Cool! Tesla tanks in Fallout! Cross promotion with Red Alert

Public said:
And Todd said they are all hardcore fans of Fallout...

...pathetic.


Remember when one guy from Beth criticized Blizzard for not making Starcraft 2 more like FPP?
Maybe Beth wants to show, using Fallout, how they would do it?
Click to expand...
They are definetly Fans of "Fallout".

But

1) They dont understand it. They played it, seen the setting, and love it (like many with F3 now ...). But they did either not understand the mechanics behind or just did not cared about it [I hope it would be the first ...]

2) They only choose out of the Fallout what they think is "cool" and left out what is "uncool" [in their eyes]. So no ISO/birds view, no turn-based, no long dialogues (people who play it cant read anyway when you ask Bethesda employes ...)

Of course ... long time fans they are not. My idea is "they" at Bethesda (bashing of individuals is not good ...) dont like "RPGs". It was said by them in interviews for example that they did not liked the fact in Fallout you could lock your self out from certain quests and parts of the game if your skill was not high enough or you choose this or that option in the game which would leave in the worst case a "unsatisfied" feeling. Though ... this is what makes roleplaying. And frankly makes you play the game again as you know there might be a different way to solve it.

Public said:
Remember when one guy from Beth criticized Blizzard for not making Starcraft 2 more like FPP?
Maybe Beth wants to show, using Fallout, how they would do it?
Click to expand...

Hell yeah ... they said it was sad Blizzard choose for their next games this kind of "old school" approach ... though it was expected from Bethesda to say that. I mean ... they [Bethesda] can not change a well established and known franchise and squeze it unnecessarily in shooter mechanics (like first person gameplay) and now suddenly admit Blizzard is doing good things with their decision ...
 
IMO they are fans of violent animations and bloody mess.

...they [Bethesda] can not change a well established and known franchise and squeze it unnecessarily in shooter mechanics (like first person gameplay)
Click to expand...

Imagine if Bethesda bought all franchises on the world or worse, they are the only developer on the market...


...every game would be an Oblivion copy.
 
Remember when one guy from Beth criticized Blizzard for not making Starcraft 2 more like FPP?
Maybe Beth wants to show, using Fallout, how they would do it?
Click to expand...

FPP? Do you mean first person? Since when does a single guy represent the whole company's view anyway? It also seems like you are implying that Bethesda is using an entire franchise as a tool to show how they would develop Starcraft 2. WTF? You are just LOOKING for stuff to criticise and most of it has no merit.
 
Yazman said:
Remember when one guy from Beth criticized Blizzard for not making Starcraft 2 more like FPP?
Maybe Beth wants to show, using Fallout, how they would do it?
Click to expand...

FPP? Do you mean first person? Since when does a single guy represent the whole company's view anyway? It also seems like you are implying that Bethesda is using an entire franchise as a tool to show how they would develop Starcraft 2. WTF? You are just LOOKING for stuff to criticise and most of it has no merit.
Click to expand...

Ehm...I know that you're new and stuff. But I'm not lying or making stuff up. There was that guy from Bethesda (one of the lead designers I guess), who criticized Blizzard to not make Starcraft 2 more in First Person Perspective.

And I'm not implying, I said "Maybe Beth wants to..." so it means I'm assuming.
 
Ehm...I know that you're new and stuff. But I'm not lying or making stuff up. There was that guy from Bethesda (one of the lead designers I guess), who criticized Blizzard to not make Starcraft 2 more in First Person Perspective.

And I'm not implying, I said "Maybe Beth wants to..." so it means I'm assuming.
Click to expand...

..I'm not new, I have been coming to this website for years. and lurking the forums. I just never started posting until now. Are you sure the guy was talking about Starcraft 2 and not Starcraft: Ghost? Because SC: Ghost was originally in first person, and later changed to third person (although it was later cancelled). I seriously doubt anybody would say an RTS should be in first person when its not even possible for that camera angle to work in that genre..

And I'm not implying, I said "Maybe Beth wants to..." so it means I'm assuming.
Click to expand...

Whether implying, assuming, or asserting, its a stupid thing to say ANY developer would spend millions on buying a franchise, invest years into development and marketing, and plan sequels in an effort to show people how they would develop a rival company's game... and even if they did, they wouldn't pick a franchise that has absolutely NOTHING in common gameplay or setting-wise.
 
First-person RTS games exist. Battlezone springs immediately to mind. It does work, just fine.

One quick google search, and I found this, which might be what's being referred to.

EDIT. Furthurmore, I'm curious as to just what the conservative side is, when it comes to updating titles such as Diablo and Starcraft. Diablo is defined by the simplicity of gameplay, and in many regards, the PoV. It's EASY. A hell of a lot easier than wrestling with an unco-operative camera to see what you're fighting. Diablo isn't about IMMERSION, it's about tearing a bloody path through endless hordes of enemies, and the viewpoint does that well. So maybe Beth could learn that change for the sake of change is not a good thing?

As for SC2, as an RTS fanatic, there are dozens of new and interesting mechanics in that game.
 
Bethesda just never realized that iso view is ideal for a Fallout rpg. It is a lot easier to make abstractions of real life size worlds, and turn based is much less jarring, IMO. The game becomes less twitch shooter and everything is governed by character skill (as it should in any rpg).
 
Aye. That's my defining factor for an RPG: A game in which the player's skill has no effect on the character's success or failure chance. Which is why I had to go lie down after trying to pick a lock and being presented with that fucking minigame. I didn't even attempt it, I just gave up and cried.
 
Yazman said:
FPP? Do you mean first person? Since when does a single guy represent the whole company's view anyway? It also seems like you are implying that Bethesda is using an entire franchise as a tool to show how they would develop Starcraft 2. WTF? You are just LOOKING for stuff to criticise and most of it has no merit.
Click to expand...
I think some choose the wrong words to describe it ...

From what I remember (its quite some time) it was mainly about comments from blogs and certain websites.

Someone (not from Bethesda though but a fan from first person) complained a lot on his blog about that Blizzard choose for its next games like Dialbo 3 not a "more modern" gameplay in first person.

A few Bethesda developers only said that they think its "sad" blizzard choose this kind of "old" gameplay for their games, but they still think that they make awesome games" ... as said they just think "its sad".

Obviously they just CAN NOT say anything differennt since THEY work on a game that was always ISO/turn based and they keept telling people all the time they just can not make a game like Fallout 1/2 cause "people would not buy it today anymore".

Blizzard just has shown with Diablo 3 and their path that this is not true and games with top-down gameplay indeed can sell very well. Its obvously that Bethesda had to say something like "we think its sad you did it that way, but much luck you do great work!".

A lot of people already now say that Dialbo 3 will easily outsell Fallout 3 (if that will happen we will see). But fact is that Dialbo 3 seems to be a lot closer to Dialbo 1/2 then Fallout 3 to Fallout 1/2. And that tells something.
 
Crni Vuk said:
Yazman said:
FPP? Do you mean first person? Since when does a single guy represent the whole company's view anyway? It also seems like you are implying that Bethesda is using an entire franchise as a tool to show how they would develop Starcraft 2. WTF? You are just LOOKING for stuff to criticise and most of it has no merit.
Click to expand...
I think some choose the wrong words to describe it ...

From what I remember (its quite some time) it was mainly about comments from blogs and certain websites.

Someone (not from Bethesda though but a fan from first person) complained a lot on his blog about that Blizzard choose for its next games like Dialbo 3 not a "more modern" gameplay in first person.

A few Bethesda developers only said that they think its "sad" blizzard choose this kind of "old" gameplay for their games, but they still think that they make awesome games" ... as said they just think "its sad".

Obviously they just CAN NOT say anything differennt since THEY work on a game that was always ISO/turn based and they keept telling people all the time they just can not make a game like Fallout 1/2 cause "people would not buy it today anymore".

Blizzard just has shown with Diablo 3 and their path that this is not true and games with top-down gameplay indeed can sell very well. Its obvously that Bethesda had to say something like "we think its sad you did it that way, but much luck you do great work!".

A lot of people already now say that Dialbo 3 will easily outsell Fallout 3 (if that will happen we will see). But fact is that Dialbo 3 seems to be a lot closer to Dialbo 1/2 then Fallout 3 to Fallout 1/2. And that tells something.
Click to expand...

Well I, for one, would much prefer it if Blizzard made Diablo like Oblivion (FPS/RPG). That way there would be competition in the FPS/RPG market and it also allows the introduction of deeper gameplay elements like stealth and thievery but keeping the action.
 
Just how much do they pay you, man?!

If you need competition in a specific subset of a genre, maybe you could try playing Gothic or Arx Fatalis. Assuming you can live with the graphics of the time, of course.

I... can't imagine a 1st person PoV Diablo. That would be utterly missing the point. Stealth and Theivery? What place do they have in the Diablo model of gameplay? That being killmaimburn killmaimburn. Change for the sake of change is shit. Feature creep is shit. and homogenous game design along a handful of select parameters for immersion and competition is a double heaped helping of shit with a side of being cockslapped

Wow, I'm angry tonight.
 
Trithne said:
Just how much do they pay you, man?!

If you need competition in a specific subset of a genre, maybe you could try playing Gothic or Arx Fatalis. Assuming you can live with the graphics of the time, of course.

I... can't imagine a 1st person PoV Diablo. That would be utterly missing the point. Stealth and Theivery? What place do they have in the Diablo model of gameplay? That being killmaimburn killmaimburn. Change for the sake of change is shit. Feature creep is shit. and homogenous game design along a handful of select parameters for immersion and competition is a double heaped helping of shit with a side of being cockslapped

Wow, I'm angry tonight.
Click to expand...

I've played both Arx Fatalis and Gothic.

Gothic 2 was okay but the combat was terrible even compared to Morrowind. Gothic 3 and Arx Fatalis kept crashing.

I'm not saying all games should be 1st person - I just think it allows the introduction of more immersive, realistic and deeper gameplay and I would like to see more FPS/RPGs on the market (atm Bethesda is really the only great developer).
 
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and of opinion, but in my mind, Bethesda have never been a great developer. Passable once upon a time, Arena and Daggerfall, but certainly have fallen below mediocre these days. Their games are soulless husks, the formula is there, but they lack in spirit and enjoyability, and they really need to hire someone who knows how to write. It's basic principles that you don't overshadow the player, yet they've managed to do that consecutively with Oblivion's shit ending (yay, dragon beats up BBEG while I sit here and cheerlead), and Fallout's (yay, giant robot beats up BBEG while I sit here and cheerlead). It's like an ego-trip GM making you watch his DMPC kick everyone's ass while telling you your character can't walk 5 feet without tripping over his shoelaces for failing a Dexterity test.
 
Trithne said:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and of opinion, but in my mind, Bethesda have never been a great developer. Passable once upon a time, Arena and Daggerfall, but certainly have fallen below mediocre these days. Their games are soulless husks, the formula is there, but they lack in spirit and enjoyability, and they really need to hire someone who knows how to write. It's basic principles that you don't overshadow the player, yet they've managed to do that consecutively with Oblivion's shit ending (yay, dragon beats up BBEG while I sit here and cheerlead), and Fallout's (yay, giant robot beats up BBEG while I sit here and cheerlead). It's like an ego-trip GM making you watch his DMPC kick everyone's ass while telling you your character can't walk 5 feet without tripping over his shoelaces for failing a Dexterity test.
Click to expand...

Yeah the end of the main quest seemed really rushed.

It does annoy me though, that people seem to love to pisso n Fallout 3 - but it's not like Fallout 2 was without err. Hubologists, much? At least Bethesda removed all the shitty pop-culture references and fourth-wall breakages so they could actually produce an immersive, consistent game world.
 
Except it's about as immersive as a rain puddle and not consistent with the world it's based upon. And I rate the games by how much I enjoyed playing them, not how many times they broke the 4th wall with an in-joke.

Fallout 2: Still installed. Still play. Still enjoy and find interesting things.

Fallout 3: Uninstalled. Archived. Regret paying for it.

'nuff said.
 
I'm not a big fan of cheesy metafiction. I don't find the "system" portion of Fallout 2 all that impressive... and it crashed more and had less available updates than Fallout 3 had for me at the time. What I enjoyed were the setting and the dialogue. I feel like the setting was somewhat hampered in Fallout 3 by the ESRB. I don't think 3's dialogue was as good as 2... but the lack of cheesy metacrap gave it some extra points in my eyes.

Fallout 2 had the metafiction factor of books 5 and 6 of Steven King's 'Dark Tower' series.
 
Corvin said:
I'm not a big fan of cheesy metafiction. I don't find the "system" portion of Fallout 2 all that impressive... and it crashed more and had less available updates than Fallout 3 had for me at the time. What I enjoyed were the setting and the dialogue. I feel like the setting was somewhat hampered in Fallout 3 by the ESRB. I don't think 3's dialogue was as good as 2... but the lack of cheesy metacrap gave it some extra points in my eyes.

Fallout 2 had the metafiction factor of books 5 and 6 of Steven King's 'Dark Tower' series.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at least Fallout 3 kept the gore and swearing but putting in invincible children was ridiculous. But hten the game would be banned if you could headshot children - Fox News would have a field day. I guess it's just one of the compromises of making a more popular game with better graphics in a world with such conservative media.
 
I agree about the conservative media, but honestly, the gore and swearing done by Bethesda seemed kinda juvenile. Fallout really wasn't about swearing or gore, it was just part of the setting. Fallout 3's use of swearing seems like it is just for swearings sake, and the gore is over the top and ridiculous. Limbs exploding from small arms isn't that believable, not to mention a certain teddy bear flinging device.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top