RE: Some comments back.
>>You said:
>>
>>"More's the pity that BIS had
>>nothing to do with what
>>originated from them."
>>
>>Gee, Interplay can't win for losing.
>> You damn them for
>>making the game, then complain
>>because BI isn't involved.
>>Why do you care if
>>you don't really care for
>>the game? First you
>>don't want the game made,
>>then you think it's a
>>pity because BI isn't involved
>>. . .
>
>BIS makes RPGs, ONLY RPGs.
> Thus by definition the
>game would be an RPG.
But it's not an RPG, so why would Black Isle be involved? You're complaint is illogical, like most of what you write below.
>
>
>Maybe it should be rephrased:
>"Too bad BIS isn't making
>Fo3 right now and FOT:BOS
>never existed."
Yes, that would be more accurate
Unfortunately Black Isle is working on several other things at this time, as I'd rather have Fallout 3 myself. You're inaccurate on a lot of other things below also, but accuracy doesn't seem to be one of your strong points.
>
>>"I think the game could have
>>potential... under another game realm
>>perhaps. FOT:BOS stands
>>for everything Fallout 1/2 don't."
>>
>>Who is to say what Fallout
>>stands for? I disagree,
>>I think the game fits
>>perfectly within the Fallout universe.
>> I just don't understand
>>your need to bash the
>>game.
>
>You an a racer game could
>fit under the Fallout universe
>game, and hell a flight
>sim with Vertibirds, so what's
>your point? Yeah, it
>CAN fit into the Fallout
>universe *somehow* but it SHOULDN'T.
That's what I don't get. WHO are you to say what should and shouldn't be in the universe? Who made you the Fallout God? You still haven't answered that question? Yours is just an opinion, and a pompous arrogant one at that.
>
>
>>"Why it won't have an enveloping
>>*dynamic* storyline:
>>
>>"#1: The game is combat oriented.
>>You can't, for instance, negotiate
>>out of battle."
>>
>>This is incorrect. According to
>>Chris Taylor, your responses to
>>NPC's can affect whether you
>>hav to fight or not.
>
>Oh wow, this will have about
>as much plot depth as
>selecting which map to go
>into in Command and Conquer.
> All this does is
>change your SET path in
>the game. Big whoop.
Get over it, its a strat game, not an RPG. Given that fact, your argument is irrelevant and illogical.
>
>
>> You can also go
>>steathy and aviod fighting.
>
>Go stealthy and avoid fighting?
>How is this dynamic gameplay?
> All you're doing is
>timing out your movement.
>It's about as dynamic as
>good unit management in Warcraft.
> Worse, its still purely
>combat based.
No you are wrong again. It is not just a matter of movement. You can actually avoid battle depending upon your interaction with NPC's, or by being steathly in trying to accomplish your task - just like you could in Fallout
Didn't you avoid combat in Fallout by talking or sneaking? Weren't those the main two ways of solving a problem other than combat?
But of course, in the end, the game is combat based. It _is_ Fallout Tactics. It is a tactical game - not an RPG. So your criticism of the game because it does not have heavy RPG elements is silly. It's like me complaining that the original Fallout didn't have a flight sim mode.
Say it with me - this game is a tactical battle game, this game is a tactical battle game . . .
>
>>"#2: The battlemaps are pre-rendered. Because
>>this game is combat-oriented it
>>would be a BITCH to
>>have to make a whole
>>lot of different maps just
>>to make the game some-what
>>dynamic. It will be as
>>dynamic in plot paths as
>>Command and Conquer
>> where you
>>can choose which map to
>>fight in."
>>
>>Not correct either. There are
>>a total 0f 20 "have
>>to do" missions, with another
>>18 optional ones depending upon
>>game decisions, interactions with NPC's
>>etc. More than just
>>which map to fight one
>>out of a couple of
>>choices.
>
>It's still the same, but with
>a different interface. Instead
>of clicking on the nice
>arrow you're answering a question.
> You have no choice
>as to picking your own
>fights.
Again, not true. Interactions with NPC's can affect whether you have to fight or not in certain areas like I said and you ignored. If you spent as much time learning about this game as bashing, you might get the facts correct sometimes. But it's just easier to not know any better.
>
>Also, a mere 18 "optional" missions?
> Is that all the
>"dynamics" the game has to
>offer?
Wrong, as indicated above. But frankly, I don't care, it's not an RPG
Dynamics are irrelevant for the most part in a strat game.
But then again, you keep treating it like it is an RPG, which is illogical and irrational.
>
>I take it the multiplayer capabilities
>make up for this lack
>right? If in doubt,
>throw in multiplayer capabilities to
>give the game a LITTLE
>more replay value.
LOL! When you don't have an argument, just belittle others in an attempt to confuse the issue. A lot of people have been asking for multiplayer, and here it is. That and the editor will help alot with replayability.
And interesting enough, you can set up a multiplayer game between yourself and the AI. You don't actually have to find someone if you don't want to mess with that - you can play in teams with or against the AI. Nice trick - one I haven't seen in a game other than RTS before.
Of course, because the game isn't an RPG that last fact is totally irrelevant to you
No matter what I say, you won't like it or will belittle it because Fallout Tactics is not an RPG.
>
>>"#3: The game is mission-based, hence
>>LINEAR GAMEPLAY. Or wait.. maybe
>>they're have a list of
>>campaigns you can go on
>>from a cluster. REAL DYNAMIC.
>>Almost as dynamic as the
>>missions in Commanche."
>>
>>I described above the degree of
>>linearity and dynamism. Point
>>of matter, in a strat
>>game, the linearity isn't as
>>important. In an RPG
>>you don't want this, but
>>lots of strat games use
>>a campaign tree. Problem is,
>>again, your looking and criticizing
>>it from an RPG standpoint
>>for the most part.
>
>Exactly, and Fallout should never be
>made into a strategy game.
Who says? Again, who made you God of Fallout?
It is quite clear that your arguments are based upon emotionalism, with very little logic.
> It contradicts all that
>Fallout represents as an RPG.
That's why it's not an RPG. It's a strat game. Repeat that last sentence several times - maybe you'll understand after awhile.
> It doesn't even have
>dynamics like Xcom in the
>way of buildings stuff.
>You just *fight*. It's
>like letting babies perform great
>plays.
No, wrong. It's not a RPG. It's a strat game. If they claimed it was an RPG then you'd have a point - but they've been clear that it is not. And again, there's that arrogance coming through - "babies performing great plays", LOL! It's a computer game for heavens' sake!
>
>>Personally, I'd like it more
>>open ended ala JA2 and
>>Xcom, but I consider 38
>>missions a fair bargain for
>>a game. They don't
>>have to follow the JA2/Xcom
>>paradigm.
>
>What, with little replay value aside
>from multiplayer capabilities? The
>game better be bundled with
>a hell of a good
>map maker (if any) or
>this game will die sooooo
>quick.
Oh, you are so knowingly omniscient aren't you? But of course as the Fallout God, or maybe his priest, you know everything, like as to whether this game will fail or not, don't you?
And yes, the game will have an editor, one from which I am told (after asking - you see I prefer to get my facts right rather than making erroneous suppositions), you will most likely be able to create your own campaigns.
I expect to see lots of user made maps/battles/campaigns.
>
>>"Well good for you, but I
>>have to wonder if you're
>>the kind of person who
>>even appreciates Fallout and what
>>it represents."
>>
>>Well, if that isn't one of
>>the most arrogant statements I've
>>read in a while.
>>Oh, let us bow before
>>the great God Xotor of
>>Fallout and seek out his
>>wisdom that he may enlighten
>>us! You don't like
>>the game, great don't buy
>>it. Just don't get
>>on your high and mighty
>>horse like you can look
>>down on everyone else who
>>disagrees with you. Like
>>as another person said in
>>this thread, as if you've
>>got some position of moral
>>superiority about a mere game.
>
>Hey I won't buy it.
>Perhaps I expect a game
>that is better than your
>usual schmeel with the name
>Fallout attached to it.
>Fallout represented a high standard
>of RPG gaming, one that
>most RPGs are based upon.
> Now it falls prey
>to the whims of an
>overzealous parent company bent on
>sole profits, though detached from
>their games. They see
>Fallout as a franchise, a
>motif to be milked as
>a cash cow. No
>longer concerned with quality they
>go for quantity. Hell
>just make a game based
>on another in an entirely
>different genre and sell it
>to cattle gamers. Who
>gives a damn about the
>previous games, sell the game
>as a franchise.
Nice rant, but you didn't address my point. Who put you in charge? Who made you Fallout God? Where do you get off putting down others who don't agree with you? It's one thing to disagree, even heartily. It's another to get up on your high horse and play arrogant pompous Fallout God.
But again, I give it to you, its a nice rant. All full of emotionally charged words: "whims", "prey" "cattle gamers", "milked", "overzealous",
etc. But you know what - you haven't a single fact to back up those assertions. It's all emotionalism, pure argument by outrage.
>
>It's like making a video game
>out of Calvin and Hobbes.
> Bill Waterson is adamant
>in preventing his comic from
>becoming commercialized as so many
>have become. Why? Because
>it spoils it. It
>makes it an icon rather
>than something to be admired
>for holding out on its
>own.
>
>This may sound pompous but real
>RPGs don't appeal to the
>less intelligent gamer. Why
>do you think so many
>people complained about the abundance
>of words in PS:T?
>Because average gamers want games
>that don't involve their brain
>as much as their reflexes.
> Why do you think
>Fallout had such a powerful
>theme? Because of the
>depth of storyline.
Surprisingly, I agree with _most_ of what you said in the prior paragraph, though I make no assumptions about anyone's or any groups intelligence unlike the Fallout God. But just because I agree doesn't mean I don't enjoy a good tactical combat game. Nor do I think one game is going to ruin the entire Fallout universe.
>
>FOT:BOS makes Fallout out to be
>a big bad battle against
>supermutants. People will start
>thinking that the whole Fallout
>series is just the epic
>war between human and mutant,
>good vs evil. How
>cliché is that?
Again, more ignorance on your part - but again that's easier than having the facts. No one has said that the BOS fight the mutants in the game - no one has any idea what the plot is other than the beginning. All you know is that a BOS squad sets out to follow the remnants of the Masters Army and something happens. That's it.
Oh, but I forgot, you're the Fallout God - you know everything, don't you?
>
>No, you won't get the feeling
>of a dire destroyed world.
> Instead you see a
>bunch of armored guys with
>submachineguns, flamers, and bazookas fighting
>mutants with the same.
>Who's in dire straights?
>Hell this game could take
>place in a techno future
>and it wouldn't change.
I love it, you don't even know the plot, but you feel free to make all sorts of assumptions about what will happen. Gotta love it.
But yes, you will fight. After all it is a strat game, not an RPG.
>
>So let me ask you something,
>why wouldn't I be upset?
For the same reasons I'm not. I see nothing that this game does to hurt the Fallout universe. It does not delay any development of Fallout 3 - which is the only reason I could see being upset. I still see no reason to be upset. There is no logic to your arguments. It is all based upon emotionalism - an irrational emotional attachment to an mere game.
>
>
>>"Do you actually expect that we
>>think BIS would even stoop
>>so low as to make
>>a rushed Fallout
>> contradiction like FOT:BOS?
>>BIS doesn't deal in ANYTHING
>>other than RPGs and it
>>makes some
>> damned
>>fine ones."
>>
>>"That's the sad thing Interplay gave
>>BIS's game to someone else
>>to make a derivative. So
>>sad..."
>>
>>The game isn't rushed - why
>>the need to distort the
>>facts? Nor is it
>>a contradiction - it just
>>isn't an RPG. There's
>>nothing in the game that
>>appears to be a contradiction
>>in any major way to
>>the Fallout universe.
>
>It contradicts the entire gameplay of
>Fallout. Emphasis on combat
>rather than dynamic storyline. One-dimensional
>roles rather than character developement.
Of course it does contradicts the gameplay. It is NOT an RPG! That is your whole complaint, that it is not Fallout 3. And that is a totally irrational and emotional argument. That's like complaining about vanilla ice cream because it isn't chocolate. Or complaining about classical music because it's not rock n roll. Or complaining about basketball because you can't kick the ball into the goal like soccer. It's silly and pointless.
> Yeah, it fits into
>the story, but hell Interplay
>could find some way to
>fit ANYTHING into Fallout's universe.
Whine, whine, whine. One Fallout game out that's not an RPG and the universe is doomed.
>
>
>>I really don't know what the
>>problem is. The game
>>is not a replacement for
>>Fallout 3 - Interplay has
>>said so. They've been
>>up front from the begining.
>>They named it "Tactics" so
>>no one would be confused
>>about it being an RPG.
>
>Of course it isn't an RPG,
>and that's what's so wrong
>with it. It is
>so one sided, so innane
>in topic. Fight this,
>kill that. Big deal.
> No character developement, no
>dynamic storyline, no choices other
>than what to shoot and
>where to move.
That's irrational. Like saying chocolate is wrong because it doesn't taste like vanilla, etc. See above. Illogical and emotional argument.
>
>FOT:BOS could be the replacement for
>Fallout 3 if it is
>popular enough.
That's a possibility for any game Interplay does. ANY game if it is popular enough is a possible substitute for another due to scarce resources. So are you complaining about Messiah, ST New Worlds, or Klingon Academy, or any of the other games under development by Interplay? Gotta be consistent, right? But then again, that would be logical, wouldn't it?
>Hell BIS
>may even be pressured into
>increasing the amount of combat
>in their Fallout 3.
That is the one rational argument you've made. But there is nothing to be done about it. But that pressure exists with or without Fallout Tactics. Diablo, BG, Nox, etc. have already seen to that. This game is not going to change the fact that the pressure already exists.
>
>>Geez, the way you're going on
>>about this you'd think they
>>were rewriting the Holy Scriptures
>>or something. I really
>>can't see why you're having
>>a cow about this game.
>
>Look above.
You still haven't given me a rational explanation - it's all built upon emotion. Argument by outrage has never been a valid method of debate.
>
>>Of course, I probably am not
>>able to "appreciate Fallout and
>>what it represents".
>
>From what I'm getting you don't.
> I take it you
>played a guy who shot
>first and asked questions later?
> Maybe you're a Diablo-RPG
>person? A Starcraft-RPG person?
Gotta love that arrogance. But oops, the Fallout God is wrong! FYI, I've never played Diablo. And I tried Starcraft, but got bored with it after only the third battle I tried. Got bored with Age of Empires midway in the Greek campaign. Don't buy any RTS games anymore. Guess that busts your bubble, doesn't it?
But then again, it's much easier to stereotype people, isn't it?
>
>
>>Come on fella, give it a
>>break. Go play a
>>good RPG, or give FO2
>>another run through
>
>But meanwhile sit back and see
>as another game series is
>ruined by cross-genreization.
Not much you or I can do about it if it happens, is there?
What's funny is that you want Interplay/BI to make Fallout 3. But you don't trust them to make Fallout Tactics and do the right thing with it. But if you don't trust them to do the right thing with Fallout Tactics, then how can you trust them to do the right thing with Fallout 3? You're screwed by your own logic.
I guess you should just hang it up.
