Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[Punter X]

while i am far from an expert on nwn (although i did play it, no real long-term impression was made), unless i'm mistaken much of the irritation with it (even today) was what many saw as a turgid OC which seemed tacked onto the product almost as an afterthought (probably also not helped by changing from being a party, which many seemed accustomed to, to you and a minion)

on a more personal note i would like to "thank" Jimminny for reminding me with all his "it's all about the setting etc" and "gameplay doesn't matter" that i played lionheart . i so much wanted to like that game

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Err...
Tabletop - which also includes a table with miniatures. Which is viewed in top-down/isometric view. PnP alone would suggest that any perspective is ok.

Dude! What you mean you can plug and play without minatures? Radical!

 

[Innuendo]

all right, personally i would prefer 2d isometric view, but since fallout 3 must be done with 3d engine, i would rather see it as a fpp.

why? Neverwinter Nights. It was isometric with a 3d engine and it sucked big times. No climate of previous games (Baldurs Gate and Icewind Dale) which was totally ruined by game engine. (and the game itself)

What the fuck? You take one example of a 3d isometric engine, and then say 'it sucked, nothing should be done with it again'.
That's absolutely ridiculous.

More ridiculous than scraping the whole game after seeing one teaser and one article?

There's no reason whatsoever to assume that the isometric viewpoint isn't doable in 3D, and games like Civilisation 4 essentially prove that they are very doable.

Civ 4 is a unique game, a worthy successor of the whole series.

And I would really like to say this about Fallout 3 in two years

BS. They were both rpg/shooters, but with an emphasis on the first.

They were hybrids, not full RPGs, like Fallout is.

So Fallout 3 will be a hybryd. Is that a bad thing?

how about this? You know, back in the old days when computers were made out of wood and stone, rpgs were mostly first person. But they died by natural death (or killed by Baldurs Gate). Now will just see it they were to stay in grave or come out triumphal to reclaim what was theirs.

First-person, *strategic* turn-based games are not doable, simply because you can't view the battlefield.

I'm not talking about heroes of might and magic. I'm talking about Might and Magic...

And I'm looking forward seeing it like this. Just because its fpp/tpp or whatever, it doesn't mean they will make Quake 5 or Resident Evil out of it.

Yet again, first-person view by definition means that at least part of the *core design* of Fallout is gone.

Can't argue with that. But I'm not so sure if the isometric view is compulsory for creating a true Fallout game.

Firstly, you mention that NWN was ruined by the game engine. Really? It's not like the developers can use another one... Concerning isometric in 3D, didn't most people here, amongst others, like the look and feel of the Van Buren project?

It might be a heresy to say such thing here, but Van Buren didn't look so good (but probably because it was in early stage of production)

Secondly, correct me if I'm wrong but didn't quite a few people complain about lack of RPG elements in SS2 and DX, thought it was not as complete as it could have been?

Depends what rpg elements are you looking for. If your looking for tons of statistics/gaining exp/hundreds of quest than you could complain. But if a rpg for is a game where you play a role, than you had nothing to complain about.

 

[Galdred]

anyway, even before the article, there was no chance it would be a true sequel to Fallout, because Bethesda and BIS didn't have much in common (except maybe the amount of bugs on release).

I don't think the inept dialogues in Morrowind, the uninspired gameplay, or the lack of interactions (I didn't played Oblivion as I didn't like Morrowind, so I cannot bash it) were planned features. It probably reflects a lack in their team, and unless the team who worked on Fallout was radically different, there is no way good graphic artists/area designers would turn into competent writers.

I think Bethesda's bashing is a little unfair, it was Interplay who sold them the licence although their experience lied in completely different areas...

The Resident evil and nuclear catapult are unforgivable misstakes indeed, but the other parts were probably unavoidable from the beginning.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

So Fallout 3 will be a hybryd. Is that a bad thing?

Yes because.... (wait for it) the first two weren't hybrids so how can you have a sequel that is?

Can't argue with that. But I'm not so sure if the isometric view is compulsory for creating a true Fallout game.

As I was reminded, it's the tabletop PnP experience, you don't see through the eyes of your minatures do you, so how can you get the same experience?

Depends what rpg elements are you looking for. If your looking for tons of statistics/gaining exp/hundreds of quest than you could complain. But if a rpg for is a game where you play a role, than you had nothing to complain about.

How about affecting the game world beyond killing everything that moves or defeating the end level boss?

 

[Punter X]

sorry if this comes off as a troll but i couldn't help but comment at the use of the tired old "rpg for is a game where you play a role" line as it always seems to ignore that in pretty much computer games as a whole you "play a role"

 

[ManiO]

Wow, I'm almost at the point that I never want to come back here. Not because of the NMA elitists, but because of stupid trolls who have nothing better to but post illogical and idiotic posts about how those of us who dislike the direction fallout 3 is heading are morons for stating our opinion or something similar.

Innuendo, as Punter states, saying that an RPG is a game where you play a role pretty much sums up every single piece of interactive entertainment media.

I wasn't talking about the graphical aspect of Van Buren, rather how the engine worked, which according to a lot of people showed some promise.

 

[Sander]

More ridiculous than scraping the whole game after seeing one teaser and one article?

Straw man. Either respond to the argument, or don't respond at all.

Civ 4 is a unique game, a worthy successor of the whole series.

And I would really like to say this about Fallout 3 in two years

Hurray, more strawmen.
Cut it out.

So Fallout 3 will be a hybryd. Is that a bad thing?

Yes, it is.

Depends what rpg elements are you looking for. If your looking for tons of statistics/gaining exp/hundreds of quest than you could complain. But if a rpg for is a game where you play a role, than you had nothing to complain about.

An RPG is a game where you play a role? That's ridiculous. That'd make *pong* an RPG.

An RPG is a game where you can play the role you want to play, within the confines of the given universe. And in such a way that the world responds to your actions.

 

[Yadadamean]

Sigh, I can't seem to make people understand why a lot of Fallout fans don't like the direction in which Fallout 3 is going/went...

They all say we are whiny people and that change is good... Meh.

 

[Silencer]

sorry if this comes off as a troll but i couldn't help but comment at the use of the tired old "rpg for is a game where you play a role" line as it always seems to ignore that in pretty much computer games as a whole you "play a role"

It's also about oplaying a role that you get to, in a broad aspect, choose. You could not coose not to play a treasure hunter in Tomb Raider, not play a mercenary i9n MDK or not play a Thief in Thief, whereas you could defelop your character to match any chosen walk of life in Fallout; that is one factor that differentiates a good RPG from another game.

I assume it would be a waste of ASCII to give you a comparison between a theatrical play and a PNP gaming session?

Another thing that is importantin an RPG is choice and consequence, which amounts to a far greater deal than choosing the weapon do dispatch your enemy or the labiryth tunnel to explore first. It's about how a role you play influences the environment you play it in.

Hence, your statement == bollocks.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

It seems we have created some form of perpetual motion here or a circle of repeat.

New posters come here telling us that we should accept change and move on, seeing Fallout being turned into a sort of FPS game with pauze action as a natural evolution of a game based on PnP games as long as the background is kept 'intact'. (which is still screwed in IMO)
Using the arguement that any sort of sequel is good

We explain to them what our reasons are why this is not a good thing (to me, Bethesda is turning Fallout in a generic FPS game with stat building elements) and why we should be critical, and a whole new lot of them appears with the same old arguements while not being able to back themselves up much other than "Any Fallout sequel is good".

Bethesda, stop sending us your plants, you're not going to succeed in 'assimilating' us.

 

[Per]

Hence, your statement == bollocks.

I think Punter was just pointing at the statement as used for a hype catchphrase for any game. E.g. Warcraft 3 and System Shock 2 have RPG elements because there are onscreen numbers and Bubble Bobble has RPG elements because you can pretend you're a bubble-blowing dragon doing stuff.

 

[Punter X]

my statement or that of innuendo?

as it was his that seemed to suggest that rpgs were merely about "playing a role" fullstop (no caveats were stated or even suggested), you'll have to forgive me if i choose to hold to my view that his (and one which has so tiresomely been used so often in "what is an rpg?" discussions) is so vague that it does not hold up to any degree of scrutiny

edit: appears to be merely me misinterpreting what statement was being referred to. my apologies

edit2: wrong person. sorry again

 

[Silencer]

I might have not quite nailed it, anyway, I am referring to the "any game has a role" statement

Bubble Bobble has RPG elements because you can pretend you're a bubble-blowing dragon doing stuff.

Ah, but can you pretend you're a piece-of-wisdom-spewing lizard making comparisons? I think not!

 

[Tandy]

sorry if this comes off as a troll but i couldn't help but comment at the use of the tired old "rpg for is a game where you play a role" line as it always seems to ignore that in pretty much computer games as a whole you "play a role"

This is somewhat true yes,i even tend to "Roleplay" in Strategy games.
However the word "Roleplaying" is a little confusing sometimes,it is even used for some sexual practices

A RPing game is about freedom of choice,you can do things different ways.Yes you can Roleplay in Tombraider but very limited.

Fallout is the game with the most freedom of choice i ever played.
You can Roleplay a smart slut or a dumb guy or simply alot of character concepts and the game engine deals with that properly.

 

[Innuendo]

So Fallout 3 will be a hybryd. Is that a bad thing?

Yes because.... (wait for it) the first two weren't hybrids so how can you have a sequel that is?

So Fallout 3 will be a hybryd. Is that a bad thing?

Yes, it is.

So your telling me that an rpg must be isometric? Why do you limit fallout to this point of view??? Why can't be embrace it to a full 3d environment?

As I was reminded, it's the tabletop PnP experience, you don't see through the eyes of your minatures do you, so how can you get the same experience?

And how do you see the world? From a camera on a helicopter in the air, or with your own eyes? IMO fpp is far more realistic than isometric view.

How about affecting the game world beyond killing everything that moves or defeating the end level boss?

Did you bloody play Deus Ex? Each objective can be accomplished in different ways: Stealth, shooting, hacking, peacefully... It all depended on you how you played the game. Moreover the game had multiply endings and it had a freedom of customising you character (skills, augmentations). The way I see it, its a regular rpg.

Innuendo, as Punter states, saying that an RPG is a game where you play a role pretty much sums up every single piece of interactive entertainment media.

Behold, the all mighty wikipedia. Read first paragraph.

What the fuck? You take one example of a 3d isometric engine, and then say 'it sucked, nothing should be done with it again'.
That's absolutely ridiculous.

More ridiculous than scraping the whole game after seeing one teaser and one article?

Straw man. Either respond to the argument, or don't respond at all.

ok I'll give you another example: Worms That's two

Bethesda, stop sending us your plants, you're not going to succeed in 'assimilating' us.

I'm not a blood plant... But what I can't accept is the way you people judge this game more that a year before it's realise... How can you judge it???

For me Fallout is no defined by isometric view, by it's the plot, freedom, the world, rpg elements (stats and so on), npcs, turn based combat...

It's all those elements put together that made it a cult title.

I don't give a damn if it's fpp, tpp, turnbased or real time, as long as every piece of the game fits together like it did in Fallout 1/2.

But if they screw things up, I'll be the first person to criticise Bethesda for killing the series. Until then I judge what I can see. (like that super orc:/)

 

[Per]

And how do you see the world? From a camera on a helicopter in the air, or with your own eyes? IMO fpp is far more realistic than isometric view.

Realistic? Perspective is a meta-device, not something that goes on in the game world. It cannot be realistic or unrealistic.

When you play a tabletop RPG, do you see scribbled terrain features, miniatures and character sheets, or do you see through your miniature's eyes?

 

[Sander]

So your telling me that an rpg must be isometric?

And yet another straw man.
Final warning: stop trolling.

To clarify: no, I'm not telling you that at all. I'm telling you that a full Fallout game must be isometric.

Why do you limit fallout to this point of view???

Because the isometric viewpoint is part of the core design.
What are you, reading-impaired?

Why can't be embrace it to a full 3d environment?

Yet again, the isometric viewpoint in no way conflicts with 3d.

And how do you see the world? From a camera on a helicopter in the air, or with your own eyes? IMO fpp is far more realistic than isometric view.

Realistic, maybe, but Fallout isn't about realism.

Did you bloody play Deus Ex? Each objective can be accomplished in different ways: Stealth, shooting, hacking, peacefully... It all depended on you how you played the game. Moreover the game had multiply endings and it had a freedom of customising you character (skills, augmentations). The way I see it, its a regular rpg.

It had RPG elements. To call it a full RPG is retarded, since it barely abstracted from player reflexes or skills. It also did not give you a *lot* of free choice and consequences.

Behold, the all mighty wikipedia. Read first paragraph.

Don't be a retard. Wikipedia is not the be-all-end-all of definitions.
Also, maybe you should read the *entire* first paragraph, including the last sentence:
"their choices shape the direction and outcome of the games."

ok I'll give you another example: Worms That's two

*Yet again* I'll respond that citing two little examples is not the same as somehow proving that isometric in 3D is impossible to do well.

I'm not a blood plant... But what I can't accept is the way you people judge this game more that a year before it's realise... How can you judge it???

We can judge it based on the information we know.

For me Fallout is no defined by isometric view, by it's the plot, freedom, the world, rpg elements (stats and so on), npcs, turn based combat...

It's all those elements put together that made it a cult title.

Yes, *all those elements*. Including the viewpoint and the combat.

I don't give a damn if it's fpp, tpp, turnbased or real time, as long as every piece of the game fits together like it did in Fallout 1/2.

Right. And those pieces also include first-person view and turn-based combat.

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

I'm not a blood plant... But what I can't accept is the way you people judge this game more that a year before it's realise... How can you judge it???

For me Fallout is no defined by isometric view, by it's the plot, freedom, the world, rpg elements (stats and so on), npcs, turn based combat...

It's all those elements put together that made it a cult title.

I don't give a damn if it's fpp, tpp, turnbased or real time, as long as every piece of the game fits together like it did in Fallout 1/2.

But if they screw things up, I'll be the first person to criticise Bethesda for killing the series. Until then I judge what I can see. (like that super orc:/)

You mention Deus Ex in your argument, and then say that the changes made to Deus Ex that are seen in Deus Ex 2 are a good thing.

See a flaw there?

 

[MrBumble]

So your telling me that an rpg must be isometric? Why do you limit fallout to this point of view??? Why can't be embrace it to a full 3d environment?

Did he say that ? No. He said that first person was wrong because it implied a real time gameplay. He never spoke of Fallout 3 being 3d.

And how do you see the world? From a camera on a helicopter in the air, or with your own eyes? IMO fpp is far more realistic thanisometric view.

This is not relevant since Fallout never was about being realistic but about emulating tabletop rpgs rules. Tabletop rpgs are turn-based, so was Fallout.

Did you bloody play Deus Ex? Each objective can be accomplished in different ways: Stealth, shooting, hacking, peacefully... It all depended on you how you played the game. Moreover the game had multiply endings and it had a freedom of customising you character (skills, augmentations). The way I see it, its a regular rpg.

Unfortunately for you, it was not. It was a FPS with RPG elements, just as System Shock 2 was. And once again this is not relevant since Fallout and Deus Ex never were the same genre...at all. So why even bring it...

I don't give a damn if it's fpp, tpp, turnbased or real time, as long as every piece of the game fits together like it did in Fallout 1/2.

Nice for you, but, you see, lots of Fallout fans actually care that what made Fallout is respected in Fallout 3 and that includes gameplay. We do not care if every piece of the game fits together in Fallout 3 if the design of the previous ones is not respected because it will NOT be Fallout at all, it will just be a completely different title inspired by Fallout and that's not what we, here at NMA, are interested in.