Next post like this and you get a strike.
Hey, no need to use that tone, it was a joke, as I mentionned just before it and notified with the smiley.
Of course RPGs can be in third person, lot of my favourite games are not in first person perspective (arcanum, baldur's gate 1 and 2, kotor, planescape torment, fo1 and 2 ...). Actually I didn't play that much first person RPGs, but with Morrowind, Vampires Bloodlines and Deus Ex I've grown very fond of this immersion and I admit that I really like it more and I think that the VATS system is really an awesome step in the right direction for finding a good blend between turn based gameplay and fps gameplay, even if of course it still needs a lot of improvements (or mods) in order to make it really work and matters.
Yes, because that's the game's design.
Well, I'm a video game concept artist, not a game designer, but I've worked with some and see how game development works, and i'm not convinced that game design should be carved in stone and never change. Especially when the developpments teams are not the same.
Each company has his own style and I think that it is their right to adapt things to what they like to do, to adapt the game to their ways of doing things. When you work four years on a game, you have to have fun on it and to build it the way you like.
Of course since this is called Fallout 3, they had to stick to the original material, and that it the point where we disagree, but I'm not calling you a stupid person when you think that fallout3 is not a true sequel to FO1 and FO2, when a lot of this forum's users are calling us morons when we think the opposite.
I think that Bethesda still managed to blend the qualities of their TES titles, with a lot of the original Fallout's contents, and that is more than I dreamed about (I was really thinking I would get an Oblivion with guns, and it was a nice surprise to get a fallout blended with Morrowind depth qualities and the good Oblivion "dungeon crawl" gameplay (the only thing I really like in oblivion))
Wrong example. Despite the many changes, James Bond remains an agent in Her Majesty's Secret Service that faces extreme dangers and walks away unscathed. The core of the franchise is preserved, unlike in Fallout 3.
I have issues to see where the core of the franchise is lost, but I guess that this is because we simply don't have the same views on games. Like I said i'm an illustrator, and the most important core feature in Fallout for me has always been the setting, the visual atmosphere, the pulp 50's feeling ... and all those points are simply awesome in FO3.
I can see that some gameplay mechanics have been lost, that some character depth has been trimmed ... that some perks or skills are not anymore available ... but I admit that this is less important to me, so this is not a gamebreaking issue for me. I would love to see this improved in Fallout 4 or with mods, but this is not enough for me to bash this game or to say that this is not a Fallout game.
However I have no issues understanding that this is gamebreaking for you or other people, if would be nice if you were polite enough to do the same and understand that this is not for some other people.
And? Fallout isn't Final Fantasy.
Obviously. But my point was that it is a common issues for a game franchise to change and evolve during time. Fallout2 was already different from Fallout1, with unexplained difference. Fallout tatics was also different, and fallout : bos ... was something else. And yet they all had the Fallout brand name. I'm simply not sure that any of us is in position to validate or not which game has the right to be named fallout.
It seems that for you, the "fallout" name is a very large container that need to be filled by a sum of very precise things, and if one of those things is missing, the container stops to have the fallout name on it. It seems a bit narrow minded and things wouldn't evolve if we were thinking this way for anything. There need to be space for changes, especially in games developped 10 years after their prequel.
You were talking about the combat system in FF12. I thouroughly enjoyed it myself, and I was stunned by all the narrow minded comments on the forums where people were speaking about heresy and about their precious turn based combat system. I like when companies try new things on their franchises, even when this isn't completely working, at least they are trying and bringing new ideas to the table, instead if always using the same dusty things and adding a layer of fresh paint onto them. The ff12 combat systems had some flaws, but in the end I will havd a hard time to go back to the rusty turn based FF combat system, especially if they go back to those stupid random encounters.
Now that I have enjoyed the possibiliies of the VATS system in a first person rpg, I would really like to see this improved and taken to higher levels where it could gain the tactical depth of isometric turn based combat. On the opposite if they turned back to isometric turn based I would be very disappointed and would see this as a step back instead of innovation.
Two entirely different mediums. Stop with the strawmen.
I don't know what a strawmen is (sorry about my english) but I think I get your point, and again I disagree. Video games, books and movies are not that different, and I stand to my point and think that I can use this as an example
We're talking about games, not books. What happens in other series is irrelevant.
it seems that anything that can be said that is no what you think is irrelevant.
Another strawman. We don't care about that, we care about Fallout's core design being preserved, not raped and mutilated.
point taken, but I was bringing some visual design details since this is hat is the most important to me (like I said earlier in this message). The changes in gameplay and in other areas are important too, but I focus on my personal tastes and of course they are different from other people. On my point of view nothing has been raped or mutilated, some things have been overlooked, other things have been improved, other have been poorly kept or dissapeared, but in the end I am still very happy with the result.
Just because previous titles had flaws and bugs doesn't mean the next can have them too.
yes, but having worked inside video game teams, I see that it is quite hard to change from the old habits, and I think that Bethesda seems to have learned from Oblivion's mistakes. Wich is quite good considering the commercial succes Oblivion had. They could have kept all the poor design choices from Oblivion and the game would have still sold very well. I think that this is quite good that they tried to evolve even when the produceers were certainly saying "make oblivion with guns, this will sell". I'm the kind of guy to be happy with every bit of improvement.
If you can't immerse yourself in Fallout, I assume you must have real difficulties reading a book or comprehending anything else requiring a bit of an open mind.
Is a moderator allowed to answer this way to people on their forum ? you don't know me and you make some insulting assumptions towards me ...
There is a difference between immerse and enjoy. I enjoyed completely fallout1 and 2, and other isometric rpg, I read also a lot of books and I don't think that I am the narrow minded person in this thread, you should maybe clean up your own backyard before insulting other people.
What I was saying is that with modern game engines, first person views are more appealing to me. I really like for example having to turn my head in order to see what is behind me, when in isometric you have a larger view of your surroundings, this is breaking immersion to me. In a book you see what the author wants to tell you, it depends a lot on the style of the book. In the isometric games I was referring to, usually you see all your surroundings and this is a huge advantage tactically against the enemies that have some line of sight mechanics. So you are the one making some "strawman" or something there, comparing two different things.
Fallout 3 for me is an empty husk, devoid of really immersive content. It never immersed me like Fallout did.
This is completely your right, and your opinion is very valid. I just don't see it the same way, and I don't see why your word should be holier than mine ... I totally agree that lots of things have been overlooked, for example the text descriptions are badly missing, and I am happy that one of your member is working on this.
If they can't substantiate their point, it's their fault.
again this is extremely harsh, especally from a moderator. Since anything we can say won't satisfy you, I guess we are forced to be stupid people that cannot substantiate their points, so be it ...
And? Why should they be removed? Lifebars will be in regardless, so why remove useful information?
Lifebar is a ok compromise to me, at least until the engines allow for completely graphical informations about the enemy health. In my dream RPG healthbars would be completely removed and you would have to guess at what health the enemies are simply with visuals and sounds, but in the meantime, simple healthbar without numbers are good to me. But I agree that there should be more depth with perception / medicine / intelligence skills that could have flavor texts about what your character think about the enemy's condition, toughness, etc ...
I know that most rpg players love numbers, but my point of view is that numbers aren't immersive, I like when all those dice rolls and checks are invisible in the background, and your character is only seeing the results.
