to get Fallout instead of making a new Elder Scrolls game, it's because they wanted to make Fallout. They didn't just want generic post-apocalyptic 20432.

In the end, both the original Fallout and Fallout 3 are attempts by a new company to pick up and make something in the spirit of a game made prior. The difference is that Bethesda can actually use the story, images, and history of the game they're basing it on, and put a number at the end of the title.

[a1s]

Actually I'm pretty sure Wasteland fans would excrete (verbally) all over Fallout ("Wasteland 2: vault dwellers emerge") for excessively hard combat system, lack of ability to split up the party, lack of printed supplements, and inconsistencies in the story.  

and assuming they were still playing Wasteland in 1997, they'd probably call fallout mainstream.

[ February 14, 2008: Message edited by: a1s ]

[Kayla]

I don't play, or haven't played, any of the Fallout games, but I would like to agree and sympathize with a point from Johnathan.

Game developers make games because they enjoy making games. Each and everyone at Blizzard, Valve, Bethesda, and many others, share a joy of making and playing games.

The problem isn't the developers, its the publishers. EA and the like, who breathe down their neck every year saying 'release or die', in so many words. Ever look at the EA franchise? They release essentially the same game, every year, with many *one* new feature or maybe a *slight* graphical update. Often at times, at the expense of other things that made the series good before EA came and picked it up.

So I think, given time and fundings, that Bethesda, would make an awesome Fallout game, much like they did with Oblivion. (As stated earlier in the thread by me, I don't judge a game by what it 'should' be, but what it 'is' when I play it). I do recognize that to me, Oblivion was lesser than Morrowind, and that it was meant to please a larger gaming crowd. I don't see anything wrong with that.

(As a side note, yeah, they did market Radiant AI as the greatest thing since Sliced Bread, and yeah, to me, it was a colossal failure from what they marketed. But if you looked at it from a casual player who had no previous 'oblivion marketing', it did look like the world was living, especially in the towns. Oh, and I hated the dungeons leveling up with you)

So, given time, and budget, Bethesda, as a company filled with people who both love games, and love making games, would make an awesome Fallout 3 game. But I believe their publisher isn't going to let them do that. Publishers only see money and sales. EA for example, doesn't see that their Madden 08 game sucks ass, rather, they see that Madden is still a strong franchise bringing in alot of money, so next year, another Madden game.

Thats all. ^_^

Happy Valentines Day to everyone (or Happy Singles Day to those among us who eat chocolates alone)

Kayla.

Edit: Corrected Johnathan's name

[ February 14, 2008: Message edited by: Kayla ]

[Cthulhu]

Sports games...
Sports...
Gatherings...
Situations where there are more than five people together, and none of them are on fire...

These are a few of my least favorite things.

If you guys think Oblivion didn't live up to expectations.  Go read up on STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl.  Bring a lifeguard, you're likely to drown in your own drool.

Now buy the game, bring a lifeguard, you're likely to drown in your own tears.  They spent years developing, and cut out literally EVERYTHING that made the game look cool.  If it weren't for mods, the game would be an utter failure.

EDIT:  Maybe I'll try Fallout 3, it looks pretty neat.  I'm just worried about Specs.  My computer can handle Bioshock with everything but advanced shaders, anybody think I would have a chance?  (I personally vote no.)

[ February 14, 2008: Message edited by: Muffles ]

[Kagus]

I think my main gripe with Oblivion was its repetitive nature.  The planes of Oblivion just got annoying after a while, and indeed, leveled items and dungeons kinda pissed me off.  It just messes with the flow of the world, and turns it into a MMORPG without the chance to do it with a few buddies (I suppose that's kinda nice though.  It also means you don't get all the "other" MMO players crowding around).

I hadn't heard anything about Oblivion except for what gamers were talking about.  I didn't see any professional reviews, or any hype, or any advertising.  I didn't pay much attention to whether or not people in the game had "lives" or not, since they'd probably be too boring do be worth breaking my excersize regime of bouncing around the city.

I also don't see why they had to make Argonians red, and remove that awesome swimming animation they had in Morrowind.  And the special hand-to-hand animations.

Oh well.  I play it anyways, but I've got a lot of mods installed (user-made all the way, baby).

[yamo]

to be fair i was kinda hoping for (SimEarth + SimLife/Civilization)2...so yeah...i'm bummed but it's my fault.

[Kagus]

Yeah, well, like I said; this isn't from the maker of SimLife, this is from the maker of the expansion packs for The Sims.

And by that I mean this is from someone making a heavily commercial game, not someone making a program that he thinks would be really cool.

[Funkadelic Jive Turkey]

@Jonathan S. Fox:

Look, I'm not one of the folks that is swearing off the game based on camera angle, turn based, or any other personal preference that is largely perceived as archaic. I'm just ultimately uncertain, and after Oblivion pessimistic, about Bethesda having the necessary talent to approach and handle such a work.

Yes, they're legally justified, perhaps they truly do like\love the Fallout setting, but I don't know if I feel they've a moral right. I realize I cannot dictate their actions based on my inner (emotionally biased) moral code, but it will reflect how I approach a product; and I do believe that when dealing with the purchase of rights to works of art, there is such a code to consider.

Examples relating to music, which is more my forte:
When Michael Jackson outbid McCartney for the rights to Beatles songs, that was largely regarded as a scummy thing. When Coca-Cola, failing to acquire the original version of "Come Together", got Aerosmith to perform it. When Tommy Hilfiger (or however you spell it,) bastardized CCRs "Fortunate Son" (which the writer, Foggerty, lost the rights to,) for some kids making out on the beach with a flag.

-Ugh, I got interrupted and kind of lost my orientation in regards to what I was writing. I touched up what I'd written a bit and hope where I was going makes sense. I just feel there's more to consider than franchise ownership and commercial viability, and not just in regards to Fallout. To further the music analogies: I'm afraid I'm searching for the blues and will be receiving a minstrelsy show. And if such is the case, then I'm in for disappointment. And even if the performers, covered in burnt cork, really mean well, that won't do much to comfort me.

[yamo]

Oh!  Just thought of a great example...When humans go to Mars we will bring bacteria, viri, and dust mites with us-at least 5 of the six Eart Kingdoms of Life, most likely.  So, uh, which species achieved space colonization?  Xenobiology is too grand for a "saucer and ray guns" paradigm....

[Grantyman]

quote:Originally posted by Guy:
you're still able to design your own buildings and units, right?

You can design buildings, vehicles, ufos, flora, and your own creature up to the tribal phase. Once you reach the space phase, you can modify other peoples creatures too. Feel free to correct any mistakes.
EDIT:Spelling

[ February 15, 2008: Message edited by: Grantyman ]

[Vodalian]

quote:
I'm somebody who judges a game based on the game it is, and not the game it could have been if it wasn't... um, the game it is. I respect companies like Blizzard and Valve, companies so successful that they can afford to keep going until they get everything just right, but there are very few companies with cashflow like that.

It's not about what it could have been, it's about WHAT THEY ADVERTISE IT AS. I couldn't care less about what they could have added, that's what mods are for. The point is, much of what they advertised wasn't in the game, and they STILL ADVERTISE these features. How you can justify this is beyond me. As a freelance programmer myself, if I was to try to pull that crap on a client, I would be in BIG trouble.

   

quote:
I'm not going to dispute with you over whether Bethesdia lied to everyone and pretended to implement a house AI engine and didn't, if that's what you're suggesting by saying there's "no sign" of it.

As a programmer and someone interested in AI myself, I did not see anything they bragged about that wasn't evidenced in the game. I think a lot of people imagined that much of the behavior they showed off in previews was emergent, but that was wrong -- AI just isn't that advanced, game or otherwise.

Just check youtube, there are multiple videos of the programmers demonstrating the AI and telling everyone that it's in no way hard-scripted or follows schedules. Did you even look at the previews before release and the advertisements after release? Or are you thinking that I'm just exaggerating some quote in an article somewhere? The very features which were their main selling points, and continue to be their main selling points are the very features which were 'left out'. Nobody even knew that they were left out until they bought it, and bethesda still till this day hasn't brought up some of the missing features. Like I said, not including every feature in the book isn't the problem, advertising features and releasing the game without even half of them while telling everyone that they are still there is the problem.

Imagine going to the store and buying spore right at release, but when you get it home, you realize that there is no space phase and there is no civilization phase yet nobody told anyone before hand and those very features are still advertised on the homepage of spore. That's why there were alot of angry people when oblivion was release. If all you have paid attention to is the reviews in magazines, then your perspective makes perfect sense.

   

quote:
I won't blame that on people misinterpreting it though, it's more a matter of spin in advertising than anything. But like I said, I don't judge games on the hype.

Refer to my above comments and you will see that it's not about 'misinterpreting'. It would be like saying that we misinterpret the idea that there is going to be a space and civilization phase in spore.
   

quote:
In game development, there are always features that don't make it in, always aspects of the game that don't work out, new technologies that prove to be unweildy, harder than anticipated to develop, or just not fun at all.

Yeah, that's why most companies are honest and don't continue to advertise the features after the game is released. It leads to unhappy people. When you charge 50 dollars for a game, its your RESPONSIBILITY to tell them what they are getting.

 

quote:
It's not unusual at all for expansion pack material to be things that they wanted to do in the original, but ended up dropping for lack of time. It's not morally reprehensible for them to publish add-ons that they originally wanted to be part of the main game, but it's just ratty marketing.

I guess it depends on your definition of 'morally reprehensible', especially considering like I said, these features are STILL advertised as features in the base game. To continue my spore example, imagine if after you realize that there is no civilization phase and no space phase, all of a sudden you see two digital downloads on the official site for these phases, which will cost you a fee to download.

Look at the advertised features (the ones which are still being advertised till this day) and then compare it to the features which are actually in the game, while you're at it, stop by their forums.

[ February 15, 2008: Message edited by: Vodalian ]

[Cthulhu]

DarwinBots is cool beans.  I turned it on while I was doing the dishes, and a mutation arose that reversed the inequality in the reproduction energy requirement.  I came back to find a massive yellow blob taking up a quarter of the screen.  It was like "lolwut omg"

[Solara]

quote:Originally posted by Vodalian:
<STRONG>Just check youtube, there are multiple videos of the programmers demonstrating the AI and telling everyone that it's in no way hard-scripted or follows schedules. </STRONG>

If I recall correctly, they originally did have 'emergent behavior', but that caused problems where a fight would be triggered over something trivial and escalate until entire towns slaughtered each other. (you might remember that anecdote about the archer getting annoyed with her dog and torching him with a fireball, now multiply that kind of irrational behavior by however many NPCs are hanging around a town at any given moment...)

Unfortunately once they realized this instead of fixing the problem they just lobotomized everyone instead. Not that I even care about that aspect very much though - sure it would have been a lot of fun, but I'm still perfectly satisfied with Morrowind's NPCs that just stand around at all hours of the day (well okay I use the LGNPC mods that give them more dialogue and personalities...) so I can't really complain about Oblivion's AI.

No, what got to me was the general policy of dumbing things down (leveled enemies to ensure you never get in over your head, generic fantasy setting instead of the jungley awesomeness Cyrodiil was supposed to be, beast races that are basically humans with masks, lame minigames, "Dear Diary: I followed a giant arrow to a cave! I should probably go inside it." etc.) and limiting choices and freedom overall (less guilds, less skills, spells, and weapons, more linear quests, less moral ambiguity, less lore, and the list goes on...)

It was just disappointing to me that a sequel, instead of doing new things like I expected was basically a step backwards in every respect except for combat and graphics, neither of which are the reasons I play these kinds of games for in the first place.

[ February 15, 2008: Message edited by: Solara ]