Don't Buy the Hype

[Ah-Teen]

Fallout would be pretty awesome as an FPS so I don't understand what you guys are arguing about. The isometric view is pretty stupid and outdated and doesn't stand up much to real-time combat. I have full confidence that Bethesda can make a good Fallout game as seen in their trailer for the game, yep.

I'm bored, I want to comment on this.

I've played fallout in first person... It was called The Wastes: A modification for Half-Life.

I never knew it was based on fallout until a friend of mine pointed it out to me. At which point I went, "HOLYSHIT, thats fallouty, and that is, and that is...."

My point is consistency in games is important.

-----------

Now I shall proceed to bash the shit out of you you combat monkey whore. Even though you've been banned.

Heres you in turnbased *bang bang* "WTF? Why can't I do anything? Fucking game, fucking this that and the other"

Heres me. *turn up combat speed* *Think about my move* *fire once with my rifle, fire once with me trusty revolver, reload* * End of turn*

You in FPS twitch land *Run in guns blazing shooting anything that moves... including team mates... Kinda like my nephew who is 8.*

Me in your twitchy FPS land *Considers layout of map* *camps* *single burst to your head*

You again "DIRTY HAXORZ" *gets headshotted again because you can't keep your mouth shut*

Me big boss! ME RULE BARTER TOWN!

Ok, I'll leave the poor banned thing to his grave of ignorance and bad taste.

 

[Neamos]

Good post.

Why'd Bradylama stop posting?

 

[Cromlech]

Fallout 3: What's with all the hype?

Heh. I shouldn't be surprised really, considering how they are marketing the game.

 

[Kissker]

From what I've seen of screenshots foot notes and the like, Fallout 3 will be very successful and still please Vaultees.

I'll admit, I didn't read the entire post, too darn wordy for my taste, but I get your points, some of them.

The real thing is...and I don't mean to step on toes or anything, specially those extra toes... but uh... we won't know how well it plays and how much it breaks from the "Fallouts we love" until it hits... now will we?

Oct 8, 2008. I will be playing, providing shipments aren't delayed. Even if its another "Tactics" to me.. yes I'll be disappointed ... but then again I won't... theres too many features I've read on that have my hyped up for it, Gun damage/jam/conditions, armor repair/tinkering, Modifications within the game itself to make YOUR character YOURS.... and if they include the editor (which they are still debating) for the PC, I have a feeling its gonna hit harder then Sims2

 

[Sander]

The real thing is...and I don't mean to step on toes or anything, specially those extra toes... but uh... we won't know how well it plays and how much it breaks from the "Fallouts we love" until it hits... now will we?

Yes, because it is obviously impossible to judge the information that Bethesda has released willingly.

 

[PlanHex]

Oct 8, 2008.

Wait, have they announced a release date? Did I miss something, or did this guy just pick some random date?

 

[Ah-Teen]

From what I've seen of screenshots foot notes and the like, Fallout 3 will be very successful and still please Vaultees.

Vaultees? You mean the fan boys that popped out of holes as soon as Bethesda announced they were working on a new big game?

Yes it will be successful, just like oblivion was. If you consider successful in terms of money made and games sold in the first month. Thats how oblivion was considered successful. They made a their game look like god in the media and they sold and sold and sold in the first couple months.

I'll admit, I didn't read the entire post, too darn wordy for my taste, but I get your points, some of them.

.... damn, say damn gosh dignit!

The real thing is...and I don't mean to step on toes or anything, specially those extra toes... but uh... we won't know how well it plays and how much it breaks from the "Fallouts we love" until it hits... now will we?

We already know how much it breaks. We've seen the screenshots and we've read the articles(unless they are too wordy for some of us <,,<)

The best we can hope for is that it won't be Fallout: POS 2.

Oct 8, 2008. I will be playing, providing shipments aren't delayed. Even if its another "Tactics" to me.. yes I'll be disappointed ... but then again I won't... theres too many features I've read on that have my hyped up for it, Gun damage/jam/conditions, armor repair/tinkering, Modifications within the game itself to make YOUR character YOURS.... and if they include the editor (which they are still debating) for the PC, I have a feeling its gonna hit harder then Sims2

Remember, they will hype it up to look like god.

Radient AI?
Mudcrabs?
Lipsink?
Voiceacting?

STUNTING HDR!!!

Worthless....

 

[Minigun Jim]

Yes it will be successful, just like oblivion was. If you consider successful in terms of money made and games sold in the first month.

Yep. That's how I consider sucessful. Units shifted, profits made. It's the definition of the sucess of a product. But that's not your point really. You want something that's as close as possible to the originals, and the originals were a frickin' work of art.

If everyone who loved FO1 and FO2 just sits around badmouthing FO3 before it comes out, then we'll have conviced ourselves to hate the game before we try it. That's bunk. What I've seen looks as close as you could get to the feel of Fallout in a 3d environment, but that's the least part of it. Until we see proper gameplay videos of trading and chatting it's not fair to go tearing the devs a new one. Of course, if they pull an Oblivion on the chat system, I'll be the first handing out the red-hot pokers .

Fallout endures because it's about choices and a story It's got fantastic gameplay, brilliant writing and multiple choices for everything, even when it's 3 dialogue options that ALL lead to combat . If bethdesa make something that sticks to that, then turn-based or not, it's Fallout 3 and worthy of it.

Although, regardless of the state of FO3, Bethedesa deserve a vitriolic torrent of abuse for not doing something with Van Buren. Selling it off, releasing the incomplete game to the community, making it as a PSP/DS game....

Actually, a Fallout game would be BRILLIANT on the DS, although likely to be a huge danger, causing distracted gamers walking under buses.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yep. That's how I consider sucessful. Units shifted, profits made. It's the definition of the sucess of a product.

I'll say this again:
After 11 years Fallout still sells. How many people do you think will still play, let alone buy, Oblivion in 11 years. I'll tell you: Zero.
Why? Because people who enjoy the type of game Oblivion is will just move on to the next shiny and forget about it. Oblivion has absolutely nothing to make it a classic, to make it something worth remembering.

Now tell me, what is more successful: A game that sells a lot during the first months following its release due only to hype or a game that is still re-released after 11 years?

 

[Sander]

If everyone who loved FO1 and FO2 just sits around badmouthing FO3 before it comes out, then we'll have conviced ourselves to hate the game before we try it. That's bunk. What I've seen looks as close as you could get to the feel of Fallout in a 3d environment, but that's the least part of it

Yes, because it's impossible to implement a similar art style or turn-based combat in a 3d environment.
Wat?

 

[Minigun Jim]

@feeltherads. Wow, fanboi fishing is easy. I KNEW if it put that in there it'd get quoted and flamed.
Thing is, you can't tell until you've got sales figures and history for both. If Oblivion's still attracting modders to develop it after 10 years, it's just as enduring a game as FO2. I *like* Oblivion. I also like Fallout enough to take an interest in the mods still in development for it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

@sander
Yeah, I got that wrong. I should have put "3d first person" setting. There's a big difference in how a game feels and plays in a first person and a top-down view. I don't think turn-based combat would work in a first person setting. It really needs that 3rd person "board game" layout so you can see what you're doing.
Also, Fallout was made when most PCs weren't capable of running all the combat figures real-time and handling 3d graphics. Now they can, it's a shame to say "oh well, best not use it as they didn't 10 years ago". The bullet time aiming system could be a good compromise there.

Don't count your mutants before they're dipped. We'll see how this goes in the autumn.

 

[Sander]

Yeah, I got that wrong. I should have put "3d first person" setting. There's a big difference in how a game feels and plays in a first person and a top-down view. I don't think turn-based combat would work in a first person setting. It really needs that 3rd person "board game" layout so you can see what you're doing.

Yes.
So why are you happy they have first-person view?

 

[Minigun Jim]

Why not?
If it makes a good game, it makes a good game. So long as you get the choices, the consequences, the humour and the complexity that made fallout a good game, it's fallout. Combat in Fallout was so bugged anyway (AP ammo, bad AI, explosive induced crashes) that it's the plot and character customisation that made it for me.

 

[Sander]

Why not?
If it makes a good game, it makes a good game. So long as you get the choices, the consequences, the humour and the complexity that made fallout a good game, it's fallout. Combat in Fallout was so bugged anyway (AP ammo, bad AI, explosive induced crashes) that it's the plot and character customisation that made it for me.

Turn-based combat *was* pretty much essential to the whole choices and consequences deal, y'know. The P&P experience and all that, which was the very core of Fallout.

Also, I might point out that Bethesda's track record on all those things you mention is absolutely abysmal, as is their track record on keeping promises.

 

[Brother None]

Why not?
If it makes a good game, it makes a good game. So long as you get the choices, the consequences, the humour and the complexity that made fallout a good game, it's fallout. Combat in Fallout was so bugged anyway (AP ammo, bad AI, explosive induced crashes) that it's the plot and character customisation that made it for me.

So wait...

Are you talking about what makes Fallout Fallout, or what you liked in Fallout?

 

[Ah-Teen]

@feeltherads. Wow, fanboi fishing is easy. I KNEW if it put that in there it'd get quoted and flamed.

You've just announced how much you like to flame bate.... I should say something... but I wont.

Thing is, you can't tell until you've got sales figures and history for both. If Oblivion's still attracting modders to develop it after 10 years, it's just as enduring a game as FO2. I *like* Oblivion. I also like Fallout enough to take an interest in the mods still in development for it. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. But they are comparable to each other.

I'm sorry, but they are still attracting moders? Morrwind's moding community is still attracting moders. Nothing big and new has come out of morrowind's mod community since oblivion.

The biggest thing that I got from oblivions moding community was the nude patch, one of slof's kitties, and a mod with new weapons.

After spending a week trying out new mods... I only kept three new mods. This wasn't two years ago, this was two months ago. The growing mod community is a bunch of twats who play with the TES editor and lay their spew out for all to see.

Morrowind mods. I have roughly 50 and then some of my own half assed attempts.

@sander
Yeah, I got that wrong. I should have put "3d first person" setting. There's a big difference in how a game feels and plays in a first person and a top-down view. I don't think turn-based combat would work in a first person setting. It really needs that 3rd person "board game" layout so you can see what you're doing.

Also, Fallout was made when most PCs weren't capable of running all the combat figures real-time and handling 3d graphics. Now they can, it's a shame to say "oh well, best not use it as they didn't 10 years ago". The bullet time aiming system could be a good compromise there.

Fallout's complicated computations can be run through by hand, with pen and paper, in a reasonable amount of time. Hard core pen and paper roll players factor in lighting, distance, cover and size of the target.

THIS is why iso-metric turn based was chosen.

If that don't look familiar, you haven't played fallout.

 

[Minigun Jim]

You've just announced how much you like to flame bate.... I should say something... but I wont.

Oh, yes. I find that putting in one thing I know will act as flamebait to a classic fanboy but not someone looking for a genuine discussion helps me pick them out. If he'd bothered to discuss any of the other points I made, or discuss it reasonably he'd have passed. Besides, I stand by that point. Being a successful game and being a brilliant and interesting game aren't the same. See the massive success of Minesweeper . Simple, not that interesting, but playable at work
Thing is, I'm bothered that a new dev team could screw up Fallout again (BoS, to a lesser degree Tactics), but this thread's ironically as much about hype as The FO3 site. It's just going the other way. I'd rather judge FO3 on its own merits. If it works as a real-time game, then great. If not, then throw it down the abandoned mineshaft with FO:BoS.

Actually, you're right on the P&P RPG base. Whoops. I forgot it was originally going to be run using GURPS. Talking of that, does anyone know if there's a finished version of the Fallout PnP game anywhere yet? Oh, and that picture? That's not a hex grid...

As for the mods, I was referring to the ones trying to genuinely improve the game, like the unofficial patches and RP. The fact that people reckon it's still worth fixing the last bugs in it after a decade says a lot about FO2.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Wow, fanboi fishing is easy. I KNEW if it put that in there it'd get quoted and flamed.

Wow, you are a moron. See, that's flaming.
If flaming (or being unreasonable) for you is someone disagreeing with your point of view, then clearly you don't belong here.

I'll tell you what you want... you don't want a discussion, you just know people here don't like Oblivion and what Bethesda does to Fallout 3 and for some reason you're trying to prove that to us (?!) and call us fanbois for this reason.

 

[Minigun Jim]

Sure I don't want a discussion. That's why I'll admit I'm wrong on the P&P RPG base for the original, and bother to address stuff directly, rather than just shouting down "OMG OBLIVION WITH GUNS TEH SUXORS". As for wanting to prove bias, I'll own up to that. I don't like the attitude of "I;m a better fan because I want fallout 3 to be based on the original engine" or whatever. FO3 have some huge glowing mutant boots to fill, and that's the problem isn't it? If it had just been "Bethsoft make post-apocalyptic RPG set in DC", there would have been cheers. But no, it's FO3 so its got to be *just so*.

My opinion off the previews is it looks like a Fallout game in the styling, the gameplay appears to have been shifted far more into a roleplaying style than the Elder scrolls hack n' slash approach, and they're using the dice-rolling mechanics for hit/crit/success on skill use but in a totally real-time game. Therefore, it appears promising. Whether it's agood game or not is irrelevant to how much it sticks precisely to the original mechanics.

At worst, Fallout 3 turns out to be a lemon, Bethdesa take it in in a different direction and fail. That's the risk. At best, we get a Fallout game that's an improvement on the original gameplay. Previews so far seen positive across a wide range, even accounting for the usual over-active claims by devs.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Whether it's agood game or not is irrelevant to how much it sticks precisely to the original mechanics.

And whether it's a good game or not is irrelevant to the point - the point being that a sequel is supposed to be faithful to its predecessors. So far I have only seen changes for the sake of changes (Vault suit, mutants, ghouls etc etc), absolutely imbecilic decisions (toilet drinking, nukular catapult, exploding cars etc etc) and only poor attempts at keeping the setting (some fifties songs thrown in and a couple of more).
So, I'm sorry... when you change everything and just hang on to a couple of elements, you're not making a sequel, you're not even making a spin-off, you're simply raping the franchise.

At best, we get a Fallout game that's an improvement on the original gameplay.

Real-time is not an improvement on turn-based. I thought that much was clear.