Fallout 3 Operation: Anchorage reviews
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
Black said:
Bloodlines had writing, history, C&C, Voice Acting and combat all superior to Fallout 3. Bugs can be fixed by the Killaps, Wesps, Timeslips and Drogs of life. But they can't fix bad game design.
Marxus Tiamat
First time out of the vault
Bloodlines is my personal favourite. A firm inhabitant of my hard drive. Now with the gigantic patch it has also become almost bug-free. But it still dosen't change the fact that Activision released...correction... forced it out before Troika could have finished it. Not to mention that it went against half-life 2... on holiday. Now if that isn't moronic business strategy then I don't know what is (besides Interplay's legendary CEO Herve The Magnificent). Now if things would have been different with F3, we'll never know, but considering their past actions I believe that it would have met the same fate as Bloodlines- a unnoticed classic, overlooked because of bugs and weak marketing.
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
UC,
Yeah no, Doom was not the first FPS
Yes, it was. Enough with your revision of computer game history. Catocombs 3D had no z-axis, and therefore is disqualified from consideration as an FPS. Even your own wikipedia link only claimed it was ARGUABLE the first FPS. Well, here I am... arguing. Doom was the first real FPS. Period. To claim otherwise is to be on the wrong side of PC game history. This will be my last comment on this matter
Simplifying as in "making less complex". The gameplay (mechanics, skills, etc.), setting, and plots. See Crni Vuk's post.
That doesn't hold water. The complexity and depth of a game system are not measured by how many rules they enforce.
The graphics are good but nothing special, the animations are atrocious, the voice acting ranges from terrible to good, averaging out to mediocre, I can't speak for the engine but it's hardly new so I'd imagine that there are better things out there, the writing is atrocious, and, as you said, the gameplay is mediocre to bad. Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 were mediocre products with decent visuals. They have a lot of areas to improve on and if they can manage to be great at anything, I'll note it.
I'm not going to sign off on that at all. The Bethesda engine is head and shoulders above Bioware's latest efforts. How biased to you have to be, not to see that? Or are you just comparing Bethesda's work to some arbitrary self-created standard?
Interplay had a nearly finished Fallout 3 and was working on Tactics 2 and BoS2.
They were far too late, when they changed their mind about what a loser the Fallout franchise was. I was THERE when Interplay reps were on usenet, talking about how they couldn't afford to keep investing money in games like fallout 2. That was year ~2000.
Bethesda bought it fair and square but since when does that excuse it? Uwe Boll doesn't get off the hook because he obtains licenses to videogames to make into movies legally, people bash him for making shitty movies which fail to capture the spirit of the IP being used.
OK, fine. Nobody forced you to buy and play fallout 3, right? I get that you would have preferred that Fallout remain a nobly dead franchise, like Ultima, Jagged Alliance, Might & Magic, MOO & MOM, Wizardry, so on and so forth. I totally get that. But that isn't what happened. How does it either help or hurt you to keep whining about it? That's the part I don't get. I don't consider Fallout 3 to be a continuation of the Fallout series, and so its existence doesn't bother me much.
OK, last thing... it is entirely INTERPLAY'S FAULT that Fallout is gone. NOBODY ELSE'S. Interplay was warned by fans (like the people here) that they were making a big mistake. Big hitter's at Interplay used to hang out on usenet. They got the message, and dismissed the messenger's as irrelevant. In the real world, when you step on your own dick, you take responsibility for it. The hsotility towards Bethesda on this one is misdirected. I don't even like Bethesda, and yet... that is my final answer.
Yeah no, Doom was not the first FPS
Yes, it was. Enough with your revision of computer game history. Catocombs 3D had no z-axis, and therefore is disqualified from consideration as an FPS. Even your own wikipedia link only claimed it was ARGUABLE the first FPS. Well, here I am... arguing. Doom was the first real FPS. Period. To claim otherwise is to be on the wrong side of PC game history. This will be my last comment on this matter
Simplifying as in "making less complex". The gameplay (mechanics, skills, etc.), setting, and plots. See Crni Vuk's post.
That doesn't hold water. The complexity and depth of a game system are not measured by how many rules they enforce.
The graphics are good but nothing special, the animations are atrocious, the voice acting ranges from terrible to good, averaging out to mediocre, I can't speak for the engine but it's hardly new so I'd imagine that there are better things out there, the writing is atrocious, and, as you said, the gameplay is mediocre to bad. Both Oblivion and Fallout 3 were mediocre products with decent visuals. They have a lot of areas to improve on and if they can manage to be great at anything, I'll note it.
I'm not going to sign off on that at all. The Bethesda engine is head and shoulders above Bioware's latest efforts. How biased to you have to be, not to see that? Or are you just comparing Bethesda's work to some arbitrary self-created standard?
Interplay had a nearly finished Fallout 3 and was working on Tactics 2 and BoS2.
They were far too late, when they changed their mind about what a loser the Fallout franchise was. I was THERE when Interplay reps were on usenet, talking about how they couldn't afford to keep investing money in games like fallout 2. That was year ~2000.
Bethesda bought it fair and square but since when does that excuse it? Uwe Boll doesn't get off the hook because he obtains licenses to videogames to make into movies legally, people bash him for making shitty movies which fail to capture the spirit of the IP being used.
OK, fine. Nobody forced you to buy and play fallout 3, right? I get that you would have preferred that Fallout remain a nobly dead franchise, like Ultima, Jagged Alliance, Might & Magic, MOO & MOM, Wizardry, so on and so forth. I totally get that. But that isn't what happened. How does it either help or hurt you to keep whining about it? That's the part I don't get. I don't consider Fallout 3 to be a continuation of the Fallout series, and so its existence doesn't bother me much.
OK, last thing... it is entirely INTERPLAY'S FAULT that Fallout is gone. NOBODY ELSE'S. Interplay was warned by fans (like the people here) that they were making a big mistake. Big hitter's at Interplay used to hang out on usenet. They got the message, and dismissed the messenger's as irrelevant. In the real world, when you step on your own dick, you take responsibility for it. The hsotility towards Bethesda on this one is misdirected. I don't even like Bethesda, and yet... that is my final answer.
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
I said it was my last comment on the matter!! 
Doom had a z-axis in that everything wasn't on the same plane. That's one (but not the only one) of the main things that made it different from its predecessors.
Doom had a z-axis in that everything wasn't on the same plane. That's one (but not the only one) of the main things that made it different from its predecessors.
programmer.craig said:I said it was my last comment on the matter!!
Doom had a z-axis in that everything wasn't on the same plane. That's one (but not the only one) of the main things that made it different from its predecessors.
FPS, if you don't know the term's meaning, is an acronym for "first-person shooter". Not "z-axis shooter", not "whatever-I-want-it-to-be shooter", just plain "first-person shooter", which is a shooter that is mainly played from a first person perspective. Doom was not the first shooter to use the first-person perspective; therefore, Doom was not the first FPS. Nor was it the first game to use polygonal environments, 3D enemies, texture mapped environments, unrestrained mouse look, non-linear level design, or even the basic abilities to jump and to look up and down. If it all sounds mind-blowing, what can I say... Try making your first comments factually correct next time.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
It's more about how much can be done with the rules in place and how many meaningful choices there which still means that Fallout 3 is simpler than Fallout 1&2 as there is a limited number of good stat choices (namely all of those that allow you to max out your skills by level 20) and skill choices are all but irrelevant (because they can be maxed). Skill checks have been simplified (the idea of fixed thresholds I like, telling the player exactly what s/he needs is simplifying it) and the only skill I know of that has added depth is repair. Armor has been made more complex in that there are multiple pieces but as a system, it's become simpler with damage type thresholds being removed. As for the TES games, how is Oblivion more complex than it's predecessors.programmer.craig said:
I haven't played Mass Effect but Bioware generally achieves there goals and present a game which is up to snuff with their game type graphically. Hell, I thought that what I've seen from Mass Effect's dialog scenes looks good, the animations are good, the voice acting is good, and the graphics are good (can't say about the writing). Fallout 3 looks pretty bad when placed next to other FPSes on the market, especially animation wise. Besides which, I never stated that Bioware is the best of the best in this area, I simply said that Bethesda did a pretty average job overall on their visuals when compared to the market.programmer.craig said:I'm not going to sign off on that at all. The Bethesda engine is head and shoulders above Bioware's latest efforts. How biased to you have to be, not to see that? Or are you just comparing Bethesda's work to some arbitrary self-created standard?
Who's whining? I thought we were having a discussion/debate about the quality of the game and Bethesda's products in general?programmer.craig said:
Interplay is responsible for the Fallout series while they owned it, Bethesda is now responsible for the series and anything released associated with that IP after they bought it. Fallout 3 is solely Bethesda's responsibility and if they screw up canon and change the genre of the game, it's not Interplay's fault. Now one could argue that Herve never should have sold it to Bethesda because of what they were likely going to do with it but Interplay is no more responsible for Fallout 3 than Hana Barbara is responsible for Harvey Birdman, Attorney at Law.programmer.craig said:
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
FPS, if you don't know the term's meaning, is an acronym for "first-person shooter". Not "z-axis shooter", not "whatever-I-want-it-to-be shooter", just plain "first-person shooter", which is a shooter that is mainly played from a first person perspective.
It is also an acronym that didn't even exist until Doom was released, and an acronym that was first used to describe DOOM. Therefore, Doom was the literally the first FPS, since it was the first game to be called an FPS.
Else, we would be calling any number of Arcade games from the early 1980s "First Person Shooters", wouldn't we?
Nor was it the first game to use polygonal environments, 3D enemies, texture mapped environments...
God, I hate being lectured by the ignorant. Doom was not have 3D graphics. It was 2D sprite animations, same as all the other games back then.
Try making your first comments factually correct next time.
Like yours? lol.
So, anyway, why isn't Ultima Underworld an FPS? It came out before Doom, and was far more advanced. Why isn't Ultima Underworld an "Action RPG", when it clearly would be, by today's standards?
Mainly, because it predates both genres. As the original Elder Scrolls game by Bethesda, did. Which takes us full circle, doesn't it? *sigh*
I begin to see why Fallout fans catch so much flak. This is a pretty arrogant, opinionated and often simply wrong crowd. If I was a game developer, I wouldn't pay you much mind, either. Game developers succeed by (cliche!) "thinking outside the box". Many of the people who seem to be emotionally invested in claiming anything that isn't in the box is heresy.
It is also an acronym that didn't even exist until Doom was released, and an acronym that was first used to describe DOOM. Therefore, Doom was the literally the first FPS, since it was the first game to be called an FPS.
Else, we would be calling any number of Arcade games from the early 1980s "First Person Shooters", wouldn't we?
Nor was it the first game to use polygonal environments, 3D enemies, texture mapped environments...
God, I hate being lectured by the ignorant. Doom was not have 3D graphics. It was 2D sprite animations, same as all the other games back then.
Try making your first comments factually correct next time.
Like yours? lol.
So, anyway, why isn't Ultima Underworld an FPS? It came out before Doom, and was far more advanced. Why isn't Ultima Underworld an "Action RPG", when it clearly would be, by today's standards?
Mainly, because it predates both genres. As the original Elder Scrolls game by Bethesda, did. Which takes us full circle, doesn't it? *sigh*
I begin to see why Fallout fans catch so much flak. This is a pretty arrogant, opinionated and often simply wrong crowd. If I was a game developer, I wouldn't pay you much mind, either. Game developers succeed by (cliche!) "thinking outside the box". Many of the people who seem to be emotionally invested in claiming anything that isn't in the box is heresy.
Why? To a game like Fallout 1/2 or if you want Jagged Alliance the roles and thus "complexity" of the gameplay are a key aspect of the game. I am sorry if it sounds a bit rude but you can make the comparision all by your self by just searching about informations regarding S.P.E.C.I.A.L. and the stats, how it worked in Fallout 1/2 and how it works now changed in Fallout 3.programmer.craig said:
I dont know how to explain it else as the examples I provided are somewhat relatively clear which I will not mention again cause I dont see any reason to repeat my self. If you dont believe that Fallout 3 is heavily simplified compared to Fallout 1 and 2 than there is I guess not much that can be said. The difference in how both systems worked is even mentioned in the review by NMA about Fallout 3. Even certain Fallout 3 developers mentioned in several interviews that it was one of their targets to make Fallout more "accessible ".
I am sure one can make a much more "simple" version of chees. But that would not be the version of chees I want either to see or play or even call a "improvement" compared to the original game only cause it now is suddenly more popular for the "broader audience". More popularity or acces to it doesnt ineherently mean a better quality. Just to say that.
I think, Gar was more meaning a comparision in General with other Blockbuster titles for example like the Force Unleasehd, Mirrors Edge, Far Cry 2, CoD, Crysis etc. etc. Those of course are not "perfect" but definetly do set in certain parts new standarts. At least visualy. Particularly when it comes to either animation or voice acting which seem to have become very important for sale today in the eyes of a lot of developers. And when it comes to graphic compared by similar games (talking about similar in the range of hype, marketing, and programming not gameplay) Fallout 3 ranges from mediocre to bad. Neither the voice acting, animations or engine can really hold up to comparable games. What is outsanding is Bethesdas marketing machine. This would not be any kind of issue if Bethesda would be either a small company or indi developer for example working with a team of 20-30 on the project, but considering the fact that their team is made up from more a lot more people and the company not a rookie in the buisness but making games already since the 90s it somewhat is a difference. They do hype their games usualy like a revolutionary design or effort, which they simply are not.programmer.craig said:UC,
...
I'm not going to sign off on that at all. The Bethesda engine is head and shoulders above Bioware's latest efforts. How biased to you have to be, not to see that? Or are you just comparing Bethesda's work to some arbitrary self-created standard?
I might have my own standarts here, but by just looking at RAGE ID's newest Title then I have to say that that is simply what I would call revolutionary design. If anything. Crysis and Far Cry2 both were more impressive visualy then Fallout 3 and I also would say that considering what Bethesda wants to achieve (with the first person experience) even have the engine better suited for such a target.
I mean it somewhat depends if we are talking here about a small company that is trying to do what is possible with their resources or if we are talking here about a company in the same range like Bethesda. You cant compare a Hoolywood Blockbuster in the same way like a B-Movie neither.
The Issue is that a lot of future damage can be done to Fallout by the development and general way of how Bethesda seems (today) to care about their projecst. In all seriousness I would not be surprised if Fallout 4 or 5 would become a clone to CoD with some stats thrown in here and there (see what happend with Deus Ex to Des Ex 2) if that is what they think sells to the public. If anything the change from Morrowind to Oblivion and now Anchorage Operation Shoot-alot are somewhat indicative. I doubt that anyone in the long run at Bethesda really cares about what ever if something they want fitts the consistency of the game or even the "RPG" roots of the series. They dont even manage to stay "true" to their own in house build games. Why should they with a bought licence?programmer.craig said:
It bears some similiarty with the change of the Ninja Turtles over time where some old fans today feel almost ashamed beeing associated with the "Ninja Turtles" considering how much it has been changed to fitt a mainstream market and child friendlyness. Old Turtles pen paper RPGs even featured Necrophila for characters to choose from what I heard.
*Edit
Cause people tend to generalise and make stereotypes. Dont judge on individuals. NMA never had a united oppinion, voice or face. It is like all communities a combination of different characters and attitudes. You are part of it (still) in one way afterall.programmer.craig said:
One could run around claiming all fans of Bethesda are mindless sheeps cause a few claim in their posts that Bethesda can do no wrong. But I doubt that is the real way to argument.
By the way what ever if Doom was seen as the first FPS or not or if it made the term common it has no meaning on the fact that certain games did used a "first person" experience before it. For a subject it has no meaning if the defintion for it came bofore or after it. Certain games that were released before Doom definetly had some resembling character in on way or another comparable to a "First Person Shooter". A apple doesnt start to become a fruit only cause you described it as such. It had its characteristics of a fruit already before the term existed. Same to games that came out before doom but provided a first person experience and RPGs that spend much more emphasis on combat then the role playing aspects.
Slaughter Manslaught
Vault Senior Citizen
I would recomend taking the Z-Axis of Doom discussion to another part of the forum. I'm not a mod or anything, but the mods might get angry at that. 'Sides, it will allow more focus.
The hell?! Who said that, Herve? They can't afford to invest money in one of their best-selling RPG franchises? There's a reason Interplay cranked out Fallout 2 ONE YEAR after Fallout. And yet, it is a better game than Fallout 3, which was made with a budget ten times larger, more people and more time. Interplay was going well when they sticked to their guns and made what they were good: Games for gamers by gamers. But they wanted to be one of teh big boys and started going into the console market. The result? The failure called Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. It hans't a failure because Fallout didn't sell well, it was a failure because it wans't a good Fallout game and they wanted to cash in on a pc-based fanbase. That's retarded. If Interplay had a good CEO instead of Herve Caen, and stood doing what they know to do, we would all be playing Fallout 4 by now, Interplay would laugh at Bioware and the NMA forums would be continuous happy fest.
And I recently heard some developer (wans't it Ken Levine?) saying how he was surprised to see Fallout 3 being a top seller. He even said he would't believe you if you went to the past and told him a hardcore RPG like Fallout 3 would stand against Gears of War. LOLIPOPS. If it was me being visited by someone in a time machine and telling me that, I would say: "Gears of War? Fuck that, man. I don't even know what's this shit, but it must some damn good RPG, what with standing against future Fallout 3. Also, cough up a Fallout 3 CD NOW, future boy, or I'm going to gut you. Also, tell me how the future will be or there will be even more gutting."
Of course we are. Fear the NMA Hivemind, We Are Legion!
The hell?! Who said that, Herve? They can't afford to invest money in one of their best-selling RPG franchises? There's a reason Interplay cranked out Fallout 2 ONE YEAR after Fallout. And yet, it is a better game than Fallout 3, which was made with a budget ten times larger, more people and more time. Interplay was going well when they sticked to their guns and made what they were good: Games for gamers by gamers. But they wanted to be one of teh big boys and started going into the console market. The result? The failure called Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. It hans't a failure because Fallout didn't sell well, it was a failure because it wans't a good Fallout game and they wanted to cash in on a pc-based fanbase. That's retarded. If Interplay had a good CEO instead of Herve Caen, and stood doing what they know to do, we would all be playing Fallout 4 by now, Interplay would laugh at Bioware and the NMA forums would be continuous happy fest.
And I recently heard some developer (wans't it Ken Levine?) saying how he was surprised to see Fallout 3 being a top seller. He even said he would't believe you if you went to the past and told him a hardcore RPG like Fallout 3 would stand against Gears of War. LOLIPOPS. If it was me being visited by someone in a time machine and telling me that, I would say: "Gears of War? Fuck that, man. I don't even know what's this shit, but it must some damn good RPG, what with standing against future Fallout 3. Also, cough up a Fallout 3 CD NOW, future boy, or I'm going to gut you. Also, tell me how the future will be or there will be even more gutting."
Of course we are. Fear the NMA Hivemind, We Are Legion!
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
UC,
It's more about how much can be done with the rules in place and how many meaningful choices there which still means that Fallout 3 is simpler than Fallout 1&2
I agree with that. But the claim that was made was that new Bethesda games were simplified versions of old Bethesda games. I don't agree with *that* at all
As for the TES games, how is Oblivion more complex than it's predecessors.
Character interaction, character development and exploration are a lot more meaningful in Oblivion. That isn't saying much, because it's still quite weak, but it is evidence of an increasing level of depth, from Arena to Oblivion.
I haven't played Mass Effect but Bioware generally achieves there goals and present a game which is up to snuff with their game type graphically.
1) Bioware didn't do the Mass Effect engine, they licensed it. It's an FPS game engine. Forgot which one.
2) The Mass Effect game engine is not much better than Bioware's internally developed game engines, when it comes to interactive environments, AI, and controls.
Hell, I thought that what I've seen from Mass Effect's dialog scenes looks good, the animations are good, the voice acting is good, and the graphics are good (can't say about the writing).
Yes, Mass Effect looks and sounds good. But, it doesn't "play" good. It's very crude compared to Bethesda's engine. On any given level, there are only a few hardcoded hotspots the player can interact with. Most NPCs can't be interacted with at all. Compare to FO3, where you can talk to any NPC you want to, can kill them even, if you want to, can enslave them, can pick up any object that isn't nailed down and move it someplace else, can drop stuff from your inventory onto the ground or place it on a shelf, so on and so forth. There is no comparison.
And it gets worse if we're going to talk about Bioware's own game engines. I recently tried to play Shadow of Zeheir and I just couldn't stomach all the frustrations of having to try to wrestle with that damned game engine, every time I got into combat or wanted to do so much as walk across town.
And by the way... no jumping. Jumping is hugely important. No climbing, either. You can't even manually climb onto anything in either Mass Effect or any other Bioware game... they just block off anything other than the main level "corridors". That has always been the Bioware way.
Fallout 3 looks pretty bad when placed next to other FPSes on the market, especially animation wise.
That could be, but its not an FPS, is it?
Besides which, I never stated that Bioware is the best of the best in this area, I simply said that Bethesda did a pretty average job overall on their visuals when compared to the market.
Who else is there, making RPGs? Bioware and Bethesda. So I assumed you were comparing the two, with your critiques.
Who's whining? I thought we were having a discussion/debate about the quality of the game and Bethesda's products in general?
Seems to have gotten pretty hostile. And biased.
Interplay is responsible for the Fallout series while they owned it
, Bethesda is now responsible for the series and anything released associated with that IP after they bought it. Fallout 3 is solely Bethesda's responsibility and if they screw up canon and change the genre of the game, it's not Interplay's fault.
Interplay is responsible for killing Fallout. Fallout 3 is not Fallout. Fallout died a long time ago.
It's more about how much can be done with the rules in place and how many meaningful choices there which still means that Fallout 3 is simpler than Fallout 1&2
I agree with that. But the claim that was made was that new Bethesda games were simplified versions of old Bethesda games. I don't agree with *that* at all
As for the TES games, how is Oblivion more complex than it's predecessors.
Character interaction, character development and exploration are a lot more meaningful in Oblivion. That isn't saying much, because it's still quite weak, but it is evidence of an increasing level of depth, from Arena to Oblivion.
I haven't played Mass Effect but Bioware generally achieves there goals and present a game which is up to snuff with their game type graphically.
1) Bioware didn't do the Mass Effect engine, they licensed it. It's an FPS game engine. Forgot which one.
2) The Mass Effect game engine is not much better than Bioware's internally developed game engines, when it comes to interactive environments, AI, and controls.
Hell, I thought that what I've seen from Mass Effect's dialog scenes looks good, the animations are good, the voice acting is good, and the graphics are good (can't say about the writing).
Yes, Mass Effect looks and sounds good. But, it doesn't "play" good. It's very crude compared to Bethesda's engine. On any given level, there are only a few hardcoded hotspots the player can interact with. Most NPCs can't be interacted with at all. Compare to FO3, where you can talk to any NPC you want to, can kill them even, if you want to, can enslave them, can pick up any object that isn't nailed down and move it someplace else, can drop stuff from your inventory onto the ground or place it on a shelf, so on and so forth. There is no comparison.
And it gets worse if we're going to talk about Bioware's own game engines. I recently tried to play Shadow of Zeheir and I just couldn't stomach all the frustrations of having to try to wrestle with that damned game engine, every time I got into combat or wanted to do so much as walk across town.
And by the way... no jumping. Jumping is hugely important. No climbing, either. You can't even manually climb onto anything in either Mass Effect or any other Bioware game... they just block off anything other than the main level "corridors". That has always been the Bioware way.
Fallout 3 looks pretty bad when placed next to other FPSes on the market, especially animation wise.
That could be, but its not an FPS, is it?
Besides which, I never stated that Bioware is the best of the best in this area, I simply said that Bethesda did a pretty average job overall on their visuals when compared to the market.
Who else is there, making RPGs? Bioware and Bethesda. So I assumed you were comparing the two, with your critiques.
Who's whining? I thought we were having a discussion/debate about the quality of the game and Bethesda's products in general?
Seems to have gotten pretty hostile. And biased.
Interplay is responsible for the Fallout series while they owned it
, Bethesda is now responsible for the series and anything released associated with that IP after they bought it. Fallout 3 is solely Bethesda's responsibility and if they screw up canon and change the genre of the game, it's not Interplay's fault.
Interplay is responsible for killing Fallout. Fallout 3 is not Fallout. Fallout died a long time ago.
He probably has not forseen the effects of marketing in the future. You can sell everything to almost everyone with the right comercials.Slaughter Manslaught said:
programmer.craig said:
Neither did Bethesda created the used engine. It was licenced as well. Like a lot of other parts they (still) use, like Speed Tree or the physic engine.
What you count can be seen as well as "Fake choices". A lot of the things that you do have either no meaning or are negligible effects like the one resulting from "Karma" which can be changed extremly easily by either stealing or church/water donations. If you kill some NPC most of the time you have effects on your Karma which can be as said corrected rather easily. That you can ask every NPC doesnt mean ineherently that it is a usefull "conversation" or that it is anything different from interaction in other RPGs when it just comes to NPC interaction I think Gothic provided here a much better experience then Fallout 3 or Oblivion. Not even the destruction of Megaton which can be seen as a rather important effect will be mentioned a lot trough your game or have a impact on other communities even (then Megaton itself obviously ...). You have a lot of interaction but only a few "key" points have a meaning to your game. Particularly in relation to the end game and the sliding show.programmer.craig said:
The thing is just that Bioware RPGs are usualy not Sand-Box games in the range like either Oblivion or Fallout 3. Both Fallout 1 and 2 provided some borders to you as well and were not providing much for "exploration" but that was never the target of the game or a important concept. Neither is it in most Bioware games. Bioware games offer a relatively linear experience. But not exploration.programmer.craig said:
programmer.craig said:
The Climb check most certainly existed in the NWN. Specifically, I can recall at least one such use in the intermission of Shadows of Undertide. As for jumping, it's not essential to RPG gaming. Not a single RPG I can name that is any good put any attention to that. FO1/2 didn't have it, TOEE didn't have it, PS:T didn't have it... You get the idea. It's Oblivion that made you bunny-hop the universe.
The Bioware engines aren't all that great, but serve their purpose. I don't recall as much frustration with Aurora as I experienced with FO3 engine.
That being said, Bioware does make largely linear games, but it makes them interesting. I personally prefer my exploration be limited as limited to the main, or side, or at least any kind of plot or story.
Fallout 3 looks pretty bad when placed next to other FPSes on the market, especially animation wise.
That could be, but its not an FPS, is it?
Well, unless you take Beth's word for it (
), it classfies as an FPS/aRPG hybrid, meaning that it will inevitably be compared to both FPS and RPG games. And, as it stands, it doesn't look too good in either category.programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
Hey SM, I like your style
CV,
Neither did Bethesda created the used engine. It was licenced as well. Like a lot of other parts they (still) use, like Speed Tree or the physic engine.
Now you are arguing semantics. Not going there.
What you count can be seen as well as "Fake choices".
Again, you are arguing semantics. A more realistic modeling of the environment is ALWAYS better than a less realistic modeling of the environment, and to argue otherwise is simply silly.
Both Fallout 1 and 2 provided some borders to you as well and were not providing much for "exploration" but that was never the target of the game or a important concept. Neither is it in most Bioware games. Bioware games offer a relatively linear experience. But not exploration.
I'm not comparing Betehsda's engine to older games, I'm comparing it to current games. As for free form exploration, that is the ONE THING that current RPGs don't offer much of, and it's hugely important. I can't think of many classic games that really left an impression on me, that didn't have this feature. In fact, Baldur's Gate II and Torment are the only two I can come up with.
As for the game engine, Bioware's main problem is the way they try to run combat as scripted "events". When the player decides he wants to do something, it doesn't happen in real time. It gets added to an event queue, and happens whenever the game engine decides it is time for it to happen. And often the player will unintentionally interrupt his own actions, by pausing the game and giving new orders. Very frustrating, particularly in those Bioware games that allow the player to control more than one character. And you know what? That's built into the game engine.
Ausdoerrt,
The Climb check most certainly existed in the NWN. Specifically, I can recall at least one such use in the intermission of Shadows of Undertide. As for jumping, it's not essential to RPG gaming. Not a single RPG I can name that is any good put any attention to that. FO1/2 didn't have it, TOEE didn't have it, PS:T didn't have it... You get the idea. It's Oblivion that made you bunny-hop the universe.
Again, you are comparing modern engines to old engines. Pointless. We are discussing whether or not Bioware's current game engine is as good as Bethesda's current game engine. It clearly isn't. I have to doubt the sanity of anyone who thinks that it is
Well, unless you take Beth's word for it ( Rolling Eyes ), it classfies as an FPS/aRPG hybrid, meaning that it will inevitably be compared to both FPS and RPG games. And, as it stands, it doesn't look too good in either category.
Bioware's games also fit into that category, these days, and would fare even worse using your standards. Using MY standards, Bethesda's game engine supports many things that FPS game engines do not, and are therefore is superior to them. But then again, I'm not a fan of FPS games and never have been. I've played a few, but only to pass the time when I was bored.
CV,
Neither did Bethesda created the used engine. It was licenced as well. Like a lot of other parts they (still) use, like Speed Tree or the physic engine.
Now you are arguing semantics. Not going there.
What you count can be seen as well as "Fake choices".
Again, you are arguing semantics. A more realistic modeling of the environment is ALWAYS better than a less realistic modeling of the environment, and to argue otherwise is simply silly.
Both Fallout 1 and 2 provided some borders to you as well and were not providing much for "exploration" but that was never the target of the game or a important concept. Neither is it in most Bioware games. Bioware games offer a relatively linear experience. But not exploration.
I'm not comparing Betehsda's engine to older games, I'm comparing it to current games. As for free form exploration, that is the ONE THING that current RPGs don't offer much of, and it's hugely important. I can't think of many classic games that really left an impression on me, that didn't have this feature. In fact, Baldur's Gate II and Torment are the only two I can come up with.
As for the game engine, Bioware's main problem is the way they try to run combat as scripted "events". When the player decides he wants to do something, it doesn't happen in real time. It gets added to an event queue, and happens whenever the game engine decides it is time for it to happen. And often the player will unintentionally interrupt his own actions, by pausing the game and giving new orders. Very frustrating, particularly in those Bioware games that allow the player to control more than one character. And you know what? That's built into the game engine.
Ausdoerrt,
The Climb check most certainly existed in the NWN. Specifically, I can recall at least one such use in the intermission of Shadows of Undertide. As for jumping, it's not essential to RPG gaming. Not a single RPG I can name that is any good put any attention to that. FO1/2 didn't have it, TOEE didn't have it, PS:T didn't have it... You get the idea. It's Oblivion that made you bunny-hop the universe.
Again, you are comparing modern engines to old engines. Pointless. We are discussing whether or not Bioware's current game engine is as good as Bethesda's current game engine. It clearly isn't. I have to doubt the sanity of anyone who thinks that it is
Well, unless you take Beth's word for it ( Rolling Eyes ), it classfies as an FPS/aRPG hybrid, meaning that it will inevitably be compared to both FPS and RPG games. And, as it stands, it doesn't look too good in either category.
Bioware's games also fit into that category, these days, and would fare even worse using your standards. Using MY standards, Bethesda's game engine supports many things that FPS game engines do not, and are therefore is superior to them. But then again, I'm not a fan of FPS games and never have been. I've played a few, but only to pass the time when I was bored.
programmer.craig said:
Now who's arguing semantics?programmer.craig said:
Doom was one of the first games to make first-person shooters popular. The term wasn't first used to describe Doom. It slowly replaced the term "Doom clone", that was used to describe similar games due to its popularity. Saying Doom was the first FPS is like saying Elvis Presley was the first Rock'n'Roll singer. It's nonsense.
I don't agree. If your character had to take a shit every day, it'd be more realistic but also a major pain in the ass. (pun intended) The term 'realistic' is quite ambiguous. Realism is not always better. Who'd want Day Of The Tentacle with realistic environments?programmer.craig said:
Also, your postings are a pain to read, please start using proper quote-tags. It's not that hard, really.
programmer.craig
First time out of the vault
BB,
Now who's arguing semantics?
Not me!
Doom was one of the first games to make first-person shooters popular.
That's like saying Dungeons & Dragons was one of the first games to make roleplaying games popular. And before you start lecturing me about the history of tabletop gaming, know that I was playing D&D when it first came out in the early 1970s (as a child) and I was also playing Gygax's previous game, Chainmail. If you don't have similar "old skool" credentials, I don't want to hear your opinions on the matter.
The term wasn't first used to describe Doom. It slowly replaced the term "Doom clone", that was used to describe similar games due to its popularity. Saying Doom was the first FPS is like saying Elvis Presley was the first Rock'n'Roll singer. It's nonsense.
Read that comment again, please. Does it make sense to you? Because, it doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be admitting I am right, while at the same time claiming I am wrong.
I don't agree. If your character had to take a shit every day, it'd be more realistic but also a major pain in the ass. (pun intended) The term 'realistic' is quite ambiguous. Realism is not always better. Who'd want Day Of The Tentacle with realistic environments?
You are just making excuses for substandard game engines. I clearly said "realistic environments". I'm not surprised you mention taking a shit, though, in your anal-retentive argumentation
Also, your postings are a pain to read, please start using proper quote-tags. It's not that hard, really.
Sorry, I haven't commented on an internet forum in years, except for this one. Not gonna bother to learn how to do it "properly" at this late date, just to make you happy.
Now who's arguing semantics?
Not me!
Doom was one of the first games to make first-person shooters popular.
That's like saying Dungeons & Dragons was one of the first games to make roleplaying games popular. And before you start lecturing me about the history of tabletop gaming, know that I was playing D&D when it first came out in the early 1970s (as a child) and I was also playing Gygax's previous game, Chainmail. If you don't have similar "old skool" credentials, I don't want to hear your opinions on the matter.
The term wasn't first used to describe Doom. It slowly replaced the term "Doom clone", that was used to describe similar games due to its popularity. Saying Doom was the first FPS is like saying Elvis Presley was the first Rock'n'Roll singer. It's nonsense.
Read that comment again, please. Does it make sense to you? Because, it doesn't make sense to me. You seem to be admitting I am right, while at the same time claiming I am wrong.
I don't agree. If your character had to take a shit every day, it'd be more realistic but also a major pain in the ass. (pun intended) The term 'realistic' is quite ambiguous. Realism is not always better. Who'd want Day Of The Tentacle with realistic environments?
You are just making excuses for substandard game engines. I clearly said "realistic environments". I'm not surprised you mention taking a shit, though, in your anal-retentive argumentation
Also, your postings are a pain to read, please start using proper quote-tags. It's not that hard, really.
Sorry, I haven't commented on an internet forum in years, except for this one. Not gonna bother to learn how to do it "properly" at this late date, just to make you happy.