First Review Drops : French Magazine PC Jeux

[Ausir]

Are you people so sure first Fallout installments would have had only iso perspective if technology back in the days allowed it?

But it did allow it.

 

[Multidirectional]

Are you people so sure first Fallout installments would have had only iso perspective if technology back in the days allowed it?

But it did allow it.

Ok you quoted me before I had a chance to edit. There were 3d games back in those days, but they usually had really small levels and/or they looked pretty terrible. At least as I recall it. Please do correct me if I'm talking out of my ass. I may also have a hard time expressing myself in English, cause internet is the only place I practice this language.
I think Fallout 1 and 2 would look a lot worse had they been made in 3d back then.

 

[Herr Mike]

For all that, you certainly don't know that the TB isometric game WOULD sell as well, either. If anything, the complete lack of them makes one think they wouldn't.

I'm not sure I follow that logic.

The only way that a lack of turn-based isometric games could harm a future release is because there is no established market. Maybe, although there clearly is a market out there, even if you measure it only by the number of download and budget sales of Fallout.

Still, a lack of market saturation also creates opportunity.

There is no established market, and that's part of it. As for opportunity, well, TB isometric is hardly a new concept. It has been phased out for a reason.

Genius as I'm sure we all are, Bethesda knows a hell of a lot more about selling games than we do.

Besides, they have always done first person, real time games, unless I'm mistaken. So they have some experience in that area. They were 100% right to stick to what they are good at.

If you say they suck and they actually aren't good at it, well, I'm not going to beat the Oblivion horse. I've never played it and frankly I don't trust the opinion of anyone here on it.

A quick poll of my 16 year old brother in law would tell us that kids his age don't like turn-based isometric games...

Not exactly scientific?

It may also tell you that all 16-year olds like gay clown porn, or enjoy two hours of vigorous self-abuse before breakfast, but certainly that they are all your in-laws...

Insufficient sample size.

You don't say??

My point was, he is a better example of the demo they need to sell games to than a 40 year old guy that still plays games made in 1997.

But, even an old school gameplayer such as myself can enjoy the hell out of a good real-time game.

I've not seen anybody make an argument that this isn't the case. The only argument here is about a Fallout sequel.

Yeah yeah yeah, "even if it's great, it's NOT FALLOUT!!". The be all, end all argument of the anti-crowd. I can't define what is Fallout or not so I'm not going to go there.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

...There were 3d games back in those days, but they usually had really small levels and/or they looked pretty terrible. At least as I recall it...

By modern standards, possibly, but they looked fine at the time... Quake 2, Dark Forces II.

 

[Blackfyre]

They make games that are niche (because they only have cRPG appeal - no fancy graphics or real attempt to innovate; just good quality writing for a crappy engine)

And how many people know of their products ? more like shareware, compared to beth or bioware their impact in gaming industry is none.
I never said niche games dont exist but thy aren't mainstream nor do thy create direct profits.

Larger companies, with larger margins, could easily take smaller profits

because you are assuming turn based games do sell, yet just the fact there are none to be had might point you are wrong.

To add Civ. or total war in the same line as fallout is silly, those are strategy games and have nothing to do with possible fps implementations

A new turn-based isometric game from the developers of Oblivion and the Elder Scrolls series

FPS games are a trend atm, thy sell by far hence companys produce them in mass. Halo, GoW...etc i dare say far more players would prefer the fops style that a turn based one. I for one dont like the idea of battling a group of enemies in rounds that takes 20 min to finish. Its just general preference, some will like the new combat of FO3 some wont and the last might be a minority.
Even with Van Buren thy planned to add real time combat to the game next to turn based ? Why if not to make the game more appealing

You think that Black Isle and Looking Galss were finished by producing unprofitable games?

Yet thy products didn't sell well or at least under expectations, that was my point. LG de facto broke cose of financial problems as a result of low SS 2 sales

Fallout 1/2 were PC games (okay, and Mac), in the days when PCs were less ubiquitous.

yet even then thy wherent bestsellers and you had those: Age of Empires, Jedi Knight II, TA, Quake 2, Tomb Raider 2 to name a few that had larger audience

but I'd rather you didn't get them from a Fallout sequel...

turn based iso gameplay isn't all what Fallout was, i belive there was more to it, the core its retro post apo. universe. Now how much of this beth let in fa3 i will tell once i play the game

 

[Goral]

(...). and it feels like some people haven't played it in years and have afterhand somehow exaggerated certain aspects of the game based on memories.

Oh really? It feels like you're Bethesda's employee, it feels like you actually aren't playing Fallout, it feels like you're insinuating things without any solid basis for it.
Honestly, do you think people would bitch that badly about the sequel of a game they didn't like? Fallout 1 is the only game (besides Sacrifice) I can play infinitely and it doesn't bore me. It is that awesome. Heck, even you are playing it now so either you're a masochist or you really like this game (or it's the first time for you).

 

[Herr Mike]

I think the original Fallout would have been just as good with Real-Time combat, or Tactics-style "continuous turn-based".

I actually may have preferred it. TB got annoying at times. The thing with RT, at least for me, is not that it turns things into moronic clickfests (Picture Diablo in TB instead of RT...yup, still a moronic clickfest), my problem is that it makes some games too stinkin hard and stressfull.

But with Fallout, you never controlled very many guys, so it wouldn't have gotten overwhelming. Not like a squad based game such as Company of Heroes, which could just get brutal.

I think it would have given it a more "organic" feel.

 

[Karak]

Thus, the fear that Fallout 3 could be a post-apocalyptic Oblivion is totally gone.

No it isn't...it is Bethesda after all, and Fallout 3 is a console game ported to PC...anyway, one of those first screenies from last year depicting a butt-ugly mutant in VATS was more than enough for me...nothing has changed since then...if anything, things look even worse...

 

[Ausir]

There were 3d games back in those days, but they usually had really small levels and/or they looked pretty terrible. At least as I recall it. Please do correct me if I'm talking out of my ass. I may also have a hard time expressing myself in English, cause internet is the only place I practice this language.
I think Fallout 1 and 2 would look a lot worse had they been made in 3d back then.

No one here is arguing for a 2D Fallout 3. But perspective has nothing to do with 3D vs. 2D. Yes, if they had today's technology, they'd make FO1 and FO2 3D. But what does it have to do with what viewpoint would the game have had?

FPS games are a trend atm, thy sell by far hence companys produce them in mass. Halo, GoW...etc i dare say far more players would prefer the fops style that a turn based one. I for one dont like the idea of battling a group of enemies in rounds that takes 20 min to finish. Its just general preference, some will like the new combat of FO3 some wont and the last might be a minority.

GoW is not an FPS.

Even with Van Buren thy planned to add real time combat to the game next to turn based ? Why if not to make the game more appealing

The designers didn't want it, the management forced them to add it, but the default mode was turn-based.

I think the original Fallout would have been just as good with Real-Time combat, or Tactics-style "continuous turn-based".

Tactics' "continuous turn based" was just a fancy name for real time with recharging action points.

yet even then thy wherent bestsellers and you had those: Age of Empires, Jedi Knight II, TA, Quake 2, Tomb Raider 2 to name a few that had larger audience

Do we look like we care if Fallout 3 appeals to the widest possible audience? We want it to appeal to us, the people who loved the previous iterations, first and foremost.

To add Civ. or total war in the same line as fallout is silly, those are strategy games and have nothing to do with possible fps implementations

Yet you are giving shooter examples, which have as much (if not less) to do with RPGs as strategy games.

As for opportunity, well, TB isometric is hardly a new concept. It has been phased out for a reason.

And I suppose you think that real-time FPP is somehow newer than that?

 

[Multidirectional]

...There were 3d games back in those days, but they usually had really small levels and/or they looked pretty terrible. At least as I recall it...

By modern standards, possibly, but they looked fine at the time... Quake 2, Dark Forces II.

My point was.. Fallout is still nice to look at, at least to me, because of the art style. And I think isometric perspective contributed to that a lot, as it would probably look much worse on closeups. Also third person perspective back then would have probably meant much smaller areas rendered or constant loading or whatnot.
But hey, there may be some games made back then I've forgotten that prove me wrong on this.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

And how many people know of their products ? more like shareware, compared to beth or bioware their impact in gaming industry is none.
I never said niche games dont exist but thy aren't mainstream nor do thy create direct profits.

They simply don't have the marketing power of AAA developers. However, they do have a reasonable profile amongst a certain group, and they are - as I said - developing niche products.

because you are assuming turn based games do sell, yet just the fact there are none to be had might point you are wrong.

It doesn't prove anything, other than that AAA developers are unwilling to produce them.

The fact that turn-based games have sold and continue to sell, the fact that turn-based games attracted a new and loyal market (which continues to support smaller developers), suggests that you're wrong that there is no inherent appeal to such games. You're clinging to a false dichotomy; a first person perspective is different, not superior to, a third person perspective.

The market didn't exist ex materia; people who had never played such games before, did so, enjoyed them, and became a market for them.

To add Civ. or total war in the same line as fallout is silly, those are strategy games and have nothing to do with possible fps implementations

But, it does show that there is a market for similar gameplay dynamics.

A new turn-based isometric game from the developers of Oblivion and the Elder Scrolls series

FPS games are a trend atm, thy sell by far hence companys produce them in mass. Halo, GoW...etc i dare say far more players would prefer the fops style that a turn based one.

Who knows?

I for one dont like the idea of battling a group of enemies in rounds that takes 20 min to finish.

And, therefore, only FPS should be made? Because you don't like tactical combat?

Its just general preference, some will like the new combat of FO3 some wont and the last might be a minority.

Because you say so? Many previews have suggested that VATS is not entirely satisfying, and that the realtime combat is worse.

Even with Van Buren thy planned to add real time combat to the game next to turn based ? Why if not to make the game more appealing

But very importantly, they kept turn-based combat.

yet even then thy wherent bestsellers and you had those: Age of Empires, Jedi Knight II, TA, Quake 2, Tomb Raider 2 to name a few that had larger audience

So? The Sims is the largest-selling PC franchise in history; should the games industry exclusively produce god-simulations of suburban life?

turn based iso gameplay isn't all what Fallout was, i belive there was more to it...

But the mechanic made perfect sense for implementing stats-based tactical combat. It was a core feature of the design of the game. The bare bones mechanics were in place before the Fallout post-apocalyptic cloth was hung on them...

 

[Multidirectional]

There were 3d games back in those days, but they usually had really small levels and/or they looked pretty terrible. At least as I recall it. Please do correct me if I'm talking out of my ass. I may also have a hard time expressing myself in English, cause internet is the only place I practice this language.
I think Fallout 1 and 2 would look a lot worse had they been made in 3d back then.

No one here is arguing for a 2D Fallout 3. But perspective has nothing to do with 3D vs. 2D. Yes, if they had today's technology, they'd make FO1 and FO2 3D. But what does it have to do with what viewpoint would the game have had?

My mistake. I meant "third person" but I wrote "3d". Thanks for a reminder.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

My point was.. Fallout is still nice to look at, at least to me, because of the art style. And I think isometric perspective contributed to that a lot, as it would probably look much worse on closeups. Also third person perspective back then would have probably meant much smaller areas rendered or constant loading or whatnot.
But hey, there may be some games made back then I've forgotten that prove me wrong on this.

Tomb Raider looked good at the time, but now looks pretty crappy.

I think you're right that part of Fallout's continuing graphical appeal is that the detailing of sprites was much better than was available in 3D engines.

 

[beverageleverage]

I never said niche games dont exist but thy aren't mainstream nor do thy create direct profits.

because you are assuming turn based games do sell, yet just the fact there are none to be had might point you are wrong.

FPS games are a trend atm, thy sell by far hence companys produce them in mass.

Even with Van Buren thy planned to add real time combat to the game next to turn based ? Why if not to make the game more appealing

Yet thy products didn't sell well or at least under expectations, that was my point. LG de facto broke cose of financial problems as a result of low SS 2 sales

yet even then thy wherent bestsellers and you had those: Age of Empires, Jedi Knight II, TA, Quake 2, Tomb Raider 2 to name a few that had larger audience

This might be a surprise to you, but it is possible for different genres of video games to coexist even when one genre might be more prevalent than the others.

turn based iso gameplay isn't all what Fallout was, i belive there was more to it, the core its retro post apo. universe. Now how much of this beth let in fa3 i will tell once i play the game

This again? You must be the same person who said this before. The setting is not the core of any game, the gameplay is. Feel free to assume that the rest (dialogue, setting, choice [ie alternatives to violence in case you don't understand the most basic offering of choice in this context], etc) is somehow still intact despite the information to the contrary (fatman, teddy bear launcher, choo-choo train railspike gun, abundance of exploding nuclear cars, action/violence only solutions, lawful good BoS, 72 hour consequence reset, etc) available in the previews. Somehow, I get the feeling this doesn't matter to you anyway seeing that your only concern is for sales and gaming trends.

 

[Iozeph]

You don't say??

My point was, he is a better example of the demo they need to sell games to than a 40 year old guy that still plays games made in 1997.

And here is where I'm going to disagree. Yes, the 16 year-olds are potentially tomorrow's gamers, but if you do a little reading, you're going to find that, contrary to "conventional wisdom", the average gaming audience is getting older. More to the point the older demographic- say your late 20's to late 40's has more discretionary income because, you know, they're working for a living.

We haven't gone anywhere, and until we die or go senile, we aren't planning to go anywhere either. Games, much like other formerly dismissed entertainment(comic books, Cartoon/Anime) are no longer solely the province of children/adolescents.

The gaming audience has matured and these gaming companies need to remember that in order to keep up with us. Like it's been said here already- there are plenty of mindless shooters out there for the less discriminating/budding player to choose from. It wouldn't hurt, and might certainly do a world of good, for the Bethesdas or the EAs of the world to throw us a bone now and then by releasing titles that stick to their/our gaming roots.

And if you recall, it was games like BG 1/2 and Fallout 1/2 that really sparked the resurgence of the CRPG back when they were released.

The players are there- Bethesda just needed to have the stones to make that leap of faith if they were going to pick up the Fallout franchise. Sadly, it seems they've lost that edge- if it was ever really there to begin with.

 

[squinty]

Ausir: Do we look like we care if Fallout 3 appeals to the widest possible audience? We want it to appeal to us, the people who loved the previous iterations, first and foremost.

Here lies the problem. People who played the first fallout games who are now up in arms about the coming sequel feel that they have some divine right that the game should be first and foremost tailored to their tastes. Deep down inside they know that this is an unrealistic expectation, but it is a bitter pill to swallow. I realise that many people are going to voice their dislike of the game but I wonder how many of them are just smarting from being overlooked by Bethseda (who from the outset never pandered to the hardcore...and never said they would) and are unfortunately, as a result, going to miss out on what could be an enjoyable game due to sheer bloody mindedness?

 

[Ausir]

Here lies the problem. People who played the first fallout games who are now up in arms about the coming sequel feel that they have some divine right that the game should be first and foremost tailored to their tastes.

I'm not saying that I have a divine right to anything. I just said that I don't care if Oblivion fans like it, I first and foremost care if I do. Why should I care whether it appeals to the widest possible audience, especially if that makes them remove things I enjoyed about the original?

 

[squinty]

Here lies the problem. People who played the first fallout games who are now up in arms about the coming sequel feel that they have some divine right that the game should be first and foremost tailored to their tastes.

I'm not saying that I have a divine right to anything. I just said that I don't care if Oblivion fans like it, I first and foremost care if I do. Why should I care whether it appeals to the widest possible audience, especially if that makes them remove things I enjoyed about the original?

I suppose you dont have to care, but would you not prefer to enjoy Fallout 3 rather than not? Would you prefer to play it and actually enjoy parts of it? Sure there is lots missing that made the first games enjoyable to you but just because it is not in exactly the same mold does not mean that you will not find new elements that may peak your interest. Change is not always for the good. Its an even harder thing to pull off when you are working from an allready successfull model (FO1 2). BS have stuck to a game style that they are comfortable with. It may be a style that you enjoy for different reasons and surely that in itself is a positive? Apologies for the 'divine right' comment. It was a little OTT but you get my drift.

 

[Ausir]

I suppose you dont have to care, but would you not prefer to enjoy Fallout 3 rather than not?

Yes, I would. And the changes they make are making the game less enjoyable for me. And I don't really care whether they're making the game more enjoyable for millions of other people.

It may be a style that you enjoy for different reasons and surely that in itself is a positive?

But I do not enjoy that style at all.

 

[dirtbag]

Lying is great! Bethesda is god and Fallout 3 will be awesome!!!