Fallout 3 preview on Gamebanshee

[yukatan]

I guess my ideal FO3 would be FPS gameplay of SS2, dialogue, story, open-endedness of FO2, graphics of HL2. TB didn't make or break FO--Arcanum, for example, bored me to death.

Vampire: Bloodlines?

Bloodlines had linear plot progression (can't go to next city until meeting specific objectives), mediocre graphics considering the Source engine, stereotypically "omg Vampire are so emo" art direction, borked ranged combat (or was it hand-to-hand? dang can't remember). Plus every encounter was resolved by blowing them into smithereens, not exactly open-ended like FO2. But yeah, that's the general direction I like RPGs to be going.

Ack, one thing I wanted to ask but forgot to was whether FO3 will have customizable weapons.

Are you serious?

Believe it or not, there are those in the world that don't consider TB to be the pen-ultimate experience in roleplaying. I consider it an anachronism stemming from the limitations of the PnP format <jumps>. To say TB made Fallout 1/2 IMO sells the great franchise short. It was so much more than that. I liked FO2 in spite of its TB, hehe. Being the FO1/FO2 fan that I am, I'm somewhat resentful that I'm lumped up into the category of "must love TB." There are hardcore FO2 fans that could live without TB.

 

[Sorrow]

Believe it or not, there are those in the world that don't consider TB to be the pen-ultimate experience in roleplaying. I consider it an anachronism stemming from the limitations of the PnP format <jumps>. To say TB made Fallout 1/2 IMO sells the great franchise short. It was so much more than that. I liked FO2 in spite of its TB, hehe. Being the FO1/FO2 fan that I am, I'm somewhat resentful that I'm lumped up into the category of "must love TB." There are hardcore FO2 fans that could live without TB.

You liked Fallout despite that it's creators made it as close to PnP gaming as possible? That's nice, but irrelevant to discussion about what makes or breaks Fallout.

 

[Brother None]

Ack, one thing I wanted to ask but forgot to was whether FO3 will have customizable weapons.

It won't. Pete Hines or Todd Howard stated there are certain formulaic weapons (you know, get the right bits, make the weapon, kind of like Arcanum's recipes), but you won't be able to get a silencer and stick it on any weapon.

Someone else will know the link to this interview.

 

[yukatan]

Believe it or not, there are those in the world that don't consider TB to be the pen-ultimate experience in roleplaying. I consider it an anachronism stemming from the limitations of the PnP format <jumps>. To say TB made Fallout 1/2 IMO sells the great franchise short. It was so much more than that. I liked FO2 in spite of its TB, hehe. Being the FO1/FO2 fan that I am, I'm somewhat resentful that I'm lumped up into the category of "must love TB." There are hardcore FO2 fans that could live without TB.

You liked Fallout despite that it's creators made it as close to PnP gaming as possible? That's nice, but irrelevant to discussion about what makes or breaks Fallout.

If they wanted to get it closer to PnP gaming, they'd replace the graphics with a single portrait of a heavy-set, zit-faced kid acting as DM and telling you what you're seeing. Then you watch in awe as the screen pans to him rolling a 20-sided dice and telling you about saving throws. The map should also be replaced with a hand-drawn-looking one, complete with a graph-paper background so he can make nifty rectangular boxes signifying rooms. The fact that they didn't do this for FO2 is heresy.

Edit:

It won't. Pete Hines or Todd Howard stated there are certain formulaic weapons (you know, get the right bits, make the weapon, kind of like Arcanum's recipes), but you won't be able to get a silencer and stick it on any weapon.

That seriously friggin sucks. Thanks for the info though

 

[Sorrow]

If they wanted to get it closer to PnP gaming, they'd replace the graphics with a single portrait of a heavy-set, zit-faced kid acting as DM and telling you what you're seeing. Then you watch in awe as the screen pans to him rolling a 20-sided dice and telling you about saving throws. The map should also be replaced with a hand-drawn-looking one, complete with a graph-paper background so he can make nifty rectangular boxes signifying rooms. The fact that they didn't do this for FO2 is heresy.

We were talking about game mechanics and what was in game, do you remember?
Your attempts of ridiculing by literal interpretation and driving the whole concept towards absurd, don't change anything.

Fallout was being made to follow GURPS mechanics as close as it's possible. We know it, because one of the developers was here and told us that it was following the PnP game so close that they didn't even have design documents on game mechanics until they lost the GURPS license.

 

[Kyuu]

Believe it or not, there are those in the world that don't consider TB to be the pen-ultimate experience in roleplaying. I consider it an anachronism stemming from the limitations of the PnP format <jumps>.

There's nothing anachronistic about it. It wasn't something made because technology didn't allow anything else. It was a deliberate design decision. Some people *gasp* do like turn-based combat. And guess what? There are tons of games out there with real-time combat to satiate your twitch fantasies on.

Fact is, turn-based provides a much better option for strategic, stat-based combat that doesn't rely on a player's reflexes than RT, or even RTwP, as well as having numerous other advantages. Fallout was made for people who like turn-based combat. Saying turn-based combat wasn't an integral part of Fallout is like saying you can throw out dialogue and a post-apocalyptic setting. Why is it a surprise that most Fallout fans are fans of turn-based combat? If you like it despite loathing the combat, great. But Fallout was never intended to be a game for those looking for real-time combat, or else, zounds, they would've made it real-time in the first place.

Graphics? Fallout had great graphics for its time, and the art direction and style still beat most games today. Yeah, it's low-res, and that was due to technological limitation. But still, show me a death animation from Fallout, and the exploding head from the FO3 screenshot, and Fallout's wins hands-down..

Also, the lack of dialogue options was hardly the only shortcoming in Oblivion's system. Poor pacing, poor voice-acting, odd facial animations, poor writing... it was just bad in general. Any similarities to that is pretty much an automatic negative mark on FO3.

 

[Sorrow]

Fact is, turn-based provides a much better option for strategic, stat-based combat that doesn't rely on a player's reflexes than RT, or even RTwP, as well as having numerous other advantages.

Personally, I think that the only place when RT actually works for tactical combat is in games that have good AI, like Close Combat, where the player doesn't have to care for every individual soldier, but can focus on commanding whole squads with individual soldiers guided by AI.

Otherwise RT is just and anachronism from times of Pacman.

 

[Kyuu]

Otherwise RT is just and anachronism from times of Pacman.

Yeah, damned old-fashioned RT combat. Get with the times people!

I don't mean to say I hate RT combat. It's fine. There's just an absolute plethora of RT games out there. Fallout was a bastion of relief for those who appreciate turn-based, and it's just disheartening and, well, shitty, for it to be turned into yet another RT combat game. Yeah yeah, it has VATS (i.e. RTwP plus a dumbed-down version of Fallout's targetting) too.

 

[Morbus]

Lackluster art direction + pretty graphics vs. decent art direction + crappy graphics--I'd prefer the former. Graphics were definitely not a forte of FO1/FO2

They were. Why do you lie?

BTW... good graphical direction is the reason why Baldur's Gate is graphically playable and enjoyable nowadays, and that's just an example.