Fallout 3. Logistics and acceptance.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Dear loyal fallout fan's I have a request for you in the form of a statement for discussion
followed by a series of questions. If you would be kind enough to discuss the following topics I

would be grateful. I apologize that I do not have the time to read through all of the previous

posts in which some of the following topics will no doubt have already been discussed.

1.As developers it was quickly realized that a third fallout game would have to be both faithful(and consistent) to the original two games. It is also important to modernize the game to appeal to a new audience if we wish it to be a commercial success(which realistically we do). The following updates to the gameplay system were proposed.

A: The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system was to get a slight upgrade. As well as projectile weapons being re-catagorized to 'Pistol', 'Rifle' and 'Heavy'.

B: The most controversial change would be that the new game would be completely 3D in a first/third person engine. IT WOULD NOT HOWEVER BE A FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The Character's skill with the gun will determine how well he/she shoots, not the players skill with the mouse and keyboard. That would be ridiculous. The game must remain an RPG after all.

C: Also controversially the game would no longer be conventionally turn based. I say conventionally as it would run with a similar system to that of the 'Baldurs gate' games. They aren’t turn based but each action takes a certain amount of time and that time varies depending on the characters speed for that action. THE FALLOUT TACTICS SYSTEM WAS TRIED AND IT FAILED. THIS SYSTEM WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN.

D: Much deeper interaction with NPC's especially those in your party. Including loyalty issues among team members and even possible romantic involvement.

E: The game would have the same level of violence and sex as the previous games but some of the effects would be upgraded/changed.

My question to you is simple. Would a game with such changes be accepted by the fallout community. We obviously want to please our fan base but we also want to open the fallout universe to a new audience.

2.What did you dislike about fallout tactics the most. Was it..
A: That the story was inconsistent with numerous errors.
B: That it wasn't really an RPG
C: That it was linear and mission based instead of location based like the other fallout games.

3. What is the one single feature you would like to see in a third fallout game. e.g. player weapon modification.

Thank you for your time. I will endever to read all of your answers personally.
Please post your answers in this thread or E-mail them to LiSeptur@Lycos.co.uk. Please do not send them to Mirax as a PM as this account was set up by a friend of mine in the UK and I will not read them.

Thank you.
LiSeptur
 
Mirax actually talking now. I must remind you guys to please post to the E-mail address I set up for him(LiSeptur"lycos.co.uk) or post in this thread. Do Not PM me. I don't want to have to forward messages to Liseptur. I just posted his mail for him as he want's to remain anonymous and his IP could be easily traced. I'll post this message on DAC as well when they activate the bloody account.

Cheers folks.
 
Since I posted this for you Li I get to have the first swing at you guys:D

1.
A-> Yeah whatever. Never thought the guns system made much sense anyway except for maintenance and there isn't any of that in the games.

B-> Really depends how it's done. We'll need to see it first I reckon. Morrowind worked OK in that repect although it looked a bit odd. (Can no-one mention Deus Ex please! That wasn't an RPG it was an FPS with RPG elements)

C-> I can't see a problem with that. It's moving away from the Old PnP a bit but I guess you have to move with the times. I'm happy as long as it feels like ur in the old Fallout universe bud.

D->I'm not sure what you mean by that exactly. Do the characters get pissed off with each other and you and start blowing each other away. That could get really F***ing annoying.

E-> Sex and violence!?! I'm all for that! Maybe not both at the same time though.

Will the game be accepted by the fallout community? I'd say if it's good and it feels like the fallout universe it'll get accepted, but no matter what you do someone won't like it.

2. Why was fallout craptics crap. You missed out that half the bloody skills were useless.(that can be D ok) That's my personal thing about the game. That really bugged me. Apart from that I'd have to go for answer 'A' There were so many things that wern't consistant with FO1 + 2.

3. oo. I'd have to go for some Akimbo weapons. kinda like burst fire I suppose but it'd make your little man look cooler.

That's my two cents bud. Guess I should let the rest of them have a say eh?
 
a) I'm somewhat indifferent to that. Whatever tickles your fancy

b) Oh yeah, make it look like all those crappy 3d games. Btw, that's sarcasm. I have seen no 3d games that have a different look than other 3d games. And first person ? Are you kidding me. That would rape the whole Fallout feeling. I'm curious why you guys keep trying to shove that 3d/fp crap down our throats.

c) Again, are you kidding me. Forget about targeted shots. As long as you'll be able to hit the space bar like a maze rat, you'll be set. No thanks.

d) Whatever. Doesn't matter to me.

e) I agree with this.

2. Fallout tactics was crap because of all the things you mentioned and then some all at once. Certain things, like the deathclaws, where unexplained. If you are going to put something in wich might have an inconsistency with the former games, at least give a reasonable explanation in game.

3. I would like to have some sort of teachers in the game. ie. you start with only a few skills available. The rest are grayed out untill you find a teacher for that skill and if he teaches you, maybe after doing a quest, you get access to that skill.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
LiSeptur
"Thanks JR for the feedback.
You're points are noted and apreciated.
To address your arguments to B and C. Firstly you are absolutely right. Getting rid of targeted shots would be completely unacceptable as it is an integral part of the fallout experiance for many people, you also won't have to worry about whacking the spacebar until your hands drop off as your firing speed will be determend by your character not you.

As for moving onto 3D. That I'm afraid is just moving with the market. I do believe however most of the game will be played in 3rd person not 1st. 3rd person will be the primary view with 1st person as an option. As in all other fallout games you can see your character. It has to be this way.

Consitency in the Gameworld is very important. We will do our upmost to not repeat the mistakes of Fallout Tactics.

Having teachers in the game is something that has been considered. No final decision has yet been reached but this feedback is meant to help with that.

Once again all of your opinions are apreciated. I do apoligize if I don't respond to every post and mail but I assure you I do read them all."
 
Unless I forget to forward them to Li.:D Don't worry. He'd kill me If I didn't.
 
Just like my friend Gunnar said:
"Me no unda stand waddya tak"

Just kidding!
I disagree something with you:
- Who says FOT is an RPG game? If it is an RPG why they call it Fallout Tactics?
- I told this 10 times!! 3-D is not important!! The important thing is Isomethric!! Just like Commandos 2.(You could rotate the screen)
- I think the Community loves the Turn Based FO1 and FO2.

Bhass

And Romeo told his beloved juliet: "Kulo Tresno Karo Sampeyan.."
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-14-02 AT 04:35AM (GMT)[p]rebound. BOING.

LiSeptur
"Only Interplay themeselves had the audacity to call FOT an RPG. No one else would. Many people struggle to call it a game but that's a seperate issue.

Like I said previously. I just don't have time to read through all the posts in every thread. Sorry about that.
How does 3rd person like commandos(a little closer in though) but fully 3D sound. The first person mode will only be used for particular tasks such as talking to people or looking at items up close. Is that acceptable?

The turn based system is under close scrutiny. turn based or speed based is the question at hand.

Keep em comin"
 
>1.As developers it was quickly realized
>that a third fallout game
>would have to be both
>faithful(and consistent) to the original
>two games. It is also
>important to modernize the game
>to appeal to a new
>audience if we wish it
>to be a commercial success(which
>realistically we do). The following
>updates to the gameplay system
>were proposed.

This should have been a given, really. A. Of course the game has to be faithful and consistent to the original, or the people who made the original so popular AREN'T going to buy it! It would be like watching a sequel to your favorite movie about an insane masked murderer only to find out that it had nothing to do with the original at all (Can anyone say 'Halloween III?')

B. Mondernizing the game is something else that HAS to be done, and its quite understandable. Sure, many people would be happy to keep playing on the old and outdated engine, but not many people are going to pay top dollar for something that looks and feels 'old.'

C. These statements weren't really meant as criticism, it just seems to me that, if you are making a sequel (or prequel) to something, it should at least, storywise, stay true to the original. Otherwise, why would you make it instead of making a brand new game?

>A: The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system was to
>get a slight upgrade. As
>well as projectile weapons being
>re-catagorized to 'Pistol', 'Rifle' and
>'Heavy'.

Doesn't really bother me, all that much. It would be nice, as you could then offset certain perks or traits, such as One Hander, by putting more points into your 'Rifle' skill.

>B: The most controversial change would
>be that the new game
>would be completely 3D in
>a first/third person engine. IT
>WOULD NOT HOWEVER BE A
>FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The Character's

As long as the view were to stay isometric in nature, the 3D graphics shouldn't be a problem. If you tried to make it more 'straight on' 3D (i.e. like most console games) then it makes it much more difficult, for the gamer, as you have to either pull back the camera to show more of the area, but you lose detail, or pull the camera in so far that the gamer can't see someone straight infront of her/him who's shooting at her/him. I HATE that. :P

>skill with the gun will
>determine how well he/she shoots,
>not the players skill with
>the mouse and keyboard. That
>would be ridiculous. The game
>must remain an RPG after
>all.

I whole heartedly agree. Why I don't play shooters and platformers much. I suck at hand/eye coordination. :)

>C: Also controversially the game would
>no longer be conventionally turn
>based. I say conventionally as
>it would run with a
>similar system to that of
>the 'Baldurs gate' games. They
>aren’t turn based but each
>action takes a certain amount
>of time and that time
>varies depending on the characters
>speed for that action. THE

I disagree here. I don't play, nor intend to buy, Baldurs Gate (and others) because of this, and other reasons, but this is a key reason. I dislike real-time combat in most games. This reason alone would, unfortunately, keep me from purchasing FO3. However, if you made it 'optional', (ALA Fallout Tactics) so you could play the game with the TB system if you wanted to, then I wouldn't mind.

>FALLOUT TACTICS SYSTEM WAS TRIED
>AND IT FAILED. THIS SYSTEM
>WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN.

Are you saying it failed because FOT failed, or have you actually tested it as a system for a possible FO3?

>
>D: Much deeper interaction with NPC's
>especially those in your party.
>Including loyalty issues among team
>members and even possible romantic
>involvement.

This is perfectly fine, reasonable, and quite desireable, from an RP stand point. It would even lead to funny situations (using FO2 as an example) 'PLAYER: Sulik, shoot that little thieving brat! SULIK:Um, Grampy Bone say we no like that idea.' And this would drop Sulik's loyalty toward the player a tiny bit, as the player asked him to do something against his 'nature.' This would make better sense than just using a negative karma, as FO2 did, to determine if an NPC remained with you, or not.


>E: The game would have the
>same level of violence and
>sex as the previous games
>but some of the effects
>would be upgraded/changed.

Violence: Good, Sex: Good, New/Changed/Upgraded Effects: Good! :)

>My question to you is simple.
>Would a game with such
>changes be accepted by the
>fallout community. We obviously want
>to please our fan base
>but we also want to
>open the fallout universe to
>a new audience.

Heh. Another thing that should be a given. :) All but the one, above, that I disagreed with, would be fine by me. They all make sense.

>2.What did you dislike about fallout
>tactics the most. Was it..
>
>A: That the story was inconsistent
>with numerous errors.

I actually like FOT, but that is because of the editors, not the game itself. :)

The story is a real issue, especially since the missions are, at times, overly lengthy in nature. It took me 2 days (because I had to go to work) before I made it through the first mission! And that was mostly due to just moving across the map! You rarely get much storyline until you've done about 4 missions, and then its not really worth what you get.

>B: That it wasn't really an
>RPG

This didn't bother me, in as much as it had some RP elements, but the inability to make story decisions destroyed any and all chance at replayability for the game. That, to me, was one of the great things about the Fallout games. I could be a good guy, and do things the 'right' way, or I could be a scum bag child killer, and still beat the game. :) In FOT, you HAVE to save the villages, you HAVE to kill all the raiders/reavers/beastlords, etc., you HAVE to do all the missions and pretty much (with a few exceptions) in a defined order.

>C: That it was linear and
>mission based instead of location
>based like the other fallout
>games.

Yes, the linear nature of it was an issue, but I have played Tactical games before that weren't AS linear, but still Tactical in nature. The mission basis of the game didn't bother be, just, as I said, the size of the missions. Having big missions is fine, but ALL of them being rather large, and movement being very time consumimg, made many of them boring in places.

>3. What is the one single
>feature you would like to
>see in a third fallout
>game. e.g. player weapon modification.

Um, I would like to see optional BEGININGS, instead of just optional endings. Sort of like in MUDs with Hometowns, where you can choose where you start, what kind of person your character was (Vault geek, Raider scum, Tribal idiot, Village Junkie, etc). Maybe it would be hard to do, maybe not, but it would add more depth to replayability.

>Thank you for your time. I
>will endever to read all
>of your answers personally.
>Please post your answers in this
>thread or E-mail them to
>LiSeptur@Lycos.co.uk. Please do not send
>them to Mirax as a
>PM as this account was
>set up by a friend
>of mine in the UK
>and I will not read
>them.

My time is freely given, but no liscense to use it is expressed, or implied. :)

>Thank you.
>LiSeptur

Thank you for listening.


No Comment... I said, 'NO COMMENT!'

Frag it all!
*pulls out Minigun and fires*
*a puddle of blood and guts*
*is all that remains*
Kule!

-- Mutateman
 
>LiSeptur
>"Thanks JR for the feedback.
>You're points are noted and apreciated.
>
>To address your arguments to B
>and C. Firstly you are
>absolutely right. Getting rid of
>targeted shots would be completely
>unacceptable as it is an
>integral part of the fallout
>experiance for many people, you
>also won't have to worry
>about whacking the spacebar until
>your hands drop off as
>your firing speed will be
>determend by your character not
>you.

OK, chew on this for a moment then.

In Fallout you could take on a higher level enemie when undergunned, underarmored and still come out alive. Why ? Because you had the TB system and a little bit of luck. Let's say you encounter a mutant. Shoot and cripple one of his arms so he can't use that big minigun. Next round, shoot and cripple one of his legs for the next round you do it to his other leg, easy pickings after that. I somehow don't see that happening in real time or in a psuedo real time combat engine like Baldur's gate. That's the whole thing. TB gives you more opportunities to be able to win though battles due to a good strategy. And to anyone who says that some battles take to long in TB, i say that i am really sorry that your attention spans are so short.

JR

Nunc ut nunquam
 
LiSeptur
"A very good response MutateMan.
The reason the FOT realtime/turnbased system failed was partly due to the time that a character took to perform a task. This problem was only discovered after on testing we created a character called Cajon who selected specific perks and had certain stats that caused an extreme problem. Other characters would have this problem but not as noticably as cajon did. On turn based mode the character could come up from behind cover, fire 10 or more shots with a plasma pistol and get back behind cover without any retaliation from the enemy. In realtime mode the character was limited to about 2-3 shots in the same time. This may not sound terribly drastic to some people but if your a player who likes a fast shooting gun slinger character then the game engine castrates you, diminishes your character and removes some of the enjoyment of the game. We admit this was also partially An A.I. problem. It did however still cause problems in multiplayer games.

the offending combined attributes were..
Stats
High agility
traits.
Small Frame
Fast Shot
Perks
Bonus Rate of fire
Action Boy
Gain
Flexible

For turn based mode we are considering a brand new system that is a little more flshy than the old one. It's top secret at the moment and we may not even be able to implament it but we are trying. If the system could be implamented it would allow seemless switching from real time to turn based.

As you can probably apreciate. differant beginnings would be daunting task for our lead story writer. If the different beginnings were to merge into the main plot too early it would be pointless, and if they were to merge too far down the line it would be a logistical nightmare. Unfortunately due to these factors it is currently unlikely. I will not rule it out however as our team has been known to pull a rabit out of a hat on many ocassions.

Thanks again and keep em coming."

Mirax
You heard the man.
 
A (S.P.E.C.I.A.L):
No problem. Looking forward to the improvement.

B (3D):
I think that would be an improvement. I would like to be able to spin the environment and look at things from different angles. I would appreciate being able to zoom in/out though. And have option for a fairly distant zoom, not just looking over the shoulder (Warcraft III perspective I think would be adequate). If using the Neverwinter Nights engine, that would also be more than adequate.

C (Real-time vs turn-based):
I can support real-time, but please try to have an option to drop down into turn-based. Not just for the die-hard fallouts that only want to play turn-based. I bought DeusEx (real-time), and found that for the most difficult parts (killing the boss in the underground station for example), the game had to be repeatedly saved and restored to step through the battle carefully, since no turn-based combat was available--this was tedious and frustrating. Please allow a turn-based option. I would enjoy real-time when I am just running around killing desert rates (or hapless civilians), but for serious battles turn based would certainly save the tedium of endless save-restores.

D (NPC infighting):
I like this. A fun part of Baulder's Gate I, such as when the 2 early NPC guys would get pissed off and leave if you repeatedly purposely ignored their pleas to go to their city. Amusement opportunities: have a romantic interest in the party. Come back after visiting a prostitute and get busted by the lipstick on your collar, that type of thing. Also skill fork opportunities: high diplomacy allows 2 party members to keep cooperating even though those 2 absolutely despise each other from territory issue, past grievance, etc.

E (violence, sex)
Absolutely need the sex and violence (and the humour). The RPG shelf in the games store is crowded, because RPGs are a white hot genre right now. However, there needs to be differentiators. Nearly all are DnD/mythology based worlds, whereas Fallout is post-nuke, so that is one good differentiator, but the sex/violence/humour is the real factor for differentiation and playability. Building in some parental-controls for violence/sex will probably generate enough extra sales from overconcerned parents, that it will generate the extra minor cost of adding in the gore filter. The gore filter is cheaper to do early in the design, instead of bolting it on at the end.

A game such as this would absolutely be accepted. I plan on getting a few copies as gifts actually.

For what did I dislike about FOT:
A (That the story was inconsistent with numerous errors):
Not so much inconsistent (I am not one of those X-files-types of guys who goes mental over the continuity details not being 100%). However, the story just wasn't fun enough, compared to Fallout1 and 2.

B (wasn't really an RPG):
I am not fussy about what the line is and isn't in a genre. FOT wasn't as fun of a game as the fallout1 and 2.

C (linear and mission based instead of location based):
Non-linearity is certainly a bonus for funness. I would like to just wander around the map, exploring (Morrowwind-style) if I so choose. Logistically, I know that there probably will need to be some linearity because need to make things tougher as characters level up, as well as revealing parts of the story in turn. I will go along with linearity, as long as the story is fun, and I am entertained. I agree with an earlier poster that one of the biggest forks in linearity though should be your choices of being good or evil.

For the one single feature you would like to see in a third fallout game:

I would have to say some mechanism of upgrading the weapons/equipment. DeuxEx had augmentations/upgrades, diabloII had socketed items. Programmer-time wise, both are pretty low-cost ways to increase the number of forked paths available to solve the problems. They give a nice complement to the skills forks for upgrading the character.

Best wishes and best of luck, I think it will be a classic,
TUVOR
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Sep-16-02 AT 06:35AM (GMT)[p]
>B: The most controversial change would
>be that the new game
>would be completely 3D in
>a first/third person engine. IT
>WOULD NOT HOWEVER BE A
>FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The Character's
>skill with the gun will
>determine how well he/she shoots,
>not the players skill with
>the mouse and keyboard. That
>would be ridiculous. The game
>must remain an RPG after
>all.

3d for the sake of it, nevermind that most 3d still looks like ass. Need we remind you who made 1' thick tables among other feats in making the ShitTech engine look even worse that previously thought possible? I doubt BIS' capabilities with 3d because of that, much less making GOOD 3d, or even capturing the feel and style of the setting. Which is also isometric. If you even suggest something like Rune/Gothic/UltimaIX over the shoulder 3rd person, then you need to be shot.

>C: Also controversially the game would
>no longer be conventionally turn
>based. I say conventionally as
>it would run with a
>similar system to that of
>the 'Baldurs gate' games. They
>aren’t turn based but each
>action takes a certain amount
>of time and that time
>varies depending on the characters
>speed for that action. THE
>FALLOUT TACTICS SYSTEM WAS TRIED
>AND IT FAILED. THIS SYSTEM
>WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN.

This is incredibly comical when in B it mentioned that it's the character's skill instead of the player's skill, when Real-Time is just a twitchfest or relying on the shitty Inbred Engine "AI" (and further comical with "Consitency in the Gameworld is very important. We will do our upmost to not repeat the mistakes of Fallout Tactics.").

There's also something about targeted shots and not nailing the spacebar like a crack rat every 3 seconds. There's also the point where what strategy in the planned targeted shots is also lost, and a bit more. In addition, no TB/RT hybrid or side-by-side system has ever been implemented before successfully in a CRPG or even tactical game, because either there are exploits opened or flaws, or two sets of items for balance in one or the other.

In short, keep the Baldur's Garbage out. Calling that "conventional" is bullshit. Particularly when it's got trash AI, some of the worst pathfinding I've ever seen in a game, and a combat system that is either noninvolving or a clickfest, but in both cases reminiscent of a mindless version of a Punch and Judy show.
 
Yup! But i still think Fallout Tactics is not an RPG games!! It looks like another X-COM UFO enemy Unknown but it didn't close to it (UFO still the best Turn Based Tactics game. But it sequel are sucks!!!)
I didn't agree 1st person mode when talking. The Fallout2 style menu still the best. Don't put sound or Videos cos it's big. Just put it text!!!

Bhass

"Boss, Gunnar Staring at me again," said Mr. Bhass to Chosen One in Vault City.
 
>1.As developers it was quickly realized
>that a third fallout game
>would have to be both
>faithful(and consistent) to the original
>two games. It is also
>important to modernize the game
>to appeal to a new
>audience if we wish it
>to be a commercial success(which
>realistically we do). The following
>updates to the gameplay system
>were proposed.
>
>A: The S.P.E.C.I.A.L system was to
>get a slight upgrade. As
>well as projectile weapons being
>re-catagorized to 'Pistol', 'Rifle' and
>'Heavy'.
>
Fine by me, but i think that it should be more flashy than that. like: someone can possibly shoot rifles with just one hand(BB gun?), or shooting Desert Eagle (by some person), need to be done with two hands.

>B: The most controversial change would
>be that the new game
>would be completely 3D in
>a first/third person engine. IT
>WOULD NOT HOWEVER BE A
>FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. The Character's
>skill with the gun will
>determine how well he/she shoots,
>not the players skill with
>the mouse and keyboard. That
>would be ridiculous. The game
>must remain an RPG after
>all.

Isometric forever!!! i HATE morrowind because its first person, (yet, while talkin', or buyin', or pickin' up thin', sounds fine)end of dicussion
>
>C: Also controversially the game would
>no longer be conventionally turn
>based. I say conventionally as
>it would run with a
>similar system to that of
>the 'Baldurs gate' games. They
>aren’t turn based but each
>action takes a certain amount
>of time and that time
>varies depending on the characters
>speed for that action. THE
>FALLOUT TACTICS SYSTEM WAS TRIED
>AND IT FAILED. THIS SYSTEM
>WILL NOT BE USED AGAIN.
>
>
I don't really like it, with realtime, we would still have troubles to point and click and (of course) thinking rather fast, So that it would seems that ones with better reflex (or better mouse) can have better edge than the other.

I have seen this linear-japanese-styled-with-dating-sims RPG game called Thousand Arms. Instead giving the action points to use, we select the task first, then (depending the action) the action would be done after some time. We can also give dodge/defend command to dodge/defend incoming attacks. This action take place immediately, and can be stopped anytime. Pretty logic about someone who stand still and try to avoid incoming attacks. This would be fine, but the difference with Baldurs gate: It's not real time!!, we have the ability to select the task without hurry, as soon the previous task is completed.

>D: Much deeper interaction with NPC's
>especially those in your party.
>Including loyalty issues among team
>members and even possible romantic
>involvement.
>
I was just about to post a message about this

>E: The game would have the
>same level of violence and
>sex as the previous games
>but some of the effects
>would be upgraded/changed.
>
Yeah, typical sequel..

>My question to you is simple.
>Would a game with such
>changes be accepted by the
>fallout community. We obviously want
>to please our fan base
>but we also want to
>open the fallout universe to
>a new audience.
>
I don't know since i'm just a tiny speck of the sea of the community of Fallout Gamers

>2.What did you dislike about fallout
>tactics the most. Was it..
>
Not much unless it's linearity and it's sooo easy!!!

>A: That the story was inconsistent
>with numerous errors.
>B: That it wasn't really an
>RPG

RPG or no RPG, it still stay in Fallout universe. Can they got at least abit Consistency???

>C: That it was linear and
>mission based instead of location
>based like the other fallout
>games.
>
Not really matter. It's tactics game whatsoever


>3. What is the one single
>feature you would like to
>see in a third fallout
>game. e.g. player weapon modification.
>
I'd like to have some thing: Ability to have romances, deep one.
>
>Thank you for your time. I
>will endever to read all
>of your answers personally.

No, thank you...

>Please post your answers in this
>thread or E-mail them to
>LiSeptur@Lycos.co.uk. Please do not send
>them to Mirax as a
>PM as this account was
>set up by a friend
>of mine in the UK
>and I will not read
>them.
>
>Thank you.
>LiSeptur
Welcome!!!
 
>>>And to anyone who says that some battles take to long in TB, i say that i am really sorry that your attention spans are so short.


Some people don't have three seconds to wait for the other to move... How impatient.
Patience is not Ignorance, its Tactical.
 
LiSeptur
"another good reply. Sorry I've been really busy at the office the last few days.

We get the picture. You guys don't want a 1st peson. It has to be isometric or something close to it. 1st person isn't really suitable for a fallout RPG. I agree that most 3d games do(like the Roshambo warrior put it) look like ass.Although it really depends on who's ass, or indeed arse, were looking at doesn't it?

The majority of you also want turnbased. If it's a sequal it has to be a sequal, not a completely different game.

Thank you TUVOR,Mr Bhass, The Roshambo warrior and Big fat Mama.
Keep the posts coming.


One of our guys has been looking through some of your forums and noticed that you have been knocking the fallout bible a fair bit. I havn't read the posts myself but you have to realize that the fallout universe has already got a fair few inconsistances. A couple of examples would be that some locations move geographically between the first and second game(such as shady sands) and weapons in the second game used real names whereas the first games guns used generic names.


If you disagree with what the fallout bible says then you MUST Email Chris (Cavellone@blackisle.com). Bitching about it doesn't do anything. If you do nothing then the mistakes will not be corrected and the bible is useless. So please contact him rather than just calling him names. The future of fallout relies on it's past being correctly documented.

Thankyou.
LiSeptur"
 
Mirax.
oops sorry. I was meant to chop that E-mail in two. The part aboput the fallout bible is supposed to go somewhere else. assuming I can find where that somewhere else is.
 
>MUST Email Chris (Cavellone@blackisle.com). Bitching
>about it doesn't do anything.
>If you do nothing then
>the mistakes will not be
>corrected and the bible is
>useless. So please contact him
>rather than just calling him
>names. The future of fallout
>relies on it's past being
>correctly documented.

Fairly useless when he needs to be corrected numerous times and in addition insists on further skullfucking the setting to excuse prior bad decisions/inconsistencies made in Fallout 2. Just check the number of supposed vehicles owned by NCR when ONE car in the setting was quite remarkable. Yes, many do have a good tab of the errors made in that hatchet job.

It's why I haven't e-mailed him. I really wouldn't know WHERE to begin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top