Fallout 3 reviews round-up #20
- Thread starter Per
- Start date
Lichbane said:The '90s are gone. It's time to move on ... really.
It has nothing to do with "the 90s". As others have said, a type of gaming that we like is being marginalized in favour of a type of gaming we don't like, and the gaming press is cheering and calling us names. Why should we be happy or even indifferent about that? Why is our displeasure so offensive?
My head keeps poking itself with the thought of what could have been had Troika not been dragged about and punched in the gut by its publishers as much. How would have Arcanum fared had there not been the infamous early review-copy leak (and subsequent actual delay of the game). If these guys had had some more (well earned) respect, and been allowed to release their games when ready, they might now be up there competing with the likes of Obsidian and Bioware.
The whole industry could have been different (not just because of Troika, of course). What's the reason for the rise of the primitive shooter (not all shooters are primitive, just most of the current ones are), and the consequential trickle down effect ("Oblivion with Guns"). The jump in popularity of consoles? The inevitable road of gaming to the mainstream? Changing expectations (though its arguable as to which lead to which)? Rising production costs? The further transformation of the industry into a coroporate monolith?
There are other things of interest. Why don't people realize that there is a market for this sort of game? And why of all developers was Troika jinxed? I wander if its failure acted as a warning sign "KEEP THE F*CK AWAY!" for publishers to avoid the genre (as opposed to avoiding the mistakes).
An (incoherent) poke of the head.
The whole industry could have been different (not just because of Troika, of course). What's the reason for the rise of the primitive shooter (not all shooters are primitive, just most of the current ones are), and the consequential trickle down effect ("Oblivion with Guns"). The jump in popularity of consoles? The inevitable road of gaming to the mainstream? Changing expectations (though its arguable as to which lead to which)? Rising production costs? The further transformation of the industry into a coroporate monolith?
There are other things of interest. Why don't people realize that there is a market for this sort of game? And why of all developers was Troika jinxed? I wander if its failure acted as a warning sign "KEEP THE F*CK AWAY!" for publishers to avoid the genre (as opposed to avoiding the mistakes).
An (incoherent) poke of the head.
Isometric, turn based RPGs were an a product of the 90's because that's what the technology was capable of. Sure you could go ahead and mention Diablo 3. Isometric? Yes. But turn based? No. Depth of storyline you had in F1 and F2. No.UncannyGarlic said:
Do you really think if the creators of Fallout 1 and 2 had the tools and technology that is available now, they would have limited themselves with an isometric, turn based game? I doubt it very much.
Defensive much? Assume much? You have no idea of the kind of person I am. I thought personal attacks we not allowed on these boards.fedaykin said:
Obviously. I looks like personal attacks ARE allowed. As long as you agree with the moderators.Per said:
Congratulations, you are entirely uninformed.
No, you more got it for being an ass.
I am not going to explain you why, just look through the forums why.
Sorry for the side moderating Per.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Really? I guess Doom, Wolfenstien, the Ultima Underworld series, The Elder Scrolls: Arena, and many others didn't exist then. I also guess that the Half-Life, which was released the same year as Fallout 2, didn't have the technology that it did. I guess that Diablo, released 9 months before Fallout, was also sent from the future.Lichbane said:
Uninformed is the correct term to describe your statement.
Assuming the producers (ie their financier didn't step in) then yes and they have said that they wouldn't have made Fallout 3 like Bethesda did. Also, see Leon's post.Lichbane said:
UncannyGarlic said:
This is a verbal drop kick.
I have no idea why people actually believe that FPS and real time gaming is an evolutionary step from isometric turn based.
As pointed out, while Fallout 2 was on store shelves under the "New Release" section, "Half Life" was there right beside it.
So, the developers of FO1 and 2 HAD access to the technology and tools to make FO a FPS, but they CHOSE not to.
Simple as that.
Lichbane said:
http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=9564
Would you have made Fallout 3 isometric and with Turn Based combat or would you have followed the same principle that you're using on this PA title ?
I don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. Of course, it’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don’t know what I would have said if the offer was made.
I'm surprised you're acting so incensed at people scoffing at your posts. This may surprise you, but the point you are making aren't new, and in fact have been dealt with a gajillion times. Instead of harrumphing in demanding an explanation, it might have been good manners on your part to read up a bit to find out your questions have already been answered
Thank you Brother None. At least you had the courtesy to back up what you said with evidence. I am surprised by what was stated above.
But just because I'm new to this community, doesn't means I deserve the revolting treatment handed out by fedaykin and Per. And at least Uncannygarlic had some convincing arguments ... just remember that new people are not the enemy.
But just because I'm new to this community, doesn't means I deserve the revolting treatment handed out by fedaykin and Per. And at least Uncannygarlic had some convincing arguments ... just remember that new people are not the enemy.
shihonage
Made in USSR
These questions get asked so often, maybe there should be little pop-down box on top of the forums with lines like
"Isometric and turn-based are the legacy of the 90s"
"What is Van Buren ?"
etc.
And then you select it and it directs you to the relevant information.
Or maybe some sort of autoresponder to these questions...
"Isometric and turn-based are the legacy of the 90s"
"What is Van Buren ?"
etc.
And then you select it and it directs you to the relevant information.
Or maybe some sort of autoresponder to these questions...
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Don't fool yourself. It has nothing to do with being new or liking or disliking Fallout 3. It has everything to do with bringing up and old argument which has been disproved repeatedly for at least a year, if not longer (I've only really been reading forums and articles for that long but I seem to remember "journalists" stating this crap in articles a couple years old now). People become significantly less forgiving the more often a misinformed argument is made, even more so when they go over it with a backhoe every time it comes up.
Then there is the numerous interviews with the original Fallout devs and the many other articles on NMA. Here's a good few.
Fallout Retrospective Interview
Interview with Chris Taylor of Interplay
Fallout Developers Profile
Leonard Boyarsky Troika's PA RPG interview
Then there is the numerous interviews with the original Fallout devs and the many other articles on NMA. Here's a good few.
Fallout Retrospective Interview
Interview with Chris Taylor of Interplay
Fallout Developers Profile
Leonard Boyarsky Troika's PA RPG interview
I'm sorry for assuming that you did that on purpose. It now appears that you were just sincerely uninformed. I am still at a loss, however, why you assumed that the gameplay style and perspective of the originals must be outdated just because they were made ten years ago. I hope UncannyGarlic, Brother None and rcorporon have brought you up to speed.Lichbane said: