Oh goodie, yet another one of those 'Hey I've got all these arguments you must've never thought of before!!!!!!!!' people.
pevvy said:
I will definitely buy FO3!
I have played the first Fallouts through a couple of times and consider myself a fan, of mostly perhaps the post-apocalyptic setting, but also of course of the role-playing elements.
I have also played Morrowind and Oblivion through a couple of times and consider myself a fan of them as well.
I've been half-astonished, half-amused reading about the gripes people have expressed in various places about Fallout 3. It would seem that among the Fallout fans there are some incredibly stubborn people who would not accept change.
We'll accept plenty change, as long as Fallout's core is still intact.
pevvy said:
I do not mind one bit that the old and limiting isometric system has been completely abandoned. Quite the contrary, the first-person full-3D modern implementation gives the setting so much more details and nuances, and immersion above all! Immersion is important for an RPG, and looking at a tiny puppet from far above really distances the player from the environment. It was a good step after Pen&Paper, text-only or 2D RPGs but we have now so much better technology at our hands to portray the worlds to role-play in!
Yay, another retarded argument that's completely false.
No, Fallout's choice of perspective and combat style had nothing to do with the technology of the time. They were a conscious decision so as to keep the P&P style gameplay (after all, Fallout was an homage or emulatoin of the P&P game). Real-time games had existed since the first game ever (Pong), and first-person games and even first-person RPGs had also existed for a long time before that.
Instead, Fallout was isometric to facilitate tactical, turn-based combat and give people a good overview of the 'playing field'.
Also, first-person view isn't more immersive. Having the cam positioned where the head usually is doesn't make it more immersive, instead good world design makes a game immersive.
Also, immersion is a pretty retarded buzz-word that's thrown around more or less at random.
pevvy said:
Being turn-based was also a logical continuation from PnP to computers, but ultimately is just a tool to portray the role-play skill systems in place of the player's real-life boring skills
Therefore I just applaud the VATS innovation, it seems to be a nice tool that is not so much immersion-braking as a fully turn-based system is.
*sigh*
I don't find running around pretending I'm playing a shooter very immersive, nor is shooting people's limbs off with a freaking teddybear. Did you even watch the trailers? VATS looks like a gimmick with very little tactical uses.
Other than that, the whole reason they had turn-based combat in the original games was an approximation of P&P gameplay, and moreover, as a way to allow character skills and player tactics to play an important role. Instead, this has turned into standard shooter gameplay.
pevvy said:
Another tool in this regard, not often recognized as such, is simply a good balance of the player character's real-time vulnerability (or invulnerability) and ability to affect the environment (whether combat, hacking, lock-picking or other skills); and those of course based on the underlying skill system that FO3 also uses. I mean, it is already role-playing when the player character can excell (or suck
) in many of those real-time tasks completely differently than the player itself might in similar real-life scenarios, heh.
What?
Seriously, you're rambling.
Also, you have to hate the minigames by this logic
pevvy said:
And about the Fallout lore, it sure seems like most of it is preserved in FO3. So what if there are some changes to appearances or manners of some factions, it has been many decades since the events of FO2, it is inevitable that changes would have occurred in such a small but widely spread population rising from the ashes!
UNgh do you people even read the threads you post in?
The fact that something is *possible* doesn't mean it fits the setting.
pevvy said:
Finally I would like to say to all of you griping sour-pussies out there: It is always sooo easy to just look over the shoulders of others at what they are doing (Bethesda in this case, if left unclear) and launch big words in a know-it-all tone. Instead of those four-letter deliveries, why don't you start your own game company and make whatever kind of Fallout sequel you want
Oh, that's right, you do not have the rights to the Fallout franchise.
Strike one for trolling.
pevvy said:
I wellcome the breath of fresh (albeit radiated) air that Bethesda has managed to give to the Fallout setting. I am confident that FO3 will be a wonderful RPG experience, and if it should have any weaknesses, such is life; game developers are, after all, just humans like us, the game players!
What, we shouldn't criticise things people make because 'OMG THEY CAN MISTAKES YOU ASSHOLES'?
What the hell? They expect people to pay for their product, hence we get to critique it.
