And what should I judge by? Perhaps by vague and, quite frankly, frightening statements Pete Hines gave in the press? I'm sorry, but I prefer to base my judgement on existing evidence. So if Arena sucked as an RPG, if Daggerfall sucked as an RPG, if Morrowind sucked as an RPG, then chances are Fallout 3 will suck as an RPG (unless Bethesda suddenly learns game design).
As I said: don't give up immediately. No, I don't think the chances of them doing a good job are that high, but I'm not giving up all hope because that's all there's left to do. For some reason you immediately assume that they'll fuck up.
Here's what dude_obj wrote: "I think it would be wild to literally bump into a super mutant in-your-face and pouding on you unexepectedly." Yep, sounds like first person shooter to me.
yet it doesn't for me.
*walks around corner*
Argh! Supermutant!
*turn-based combat starts*
Hmm....first-person shooter indeed.
Again, that what I said. Don't stuff my mouth with arguments I already stated.
No it isn't, here's what you said:
[quote="Ratty]Making a first person Fallout would also mean ditching turn-based gameplay, which would inevitably mean ditching SPECIAL system and everything that defined the RP aspect of the game[/quote]
That is vastly different from my remark.
Again, I prefer to work with existing evidence and previous experiences rather than slim chances of something extraordinary happening. Fact is, every attempt so far to tamper with established Fallout concepts resulted in an utter train-wreck. Another fact is, every attempt so far to tamper with established concepts in any game series resulted in an utter train-wreck. Franchizes that were completely ruined due to inept developers trying to fix that which doesn't need fixing or giving their games mass appeal are too numerous to be named, so it's statistically accurate to state that in game industry change equals total fuck-up.
You're dead wrong. Every single game sequel has known change, and often this was actually good. Metal Gear Solid, for instance, was a great sequel, but with a lot of changes from its predecessors. Every game in the Pro Evolution Soccer series has known several changes, and every game has come out for the better. Perfect Dark was different from Goldeneye, but it wasn't worse off (and yes, it was an official sequel). The Super Smash Bros. series has improved constantly. The subsequent releases of the mario games were often as good or better than its predecessors. And what about Europa Universalis? And Baldur's Gate? Baldur's Gate 2 was an improvement, although both still sucked.
You're letting EA rule your judgement over the entire game industry, and that's just silly.
I already stated that Fallout 3 needs a good 3D engine. As for the keyword system, that's bullshit. I want to play a roleplaying game, not a post-apocalyptic version of Wikipedia.
You must've missed Rosh's discussion on keywords in the FO3 forum.
In short, the point is this: keywords help a lot in letting the player do some of the guessing, and not the game. If you have to type in a keyword with a specific person to get to finish the quest, or accept the quest, instead of it being handed to you on a silver platter, it's a lot more challenging and a lot more rewarding too.
The keyword system should be implemented in a synergy with the normal dialogue tree system for it to work, though.
EDIT: As for the 3d bit, my reaction was to your statement that Fallout should always remain isometric. I called Bullshit, you haven't responded.
