CVG interviews Pete Hines

[Madbringer]

Probably because they bought the license and therefore own Fo1 and Fo2.

Shows how full of shit they are.

Just as well, i could buy a patch of land, and then put a cardboard box on it. Next, i would invite people to look at it, and i'd tell them
"Guys, what you see here, is the new, improved ground. The soil has been enriched with pixie dust and miniature nano machines. The small cardboard box over there, has a God of Epic Win trapped inside. Underneath, there are thousands specialists from all over the world who supervise the process of making it more Groovy and Awesome twenty four hours a day. You could argue that i lie. You could argue that i have no proof whatsoever about anything i said. You could argue that it's only a patch of dirt with a cardboard box on it. But you know what? Fuck you. I bought this land, so i can say what it is and what it is not."

Cha-ching!

 

[Sorrow]

Fallout has a real hardcore fan base. Would you say the biggest challenge has been creating a sequel that appeals to those fans but not at the expense of alienating a new audience?

That's fucking pathetic.

Our philosophy with Fallout 3 was to make it as if we'd made Fallout one and two.

Your philosophy is inherently flawed.
If you have made original Fallout and Fallout 2 it would be so pathetic that we wouldn't be here.

Which obviously we didn't but we couldn't really spend a whole lot of time worrying about what we didn't make or what we didn't have control over.

Yeah, you didn't have control over what Fallout was, so you had to start to blackmouth it.

We approached it the same way we approached Morrowind or Oblivion - we are doing the next game in the series, this is what the series has always been about, what are we going to do with the next one to make it cool and fun and the next big step for this series?

Yeah, how to make classic Fallout series cool and fun for ignorants and console kids ...

That was our approach for Fallout 3, was to say "What's our next big thing going to be for this series". What are the things we need to stay true to and can't change, and what are the things we maybe want to change or update and do differently.

Fallout Rape Massacre 3: The Next Big Thing of Bethesda".

Ultimately, that was our approach, to make to make the kind of choices to make the best Fallout 3 game we thought we could make.

They really need Mentats. Or to quit taking Psycho...

To date that's what we've done. We've definitely changed some things, but we feel like we've stayed true to the things about Fallout that make that series memorable - which are the setting, the characters, the tone, the feats, the moral choices, the player choice.

Geez, more pathetic lies.

The character system is the same, the dialogue system works the same. We didn't want to change the stuff we felt didn't need to be changed.

Too bad you felt need to change the excellent classical TB-Isometric cRPG into an Action-RPG/Survival Horror/FPS or whatever that abominable hybrid is.

 

[syllogz]

Yeah! It is great to make a make that will be a make making it make a make. That is what we will make. To make.

I moke I made mykeself maklear.

 

[Yellow]

Fallout has a real hardcore fan base. Would you say the biggest challenge has been creating a sequel that appeals to those fans but not at the expense of alienating a new audience?

Why not create a game that stays completely true to the spirit of Fallout? Not only in the setting, characters, and tone, but in gameplay and perspective also?

Don't try to "appeal" to anybody, just "appeal" to the original Fallouts.

The hardcore fans will naturally be happy, and new people that might not have heard of Fallout (and it would have appealed to them) will be brought into the fanbase by themselves .

 

[Sorrow]

Show what you are writing to anyone who cares about you. Ask them what they think of your opinions about a video game. Marvel at their responses.

LuckyOasis, have you shown your posts to your mommy? Does your mommy know that you are trolling fansites?

 

[Frog]

We approached it the same way we approached Morrowind or Oblivion - we are doing the next game in the series, this is what the series has always been about, what are we going to do with the next one to make it cool and fun and the next big step for this series?

"Fallout 3: EXTREEEEEEMEEEEEE!!!!1"

 

[Vilhelm]

The character system is the same,the dialogue system works the same.

Here's one less thing to worry about.

Now for the rest of the game...

 

[MrSambuka]

Wasn't trying to troll.

Just offered my opinion, sorry if you don't agree.

I visit NMA daily, but still look upon it as an outsider.

But whatever, I'm just an outsider looking in which probably doesn't qualify me to make the statement that I did.

 

[PaladinHeart]

Hmm.. the comments here lately remind me a bit much of DaC. Lots of cussing and very little reasoning. It's easy to see why the press has generalized Fallout fans as being closed-minded.

I basically feel that the exploration could have been upgraded to First Person, but that the combat should have retained the Isometric third person view. With improvements on the system being little things like all the enemies taking their turn at the same time (in real time), and then all being paused while you take yours (speeding up the TB system drastically while taking nothing away from it).

I've always felt like it was a "no no" to discuss things like this in the past though, because of people like RfaS at DaC, who would rather lambast you with a plethora of f-this and f-that than discuss any possible change to the original system. I still think the grappling hook idea would be nice (similar to the rope ladder arrows in Dark Messiah). But anyways.. Just saying that since many communities such as DaC harbor a HUGE amount of obscenity-based fans that are vehemently opposed to ANY changes at all then it stands to reason that anyone who would end up acquiring the license wouldn't really want to take those fans thoughts, ideas, etc.. into consideration because they already have a pretty good idea of what they want, and pretty much lump all the Fallout fans up with them.

So now it seems the tables are turned and there is apparently no discussing the matter of getting turn based combat into Fallout 3 (even though it sounds like it would be easy for them to do, as an option...), and all we have is some crappy bullet time clone (I saw a Timeshift video and it looks just like what FO3 probably will). I find some small satisfaction in the drastic departure from Fallout's combat because I know it very much displeases people like RfaS, even though I myself would have preferred Turn Based ISO combat. I know I really shouldn't have such spiteful thoughts. Anyways...

The combat isn't nearly as important as the setting, storyline, different ways to complete quests, freedom, etc.. though. There' so much more that's more important (to me anyway). The main thing I hope they do better than in Morrowind and Oblivion, is I hope they at least manage to make some characters with a little personality.

 

[ivpiter]

Sometimes I wonder what it's like to view Fallout through the lens of Todd - and by extension Pete. Mini Games, Radiation Meters, dozens of ‘dungeons’ filled with random monsters and random loot every few yards. Everything Todd seems to find attractive about the original FO (talking heads, Bloody Mess, big open world (it wasn't a sandbox and was nothing like Oblivion )) was in the first few minutes of gameplay.

You'd think he never played all the way through FO-1/FO-2.

At the end of the day it always seems to come down to graphics...

Oblivion was our first shot, and we've learned an awful lot of things having made that game... We're able to push our tech a lot further having gone through that experience and knowing how to speed up our rendering, how to use shaders to better model this kind of environment.

More shaders on that Pip-Boy then all of Oblivion eh? Glad they have such a clear grasp of the priorities of adult CRPG players .

 

[Sorrow]

Hmm.. the comments here lately remind me a bit much of DaC. Lots of cussing and very little reasoning. It's easy to see why the press has generalized Fallout fans as being closed-minded.

I basically feel that the exploration could have been upgraded to First Person, but that the combat should have retained the Isometric third person view.

FPP exploration is cumbarsome when compared to Isometric exploration. Especially with WASD. I mean, exploration with actually walking through the terrain with blurry textures and limited field of view?
I played in such perspective in games like Strife and Amulets & Armour and I don't want to repeat the experience.

Hmm.. the comments here lately remind me a bit much of DaC. Lots of cussing and very little reasoning. It's easy to see why the press has generalized Fallout fans as being closed-minded.

That's weird, to me, DaCists seem to be dangerously open to heresy.

Anyway, Bethesda propaganda machine generalised us as being close minded in times when we made long posts with rational arguments.
Comments are shorter, because people care less. We know that Fallout 3 is a heresy, blasphemy, abomination, basically a disgusting corruption of all things good and Fallout.

Posting the same arguments hundreds and hundreds of times is absurdal, just as caring for every word that Bethesda says. That's why there's less reasoning and more cussing.

That's good, because otherwise we would have to start cutting ourselves or something.

But anyways.. Just saying that since many communities such as DaC harbor a HUGE amount of obscenity-based fans that are vehemently opposed to ANY changes at all then it stands to reason that anyone who would end up acquiring the license wouldn't really want to take those fans thoughts, ideas, etc..

That's a nonsense. If fans are vehemently opposed to ANY changes, how they can have ideas for F3?
That's another example of stupid, dumb, idiotic, moronic, totally retarded lying, deceitful Bethesda's propaganda.
We have our own ideas for changes based on what Fallout is, not on wet dreams for marketing and console boys.

 

[Neamos]

Wasn't trying to troll.

I didn't think that your post was a troll. Actually, sometimes I get that feeling too. The thing is, after 10 faithful years, members of NMA have deducted what's the series "about". Some of the Bethesda devs don't even know about Fallout more than "Bloody mess!"
Bloody mess! Beause violence is hilarious, amirite guiz?

Get out and see the world, travel, talk to people from other cultures, have a few adventures in real life, and then return to this post board and re-read what you have been saying. I think you'll find yourselves to be just as disgusted with your opinions as I am.

lol

Oh my God! These crocodiles are awesome! Oh... My... God! Upon seeing these crocodiles, I now understand that Fallout 3 will be awesome!!! Oh God all my previous opinions were wrong!!!


It's kinda sad that the average vocal idiot thinks of us as cave dwellers with no contact with civilisation...

 

[Voice Of Reason]

Ok, the important things have already been said. A few tidbits i want to add:

for me, the most important thing with atmosphere and gameplay in FO1+2 was: Most of the decisions you made had a good and a bad effect. If you helped the one side, the other side had to suffer. there usually wasn't just black or white, but many shades of grey in your decisions and actions. You usually got to learn about the "bad" side and their motivation, and sometimes learned that they weren't "bad" but just "different" (for example, the mutants etc).

having said that, it changed your own perspective on the gameworld a lot. If all it takes to turn the wastelands into a peaceful paradise is a travelling protagonist, why hasn't it been done before? It wasn't that way in fo1/2. you COULD change the gameworld, but it was near-on impossible to please everyone. with oblivion, the only way not to become a hero was not leaving the sewers. it had a whole different approach.

oh yes, and concerning details in 2D vs 3D:
despite being graphically much less advanced than oblivion, i felt that morrowind had a lot more detail. the vegetation wasn't as beautiful but it was different everywhere. You could roughly identify your location on the worldmap just by looking around. what's the use of oblivions highly detailed environment if i don't have any feedback from it.

fallout's graphical effects were subtile but they just worked well. it didn't need cinematic game sequences or scriptfests.

---

concerning the troll:
criticising people for being ignorant without knowing any of their motivations is always a good strategy. i salute you.

 

[Ashmo]

The funniest thing about the troll / flamebait earlier in this thread was that it is exactly what the majority of NMAers is saying, just with reversed roles:

I don't understand why Bethesda is so completely opposed to even the slightest changes to their established patterns. That type of thinking, that fear of even the slightest change, is the type of thinking that leads to the greatest evils humanity ever visits upon itself. Fear of change leads to hatred of what is different.

Bethesda is NOT being creative. It's being horribly UN-creative. They ARE creating another Elder Scrolls game. They went the extra mile of taking another IP and trying to emulate it, but at the core they are still just "doing what we do best" (quoth Beth PR), i.e. doing the same old.

Taking the current game industry as a whole, even a nigh-clone of Fallout would still be a thousand times more creative or eccentric than another take on the successful "lightweight graphics-centric FPS/RPG hybrid dungeoncrawler" pattern that gave birth to Morrowind and Oblivion (the latter being a refinement of the former, a step closer toward the ideal of that pattern).

That'd be retro you say? Yeah, so what? Fallout was retro in its own time and that was why it is still considered exceptional. A step back isn't always bad, especially if you have modern technology at your fingertips for taking that step. Think what Fallout could have looked like with DVDs and high-res displays -- think what it could have sounded like with gigabytes of storage for CD-quality music and speech. No need to turn catsuits into baggy pants or rocket launchers into nuke-a-pults for that.

Of course change is neccessary. But not all change is good. Anybody with a working knowledge of evolutionary biology will be able to assert this.

It's not that Bethesda are merely taking Fallout in a new direction. They're taking their RPG (the ideal behind the change from Morrowind to Oblivion) and using Fallout as its temporary hull.

Why are you wearing that stupid Fallout-suit, Mr Beth-RPG?

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I've always felt like it was a "no no" to discuss things like this in the past though, because of people like RfaS at DaC, who would rather lambast you with a plethora of f-this and f-that than discuss any possible change to the original system.

You were being a moron, (you even went so far as to delete your original post). Then you tried being clever (but ended up looking really stupid) and I just lost it. Check my post history at any forum and that post was the exception. There's only so much stupidity I can take.

So now it seems the tables are turned and there is apparently no discussing the matter of getting turn based combat into Fallout 3

It seems clear that there was never a chance to get TB combat in. They can't exactly say they didn't know what the original fan base wanted when they bought the licence to make FO3, and on the other hand say we've had our minds made up for the last 10 years about the FO3 we wanted to see. It seems a common practice in the Film industry that when developing a new movie, that if there is a chance of a lawsuit for copyright infringement from a book etc. To buy the rights and slap the title on your movie, even if they have little in common beyond the basic premise.

I find some small satisfaction in the drastic departure from Fallout's combat because I know it very much displeases people like RfaS, even though I myself would have preferred Turn Based ISO combat. I know I really shouldn't have such spiteful thoughts. Anyways...

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

The combat isn't nearly as important as the setting, storyline, different ways to complete quests, freedom, etc.. though. There' so much more that's more important (to me anyway).

It's a game, gameplay i.e. combat is just as important as anything else. If the game is rubbish to play are you really going to stick with it to find out more of the story? But games with dumb stories and poor settings can still attract gamers if the gameplay has something to offer.

Setting really only becomes the yardstick to judge by when you are comparing similar game types. Someone into WWII games might buy all types of game but more likely you'll have those into WWII shooters who'll be happier playing COD 4 than Close Combat.

 

[Yamu]

I don't understand why so many people who post on NMA are so angry and so completely opposed to even the slightest changes to a fictional world. That type of thinking, that fear of even the slightest change, is the type of thinking that leads to the greatest evils humanity ever visits upon itself. Fear of change leads to hatred of what is different.

If these were slight changes we were talking about, I assure you, few enough would care, especially after the long wait for a sequel. Fictional worlds have power, friend. If Peter Jackson had decided to outfit the orcs in Lord of the Rings like a biker gang, would you dismiss fan protests out of hand? Destroy or distort enough seemingly minor or cosmetic aspects of a thing, and before you know it, you've destroyed the cohesion of the original. And then there's the minor matter of them entirely replacing at least one of the core mechanics of the game.

It's been said before here, and it still stands: if BethSoft wants to remain tight-lipped on this thing, we have no choice but to judge them by what we get to see. With each successive tidbit dribbled out to the fans, it's looking more and more like they've replaced the tongue-in-cheek of Fallout with an irritating smirk, supplanted the Dr. Strangelove inherent in it with Lethal Weapon.

As far as the "greatest evils humanity ever visits upon itself," I suppose you missed the fine print on the "No Mutants Allowed" sign asking you to leave all straw men at the coat check on the way in.

From the point of view of an outsider, the greatest change in any culture will amount to nothing more than a minor revision.

What's the argument here? That we shouldn't care because other people don't care? Funny stance to take for someone who comes around talking about attitudes that lead to the perpetration of evil.

Get out and see the world, travel, talk to people from other cultures, have a few adventures in real life, and then return to this post board and re-read what you have been saying. I think you'll find yourselves to be just as disgusted with your opinions as I am.

I'm sure you're one charming worldly handsome erudite piece of work, and your advice from on high is duly appreciated, but I, for one, have been "adventuring" over the wastelands of Fallout and it's attendant community and in real life quite extensively since around the time that I was able to take meaningful part in either. I'm not sure if I meet your standards for forming relevant thoughts, but the only thing that disgusts me about elements among this community is something that's actually more often seen in our detractors: the complete willingness to put something out there without developing anything nearing an adequate understanding of the subject they're dealing with.

Which, to bring things full circle, is also what's been kind of bugging me about Bethesda.

 

[Brother None]

That type of thinking, that fear of even the slightest change

As pointed out, it's Bethesda who refuses to change both its own patterns and the RPG standards of today. We're the ones who want something that's different.

Get out and see the world, travel, talk to people from other cultures, have a few adventures in real life, and then return to this post board and re-read what you have been saying. I think you'll find yourselves to be just as disgusted with your opinions as I am.

Ehehe. This would be a troll if it weren't so funny.

But whatever, I'm just an outsider looking in which probably doesn't qualify me to make the statement that I did.

There's no such thing as not being qualified to make a statement. We will, however, react rather annoyed if statements show a lack of research.

What you said was basically true, and the sense of entitlement of NMA looks weird from the outside, until you realise we don't feel entitled to defend our own opinion, we feel entitled to defend the opinion of the game's original developers, big difference.

Everyone: shouting "troll" a lot doesn't get anyone anywhere, and it's only up to mods to determine whether or not someone is a troll. LuckyOasis was pretty much a troll, I'll agree, but MrSambuka wasn't. And in any case, if you see a troll, the worst thing you can do is reply and go "you're a troll". Ignore it if you're so convinced it's a troll, and report it.

Can't be that hard, people. Show people why they're wrong, usually these arguments can be really short if you just try. Pointing and shouting "troll!" is just a show of weakness, and just insulting someone instead of proving him wrong is just the same. Real trolls will be banned inevitably, don't worry.

 

[goffy59]

Everyone: shouting "troll" a lot doesn't get anyone anywhere, and it's only up to mods to determine whether or not someone is a troll. LuckyOasis was pretty much a troll, I'll agree, but MrSambuka wasn't. And in any case, if you see a troll, the worst thing you can do is reply and go "you're a troll". Ignore it if you're so convinced it's a troll, and report it.

Can't be that hard, people. Show people why they're wrong, usually these arguments can be really short if you just try. Pointing and shouting "troll!" is just a show of weakness, and just insulting someone instead of proving him wrong is just the same. Real trolls will be banned inevitably, don't worry.

Eh.. sorry about that BN. I'll keep that in mind. Sometimes you don't need to give someone a time or day because its not worth it. If they had any interesting view points and not just the "nma people are assholes" maybe I would give them a piece of my mind. But oh well. Peace!

 

[PaladinHeart]

I've always felt like it was a "no no" to discuss things like this in the past though, because of people like RfaS at DaC, who would rather lambast you with a plethora of f-this and f-that than discuss any possible change to the original system.

You were being a moron, (you even went so far as to delete your original post). Then you tried being clever (but ended up looking really stupid) and I just lost it. Check my post history at any forum and that post was the exception. There's only so much stupidity I can take.

The Fallout Tactics Editing forums at DaC always felt like the only decent place to go. Everyone there seemed pretty reasonable and helpful when it come to discussions.

I decided to go have an open-minded discussion in the Fallout 3 suggestions forum. I figured Fallout fans could be somewhat reasonable. The people taking part in the discussion seemed confused that I could actually change my mind and agree with some of the points they were making. They would rather have an argument than to actually convince someone else their of their view, or even discuss it.

I was ready for all that. What I was NOT ready for was one of the people from the FOT editing forum coming along and joining them. To say that I felt like someone stabbed me in the back would be an understatement.

I deleted my post because I decided to let you win. I learned early on in life that the little kid who cries the loudest always seems to get their way.

So now it seems the tables are turned and there is apparently no discussing the matter of getting turn based combat into Fallout 3

It seems clear that there was never a chance to get TB combat in. They can't exactly say they didn't know what the original fan base wanted when they bought the licence to make FO3, and on the other hand say we've had our minds made up for the last 10 years about the FO3 we wanted to see. It seems a common practice in the Film industry that when developing a new movie, that if there is a chance of a lawsuit for copyright infringement from a book etc. To buy the rights and slap the title on your movie, even if they have little in common beyond the basic premise.

I agree. Strangely enough from what I've read of them talking about the VATS system, it sounds as though they actually COULD make it turn based, or easily have an option to do so, but just don't want to. When they were talking about VATS they mentioned that kills made in slow motion have various factors that they can change. They mentioned the player's speed, the "rest of the world's" speed, and that of the person/critter's death in slow motion. They could take these same effects and also apply them to whenever the player uses VATS, slowing down the rest of the world by 100% and thus allowing full TB combat with little to no effort involved on their part. AND no risk since they could add it as an option. Why not? It just seems to me like they are saying, "No you have to walk down our yellow brick road. We're not turning the moving walkway on for you. We think it's better this way. We could turn it on but.. nah. You'll like it better if you walk. We promise!.. and it's fun!"

I find some small satisfaction in the drastic departure from Fallout's combat because I know it very much displeases people like RfaS, even though I myself would have preferred Turn Based ISO combat. I know I really shouldn't have such spiteful thoughts. Anyways...

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Yeah well I admitted I was being spiteful. At least I'm not a coward who would join in a 10 vs 1 discussion on the side of the 10 people. You know what I would do if I didn't agree with that one person? I'd stay out of it.

The combat isn't nearly as important as the setting, storyline, different ways to complete quests, freedom, etc.. though. There' so much more that's more important (to me anyway).

It's a game, gameplay i.e. combat is just as important as anything else. If the game is rubbish to play are you really going to stick with it to find out more of the story? But games with dumb stories and poor settings can still attract gamers if the gameplay has something to offer.

Yeah. But if you've played similar games in the past then there can be little no driving force without a good story and memorable characters. Take FFXII for example. The gameplay was fun for a while, but after a certain point you realize that all the characters are bland, the storyline is crap, and you just want it to end already.

A lot of the NPC's in Fallout added to the game because they had a lot of personality. If I were to go and attempt to kill numerous deathclaws or do multiple caravan runs then the gameplay quickly becomes boring. Thankfully there was other stuff to do in Fallout besides the combat (which can quickly feel like a console RPG's combat if you're wondering around, going back and forth on the minimap to get more encounters).

Not saying I played that way (will I did try it in a few of my play throughs of the Fallout games). I'm just pointing out that no matter how good the combat is, it can get boring if you're always doing the same things to the same enemies.

Setting really only becomes the yardstick to judge by when you are comparing similar game types. Someone into WWII games might buy all types of game but more likely you'll have those into WWII shooters who'll be happier playing COD 4 than Close Combat.

Actually I don't really care that much about the setting as long as it's somewhat unique and hasn't been done to death (like WWII games where you kill one Nazi after another). Even something that's been done to death (WWII) can be interesting if they at least change something in the formula (Resistance: The Fall of Man).

-----

Hmm.. the comments here lately remind me a bit much of DaC. Lots of cussing and very little reasoning. It's easy to see why the press has generalized Fallout fans as being closed-minded.

I basically feel that the exploration could have been upgraded to First Person, but that the combat should have retained the Isometric third person view.

FPP exploration is cumbarsome when compared to Isometric exploration. Especially with WASD. I mean, exploration with actually walking through the terrain with blurry textures and limited field of view?
I played in such perspective in games like Strife and Amulets & Armour and I don't want to repeat the experience.

Apples and oranges. If you want a REALLY cumbersome FP RPG then what about Betrayal at Krondor? Great game though. I think I know what you're talking about though. I never really got into games like Strife and Amulets & Armor (though I did play the Strife demo I never purchased/played the full game).

Another cumbersome example is the FPP of D&D: Warriors of the Eternal Sun. I could play the ISO TB part of that game all day but when it come to exploring the various caves and dungeons in that game, it was an utterly ridiculously painful experience, to say the least.

Yeah. I know what you're saying, but I also feel as though some things work better in First Person. It's all purely aesthetic though, to me at least. As long as it's not an ISO camera that you can tilt and such (like NWN, Dungeon Siege, etc..). I have yet to play a single game that uses that camera style that I have thoroughly enjoyed. Basically, if they're going with 3D tech (which they are) then I would prefer first person exploration, with a switch to ISO TB when it comes to combat.. But I doubt they could pull off anything like that since they're afraid to move very far from Oblivion's tech.

Hmm.. the comments here lately remind me a bit much of DaC. Lots of cussing and very little reasoning. It's easy to see why the press has generalized Fallout fans as being closed-minded.

That's weird, to me, DaCists seem to be dangerously open to heresy.

Anyway, Bethesda propaganda machine generalised us as being close minded in times when we made long posts with rational arguments.
Comments are shorter, because people care less. We know that Fallout 3 is a heresy, blasphemy, abomination, basically a disgusting corruption of all things good and Fallout.

Posting the same arguments hundreds and hundreds of times is absurdal, just as caring for every word that Bethesda says. That's why there's less reasoning and more cussing.

That's good, because otherwise we would have to start cutting ourselves or something.

That's understandable, I guess. But people are still people. You never know when you might steer a new (or old) community member away.

And yeah, about the the Beth Propaganda, they promised soooo much in Oblivion that they didn't deliver. It's hard to take anything they promise about Fallout 3 seriously. If Beth were to suddenly say they are going to include a TB option in FO3 I'm sure many an eyebrow would be raised in doubt.

But anyways.. Just saying that since many communities such as DaC harbor a HUGE amount of obscenity-based fans that are vehemently opposed to ANY changes at all then it stands to reason that anyone who would end up acquiring the license wouldn't really want to take those fans thoughts, ideas, etc..

That's a nonsense. If fans are vehemently opposed to ANY changes, how they can have ideas for F3?
That's another example of stupid, dumb, idiotic, moronic, totally retarded lying, deceitful Bethesda's propaganda.
We have our own ideas for changes based on what Fallout is, not on wet dreams for marketing and console boys.

Well you can be opposed to improvements to the combat system, while having ideas for quests, items, etc.. that don't really "change" the actual gameplay. Not really what I wanted to say though... Umm.. let me reword that.

If a community as a whole is pretty much well-known for cracking jokes about "Morrowind with gun" then you probably aren't going to take their concerns about keeping true to the Fallout series seriously. I mean we haven't exactly been kind to their extremely highly reviewed sandbox games which are plagued with bad AI, undelivered promises, and silly minigames.

I can see the issues from both sides and I see the best outcome being from Bethesda actually listening to the concerns and ideas of the Fallout fanbase. If they refuse to do that then nobody wins.

By the time Fallout 3 hits the market, the stores are already going to be well-stocked with similar games that use "bullet time" style slow motion effects in a post apocalyptic setting. Games that will have more appeal to action gamers than another "sandbox" game that Bethesda might have to offer.

Sure. It might be an okay game, but if you don't have the Fallout fans then you don't really have anything. Just look at FO: BOS. It appealed to action gamers. I actually purchased it for about $7 or less (brand new, shipping included) and it's actually not that bad.. but it was a huge failure because the company didn't listen to their fanbase.

An even better example was Fallout Tactics. It was a pretty good game but still it didn't sell good because it wasn't what the fans wanted. You have to please the core fans or you're going to get sunk.

It's like what would happen if.. what's their name? Eh. Well anyways. Let's say they decide to cancel the next Civ game and instead make Civilization: Rise of the Peasant. A game that plays like Fable. Is it going to do any good? No.. why? Because you alienate the core fanbase and the people who might like your game aren't fond of the Civ series and don't even give it a 2nd glance.

The same thing is going to happen with Fallout 3. Alienate the fanbae. Action gamers will be turned off by the RPG elements. Next gen console gamers will have better games to choose (such as Uncharted: Drake's Fortune).

Oh well. At least Bethesda's employees will have a game that "they" like to play.. that's "fun" for them. They just won't have any money.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Yeah well I admitted I was being spiteful. At least I'm not a coward who would join in a 10 vs 1 discussion on the side of the 10 people. You know what I would do if I didn't agree with that one person? I'd stay out of it.

Er excuse me but I was the second person to reply to your little fantasy about creeping up on a Super Mutant in FP (the first to offer a rebuttal to your points). And I vehemently disagreed with the line you were peddling that just because Fallout's an RPG the viewpoint and mechanics were disposable. I didn't jump into the middle of the conversation nor the bandwagon.

Yeah. But if you've played similar games in the past then there can be little no driving force without a good story and memorable characters.

If the game mechanics are so bad, if someone made a Deus Ex clone with nerfed combat that looked like a shooter. Played like a shooter but really had a silly combat system that relied on some random dice rolls to determine if you hit your target (desp ite lining up a perfect head shot) are you really going to keep playing in the hope that it has a brilliantly written story or memorable characters? A great story will draw you in, but a some point you're going to run out of hair to tear out when your sniper character still can't hit the side of a barn despite being a reasonable shooter player yourself. On the other hand games with simple or no storylines can provide hours of fun with deep gameplay.

You don't care about settings, so what about Fallout do you like? What motivates you to post on a fansite? Offer me two similar games in different settings I'll go with the setting I like the most. Offer me two different game types in the same setting I'll go for the game type I prefer.