About VATS: I don't care if it's turn-based or not. While I'm sure those of you who heard of it dislike
Tycho's perspective on things, that's how it works for me too. For me, the setting and the atmosphere were what made Fallout. I understand that for many of you it was a lot more than that, but that's how it is for me. As such, I'm more concerned with stylistic inadequacies than the game not being isometric turn-based.
Combat was one of Fallout's weakest points. There was nothing
wrong with it, mind you, but the rest of the game was ahead of it by leaps and bounds. It was always fun and interesting meeting interesting characters, finding new areas, completing quests (especially if you found a tricky way to do it), and so on. But when the combat screen came up, for me it was never "Oh boy, combat! This'll be great!" Again, it's not like it was
unfun either, but combat was only really interesting in terms of getting powerful criticals. Other than that it was mostly trying to pick off the enemies before your party members died.
I can understand why those of you who really liked Fallout's combat or just want another isometric turn-based game would be really disappointed without it intact. That's fine, but for me, personally - I'm not just a Fallout fan or even just a CRPG fan, I'm a gamer. I play games in every genre - as long as the game is good. So how they implement Fallout's setting and atmosphere doesn't faze me unless it fundamentally changes either one. A straight-up FPS game would do that. This won't. I know that a lot of you point to a game like FOBoS for how drastically changing things (though FOBoS changed more than just combat) can end up in the entire product getting screwed. But there's other examples of the opposite happening. Case in point: Metroid Prime. Took a 2-D platformer and turned it into a 3-D FPS. Retained the style and atmosphere of previous Metroid games and became one of the highest rated games of all time. The initial reaction from Metroid fans was the same as from Fallout fans here - "get your FPS out of my RPG/platformer." So they started calling Metroid Prime an FPA - it's a first-person shooter and you shoot, but it's not Doom or Halo. The same thing's happening here.
Fallout 3, like Metroid Prime, is in terms of obvious definitions a first-person shooter (or third-person, I suppose, depending on your options). That doesn't mean it's going to completely bastardize the entire series. That's also why they're calling it an Action RPG instead of an FPS. The gameplay choices they're making are, as they said, not going to accommodate twich-based gaming. And although you guys don't like the "Action" part of that title, you should know that the only reason Bethesda is
calling it an Action RPG is to reassure you that the atmosphere will be the same (obviously their assurance didn't work, but that's why they did it). We get the opposite from BioShock. Despite it being a first-person game where you shoot things, originally they were touting it as an RPG or an RPG/FPS hybrid. Now they're just calling it a straight-up FPS, because an FPS will sell more. Game hasn't changed. As many of you evidently feel betrayed by Bethesda I'm not sure how much you'll appreciate the gesture, but Bethesda is actually
sacrificing sales from the massive FPS gaming market by refusing to give it that label. And the only reason they're refusing to give it that label is to appeal to
you.
On the other hand, the gameplay changes themselves are
not being done for you. An isometric turn-based Fallout game would not do well enough it today's market for the amount of work Bethesda puts into their games. If, say, Troika had gotten a hold o the license, it would've been fine. Small dev, can do what it wants. Bethesda needs its games to be
big. It's going to make the best Fallout game they can, but they're also going to make it appeal to the biggest market they can while doing so. Although you guys, as hardcore Fallout fans, may not (and evidently
do not) appreciate that, know that this game
will get wider exposure because of it. And
if it maintains Fallout's setting and atmosphere - and don't judge a game that's over a year from release, not counting inevitable delays, from the way a super mutant model looks now or a single weapon they added - I will appreciate it being spread to a wider audience than Fallout or Fallout 2 ever reached.
As for those of you here, you're not all of Fallout's fans, and you're not a majority. Numbers alone should tell you that. But you're obviously the most dedicated. So rather than sitting here making snide remarks about Orcs and writing off the whole thing as "Oblivion with guns," I'd do whatever I could to try to get Bethesda to implement everything in the way that best matches Fallout's setting and atmosphere. And it would help if you guys seemed genuinely interested in helping Bethesda rather than in bending Bethesda to your will. They're not going to listen to you any more than they already have if you go in with "WE, the FANS of FALLOUT, who KNOW what Fallout TRULY is," you're not going to make a lot of headway. Especially when you start going into "[X] is just not Fallout." You have two options:
demand that Fallout 3 is tailored to your exact specifications, or compromise with Bethesda, accept that some things will change, and try to help them make the game as good as it can be.
So far you've doing the first. If you don't think you have, that's what the perception of this community from anyone on the outside looking in. Either way, it hasn't worked, because Bethesda is going to make the game they want to. They'll listen to fans, but they won't take orders from them. It's the difference between ten pages of bitching about Orcs and making a concerted effort to get in touch with developers and politely telling them that you're concerned because one of the neatest things about Fallout was the style. Without any self-righteous indignation whatsoever. Bethesda
will take your opinions into consideration, but if you're dicks about it, past a certain point they're going to say "fuck it." Now might be that point, given that most people who have heard of this outside of these forums seems to think it looks pretty awesome - and yes, I am talking about people who were fans of Fallout, not the random console gamers many of you seem to think are ruining everything. So either
help Bethesda, the owners of the IP, make Fallout 3 as good as it can be and give it a chance when it comes out, or keep saying "Fallout 3 will never be
Fallout 3" and go back to waiting for a game that will never come out.
Bethesda's only going to listen to you if you work
with it rather than
against it. And telling them how much you think all their older games and pet series suck over and over again probably doesn't get you on their good side either, although you can differentiate how you would want certain things to be as
opposed to their
completely separate fantasy RPGs.
And now I'm gone, far too pessimistic to think this post will change a single person's mind about any of this.
