Fallout 3 mentioned by Pete Hines
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
So this is "fallout community" eh?
To make some of you feel better about themselves I'm gonna confirm some assumptions that you have made (taking assumtions out of your asses is what the "fallout community" is best at, right?)
1. Yes, I have no grasp of p&p RPGs, I have never, EVER played a p&p RPG, which is exactly why I have no idea why would anyone want to recreate that on the PC.
2. Yes, my favorite game of all time is not Fallout 2, it's NWN, followed closely by DS and Diablo, becasue those are real, hardcore cRPGs, where I can PWN n00bs on teh intraweb.
3. Yes, I never liked turn-based combat, becasue I'm too stupiud to understand it's complexity, I just prefer it to be a simple click-fest with lots of cool graphical effects.
4. Yes, I keep my head in my ass at all times, becasue it's warm in there AND it feels pretty good too.
So there, you can all come back to the holes you crawled out of knowing you tought a stupid newbie a lesson and showed him who's the boss. You can be sure I won't ever post on this message board again, becasue the sheer brilliance of you people hurts my tiny, little brain.
And thx for the new avatar and everything, it's really neat.
To make some of you feel better about themselves I'm gonna confirm some assumptions that you have made (taking assumtions out of your asses is what the "fallout community" is best at, right?)
1. Yes, I have no grasp of p&p RPGs, I have never, EVER played a p&p RPG, which is exactly why I have no idea why would anyone want to recreate that on the PC.
2. Yes, my favorite game of all time is not Fallout 2, it's NWN, followed closely by DS and Diablo, becasue those are real, hardcore cRPGs, where I can PWN n00bs on teh intraweb.
3. Yes, I never liked turn-based combat, becasue I'm too stupiud to understand it's complexity, I just prefer it to be a simple click-fest with lots of cool graphical effects.
4. Yes, I keep my head in my ass at all times, becasue it's warm in there AND it feels pretty good too.
So there, you can all come back to the holes you crawled out of knowing you tought a stupid newbie a lesson and showed him who's the boss. You can be sure I won't ever post on this message board again, becasue the sheer brilliance of you people hurts my tiny, little brain.
And thx for the new avatar and everything, it's really neat.
MurkyShadow
Still Mildly Glowing
Fine, so you recognize that you don't have the slightest
idea what you're talking about.
Taken from the classic series
"I don't have no clue, but I must have an opinion"
Then,
idea what you're talking about.
Taken from the classic series
"I don't have no clue, but I must have an opinion"
Then,
cablefish said:
No, you were arguing that some random moron should keep posting their idiocy as if it were by someone who knows the design, when they obviously haven't had a clue of what they were trying to talk about since they stepped into this discussion with their rebuking tone and explanations that only explained how much of a moron they truly were. Some random newbie is NOT representative of Fallout fans, even if you feel that their idiocy should be honored here.
Well, given that you defend an idiot that doesn't know why the game was constructed the way it was, doesn't know what the fuck P&P RPGs are, etc, then of course it will suck. Did you not pay attention to anything around Fallout Tactics and Fallout: Enforcer? Obviously not.
Go mindlessly fellate some other developer, please, because we don't need anyother "Kerrang". Next we'll be re-living the "It nnot ment to be a RPG!!!!" defense of Fallout Tactics, when we pointed out that it was neither a good tactical nor a good Fallout game, even before its design was revamped from being just a series of maps as missions.
No, it's SCIENCE-FICTION styled on a certain theme, which the design of the game follows suit down to the music composition, art style, art presentation, and pretty much every other element ignorant fools like you don't see as a problem to urinate upon. At least you're not using the "modern" argument (oh, wait, you did), but what you're defending this with is almost as stupid. So to preserve the setting, we shouldn't care about the rest of the game, which was designed along with the setting for a specific purpose?
You're either ignorant or stupid, and since you decided to walk into this discussion without a clue and without bothering to heed anything written in the thread before, then that makes you stupid.
Then you argue that Zajcew's moronic argument for fucking over setting elements should continue, because they said it was for TECHNICAL reasons.
Really, do you bother reading the thread before you post a reply?
No, I already know the answer to that.
Again, part of the atmosphere was in the construction of the game. Again, since I have had to repeat myself when I link and explain a LOAD of reasons why Fallout was constructed the way it was, then my warning will stand.
I pointed out, with definitive reasons, why Fallout used the various elements for the construction. You still decide to see no reason with some random idiot giving a false reasoning of why certain design elements are not important, and that you say they should keep posting that shit.
You're now banned, fuckwit.
I'm not the one being paid to play "developer" and make mistakes with the license. Hand-holding obviously didn't work for Lionheart and Fallout Tactics, and Elara going down on Chuck like an ethical crack whore didn't work for Fallout: Enforcer, so why should I take my time beyond pointing out Fallout's setting, to make sure Bethesda designs the game right as long as they have people bright enough to understand the design? No, they can either prove they are designers, or another Hasbro/EA. We've pointed out the mistakes they have made before, which you would have known if you had followed Duck and Cover, since they keep up with the community news, then the only problem is your idiocy and spin-doctoring.
Which is now fixed.
If they want to design the game right, that is their decision. If they decide to whore you, that is their mistake, given that Fallout Tactics also had an editor, and it didn't save that steaming pile of shit for long. Neither did the fact that it was on console help Fallout: Enforcer win over the console trash, either.
If they want to keep up with the crap PR, then we'll let them know that their PR is crap. It is good to know that some of you are so personally mindless in the gaming market that the developer has to be treated with upmost respect when they have said the things they have now and in the past.
It just proves at least *someone* would buy a turd if Herve carved "Fallout" into it. Hmmm, no, that's not a good thing, either.
Bloodlust said:
Already being worked on. There will be an indiced collection with a number of important points, and if their ignorance persists beyond that, then their idiocy can be dealt with.
Zajcew said:
Of course. That's why you needed to use the "technical reasons" to explain the viewpoint Fallout used, and the rest of the construction of the game you don't seem to understand.
We all know that RT combat is SO P&P RPG! Especially for that modern D&D thing BioWare does! And I just LOVE playing P&P RPGs in first-person!
Maybe you can explain how to do that as well, since you seem to think it's perfectly fine for P&P RPG mechanics.
Teh l33t!
Oh, but TB combat is flawed, as your...rather...illuminating post illustrated.
Actually, I'd say your understanding of TB is flawed as hell, and your argument for removing TB rather misses the point of calling the game a P&P RPG. That was the point of calling it a P&P CRPG. Yet you want to fuck with that, don't see why it would be bad, and then post this sarcastic load of shit?
Then, of course, there's this interesting bit that seems to imply that you're trying to tell us not only different than what the lead artist and programmers have said, but that you somehow know this stunning revelation years after Fallout was designed, and to the surprise of those who developed Fallout themselves.
"Technology reasons". That just proves that you are a child, because that view was used due to resembling tabletop P&P RPG gaming (you know, the ones with the figurines and rulebooks obviously older than you), but also conveys the best pulpish feel to the game without inflicting interface restrictions upon the player, limiting the aspect of the character being roleplayed within the tabletop ruleset. Perception and what the character can see is laid out for the player to make decisions, without having to rely on the player's own visual acuity, as FP view would rely on. As would RT combat rely on the player's reflexes, and not on the character's ability, thus again missing the point of calling it a P&P CRPG if you're going to miss that aspect. So you're a liar based upon your content, and then by simple comparison between what you have posted and what is P&P RPG design. Nowhere in your initial post did you even remotely give the hint that you knew what P&P RPGs were like, instead you were posting some garbage about what you thought was cool and what you thought was "modern", and now you're trying to lie to us in light of that. It's in the same thread, who the hell are you trying to fool? Cablefish? Well, you succeeded in fooling one idiot. Congratulations.
When you say things like "Newsflash" [sic], that infers that you think you know better than the ones you are talking to. Considering we're the oldest and largest Fallout site still around, and most of us have been here since the beginning and have talked to the developers themselves for the design reasons because they too have experience in the industry and CAN recognize good work, as I have repeatedly stated and pointed out where you can read to educate yourself, then the event of some random newbie shitstain telling us what he considers to be reality becomes one that proves that you are either insane, a world-class idiot.
Newsflash: You are evidently both.
It also means you're ban-bait.
So that explains your "mad observation skillz". Oh, that's exactly why I gave you that avatar, though you seem to be reacting as if I gave you the avatar I gave cablefish. So much for your "mad observation skillz".
Now why the fuck can't you understand what P&P rules mean, when your previous post calls your claim of understanding such rules a lie, as I've debunked above?
Glad you like it, as we enjoy sharing it with every moron that tries to post a load of uneducated shit and then try to come up with even more unbelievable shit as an excuse. Really, I'm going back through your initial post in this thread, and your snarky post proves one thing. That you are not capable of understanding the design, even when it's pointed out to you at length and repeatedly, so that learning disability indeed quantifies you as "retarded".
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
To all those who think 'Why Roshambo and others are jackass':
Check out the "Fallout 3 Suggestions and Ideas section". Search thoroughly and you might get a clue why some think Bethe will ruin the game.
Don't flame me!
And link for What is Pen-and-paper game?
Check out the "Fallout 3 Suggestions and Ideas section". Search thoroughly and you might get a clue why some think Bethe will ruin the game.
Don't flame me!
And link for What is Pen-and-paper game?
To put it simply for those who don't want to follow the link, or take a look at the history link to see where RPGs had their founding with a wargame designer (Gygax), that means:
TB, everything is determined by the player's decisions being interpereted through the rules but is limited by the character's abilities, and the visual representation is a set of tabletop miniatures.
In many ways, Fallout is a lot more like Blackmoor or older wargrams than something more "d20". It had influence from GURPS, but as a RPG backbone, while the visual and combat part was clearly taken from the tabletop miniatures. Fallout did NOT use the "everybody makes a decision and then the initiative plays out", because BioWare has long proven that mechanic does not work in RPG systems, even on paper. Fallout then borrowed from combat mechanics inherent to tabletop wargames, which again originate with turn-based rules.
They still do, since the alternative "same-time move" rules for some of the crappier wargames turn into a convoluted mess that don't give anything to tactics or strategy. Wargames were never meant to be "realistic", but instead just offer a more varied experience than what they in turn originated from.
Chess.
TB, everything is determined by the player's decisions being interpereted through the rules but is limited by the character's abilities, and the visual representation is a set of tabletop miniatures.
In many ways, Fallout is a lot more like Blackmoor or older wargrams than something more "d20". It had influence from GURPS, but as a RPG backbone, while the visual and combat part was clearly taken from the tabletop miniatures. Fallout did NOT use the "everybody makes a decision and then the initiative plays out", because BioWare has long proven that mechanic does not work in RPG systems, even on paper. Fallout then borrowed from combat mechanics inherent to tabletop wargames, which again originate with turn-based rules.
They still do, since the alternative "same-time move" rules for some of the crappier wargames turn into a convoluted mess that don't give anything to tactics or strategy. Wargames were never meant to be "realistic", but instead just offer a more varied experience than what they in turn originated from.
Chess.
Roshambo said:
Fine. I'll admit I made a mistake with the "technical reasons", although not entierly. I didn't say it was impossibile to make a more techologically advanced game back then, what I meant was it was impossibile to use any other view point (and especially 3D one) that would look as convincing and atmospheric as the iso view that they used. But if you say they did that especially to "convey the p&p feel" then fine. I belive you, I made a mistake, my bad.
For me every p&p session is devided in to two sections: one is the accual roleplaying, when you, ohh, I dunno, ROLEPLAY your character? You imagione you are, in fact, a dwarf in a chainmaill armour, in a fantasy land full of elves and dragons and goblins. That part I love.
Second is when you look at your board, move your minatures, try to determine how many hexes can your move, how many hexes will your fireball cover, and quorrel with the gamemaster about failed saving throws. That part I hate, becasue it's the part where you are reminded that you are not a dwarf in a chainmail armour, but just another nerd, in a room full of nerds, sitting around a table. It takes the immersion right out for me. So quite frankly, if they wanted to convey THAT particular part of the p&p RPG in to Fallout, by giving it iso view and hexes, then I'm sorry, but I simply disagree with that design decision. Of course that means I know nothing about design and I'm not really a fan, becasuse a true fan never criticizes.
Damn right!
Uhh, at this point you acually lost me. Yes there was a p&p fallout, I even had the ruleset downloaded, but then my mates found other post-apoc p&p game to play (Neuroshima) and we never got to play it. BUT the game we are talking about here is not that game, we are talking about Fallout 1 and 2, which were NOT p&p games. So why do you insist on calling it p&p?
Again, I have no idea what you're talking about here. That I said they did it becasue of "technology restrictions"? Again I'll admit I was wrong. There. I already did it twice. Happy?
Again, if they did that to "covey the p&p feel" then I say that was a wrong design decision. Moving minatures around a table is not what I would like to convey from p&p rpgs in to crpgs. I want the atmosphere, the setting, the dialogues, the story, the immersion and the feel of the p&p rpg. Not minature goblins moving around some hexes.
Yes, NMA has been here for ages. And so what? Does that make your opinions facts? It doesn't. I wrote what I wrote to provide some kind of ballance, to show not every fallout fan is a blind fanatic, ready to burn Beths headquarters if they do it even remotly diffrently to how it was done 8 years ago. But obviously, that makes me a "shitstain newbie", not a true fallout fan and so on. If I'm a "ban-bait" then why dont you prove, once and for all, that you are right and I am worng and ban me?
Why, in the name of all that is Holy, do you insist on this p&p thing? The fact that it is based on a p&p system doesn't make it a p&p rpg. It's a crpg and it should feel diffrent then p&p. When I want to play p&p I do just that. End of story.
Well thank God we have you, the master of design, ready to educate the un-enlighted masess. Unfortunetally, like you said, my retardation level means I have a learning disability and I still say I don't give a fuck if it's real time or turn based, isometric or FPP/TPP, as long as it's got a true fallout feel and atmosphere I'll play it and enjoy it.
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
Zajcew said:
You eh...ever try Fallout : BOS?
:Zajcew said:
Then how the fuck are you roleplaying your character in a FP RT combat, or any amalgam of either, that relies on your reflexes as a player?
No, a fan doesn't use the absolutely moronic reasoning that you have, and then try to bullshit their way around their ignorance.
If you don't like playing RPG mechanics, unencumbersome as they were in Fallout, then perhaps you shouldn't be playing RPGs and instead go back to playing garbage like Dungeon Siege. It sounds like everything you want. Or, go piddle around with a mod for NWN, as BioWare has the same lack of care to strategy or tactics in a CRPG as you.
So you don't like Fallout's design because it was designed to be a P&P RPG on computer, hence the whole fucking title of the game, "Fallout: A Post-Nuclear Role-Playing Game", as they meant to make a Role-Playing Game. That's like bitching about and beating a horse because it neighs. So instead of doing the insane of expecting a game to become something it's not because you seem to have an inability to understand what a role-playing game is, why don't you go find something a little more your lacking attention span and speed. Such as one of the aforementioned crackhead twitchfests.
They were designed to be like P&P games, down to the miniatures, the ruleset, everything that made it quite easy to transfer back to P&P, because P&P rules was where they started in developing it.
If you're not going to bother paying attention, then I can fix that problem.
To put it simply for you and the rest of the morons in the audience that I haven't banned yet, I mean that the developers themselves, on this very fucking site, have stated the reasons and development styles of the game. Don't blame me because you're too fucking stupid to bother to read what they have said, at length, and ever since they made the game.
Again, THEY OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T MAKE IT FOR MORONS LIKE YOU.
There was a design scheme they went with, designed the game to, and if you don't like it, tough shit. There's no use in calling it a P&P CRPG if it's not going to be like a P&P RPG, so what would then be the point? The part where you go "I'm a dwarf, dhur-hurr!"? Fine, go back to kindergarten and continue to play your real-time game of make-believe, and let the adults enjoy their game.
Immersion is also not some clickfest combat RT combat that has to be similarly unrealistic, because it has to take into account average player reflexes, and then allow the player enough leeway so the character doesn't die from a critical mistake, as someone could if they made the wrong move in Fallout and were hit by a critical. Also, things like knockback time, were a reason why FOT's combat was fucked up. Thanks for paying attention to that much at least.
Really, you argue that you want a RPG, then you go ahead and forget the entire point of a RPG was to play a role, not play an action game.
No, it means that when I say the developers designed the game for a reason, it was designed like that for a reason. Not so it can appeal to any chucklehead with a lacking attention span. That was why F
OS was made. Again, go play that with your console mentality.So I gather by this hyperbole that we should have burned down MicroForte and Chuck Cuevas as well, hm? No, we made critiques of the design, at length, and it comes as a surprise that both games failed as a result of being nothing the fans were looking for.
I also suppose the comments about the industry being swamped with a load of faceless, copy-cat clones in the mid-90's was lost on you, probably because you weren't there to see it. You know, the link I said was required reading, because it explained why Fallout was designed that way. Let me give you a hint: it is happening again, the industry is becoming full of faceless twitchfest crap that is just a different story in the same kludge style of an engine, and a solid CRPG is needed again to re-inspire the industry. Ultima's dead, Wizardry's dead, Might and Magic is dead. There's not much left in terms of good series anymore, and BioWare keeps churning out the overhyped turds that play themselves. Fine, if you want that, go play those. Don't pretend you think you know what you're talking about while telling us that important parts of the design, which made the game what it was, aren't needed.
I will, after pointing out something more your speed. The Fall. Enjoy.
Let's see...because it was designed to be a P&P-style RPG on a computer?
How many times to I have to point that out to you, dumbass?
Sorry, that was the last time, because once I finish writing this, you're banned.
So the point where I said that the designers intentionally designed it to resemble P&P gameplay on computer, as they have said on this site regarding GURPS and RPGs in general, has completely passed you by?
I'm not surprised.
Unfortunately, you don't even know what a "true Fallout feel and atmosphere" are, because you still can't grasp the reasons why the designers designed the game that way. So you are making an assumption based upon ignorance and refusal to figure out more for yourself.
I even go and point out the obvious example of Blackmoor, where RPGs grew their roots with wargrams, and the link provided doesn't help you get a clue at all.
You're not talking about a CRPG unless you believe that "stats = RPG!" Really, Fallout: Enforcer is everything you want, down to every point of your ignorant prattle. So is Lionheart, as it's RT combat as well. We learned years ago (well, those who couldn't see it from just looking at the mechanics) that the SPECIAL system, in particular many good aspects about the combat, does NOT work in RT, or as they called it, CTB.
You're too stupid to remain here. You, out of the gene pool, NOW.
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You need to find a better gamesmaster then.Zajcew said:
Because it was meant to be a p&p game, but on a computer basically. You know some of us actually like that, going back to your above post it allows people to play a p&p style game without the nerds.
Or to put it another way there are plenty of games that do what you want, piss poor CrPGs that are light on actual roleplaying because they concentrate on the superficial. So why do you want to change the one title that actually sticks to the basics and allows for some honest to goodness roleplaying?You ignore one thing, the Fallout feeling and atmosphere is strongly anchored in it's viewpoint and tb combat. FOT didn't have the same combat and didn't have the Fallout feeling either, FOBOS didn't have the same viewpoint neither did it have any of the same atmosphere. These things are part and parcel of the whole experience, they're not interchangeable building blocks that you can pull out and swap around. These are the foundations of Fallout just as much as the 50's retro pulp sci fi or dark humour.Zajcew said:
Well BOS fucked it up, but was that due to not being a RPG?
I don't believe it's NOT possible to make a good Fallout setting game that isn't a direct copy of gameplay from FO 1&2. I haven't seen one yet, but I believe it's possible to get that feeling of Fallout into another gameplay.
I do agree that everything clicked on Fallout and that was a direct result from using game mechanics, gameplay and setting together. They decided to design Fallout to work on certain function to bring even deeper depth.
Fallout was all that, but it doesn't mean that the same princible couldn't be used to create a different Fallout system that would still work with the setting.
One thing is 100% sure. It will be a major pain in the ass to make. If they truly are going to make a Fallout that looks like their own work and to get it to work. They need time, loads of it. I hope they are given that. If not...well then it will probably be a piece of poo.
Hopefully it won't be franchise whoring, by that I mean a fast-prodction because they already have setting and don't need to think about it.
From the tables into the isometric (probably a horrid thought at the time), but it ended up well. Maybe it's time to go from isometric into 1st person (I personally dislike the idea, but the same thought was probably alive when games came from tables to isometric-on-screen).
Fact is. We don't know. We know what made Fallout 1&2 great. We don't know what might make FO3 good or crap. We also know what made tactics and Bos crap. Was it because they tried to make Fallout something that it isn't...or that they fucked up while doing it?
Can Fallout become something else that is good, or have the previous ones just sucked due to crappy designers?
________
Lolol
I don't believe it's NOT possible to make a good Fallout setting game that isn't a direct copy of gameplay from FO 1&2. I haven't seen one yet, but I believe it's possible to get that feeling of Fallout into another gameplay.
I do agree that everything clicked on Fallout and that was a direct result from using game mechanics, gameplay and setting together. They decided to design Fallout to work on certain function to bring even deeper depth.
Fallout was all that, but it doesn't mean that the same princible couldn't be used to create a different Fallout system that would still work with the setting.
One thing is 100% sure. It will be a major pain in the ass to make. If they truly are going to make a Fallout that looks like their own work and to get it to work. They need time, loads of it. I hope they are given that. If not...well then it will probably be a piece of poo.
Hopefully it won't be franchise whoring, by that I mean a fast-prodction because they already have setting and don't need to think about it.
From the tables into the isometric (probably a horrid thought at the time), but it ended up well. Maybe it's time to go from isometric into 1st person (I personally dislike the idea, but the same thought was probably alive when games came from tables to isometric-on-screen).
Fact is. We don't know. We know what made Fallout 1&2 great. We don't know what might make FO3 good or crap. We also know what made tactics and Bos crap. Was it because they tried to make Fallout something that it isn't...or that they fucked up while doing it?
Can Fallout become something else that is good, or have the previous ones just sucked due to crappy designers?
________
Lolol
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
FO2 wasn't all that great, not compared to the original. For an add on pack it would of been one thing but as a sequel it kind of sucks.
Tactics could of worked, too much was compromised for MP though, such as the design of the ghouls. Also too much was influenced by FO2, I wonder if MF were ever sent Fallout to play or just FO2? The best thing for them to have done if they wanted to make a tactical combat game in Fallout's universe would of been to set it before the bombs dropped. Then they could of had power armour a plenty, gung ho military types up the wazzo (sp?) and a few working vehicles without screwing around with the setting. Saving ghouls, super mutants and deathclaws for multiplayer (if they really had to have it).
Moving to 1st person would do nothing for the game, personally I think it's the least immersive of all the game types, your view of the game world is restricted. Unless you have a weapon and they include swaying or bobbing (whatever) you get no sense of movement, you just tend to float around.
The viewpoint is an important part of the game and shouldn't be changed lightly, changing it would be like making a flight simulator with no cockpit view. Or to put it another way, how often does film noir work when not in black & white?
Tactics could of worked, too much was compromised for MP though, such as the design of the ghouls. Also too much was influenced by FO2, I wonder if MF were ever sent Fallout to play or just FO2? The best thing for them to have done if they wanted to make a tactical combat game in Fallout's universe would of been to set it before the bombs dropped. Then they could of had power armour a plenty, gung ho military types up the wazzo (sp?) and a few working vehicles without screwing around with the setting. Saving ghouls, super mutants and deathclaws for multiplayer (if they really had to have it).
Moving to 1st person would do nothing for the game, personally I think it's the least immersive of all the game types, your view of the game world is restricted. Unless you have a weapon and they include swaying or bobbing (whatever) you get no sense of movement, you just tend to float around.
The viewpoint is an important part of the game and shouldn't be changed lightly, changing it would be like making a flight simulator with no cockpit view. Or to put it another way, how often does film noir work when not in black & white?
frissy said:
It was essentially everything Zajcew wants. It's kind of funny that they mention it's not a CRPG, when TES isn't one either. I also appreciate the difference in that you're not using assumptions, and you're willing to ask if you need to. Thank you.
Empirical evidence from just about every good then suddenly dead series, as well as Fallout's own history, is proof enough. It hasn't worked for Ultima, it hasn't worked for X-COM, it only worked for HoMM because it was a spin-off that still appealed to the crowd of role-players that enjoyed tabletop games. What did HoMM resemble? Exactly.
Where did the RT mess of Might and Magic's games lead them? Well, aside from completely messing up the combat system, it was kludged into...ugh. It was such a mess, that one area from M&M6, Darkmoor Castle, STILL has the most Usenet flame posts at a developer (even over the Fallout sellouts!), and sometimes even more vicious than I can be, simply because the area and enemies were designed in a certain original way but then were changed to suit technology instead of tech being used to suit the design, that I similarly fear for Fallout's to be changed into, as was Morrowind's compared to Daggerfall. On top of that, the irriation factor expanded to other areas like the Control Center.
Might and Magic games generally had decent stories, and the setting of M&MVI should have been held as one of the best in a while as it was generally a medieval setting, but with high technological artifacts buried from ages old, as a twist on the standard fantasy crap. But the combat killed it, as did the later uninspiring engine and loss of the game's style for IX. The clusterfuck of an obscuring enemy hiding others is also not realistic nor fun, as it obstructs your view and interface utilization without taking into account character perception aside from a very narrow angle. A normal field of vision is 180 degrees, 140 degrees of which is binocular, the other 40 degrees as peripheral. A FP view, at ~50 degrees, turns that into tunnel vision and works against you. You could also look into a larger field of view simulation, which doesn't work well with perspectives and conventional displays.
It isn't a matter of technology or story, it's a matter of mechanics. Some mechanics do not do well with others, and yet others are fairly specific in what they work well with. TB is for thinking, the only part a player should have in a P&P CRPG aside from giving "thought" input every turn so the character may act in their own abilities. RT is for the player's reflexes, and the character is essentially an in-game avatar of the player's reflexes and abilities, that's it.
The same goes for iso or FP views. Iso allows the game to display everything the character is aware of right there at one glance. A FP view is meant for games that require a limited viewpoint, as part of their game's strategy. Notably, FPS games are the core of this design.
That's the big point; that everything was designed together for a purpose, from the origins of the CRPG, and it offered real RPG gameplay. Not the twitch crap of Diablo.
We have found that those who ignorantly meddle with the mechanics, for trendy reasons with any game, generally do not care about a setting unless they can pass off the game with a franchise's name slapped onto it. They only care about The Bottom Line and Lowest Common Denominator. Fallout proved, in 1997, that you don't need to be Lowest Common Denominator to get the attention of the industry's designers with just one title. Usually, game series have to be built up over time, progressing much like Ultima and Wizardry did. They expanded upon the gameplay already offered, and failed when the gameplay was sold out.
Hence why three major story items in Ultima 7 resembled the EA logo for how they have interfered with the development of the game, yet another publisher that wanted RT combat in the game to appeal to those who can't stand or can't tolerate P&P RPG combat - with marginal success since it killed off the series despite the rest of the game being fucking spectacular. Ultima did follow that style of miniatures combat, even when using a FP roam for the dungeon crawling, for the longest time from U3-U6. Reason: Garriot wanted something role-players can enjoy and feel comfortable with.
Without a miracle or God himself coming down from the heavens to change the laws of physics and why people like sequels, they can't easily change anything and expect to do well with it.
That's pretty much what it IS when all that is kept is the setting and the rest is ditched for trendy reasons not congruent to good, solid design. Bethesda's design has been a bit lacking on both counts a bit lately.
There's that whole "modern" thing again, or at least the implication. Viewpoint is just as important as the combat, because that also takes into account the character's perceptions (no stupid fog of war like in Baldur's Gate, you can see that there's buildings in the near distance). It also affects how the ruleset generally operates as well. FP doesn't convey anything of the sort, because it's really the player playing through the game then with RT combat, but you also lose some environmental information in FP view, information that is known by the character. What is seen in FP with different perceptions? Fogging out or simply rendering invisible objects you can't perceive, requiring a look-around every time to see where everything is at? Ugh. Many noted how annoying it was in placing some spells and having to look around almost every round in Wizardry 8.
Wizardry used the FP view. It worked for that game, but only because it was a dungeon crawler, not a P&P CRPG.
There was no resemblance of the gameplay, they didn't care to get the setting right, and on top of that, the "gameplay improvements" that they wanted to claim were little but trying to put trendy crap into Fallout for superficial reasons.
And really, those are the only reasons to mess with Fallout's intended design scheme, when it took from P&P roots in 97. Diablo came out the same year, so why should Fallout be like Diablo? It doesn't serve any purpose in that way, either.
There might be potential for a tactical game that doesn't suck, observes P&P wargame style rules (possibly similar to JA2), and sticks with the setting. That was what was expected when the game was sold to us on these very forums (well, check the archived boards).
Which obviously worked on paper. Where FOT turned into an absolute nightmare, as did Arcanum, was when their respective publishers decided to add in idiotic things like RT combat, simply because the marketing department says to have it in so they will have something to recycle the same buzzwords and mentality they used for Baldur's Gate and other crap unrelated to the design of those games. Two combat systems, or the complete loss of what made them a P&P CRPG/wargame, was what killed them.
Fallout apparently doesn't mean "kill shit in the post-apocalyptic wasteland", and the proof is in how the previous games were loathed even after Interplay essentially billed them as such.
Except by the media whores.
Bonus Questions:
Can you point out a GOOD D&D computer game in the last five years? Well, then how about TSR's old work, with the deep nostalgia about how they crafted the game?* Now which do you think will appeal to those of the original game, versus having the game play itself for them?
*- D&D started with wargames, after all, and thus it's not surprising that TSR's work is the most popular with those who aren't munchkinfesting fuckheads. As in, almost all of the people who play P&P RPGs. Oh, hey, that's exactly why Fallout was made, because there was a distinct lack of P&P presence in supposed "computer RPGs" then.
Well. Even though I don't want Oblivion's system of interaction with NPC's adapted in Fallout ( because the influence of the specificity of your character on the NPC's seems almost inexistant ), I'd like to say that I've been playing TES since Daggerfall and that I have faith in Bethesda. Daggerfall was really an ambitious game. I'm not quite satisfied with Morrwind and I'm quite impatient to put my hand on Oblivion but what I'm trying to say is that Bethesda have the capacity to make a "good" Fallout 3. I mean, come on,It's not like if the guys who did Boiling Point were working on it... 
MrBumble said:
You do realize that two completely different teams designed those games, right?
I've give you an idea of the biggest problem at Bethesda and with their development.
Todd Howard, and every questionable thing he's done to neuter down TES since he got put in charge of it from his former place as an assistant designer. Irony that he started there by working on Terminator games, proving again that it seems that Americans prefer and accept violence over anything else.
He's also the Lead of Fallout 3, and what he has said before doesn't bode well.
Again, they treat their own IP like this, and people expect us to believe that Fallout is going to be unscathed, since it makes Daggerfall look like Candyland? I'm not saying that you were saying that, but having played TES since Arena, I don't have any faith in Bethesda because of how they treat their own property. In fact, quite the opposite, since the old designers of Daggerfall only remain at Bethesda in "Special Thanks" only.
Bethesda have yet to prove themselves with a really good game, all of their recent games have been average at best. With Morrowind they have made it quite clear that they don't mind developing FP stat-crank games with no real substance and tagging "RPG!" on the game description. Can you blame us for being jaded? Especially when they come out with comments like they're going to approach Fallout 3 in the same way they've approached a TES game. It sends out all the signals that they're going to make another tech demo and release it and any mild facade of game play will come crashing down like a house of cards.
Though that's sort of beside the point. Even if they were the most critically acclaimed developer in the world would you still expect us to sit ideally by eating the shit they're shoveling while they quietly strip away all that made the original great? Except for the setting? People have made points about keeping the atmosphere and the setting intact. Well those are only parts of what Fallout is, how can you possibly make a true Fallout sequel without keeping inline with the original game? It sort of defeats the object of a sequel. It wouldn't be a Fallout game without the core elements of Fallout; it'd just be any other PA game.
Sequels build on top of what the original did. They don't completely knock it down and start rebuilding from the ground up. Unless you're Capcom and are too scared to make a new I.P..
Though that's sort of beside the point. Even if they were the most critically acclaimed developer in the world would you still expect us to sit ideally by eating the shit they're shoveling while they quietly strip away all that made the original great? Except for the setting? People have made points about keeping the atmosphere and the setting intact. Well those are only parts of what Fallout is, how can you possibly make a true Fallout sequel without keeping inline with the original game? It sort of defeats the object of a sequel. It wouldn't be a Fallout game without the core elements of Fallout; it'd just be any other PA game.
Sequels build on top of what the original did. They don't completely knock it down and start rebuilding from the ground up. Unless you're Capcom and are too scared to make a new I.P..
mortiz said:
One small point of clarification, not really a correction, the construction of the game as originally planned and designed to release, IS part of the atmosphere as much as the 50's science-fiction flavor. You have it right for the most part, but I have to expand upon to to include that even the interface is part of the atmosphere of a game, especially if the developers design it that way. Which they did, as any good developer should, because it helps with the immersion value of the game.
There's a rather good discussion about the Masonic aspects of those in the Cathedral, down to the robes, that also explores an often-missed part of Fallout's style, the Illuminati conspiracies, limited as they are with The Master trying to save mankind by sowing chaos while furthering his plans under disguise of the CoC "healers". The developers even thought about making the in-game context menu, that which BioWare wants to crow about in NWN, apropos to the fiction style. It was later cut, but I still consider it to be an important indication of where they were going with the design.
RT and TB also sets the tone of the game, as does the viewpoint. It has been long argued that FP lends to a more cloistered feel to the atmosphere in a game (System Shock 2 as prime example), and a bird's eye view tends to separate player and character as a distinction (Fallout, Arcanum, pretty much all those in the CRPG genre but dungeon crawlers tend to avoid FP view because it is not conductive towards separating player and character, which goes back to the Adventure genre's stronger days). Onto another style of mechanic, Fallout's methodical speech trees, do not so easily mesh with other elements as some people seem to think.
Imagine if Planescape: Torment was completely real-time like Lionheart was. Twitch, and it wouldnn't lend well at all for befitting the interactive story of Fallout, as you go from reading into battle after spending a passive while going through text. It feels jarring, as one design element does not suit the other.
Then, think of it with the RT+P system. As it was. It actually put me to sleep a couple of times because I went from reading some good story, to a passive combat system that plays itself, and I actually turned my attention elsewhere. Even if it wasn't paused and then automated, it still felt like a jarring design clash between the methodical text depth and the combat that felt like it was less interactive than the reading.
Now imagine if Planescape: Torment had a detailed TB system akin to Jagged Alliance 2 or even that of Arcanum if it wasn't hampered by the inclusion of a RT system. It could have been on par with Fallout, I think, as it would have drawn the role-players out of the woodworks by giving them a game that had both great speech/story AND great combat. It goes from where you read and make a decision based upon what you read, to where you read the field of combat and make a decision based upon it, both methodical and at the player's leisure with the character's skill, without having to have the game play itself or result in "Click and watch" gameplay like Dungeon Shit. Both are then based upon the player's decisions instead of their reflexes having to respond to the game, and so the character must rely on their abilities and the choices the player makes.
Instead, PS:T is one of many barely-memorable Inbred Engine games, made so due to the half-ass treatment of the engine, the routines within the engine that show the programmers simply didn't try to program any pathfinding or AI worth shit else the RT nature would have driven the system spec requirements skywards by comparison from what could be done in TB, and the design of other games made upon said engine; aside from BioWare's charming forways into munchkinism with the Baldur's Gate RTS, PS:T is the only one that isn't a trashy SLAM DUNK! title. It's also the only one with any definitive setting and atmosphere, as stock fantasy (as Forgettable Realms tends to be except for the Drizzt munchkins) is dull compared to the feeling BIS gave Sigil.
Too bad they haven't showed any real talent since, and that's a shame for the industry.
zioburosky13
Vault Senior Citizen
Correct me if I'm wrong but if Fallout is a 'PnP Computer Role playing game', does the information bar (the left side thingie) acts as dungeon master which gives feedback based on PC's action :
At first I think it is there because of how the limitation of the game's engine. But reading these posts makes me believe it's actually more that a 'information bar'.
I'm just confuse
: At first I think it is there because of how the limitation of the game's engine. But reading these posts makes me believe it's actually more that a 'information bar'.
I'm just confuse
zioburosky13 said:Correct me if I'm wrong but if Fallout is a 'PnP Computer Role playing game', does the information bar (the left side thingie) acts as dungeon master which gives feedback based on PC's action
That it does. It is the GM's job to convey to the player what the character experiences, but that can't just easily be thrown anywhere when presenting it in a visual context, when defining the character from the player is important.
At first I think it is there because of how the limitation of the game's engine. But reading these posts makes me believe it's actually more that a 'information bar'.
I'm just confuse
Essentially, it is a description and details window of in-character information being displayed in an out-of-character manner for the player to read.
The description and flavor it gives adds to the game, especially with the critical messages, but it puts the results of the combat separate from what is displayed, so it lends to a more concise report of what happened and more flavorful gameplay in and out of combat. You can play without seeing any numbers on the screen, or you can watch the results of the combat with the flavoring for the combat results. It pretty much is what the character notices, displayed for the player to interperet.
Wasteland pretty much used the same, which Fallout borrows from, and while they could have used a wholly Final Fantasy numerical system, a very important part of RPGs is the writing, which FF hasn't bothered with feedback text since the early FF games (I think III or IV might have been the last one). It was held as one of the most important parts of Wasteland, and thusly "Remember Wasteland?" had to include it, but not just because Wasteland used it. It adds to the depth of a CRPG with detail that doesn't require extra animation, and is perhaps the easiest thing to do to give combat and the game in general a bit more flavor.
I'm not saying that an animation where you can see the enemy receive crippled limbs would be bad, the detail text is what compounds the flavor and humor of the game, and it would be hard to replace and have the same atmosphere and effect in game.
Outside of the combat aspect, the details window is essential, because it will tell you particulars of what the character sees, or give a general impression of someone before you talk to them. As used, it is the easiest way to add a bit more initial flavor to NPCs, without requiring extra art, and is the easiest way to handle look/skill result text without a lame pop-up window or floating text. In RPGs, only speech and the dead bodies of trend whores should be floating, to preserve the "world view", which is what the main pane is. You saw it as you would see the world, speech represented by text, but you didn't see any in-game mechanics in the world view, right? The only items even remotely considered to be intrusive you commonly saw in the world view were the aids of the combat engine: crosshairs/cursor, a percentile to hit, and outlines of the active board piece. The details window, of course, gave you the player the details the character notices, so it provides a nice distinction.
Non-intrusive, informative, and amusing, and thusly why it was used.