From E3 untill now, Can you honestly tell me what we know of Fallout 4 objectively?

You mean design is not build on principles which can be studied? Oh boy ... I guess all those people out there can throw their bachelor and master degrees right out of the window I guess ...
 
Crni Vuk said:
You mean design is not build principles which can be studied? Oh boy ... I guess all those people out there can throw their bachelor and master degrees right out of the window I guess ...
Click to expand...

WHAT? Oh my lord what are you even saying now? You just set up the most blatant out of left field strawman I've ever seen. Where did I ever say design can't be studied? Of course it can be studied, I said claiming it somehow gives you the right to judge what can and can't be a sequel like a scientist can talk physics doesn't make any sense at all and isn't comparable.
 
So... arguments...

After reading, you realize that a sequel doesn't need to share the same mechanics to be a sequel? Hence that argument, while heavily detailed is in the end incorrect, especially if we take the definition of a sequel, 'a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.' Hence that it's fair to say Fallout 3 isn't a sequel because that it doesn't continue the story or develop the theme. However Fallout New Vegas is much more of a sequel due to continuing the story on the west coast and keeping the theme relatively close.
 
Yeah I'd call FNV a sequel, just not a proper sequel. It does continue the story and it strives towards emulating the mechanics and design of its predecessors as much as it can despite its limitations. But that's just it, it has limitations that prevent it from fully emulating what its predecessors were and so it can never truly be "proper".
 
Dr Fallout said:
So... arguments...

After reading, you realize that a sequel doesn't need to share the same mechanics to be a sequel? Hence that argument, while heavily detailed is in the end incorrect, especially if we take the definition of a sequel, 'a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.' Hence that it's fair to say Fallout 3 isn't a sequel because that it doesn't continue the story or develop the theme. However Fallout New Vegas is much more of a sequel due to continuing the story on the west coast and keeping the theme relatively close.
Click to expand...

I give up arguing with him and will ignore his position on that matter from now on. I am glad this forum has an ignore function.

You see I don't even have a problem if someone disagrees, Toront feels that the games are sequels but he knows that they should be actually spin-offs. We both know the reality of it all and the business where garbage that should be a spin-off is sold as Sequels because of some clever marketing trick that works behind the scene - Bethesda knows that from their millions of fans bretty much no one gives a fuck if Fallout 3 is a sequel or not, as long it folls their typical mind numbing open-world-Oblivion formula with unkillable NPCs and cringe worthy dialog.

If some people feel it is all opinionz so be it.
 
Last edited:
Oh man, Battlecross is now trying to argue about design with the same grace and knowledge as everythign else...

Dude, I thought you already said yo uwanted to drop the topic? We get it, "OPINIONZ!!!!" this thread is about the informetion we have on the game since E3, stop derailing this shit withyour repetitive droning, specially when it's so misinformed. Nobody here is arguing that Fallout 3 and 4 don't exist or that they aren't canon, we have basically accepted that like 8 years ago, we just point out how badly they hold up to the previous games and on their own. Stop arguing about something that isn't even being said on a Thread that isn't even about that.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
Dr Fallout said:
So... arguments...

After reading, you realize that a sequel doesn't need to share the same mechanics to be a sequel? Hence that argument, while heavily detailed is in the end incorrect, especially if we take the definition of a sequel, 'a published, broadcast, or recorded work that continues the story or develops the theme of an earlier one.' Hence that it's fair to say Fallout 3 isn't a sequel because that it doesn't continue the story or develop the theme. However Fallout New Vegas is much more of a sequel due to continuing the story on the west coast and keeping the theme relatively close.
Click to expand...

I give up arguing with him and will ignore his position on that matter from now on. I am glad this forum has an ignore function.

You see I don't even have a problem if someone disagrees, Toront feels that the games are sequels but he knows that they should be actually spin-offs. We both know the reality of it all and the business where garbage that should be a spin-off is sold as Sequels because of some clever marketing trick that works behind the scene - Bethesda knows that from their millions of fans bretty much no one gives a fuck if Fallout 3 is a sequel or not, as long it folls their typical mind numbing open-world-Oblivion formula with unkillable NPCs and cringe worthy dialog.

If some people feel it is all opinionz so be it.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

In the end my statement was more against you as you said that a first person game could never be a sequel but it actually can... while I still disagree with Battlecross he had you there.
 
As far as games goes, yes a Sequel DOES have to be mechanicaly similar to be a Sequel. Or it doesn't provide you with the same experience as previous games did. You can not sell me Baldurs Gate as Skyrim. You can not sell me Jagged Alliance as Call of Duty. You can not sell me X-Com as System Schock. You can not sell me Command & Conquer as Medal of Honor. And you can not sell me Doom as Sim City.

I have no clue how to make you people understand that it does matter, or else you can really declare eveything as a Sequel.

See, I never said that Bethesda can't put feces in a jar and sell it as Sequel to Fallout, this has become someewhat of a standart for some, because companies rather want to sell the name of something that's poopular as they know that certain mechanics are meant for nich games and not for everyone - and no one ever said they have to be.

FPS mechanics, right now, are simply extremely popular. But they are not the answer to everything. Which is why it was leading to pretty ridiculus statements by some Bethesda employes when they expressed their dissapointment that the team behind Diablo 3 chose a more traditional top-down view for their game. Do you think a first person game can provide you with the exact same experience as Diablo 2 did?

But that doesn't matter as far as the definition goes anyway. You can not sell me real time FPS as turn based combat. You just can't. How is that supposed to work? And if something isn't at least the similar experience, how can it be a Sequel? And I call anyone who's trying to do that an idiot, sorry I mean this in the least offensive way ... but no clue. Sometimes you have to be blunt about it I guess.

If I want to experience turn based combat, than I can not just go and say, oh I will just play CoD then! Sorry guys. But that just doesn't work. How can two vastily different experiences be the same?

I understand that for many the 50s future setting blown to pieces is pretty much the definition of Fallout, hence why I call this selling of FPS as "Sequel" actually a pretty good marketing trick!

But you guys DO understand that turn based combat was chosen BEFORE the original development team settled for the setting right? You do understand that the first playable draft of Fallout 1 was actually a knight with a sword as their original idea was to create a game in a fantasy setting? And yet it was turn based. And the development team behind Fallout 1 could have never imagined to make anything else but a turn based top down game for Fallout 3.

To say that a Sequel can be everything means that you can release EVERYTHING as Sequel to Fallout 1 as long as it just follows the setting. And it kinda diminishes the decisions the original developers made as they didn't chose turn based combat by accident.

This might seem irritating to some, but as someone who has grown up with turn based games and who LOVES them a lot, I will defend it with teeth and claws.
 
Last edited:
Again, overall I agree with you, however it can be a sequel if it's first person! Wether it's a poor one or not, that's an opinion however a sequel it can be by definition. Fallout 3 isn't a sequel due to the definition as I have explained. Fallout New Vegas can.
 
Then I suggest that you go to Vince Dweller and tell him that a First Person Game can be a Sequel to his Age of Decadence, but don't blame me for what happens after that :look:

Good luck!
 
Crni Vuk said:
Then I suggest that you go to Vince Dweller and tell him that a First Person Game can be a Sequel to his Age of Decadence, but don't blame me for what happens after that :look:

Good luck!
Click to expand...

Hehehe, but actually it can be. Sure you, I and many others won't like it but it can still be a sequel! Your argument is flawed in that manner, if you didn't keep mentioning that it CAN'T be a sequel then it becomes instantly credible!
 
I agree that it can be sold as Sequel. But but that doesn't mean that it is ... because that is why we have the term Spin-off, because someone at some point knew that it isnt the same, that's when you say something is a Sequel only by its name.

Because that is the only thing that I could agree with actually. That Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 are Sequels to Fallout 1 and 2 in name only. A Spin-Off sold as Sequel if you will.
 
Last edited:
Crni Vuk said:
FPS mechanics, right now, are simply extremely popular. But they are not the answer to everything. Which is why it was leading to pretty ridiculus statements by some Bethesda employes when they expressed their dissapointment that the team behind Diablo 3 chose a more traditional top-down view for their game.
Click to expand...
Wait, what?
Could anyone link me to this?
 
http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/inde...ointing-according-to-bethesda-director.24939/

It seems like someone did.

I must say I am disappointed that Blizzard has stayed on the conservative side in terms of design with their updates to Diablo and Starcraft. Diablo will be interesting since World of Warcraft has a lot of Diablo-like qualities. I have no doubt, however, that they will be incredibly fun, addictive and polished games. Blizzard is the top of the class when it comes to game development - nobody does it better.

Seems it was a tweet from her or something.
 
Walpknut said:
Oh man, Battlecross is now trying to argue about design with the same grace and knowledge as everythign else...

Dude, I thought you already said yo uwanted to drop the topic? We get it, "OPINIONZ!!!!" this thread is about the informetion we have on the game since E3, stop derailing this shit withyour repetitive droning, specially when it's so misinformed. Nobody here is arguing that Fallout 3 and 4 don't exist or that they aren't canon, we have basically accepted that like 8 years ago, we just point out how badly they hold up to the previous games and on their own. Stop arguing about something that isn't even being said on a Thread that isn't even about that.
Click to expand...

How about you keep your nose out of it when you have nothing to add? Thanks. Also if you're going to, learn to read because everything you said is incorrect considering it is what he is saying and has said it numerouslso don't drag out something that ended by the time you showed up and then complain about derailing. You also clearly didn't read anything and are just mouthing off considering I've proven that in reality what he has said is false. It's very simple and it is settled. The end.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top