Fallout 3 mentioned by Pete Hines

zioburosky13 said:
However, given bethe's history, they have never released any game demo before.
Incorrect. There were demos of Daggerfall, Redguard, Skynet and probably other BethSoft games as well. They never released a demo of Morrowind, though.

However, I sincerely doubt I will need a playable demo to determine whether or not FO3 is true to previous sequels.
 
I have no hope what so ever of enjoying their "vision" of Fallout. Morrowind was the worst game I've ever had the complete lack of pleasure installing on my pc.

I loaned a co-worker a copy of Planescape and he loaned me Morrowind. I spent more time installing it and creating my character than playing it.

I can think of better things to do with my money than get Oblivion and the only way I'll try FO3 is if everyone here says it's just an ubersweet game. Someting tells me THAT won't happen.
 
I see an evil scheme forming. Bethesda are waiting for the Ashes of Apocalypse mod to come up with more content. Then they are gonna jump in and take all the graphics and everything from the hard working nerds working on AOA. Thats even legal since they have NO copyrights over their hard work anyway. Due to the little thing in the bottom of the TES license agreement noone reads anyway. THEN Bethesda are gonna enter production of fallout 3!

Damn them all to hell! Raaarggahhar!!
 
Don't take a PR person too much at face value. There is a reason he/she is not working on the real game.

::ingests grain of salt::
 
"We're fans" "Fallout is our baby"


"By gamers for gamers" (By dicks for profit)

Look what happened to the last guys who said that. I dunno, when a company is run more by the top level execs greed and follows their way it usually means that the gamer/developers aren't allowed to follow what they think is right!
 
Then, of course, there's also the matter of what Bethesda PR and developers, including Todd Howard himself (whose talent was obviously wasted on the Terminator games, sarcasm fully intended), have said about this matter.

On that note, the acid-caps asshat is now BANNED, and I've had to revise the rules so it puts it plainly for the stupid idiots who can't understand that AcId CaPs = "l33t talking".
 
Some of you people are just impossibile. "They should give us all info now, it doesn't matter they don't have anything, they don't have any screenshots or vids, they should give them to us now becasue we are fans and we deserve it". They will give us screenshots and vids, they will answer our questions when they are ready to do so. After Oblivion is ready they'll be ready to start working of F3 in full force. So have some patience. You acually think bitching on and on will make them work faster? You don't like the fact Beth got the license? You think the'll fuck it up? fine, but untill we get some details the fact is you don't know anything, you just make assumptions, and quite frankly they are not worth two shits.

And I'm sorry, but I simply can't stand all you fanatics saying stupid shit like "it should be turn based and isometric, becasue that's how original fallouts were".
That's bullshit.
Turn based combat? How in the hell is it better then real time? In my opinion combat was one of fallouts main flaws. Why the hell do you need a turnbased combat in a game where you control only one character? What kind of tactics did you people use in there?
Your turn starts->you aim and fire a gun->enemies turn starts->they aim and fire their guns->repeat.
There was no tactics involved in this whatsoever, partly becasue you only control one character, partly becasue there was nothing you could acually do to make your situation better (you couldn't crouch behind a rock and fire at enemies from cover for example) and partly becasue it's an RPG, so it's your stats and equipment that were most important. If anything turn based combat was slowing things down and made it more irritating, especially in towns, when you had to wait for all characters to take their turn, just so you could take one shot at someone, and then wait all over again.
Real time combat with a tactical pause in BG or IWD for example was much more tactical. You had control over entire party, so you could use diffrent party formations, you had to remeber to assign every party member with a task that suits their skills best, to keep mages in the back, out of harms way and so on and so on. So don't tell me turn based combat is more tactical then real time, becasue that is simply not true.
Real time combat with a pause is better in almost all possibile ways. It's more realistic, more involving, and it gives you as much tactical possibilities (if not more) as turn based.

As for the whole isomteric view thing. Why exactly is it better then 1st/3rd person view? Becasue that's how it was in previous Fallouts? Newsflash for you people: it was like that becasue of technology restrictions. The world has moved on since then, full 3d kicked in and there's nothing worng with that. And besides, the fact that Oblivion uses 1st person view it doesn't mean F3 will use it as well. It's a 3d engine, they can put the camere where ever they want. And I am acually pretty sure it will have an external, floating camera, Neverwinter Nights style. And even if not, I don't really care. It's the content, the story, the gameplay, the atmosphere and the immersion that counts, if they can get all those right it will be a great game, in 1st person, 3rd person or anyother person view. If you dismiss a game only because of the view point, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

I love Fallout with all my heart, F2 is still the best game ever made in my book. But you love dispite the flaws. And to do that you have to see the flaws first. I do and I want them removed in F3. And that's it! I realise some of you will take offence with my rant, some of you will call me retarded console kiddy becasue I prefer F3 to be real time not turnbased and that "obviously" means dumbing it down and so on. And that's fine. But perhaps some of you will at least take under consideration the fact that the world has moved on since 1998 and that progres is, in fact, a good thing.
Peace out.
 
Yeah, it's been long since another moron came here with the same wonderful ideas about innovation!



In other words:

stfu6.jpg
 
Gee, Zajcew, do you really think we haven't heard everything you've said in that post already? Although i agree, in part, with what you said in the first paragraph, everything else you said has been discussed to death here. Just look around the Fallout 3 Suggestions part of the forum.
We get really tired of having to explain things to yet another person who failed to look over previous discussions.
 
Zajcew said:
the fact that the world has moved on since 1998 and that progres is, in fact, a good thing.
Progress is NOT always a good thing. That is an idiotic thing to say. The rest of the stuff you said, fine, whatever, it's your opinion. I disagree with most of it, but it's still your opinion.

But the Progress in the Graphics Industry, IMHO is not a good thing. Concentration on supergraphics detracts from the soul of the game: its gameplay. It cheapens the story line. And it attempts to hide the flaws in combat systems. And it becomes the focus of the games. We had to sit through a shitty console BOS title becuase of graphics fantasies of the gaming world. We had to endure 8 long years of waiting because of our rabid insistence on quality of game over graphics.

Fuck graphics.

And lastly, this is Fallout. Fuck first person, fuck real time, and fuck not compromising on quality. Those things are for non-Fallout games, and non-Fallout fans. We demand quality. We buy quality. We play quality.

Your other good points are moot because of your insistence on "progress."

Peace.

-Edit: I haven't visited these forums for a while, and it felt refreshing to get in a good tongue-lashing. Ah the good old days...
 
To Zajcew:
Please search the forum especially 'Fallout 3 Suggestions and Ideas' section and get the idea why everyone here is gonna bitch you. :shock:

I learn it the hardway... :!:
 
Sander said:
Gee, Zajcew, do you really think we haven't heard everything you've said in that post already? Although i agree, in part, with what you said in the first paragraph, everything else you said has been discussed to death here. Just look around the Fallout 3 Suggestions part of the forum.
We get really tired of having to explain things to yet another person who failed to look over previous discussions.

You don't have to explain anything to me, I'm perfectly aware of all those disscussions. I lurk here quite a lot, although I rearly post. The thing is the only real argument, exept a lot of flaming, is that "tb comabt and iso view where the things that made Fallout great, if they take away those it won't be Fallout anymore", That argument is bullshit for me and it gets repeated over and over again, even in this very thread. My point is: combat system and point of view are irrelewant. We should be worried about the gameplay, the story, the characters, the setting, the dialogues and so on. Becasue those were the things that made Fallout great. And instead every single time I see a thread about F3 it's full of people bitching about turn based combat and view point. "It won't be Fallout if it's real time". That's just fucking stupid.

Daemon Spawn said:
Progress is NOT always a good thing. That is an idiotic thing to say. The rest of the stuff you said, fine, whatever, it's your opinion. I disagree with most of it, but it's still your opinion.
But the Progress in the Graphics Industry, IMHO is not a good thing. Concentration on supergraphics detracts from the soul of the game: its gameplay. It cheapens the story line. And it attempts to hide the flaws in combat systems. And it becomes the focus of the games. We had to sit through a shitty console BOS title becuase of graphics fantasies of the gaming world. We had to endure 8 long years of waiting because of our rabid insistence on quality of game over graphics.

I didn't say progres is alwaqys a good thing. I said it's a generally good thing, abviously there will be one or two drawbacks here and there,I agree about the gfx thing. If they focus on gfx alone and forget about gameplay, then we are fucked. But this is not about gfx, isn't it?

And I'm gonna say it yet again: we have no details about F3 whatsoever at this point and we wont get any for quite some time. So stop making assumptions that it's gonna be this or that and then bitching about it. At least wait until we get some details on it, and then let the bitching begin.
 
Zajcew said:
You don't have to explain anything to me, I'm perfectly aware of all those disscussions. I lurk here quite a lot, although I rearly post. The thing is the only real argument, exept a lot of flaming, is that "tb comabt and iso view where the things that made Fallout great, if they take away those it won't be Fallout anymore", That argument is bullshit for me and it gets repeated over and over again, even in this very thread. My point is: combat system and point of view are irrelewant. We should be worried about the gameplay, the story, the characters, the setting, the dialogues and so on. Becasue those were the things that made Fallout great. And instead every single time I see a thread about F3 it's full of people bitching about turn based combat and view point. "It won't be Fallout if it's real time". That's just fucking stupid.
Hah. It shows that you really haven't read any of those threads.
I'll try to summarize it for you:
Fallout is designed around the SPECIAL system. The SPECIAL system was designed specifically for turn-based combat, the balance would be completely lost in real-time combat.
Other arguments include, but are not limited to:
It's a Pen-and-Paper throwback, and that's always turn-based.
Turn-based allows for much more tactical combat and for much more intelligent A.I. The tactical aspect is mainly due to the decisions regarding the actions to be done in a single turn.

As for the isometric point of view, the main argument for the isometric point of view is the whole pen-and-paper thing. The only argument I've ever really seen in favor of dropping the isometric point-of-view was 'Because 1st/3rd person view is the modern way!!1'. Which is bullshit, because 1st person has existed since before the isometric point-of-view.

Also, if you want change, give arguments as to why this would be needed. Change for the sake of change is bullshit.
 
You don't have to explain anything to me, I'm perfectly aware of all those disscussions. I lurk here quite a lot, although I rearly post. The thing is the only real argument, exept a lot of flaming, is that "tb comabt and iso view where the things that made Fallout great, if they take away those it won't be Fallout anymore", That argument is bullshit for me and it gets repeated over and over again, even in this very thread.
You're not only ignorant, but also a liar.

Turn based combat? How in the hell is it better then real time? In my opinion combat was one of fallouts main flaws. Why the hell do you need a turnbased combat in a game where you control only one character? What kind of tactics did you people use in there?
Your turn starts->you aim and fire a gun->enemies turn starts->they aim and fire their guns->repeat.
There was no tactics involved in this whatsoever, partly becasue you only control one character, partly becasue there was nothing you could acually do to make your situation better (you couldn't crouch behind a rock and fire at enemies from cover for example) and partly becasue it's an RPG, so it's your stats and equipment that were most important. If anything turn based combat was slowing things down and made it more irritating, especially in towns, when you had to wait for all characters to take their turn, just so you could take one shot at someone, and then wait all over again.
Real time combat with a tactical pause in BG or IWD for example was much more tactical. You had control over entire party, so you could use diffrent party formations, you had to remeber to assign every party member with a task that suits their skills best, to keep mages in the back, out of harms way and so on and so on. So don't tell me turn based combat is more tactical then real time, becasue that is simply not true.
Real time combat with a pause is better in almost all possibile ways. It's more realistic, more involving, and it gives you as much tactical possibilities (if not more) as turn based.
This has been said a thousand times, so I'll just summarize it for you in simple terms.

Fallout is the result of an effort to actualize the mechanics and feel of pencil and paper roleplaying on the computer. Hence, it uses a very elaborate ruleset inspired by the popular GURPS system, and turn-based combat is part of this ruleset. Why? Rather than waste my breath lecturing you about combat systems, I will post excerpts from an article by Gareth Davies which adequately address your uneducated idiocy in regard to mechanics of turn-based and RT combat:

Gareth Davies said:
Turn Based

Strengths - Turn-Based combat provides the player with ample control over their players, with no reliance on player reflexes and allows for many more tactical options and choices to be incorporated into gameplay. It progressed in a measured manner, which allows better planning and anticipation from the player's perspective, but also serves to reinforce the idea of discrete progression through a game, a typical RPG trait that is being adopted across the whole spectrum of gaming genres due to it's effective nature as a player hook. Tracking of enemy actions is much easier in a TB system due to it's sequential nature.

Weaknesses - Poor design becomes glaringly obvious in TB combat. Sprites animating too slowly can drag combat out needlessly, as can viewing of movement that is hidden/irrelevant to the player. However, the biggest downfall of TB systems is providing combat that offers no challenge, as this ends up being a timesink that generally isn't worthwhile to players. Some of the more dubious TB weaknesses include the fact that it isn't trendy, and that it generally requires an attention span of some kind. Finally, TB will always be an abstraction of reality, and as such fails to appeal to a realism obsessed market, even if it provides a more accurate portrayal of reality once all sequential abstractions are rationalised as simultaneous actions.

...

Real Time with Pause

Strengths - The addition of pausing to a RT combat system greatly reduces the reliance on any kind of manual dexterity on the players' behalf, and also is less limited by a need to streamline the HMI. Poor design is also more forgivable, due to the simultaneous actions allowing players to get through encounters that offer no challenge at a faster rate, as long as there aren't enforced round times.

Weaknesses - The very philosophy of adding a pause to a RT system is akin to whittling away the corners of a square peg so it fits in a round hole. It addresses the problem of difficulty interfacing in RT, but doesn't get to the root of the problem. In taking away a reliance on player dexterity, a challenge that is vital to RT systems is now gone. In order to effectively compensate for this, there needs to be a challenge in the tactical play, however, that too is compromised by the inability to effectively utilise terrain and cover, or attack while moving, which greatly limits many actions that would commonly take place within a real world tactical simulation. Also the nature of pausing to issue orders and then watching those orders get carried out seems entirely too passive, while on te flipside of the coin, you are constantly pausing which serves to eliminate most of the advantages of a RT system. So basically, taking a real-time system and adding pause comes with all the weaknesses of RT systems, few of the strengths, and is far outweighed by both TB and purely RT systems.
For a more detailed analysis, go here.

As for the whole isomteric view thing. Why exactly is it better then 1st/3rd person view? Becasue that's how it was in previous Fallouts? Newsflash for you people: it was like that becasue of technology restrictions.
If you really believe that, then you are a fool. Technology restrictions? One of the first RPGs to utilize first-person perspective was Akalabeth in 1980. Isometric CRPGs came much later and were relatively rare until Fallout's success in 1997, upon which everyone jumped on the isometry bandwagon. Fallout developers opted for isometric view for a reason - because it is the view which optimally conveys the essential pencil & paper feel. It is also the optimal view for Fallout's artistic style, which is inspired by the '50s sci-fi movies and comic books. Removal of the isometric perspective would drastically impair these two important elements.

I love Fallout with all my heart, F2 is still the best game ever made in my book.
If I had a dollar for every time a troll came here, puported to love Fallout and then suggested removal of fundamental design elements, by now I'd have enough money to purchase an AK-47 and use it to systematically put aforementioned trolls out of their misery.

I realise some of you will take offence with my rant, some of you will call me retarded console kiddy becasue I prefer F3 to be real time not turnbased and that "obviously" means dumbing it down and so on. And that's fine. But perhaps some of you will at least take under consideration the fact that the world has moved on since 1998 and that progres is, in fact, a good thing.
Peace out.
Yes, CRPGs have progressed since 1998, but backwards. With the exception of Torment, Arcanum, Gothic and a few shareware titles, there were hardly any CRPGs of note since Fallout 2. This is largely due to "fans" like you, who have no grasp of CRPG fundamentals and think "innovation" and "progress" are synonymous with ravishing the game's crucial elements without regard to its design.
 
We can't forget the oh so 'wonderful' Real-Time "CRPG's" Dungeon Siege and Never Winter Nights. Real-Time != Success. For every Planescape: Torment there's another 10 'Real-Time CRPGs' that deserve the trash can. Making a game's combat 'real-time' just because it's "Ub3r kewl" and idiots like you think "OmfG thats liek sooooo m0dern" is just an excuse for lazy design.
 
Suddenly I am reminded of what I missed about this place.

Zajcew, considering Bethesda's previous titles (which make excellent coasters or frisbees imo), it's pretty easy to make assumptions. Unless they're doing a complete 180 from what they've done before, it's safe to say that they'll come out with a big steaming pile that simply has the name Fallout on the box.
 
mortiz said:
a game's combat 'real-time' just because it's "Ub3r {'Kewl?' My native language is retard.}" and idiots like you think "OmfG thats liek sooooo m0dern"

Ultima 8 had real-time combat back in 1994, so it'n not exactly fusion powered.
 
Back
Top