Does Fallout 3 meet the criteria to be called Fallout?

H

Humpsalot

Still Mildly Glowing
I’ve read a lot of complaining about "How could they call this fallout? It doesn't have x, y, z." Well some would argue that it still have A thru W which say it is qualified to be called a Fallout sequel.


Classic fallout vs. current fallout:


Point of View (pov)

Big issues among the diehard classic fallout games (fallout 1 and 2)

Fallout 1/2 is isometric like that of Final Fantasy Tactics (FFT) or Soldiers at War (SaW). Turn based strategy.
Vs.
Fallout 3 is first/third person like resident evil. Action with Leveling, of sorts, thru weapons/armor/health extensions.

Most of you would have to look up FFT and SaW to even know what I was talking about, and SaW series died out and Turn based strategies are not "next gen" they are on handhelds and where only moderately popular in the 20th century. Bethesda HAD to bring Fallout into the 21st hardcore fans don’t want to see the Fallout name die do they? Interplay went bankrupt trying to make the same game over and over and fallout was dead in all meaning of the word and Bethesda revived it. They had to make FO3 next gen compatible. Moving pov had to be done or game would have re-died.

Also take the example of Grand Theft Auto (gta) now I see you thinking "Wait, grand theft auto was always third person roaming" wrong, so wrong. The original GTA by Rockstar was God view, where u were looking down at the top of people’s heads, and it looked like you were driving mico machines. It was fun, the first one was fun the second one was fun... then the third one? Was brought up to speed with gaming. Do people miss the old top of view? Yeah, but they can go replay the original GTA, and people who miss fallout 1/2 can go back and do the same.
________________________________________________________________________________

Battle

Turn based strategy

Vs

First person shooter with cool time stopping abilities. OR First person turn based strategy, based on how you play it.


Turn based strategies are fun for some, I like them, and I loved fallout 1/2. But they are last gen, if that. But let us talk more on the actual battle of FO 1/2 vs. FO 3 (which I think a lot of hardcore fans are least happy that they changed this portion of game). FO 1/2 mostly was move, shoot, shoot, tank shots, shoot, shoot, enemy dies, maybe run and heal up (which never worked for me they chased me down or shot me and killed me anyway) or just heal and tank the damage. Very slow action, which is why most turn based strategies have died, and I don’t want fallout to die, I want fallout 4. Remember how fallout 1/2 were as good games, if u want to go back and play them over and over, no one is stopping you, so don’t try to stop the progression of fallout.

Vs

Fallout 3 battle system can’t really be categorized into any 1 category. ITS FPS.... wrong if u don’t level that sniper rifle at all, out of 100 shots from this gun aimed in first person mode directly at the head will hit 1% of the time. Anyone who plays this as a first person shooter and never level anything and never use VATS, I’d like to see them beat this game.

It’s RPG, Fallout 1 and 2 were rpgs, you get S.P.E.C.I.A.L (strength, perception, endurance, charisma, intelligence, agility, luck) and so is fallout 3. If u want to ROLE PLAY as if fallout 3 is fallout 1 and 2, here is what you can do. When battle happens 1) Shoot you weapon in VATS until you are out of action points, then 2) wait and sit there and take hits from enemies until the 10 to 20 seconds it takes to recharge your action points, then 3) Go into VATS and return fire, then 4) wait and take bullets until your points fill up, then 5) Back to VATS and use a stim pack to heal 6) take damage 7) return fire......... repeat till everything is dead for EVERY encounter... slow huh? Time consuming? Very!!! Slow? Bethesda tried this, it was entirely too slow paced the game would have re-died.

"Oh but I can’t use my action points to move forward"

I'll give you that, but I will also give you a crutch to fix that. If you want to go hide behind a car to heal up and buy some time by "line of sighting" the enemy and you want to roll play this and want your movements to use action points, go walk behind that car and take out a bat, or some other physical weapon and go into vats and swing it until you use up the action points you deem fit for the move you just took.

Vs.

How Bethesda intended it to be played, blow up random encounters via run and gun and VATS, and when boss and hard fights come you will mostly be using VATS.

________________________________________________________________________________

Content

Fallout 1/2 vs. Fallout 3


Fallout 1/2. Violence, gore, hookers, SPECIAL, guns, energy guns, innovative guns, slapstick humor, becoming a porn star, slapstick humor where it's funny but takes you out of character and distracting.

Vs.

Fallout 3. Violence, gore, hookers, SPECIAL, guns, energy guns, innovative guns, slapstick humor.
Uh oh you can't become a porn star, uh oh no mighty python references, we can’t call this game fallout!!!! WRONG. Yes that was a memorable scene that I looked forward to every play thru, but it did take me out of character and distracted me completely from what I was doing. Its bitter sweet not having random off topic craziness happen. But to stay true the Role Playing Game it did take away from the role playing. Like I said Fallout might not have xyz, but it will A-W and will add AA-WW and 1-2-3.

Most other walking around making decisions to help or hurt are intact.


________________________________________________________________________________


Marketing

Fallout 1/2 vs. Fallout 3



Fallout 1/2. Innovative, provocative/edgy, silly, overly silly at times. It sold well and has a cult following. Could be played on any computer better then a gameboy.

Vs.

Fallout 3. Innovative, maybe not as proactive/edgy, silly enough, not too silly. I predict will sell well, and be game of the year. Will continue and gain ground on the cult following. And another sore spot for hardcore gamers: They feel that Bethesda made it into a new view ONLY to sell more games make it more marketable. Yes, and no. It will be more marketable in this form, but that is not why Bethesda made the POV change. It was the next step in evolution just like GTA. It was the only way this game would have worked for NextGen console, it is the only way the series gets to live on. So yes to make it more marketable, but to make it more marketable so it can live.

Fallout 1/2 were the books, Fallout 3 is the movie based on the books. Bringing characters and ideas to 3d life.


________________________________________________________________________________

Price

FO 1/2 vs. FO 3



Fallout 1/2 you could run on a graphing calculator

Fallout 3 takes a nice PC or Xbox 360 or PS3.

Some hardcore fans of the old series have not upgraded their computers in the last 15 years. If FO fans from 10 years ago only liked FO games and therefore had no reason to upgrade their system they are met with a problem, spend 300+ on a NextGen console or 500+ on a computer good enough to play this new FO or ...complain. This is the source for a lot of complaint from the fans of the old game. If they cannot afford it they have to bitch and find short comings, because if they can't enjoy it, no one can. Misery loves company. Fallout 3 had to move into the future, sorry if you can't afford it, just the way it is, please keep the moaning to a minimal.

________________________________________________________________________________

Oblivion with guns.

Oblivion Vs Fallout 3

Oblivion was an RPG with stats and leveling certain "tagged" stats just like Fallout 1/2/3. Who is to say if Bethesda didn’t get ideas from Fallout 1/2 what RPG hasn't gotten some ideas from fallout 1/2 since 1997? Fallout 1/2 had only slightly different stats then Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) who is to say fallout 1/2 didn't get some of its ideas from D&D? What RPG since hasn't?

Fallout 3. It is hard to deny the similarities between Oblivion's and Fallout 3's game play. It's hard to deny the similarities between many RPG games and Oblivion they took fallout ideas and moved them into a modern day RPG, I have already addressed that this was the only way to keep Fallout alive.

________________________________________________________________________________


Closing.

I would like to hear from anyone who wants to say Fallout 3 does not have the right to call itself a Fallout game and your reasoning being your observation. Please make your observations different than the ones I have already addressed. I'm a big fan of both the old Fallouts and I want younger gamer to experience the new Fallout, so I’m trying to put this argument to rest.
 
You don't discuss choice and consequence, dialogue, quest structure, storytelling structure, RPG system, and you expect anyone to take you seriously?

Please.

Heck, you're not even structuring an argument. You just list a bunch of facts, badly prove them and then set up straw men to push down.

And Jesus H. Christ, you call Fallout 3's RTwP system turn-based because you can chose to sit there idly taking bullets even though the game definitely isn't balanced for that? Do you even know what turn-based means?

Anyway, it's simple enough. Fallout 3 does not meet the criteria for a Fallout game as explained by Fallout's designers.

Closing.

Your "arguments" are often false, failing to understand what Fallout is based on (GURPS, not D&D, genius), failing to understand that Oblivion is based on a TES series older than Fallout, failing to understand that the first TES was first-person and real-time, so Bethesda is adapting Fallout to standards from a game older than Fallout.

It's funny. Your argument comes down "Comparison. Look, it's different. But that doesn't matter get with the times!" Are you serious? You seem to think this was an intelligent post you made. Honestly, do you?
 
U have some valid points but u missed some of mine.

With the turn based thing, i was saying that is an option u can explore if u chose, their turn would be shooting you while your AP move up and your turn would be in VATS.

I didnt say FO or oblivion was based on D&D just that they got some ideas from it. all rpgs do.

I either discussed consequences briefly or i didnt discuss them at all bc as far as ive seen FO 1/2 consequence/dialogue/quest looks very similar as FO3, will see soon.

I do just state facts, how can you argue against facts?

I have some good points and so do u about my post
 
Humpsalot said:
With the turn based thing, i was saying that is an option u can explore if u chose, their turn would be shooting you while your AP move up and your turn would be in VATS.
Click to expand...

That doesn't work. Fallout 3 is balanced for you to combine VATS and FPS, the game is balanced for you to move away and take defensive actions, not just stand there and be shot at. You stand around while your APs reload, you're going to be dead. That's 100% common sense, man, the game is real-time, not turn-based, so it's balanced for real-time, not for turn-based.

Humpsalot said:
I didnt say FO or oblivion was based on D&D just that they got some ideas from it. all rpgs do.
Click to expand...

Of course all RPGs do, but Fallout is not similar to Oblivion except in the most superficial way. Fallout is a pen and paper emulating RPG. Oblivion is an action-adventure with roguelike/RPG elements. They're about as dissimilar as you can get.

Not all RPGs are similar. Fallout does not play like Gothic, just like it does not play like Jade Empire or Oblivion. So the fact that Fallout 3 looks like Oblivion is in fact evidence that it does not look like Fallout.

Humpsalot said:
I either discussed consequences briefly or i didnt discuss them at all bc as far as ive seen FO 1/2 consequence/dialogue/quest looks very similar as FO3, will see soon.
Click to expand...

Not really. We've already seen a lot of design decisions that point to Fallout 3 holding your hand, giving you a second chance to rethink your choice every time, rather than the harsh choice and consequence of Fallout 1/2. In other words: very different.

Humpsalot said:
I do just state facts, how can you argue against facts?
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing against facts. I'm arguing against the illogical conclusions you're drawing, which are often completely separated from your facts.

Seriously, think about your own logic here.
Bethesda HAD to bring Fallout into the 21st hardcore fans don’t want to see the Fallout name die do they? Interplay went bankrupt trying to make the same game over and over and fallout was dead in all meaning of the word and Bethesda revived it. They had to make FO3 next gen compatible. Moving pov had to be done or game would have re-died.

How is that an argument that Fallout 3 isn't wildly different from Fallout? It isn't. It's an argument of why Fallout 3 is different from Fallout, all it does is prove that it is.

Most of your post is like that. All you're doing is proving Fallout 3 is nothing like Fallout and then make excuses for it. So basically you agree with us: Fallout 3 is very different from Fallout.
 
yes its different, obviously. Im not argueing that its NOT different, its obviously not isometric. im trying to play devils advocate here, its different perspective wise, but what else? Im trying to figure out how everyone is acting like they are trying to sell you herpes.

I guess i wrote this to get just this type of informative answer. So everyone is pissed that since they put some fallout type graphics that they want to call it a sequel? imo it has more then just some pipboys.

But i do have one major thing id like to ask you. What would they have to have done to make you happy?

Isometric? or do u realize that is just a dead art?

No holding hands? i can see that the game will not be so hardcore and unforgiving.

What would they have to add to make it better?

What exactly makes fallout 1/2 fallout and what does fallout 3 not do or do too much of that makes it so unworthy?

It's post apocolipse, it's guns, it's gore, it's vaults, it's killing to get stuff done(or talking your way around it), mutants, it's leveling, it's different choices, stem backs, jet, drugs, hookers, power armor, it's NPC companions, karma, you can aim at certain body parts (not crotch, which is one thing im not happy about, that is a legit target in any book) but what else do you want to make it worthy of its name?

I guess the perfect answer would be a bullet point list of things you think are required to be in a game to be considered a fallout game and ill see how many of those things i can/can't match up with the current info out there.

I guess 2 big ones would be 1) not isometic, 2) not turn based, but I think a legit argument for that is that those are both mediocre genres to try to do NextGen with. I also realize that those 2 I just mentioned are BIG parts of what fallout was, I am just trying to find out what else is missing.

these are serious questions, and im not mocking in any way.

ps: and i agree that my suggestion to try to force it into a turn based thing would be extremely imbalanced, just trying to give ideas that might make some people happy. Another thing im not happy with is since its said you can play this game entirely in "FPS" mode (as long as u lvled the weapons) but there is no option to play it entirely in "turn based mode", yes i understand that Bestesda tried entirely in "turn based mode" at first and it seemed slow to THEM, but maybe some people would like that, at least make it a viable option. Would u like to play A) All Turn based B) FPS or C) Hybrid.
 
Humpsalot said:
I guess 2 big ones would be 1) not isometic, 2) not turn based, but I think a legit argument for that is that those are both mediocre genres to try to do NextGen with. I also realize that those 2 I just mentioned are BIG parts of what fallout was, I am just trying to find out what else is missing.
Click to expand...

This sounds a lot like trolling but anyway...

Fallout 3 is not a worthy sequel because it fucks up the setting of previous Fallout games (not counting Craptics and FOPOS, which fucked up the setting as well). And with setting, I don't mean the location or the general atmosphere of FO and FO2, but basically the 'core' of those games: what story did they tell, how did that story explain the presence of certain groups in the game (BoS, mutants, ...) as well as the presence of certain items (Power Armour, guns, expensive and rare ammo, ...). The setting is what makes a gameworld a complex, yet logical and meaningful unity of people, items, occurences, actions, and so on.
In short: Bethesda does not respect the setting from FO and FO2. They've proven that by, for instance, putting the character creation screen into your PipBoy3000 as well as all the VaultBoy illustrations, which is unthinkable because in previous games these gadgets were made by two different companies. Another example is the fact that Bethesda has revived The Enclave while the ending of FO2 made it perfectly clear that they were wiped out completely. Bethesda's Brotherhood of Steel has also changed. Once the reclusive keepers of ancient technology, they have now become a sort of wasteland do-gooders that help the people. And so on.
In fact: the whole main story of FO3 almost denies everything that has happened in the Fallout universe so far. And that's not good. At all.

Another major issue with FO3 is the game mechanics. Yes: the old games were TB iso RPG's. There's no need to refer to those game mechanics as being old gen. They were used for a reason. Don't forget that 3D games were already around at the time FO was made. The developers could have used those to transform their ideas into a working game. In fact, AFAIK the developers of FO had experience with 3D engines. The fact they used the form of an TB iso RPG is because that's exactly what they needed to translate their ideasand their SPECIAL system into something workable. And it was a wise choice because look at combat in FO and FO2 and tell me that's not the best combat in a game you've ever witnessed. It's incredibly well balanced en offers lots of gameplay fun and heaps of replayability. The top-down look offers you a chance to see the whole battlefield and think ahead, calculate your chances and so on. It's the perfect translation of a PnP RPG experience. That's what they were aiming for and that's exactly what the gamers got. Not a FPS, not a RTS, not some sort of hybrid, no: just a plain ol' good TB iso RPG.

It would be absurd to expect FO3 to be exactly the same as FO and FO2. Asking for a 2D engine, for instance, would be very purist. They simply don't make lots of 2D games anymore (if any). Isometric perspective isn't exactly dead, though. Titan Quest used it and that game didn't exactly sell bad, did it? All the Age of Empires games, even the newest ones, use isometric view. It may be a simplified form of perpective, but it's still commonly used, especially in games where tactical combat is a means of survival: scanning the battleground, planning your next move, ... You can't really do that in a FPS. FPS's thrive on shock and awe techniques, on adrenalin and your triggerfinger. That's a world of difference. And if you use a different engine for a new Fallout game you should remember that the original designers used a TB iso RPG to translate all their ideas into something workable and well-balanced. Meaning: you're gonna have to change those game mechanics. Ultimately meaning: you're fucking up the core of the game and eventually you'll fuck up the setting.

I would have loved to see a finished Van Buren. Sure, they fucked up some parts of the setting as well, but at least the game was iso, you could play in TB mode and the Vault dwellers all wore skintight Vault suits. Sure: The Enclave would still have been around, I guess, and sure: it would have had too much cars in it, but I had a pretty good overall feeling about it and so did a lot, I sense. Bethesda's FO3 is just wrong on so many levels, that it's not okay anymore. If you make a sequel to a game it's almost inevitable that you'll fuck up some details of it, but the core of the game should remain exactly as was. Bethesda did the exact opposite: they saved a few precious details, but fucked up the entire core of the game. You could go as far as saying they've made a new game and to sell it, they named it Fallout 3 and added some elements from the previous FO games, stuff like Power Armour and Stimpaks and mutants. Everything that ties these elements to the rest of the Fallout universe is, however, flawed. You still want to call that a worthy sequel? 'Cause I don't. :roll:

If I were to make the new Spiderman movie, Spiderman 4, and I only kept the Spiderman costume, the web shooters and Aunt May, making the rest into a pornographic musical thriller starring Jim Carey (as Peter Parker/Spiderman), Oprah Winfrey (as Aunt May), Minnie Driver (as Peter's red-headed girlfriend) and so on, and I had Superman guest-star in the movie, eating krytonite cereals and not dying from them - don't you think the fans would hate my guts?

'Nuff said.
 
Humpsalot said:
But i do have one major thing id like to ask you. What would they have to have done to make you happy?
Click to expand...

They would have to have started from the principle that they're making a pen and paper emulation RPG and not an open-world FPSRPG.

Start from there, and if you follow through logically and consistently, everything fixes itself.
 
Humpsalot said:
But i do have one major thing id like to ask you. What would they have to have done to make you happy?
Click to expand...
Change the name to "Fallout: X". X as something like "east coast" or "FPS" or whatever, but not Fallout 3.
As Fallout 3 I personally expect it to have connections to Fo1 and 2, but nooo. And the developers say "We're big fans". Big fans my a**. :roll:
 
Long day i wanted to reply to all of you.

First off thank you alec for your extremely well thought out answer. It was they type of response I was looking forward to.

1) the story, you can not yet say FO3 tells a bad or un parallel story. Or that they won't explain certain items. And maybe explain why enclave is back. The Sith seem to come back a lot after you think they are dead, haha. In a video i saw the guy playing say that he was tight with brotherhood of steel because he was playing the game in an evil way, or eluded to something along those lines. So the only good the brotherhood of steel are doing, as far as i can tell, is for themselves.

2) inconsistency of the pipboy/vaultboy maybe the companies merged... but most likely not, I am actually going to school to be a film continuity editor so this is a big pet peave of mine.

3) You are right about isometric not being a dead art form. You also left out huge titles like Command and Conquer. What i was really thinking was more of the TB isometric. Now that i have thought about it some more I would like to see Bethesda put in a viable way to play 3rd person TB, like i said before if u can play entirely as FPS why not the other end of the spectrum (the original spectrum at that).

What i also wanted to bring to yalls attention is that a high ranking Bethesda person is flaming Blizzard for making Diablo III just like Diablo I and II, and not reinventing it into being something more modern and edgy. Im excited for that game as well, Diablo II with better graphics, but I'm not sure whose side im on in that argument of 1) do i want the same thing but slightly better and slightly more innovative? or 2) do i want extremely innovative but nothing like past games? ... Well my answer for that instance is that i want it the way they are making it, just slightly better, and i guess id prefer FO3 the same way, just like fo2 but better graphics, BUT thats not going to happen thru Bethesda. And i guess the main point im trying to get across is that i would have like fallout 2.5, its unfortunately not going to happen, but how good is FO3 going to be? will the hardcore fans get past it just like GTA 3? Or is there nothing that FO3 can do to cure a lot of peoples bitterness?

I guess it will always boil down to a GTA 1/2 vs GTA 3 argument. I dont think GTA could have progressed without the change. Maybe they should have called if Fallout: DC (a la GTA: Vice City). It being called a sequel? i guess im really starting to get on your side on this one, its not a true continuation of the game design.

Will i play it? Absolutely i bought a new computer before i knew anything about the gameplay, the millisecond i heard a new fallout was coming out i had decided to get a new computer for it (thought it was going to be only PC), i was disappointed when i saw the game play at first, but it grew on me very quickly.

So to sum everything up. A fantastic game i think it will be. Sequel? I see everyones point of they shouldn't have called it that. Is it fallout? I'm still saying yes, it will have hundreds or thousands of the same things as the originals. Fallout 1/2 where the books, fallout 3 will be the movie based on the books. This game might have been equally flamed if it just did produce basically the same thing as Fallout 1/2, and still IMO it would not have been profitable enough to make Fallout 4, and id rather see a first person FO3 and FO4 then no FO4 at all. Will be extremely interested to see how Interplay designs the MMO.
 
I think that Blizzard has MORE than proved that there is often no reason to deviate too far from a previous success.

The idea that a game released today that was isometric turn based like Fallout 1 or 2 can't be profitable is just plain incorrect. Diable III, as you mention, will be 3rd person isometric, and I guarentee that it will sell like hot-cakes.

Also, look at Startcraft II. They are changing very little (no new races, not many new units, etc) and sales of Starcraft II in Korea will probably outsell FO3 global sales.

Why is Beth moving the franchise into Elder Scroll's style gameplay? Simple: it's all that they can do.
 
rcorporon said:
Simple: it's all that they can do.
Click to expand...
I've thought this too. Maybe Bethesda guys really don't know how to make it work in isometric, maybe they just don't have the skills and when Blizzard does they whine.
 
What made fallout fallout(at least, in my opinion) was the immersion,tabletop like pnp system, storyline, isometric/board style combat and of coarse quirky black comedy and well written dialogues. 50's perfectville satire(but not to the point where every single thing is 50's designed, not going overboard with it.) It almost seems like bethesda is in a way, reducing the game system to it's barest minimum and then grossly exaggerating certain aspects of it to make it seem "fallouty".

Think of it this way, someone gives you a recipe for a soup, the soup consists of essential things and some good toppings, like say (in the case of italian wedding soup) shredded romano cheese and meatballs, now, if there's too much cheese, then it's just a sloppy mess, without the stock base, it's just meat and cheese, too much meat then it's just a solid mass of meat absorbing stock and so on and so on. Now in the context of the soup(being the fallout franchise and the cook (being bethesda)It equals to this; the cook, decides to maybe read half the recipe,wing it, and throw those ingredients into a pot with reckless abandon. The soup ends up being overcooked, missing half of it's ingredients or it has too much of one thing and not enough of another. Or it may just have completely different Ingredients put in place of the missing ones.

Now this entire seemingly pointless analogy of food and a beloved franchise means this: the soup tastes like shit and fallout 3 will never, ever, be considered a "real" sequel.

You don't put fucking hotdogs in italian wedding soup and remove what makes it what it is. Same thing with fallout. Don't call it fallout if it doesn't have what makes it fallout.
 
Humpsalot said:
1) do i want the same thing but slightly better and slightly more innovative? or 2) do i want extremely innovative but nothing like past games?
Click to expand...

You're mixing up innovation and change. If a change is just to what everyone else is doing, then it's not innovation.
 
You say that offtopic content made you constantly feel OOC. In my opinion, it's the greatest thing about Fallout - that specific sort of black humor mixed with easter eggs.
And anyone who played Morrowind and/or Oblivion knows, that bethseda sucks at humour (as well as animation).

But anyway, I wanted to say something different. Do you know Baldurs Gate 1&2? Awesome "old gen" rpg games. Developer "died", and Bioware decided to make sequel. Yep, Neverwinter Nights. Great game (I've spend like 2 years playing online on rpg server :crazy: ), and very different than bg.
You can preety much call it next generation of rpg (comparing to inifnity powered games). But it's not called bg3. Same world, familiar setting (definatly less hardcore rpg) but different game. I know that there are more games based on d&d+forgotten realms. But, after all, Neverwinter Nights was announced in one of the Baldurs Gate 2 loading screens. Still, no one is trying to tell that this is next bg (even if it technically is).

And I think that this should happen to the Fallout 3. It will surely be a great game, but c'mon, not the next Fallout. Unfortunately , Bethseda wanted to get piece of "the legendary fallout" cake.

Hope you get what I mean.
 
lodowy said:
But anyway, I wanted to say something different. Do you know Baldurs Gate 1&2? Awesome "old gen" rpg games. Developer "died", and Bioware decided to make sequel. Yep, Neverwinter Nights.
Click to expand...

This isn't quite correct. Bioware started development of BG2 and NwN roughly at the same time, probably towards the end of the BG development (look for the Lord Foreshadow character who drops hints of both games). NwN took much longer to come out since it was based on a new engine and changed direction somewhat during development. It was never intended to have anything to do with BG except for the D&D license. Also, Black Isle, the developer that "died", had only partial involvement in BG and less in BG2.
 
Well, probably that's right. But message is still the same: if you add number to the game title should continue it's predecessor tradition (just like mentioned earlier Star Craft 2) as much as possible. For example Half Life 2. It's different in many many ways from Half Life, but still has its spirit.


ps. I liked gta much more in 2d. They were soooo much fun, like constant rampage. GTA 3+ are cool too, but should be named differently (or at least have started new count)
 
Vice City, San Andreas, Liberty City Stories and Vicy City Stories are sequals to GTA III, so they aren't called IV, V, VI or VII.
And I wouldn't say that GTA I was better than GTA 3+, but GTA II is pretty fun tbh.
 
ok, so Fallout 3 is a VERY different game then the originals. to some thats a good thing, to others its bad.

but just because you don't like this fallout. doesn't mean its not fallout. i hated the phantom menace. that doesn't make it not star wars. just crappy star wars.

and whether the game will be crappy or not, thats unknown because its not out yet.

so yes, Fallout 3 is indeed and always will be a fallout game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top