Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans
- Thread starter Brother None
- Start date
If he consistently and consciously twisting my words, yes, that is trolling.MapMan said:
Innuendo, you mention DX and it's multiple endings. Let's see, did it matter how you played the game on what ending you got? No, in other words what you did in the course of the game had no consequences whatsoever on the outcome of the game.
You tell me to read the article written on wikipedia, but forget that the media there is ever changing and not always the most reliable and even so in the paragraph you tell me to read the thing that we've been trying to hammer in to your apparently thick skull is there light and clear.
This implies that in RPG's you have a rather high degree of freedom and the actions you perform on your journey have a direct affect on the outcome. Neither is true for DX, it's very linear and what you do has no outcome on the endings.
You tell me to read the article written on wikipedia, but forget that the media there is ever changing and not always the most reliable and even so in the paragraph you tell me to read the thing that we've been trying to hammer in to your apparently thick skull is there light and clear.
This implies that in RPG's you have a rather high degree of freedom and the actions you perform on your journey have a direct affect on the outcome. Neither is true for DX, it's very linear and what you do has no outcome on the endings.
I am starting to call some of you new posters 'plants' because usually your first post includes most of the time the following or a variation on it.
"First Person Viewpoint Real Time gameplay is what modern CRPGs are, Isometric and Turn Based are things of the past, tools the developers of that day had to resort to because of computer limitation."
Sometimes it is also followed by insulting, calling Fallout fans such as me backwards and obssessed with 2D and only happy if a Fallout 3 is a recreation of Fallout 1,2 or both.
I have nothing against 3D, I would love to have a free moving camera with which I can turn the perspective so i can see the more harder to find objects and items.
What I don't want is Fallout to turn into a retarded Action-Adventure FPS / 3rd Person shooter with stat building elements of which you can find many other examples.
So because I do not fully embrace Bethesda's Fallout 3 I am not a real Fallout fan?
I still be one long after most people have bought Beth's Fallout 3, played it, completed it a few times, downloaded some crap, and then put in on the shelves and focussed their attention on the latest First Person offering, not thinking twice about it.
"First Person Viewpoint Real Time gameplay is what modern CRPGs are, Isometric and Turn Based are things of the past, tools the developers of that day had to resort to because of computer limitation."
Sometimes it is also followed by insulting, calling Fallout fans such as me backwards and obssessed with 2D and only happy if a Fallout 3 is a recreation of Fallout 1,2 or both.
I have nothing against 3D, I would love to have a free moving camera with which I can turn the perspective so i can see the more harder to find objects and items.
What I don't want is Fallout to turn into a retarded Action-Adventure FPS / 3rd Person shooter with stat building elements of which you can find many other examples.
So because I do not fully embrace Bethesda's Fallout 3 I am not a real Fallout fan?
I still be one long after most people have bought Beth's Fallout 3, played it, completed it a few times, downloaded some crap, and then put in on the shelves and focussed their attention on the latest First Person offering, not thinking twice about it.
Innuendo said:
err while your reply isn't directed at me i can't help but wonder if you're attempting to indulge in "weasel words" (i believe i've seen the term being used a few times in wiki since you seem to hold it in such esteem) as in the quotes you can provided i don't appear to see anywhere where he 1- says that all rpgs should be isometric 2- anything with any association to Fallout should be so or 3- that it (or even specifically Fallout 3 couldn't be 3d)
Innuendo said:
even if your assumption/opinion is accepted (afterall that's all your point here is really about) it beggars the question is realism all that a Fallout rpg is about? if a Fallout rpg is seen as a recreation of tabletop pnp (a position i believe is well documented here) there may be ground to wonder at how essential realism is
Innuendo said:
considering what wiki is as well as how it essentially operates via contributions i fail to see how it can be cited as any sort of definitive answer (besides if you look under "computer role-playing game" and "console role-playing game" you find that the vague definition is watered down even further by them being only "derived" from rpgs)
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
As has been pointed out that was not what was said. But yeah I limit Fallout to this viewpoint because that's what the original design intended, and that's what is best for Fallout's core gameplay (Turn Based) which I would expect to see in any game that called itself a sequel.Innuendo said:
You want realism go play something else, Fallout was never about realism and it's not about how I see the world but how I see a tabletop.Innuendo said:
Yes I played Deus Ex and stealth, shooting and even to some extent hacking are available in many FPS games. And peaceful resolutions were few and far between in Deus Ex, none of which had any bearing on later levels (except if you didn't get all the health, armour, upgrades or ammo available) nor affect the choices you had at the endgame. Speaking of which the only choices came right at the end, so you could make a save and then keep reloading to see them all. That doesn't make it an rpg or any other game that contains those elements rpgs.Innuendo said:
Well you should, think of it as a receipe, change a few ingredients, alter some of the measurements and the cooking time and you'll get something totally different than what you expected.Innuendo said:
Innuendo said: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)
Your point being actually ... ?
Oh yeah, the whole "iso and 3d are a farce but we'll never know for sure 'cause Van Buren got axed".
Look at another thing that looks like plain shit in the early stage of development :
Troika Games Untitled Post-apocalyptic RPG
Watch around 3:00 you'll get your precious FPP.
While I'm at it, do you see the sliiiiight difference between those minutes of footage and the text+screen caps from the Game Informer article ?
=> You obviously feel that the Troika engine is built to have a camera centered on the player and that the FFP is still a rough-edged extra available.
=> Now count the number of times a top-down or iso-like view was mentioned or shown in the GI article : none.
It doesn't even remotely exist in this PR operation of Bethesda.
By the way, Strategic/tactic actions in a FPP/TPP-only are an UI nightmare (ever played BattleZone from Activision ? or maybe Flashpoint ?), let alone in RT.
So if real TB had been an option, believe me, that would have talked about a different viewpoint.
So basically yes, even this small amount of info from Bethesda screams "sorry guys, but action(-heavy) rpgs sell more, we're going to melt the TB combat into this revamped bullet time mode and pretend we captured the essence of Fallout by putting posters with the Vault Boy everywhere - just so you can enjoy your journey in subway hallways between point A and point B on this 34th <please bring me back my pants, I've lost them> quest-you-can't-refuse ".
Battlezone and Operation: Flashpoint are excellent tactical shooters.
Ever heard of the tactical view in Flashpoint and Battlezone's uplink towers?
Ever heard of the tactical view in Flashpoint and Battlezone's uplink towers?
seems to be the only way to tell beth what we think..
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=713527&st=0
It's a link for a poll.
In the post there is a link to a video-clip of a Doom 3 mod, making the game somewhat turn-based. (ground zero)
that would have worked pretty nice with Fallout 3.
Mix that with ap.. I would go for that.
ANyway. If you take the poll and tell your friend to take the poll.. and so on. Maybe we could make beth to change the fps-action-battle.. thing. maybe.
And if we get them to change it, then we move on to the next thing in need of change (based on what we do know).
1,5 year to make them change it to a game we could possibly like.
How's the sound of that?
Edit: Forgot the link at my first attempt.. hehe.. sorry
http://www.bethsoft.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=713527&st=0
It's a link for a poll.
In the post there is a link to a video-clip of a Doom 3 mod, making the game somewhat turn-based. (ground zero)
that would have worked pretty nice with Fallout 3.
Mix that with ap.. I would go for that.
ANyway. If you take the poll and tell your friend to take the poll.. and so on. Maybe we could make beth to change the fps-action-battle.. thing. maybe.
And if we get them to change it, then we move on to the next thing in need of change (based on what we do know).
1,5 year to make them change it to a game we could possibly like.
How's the sound of that?
Edit: Forgot the link at my first attempt.. hehe.. sorry
Hello P-non,
Sorry but those polls never work, I seriously doubt that the developers take any notice of it or that it compels them to change what they have made for the last couple of years.
Sorry but those polls never work, I seriously doubt that the developers take any notice of it or that it compels them to change what they have made for the last couple of years.
It's very frustrating seeing so many (if they're not plants *laughs*) people who don't get the simply fact that a book or a movie is all about the story, but that the main part of a game is it's gameplay -_-
And so a game with highly changed gameplay to it's heir can't be a real sequel to a game.
Monkey Island V, the Fencing Simulation, wouldn't be Monkey Island V but Monkey Island - Slashing Blades or something like this...
Also this shit about 'ISO'/ 'TB' is dead... you know that there will be a sequel to JA2 (Jazz hired guns or JA3), wich will be in ISO, and i think they will propably be commercial hits.
Also they will have something like 'Turn based' or (and i know a lot of people would dislike it) some RT - with Pause mode.
I mean, damn nearly ever strategy game is done in Iso-Perspective.
A lot of 'building Simulations' (i count also the Sims toward it), is in ISO, and the Sims kicks asses in terms of sold units.
Sure, there might be design things wich will cut away some buyers, but as i noticed with the dead 'adventure'-genre, if you do it right, you can be succesful with these things.
And as a lot of people here pointed out more then once, what's the strategy behind buying an expensive licence and then kicking of the fanbase, because of wanting to make big money, instead of just doing you're one thing, without having to buy an expensive licence, wich you got nearly nothing for, because you kick the fanbase off?...
Explain it to me you plants/trolls
And so a game with highly changed gameplay to it's heir can't be a real sequel to a game.
Monkey Island V, the Fencing Simulation, wouldn't be Monkey Island V but Monkey Island - Slashing Blades or something like this...
Also this shit about 'ISO'/ 'TB' is dead... you know that there will be a sequel to JA2 (Jazz hired guns or JA3), wich will be in ISO, and i think they will propably be commercial hits.
Also they will have something like 'Turn based' or (and i know a lot of people would dislike it) some RT - with Pause mode.
I mean, damn nearly ever strategy game is done in Iso-Perspective.
A lot of 'building Simulations' (i count also the Sims toward it), is in ISO, and the Sims kicks asses in terms of sold units.
Sure, there might be design things wich will cut away some buyers, but as i noticed with the dead 'adventure'-genre, if you do it right, you can be succesful with these things.
And as a lot of people here pointed out more then once, what's the strategy behind buying an expensive licence and then kicking of the fanbase, because of wanting to make big money, instead of just doing you're one thing, without having to buy an expensive licence, wich you got nearly nothing for, because you kick the fanbase off?...
Explain it to me you plants/trolls
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Sorrow said:
Oooooh you did NOT just call Aribeth a whore.
You sir are a cad!
Bad_Karma said:
I've had it up to here with the stupid notion that isometric views are a thing of the past/less immersive.
Yeah. Funny how I had more fun and immersion with XCom and Fallout than I ever had with Oblivion.
But don't expect Bethesda's target audience to get it. They never have and never will.
Sure, there might be design things wich will cut away some buyers, but as i noticed with the dead 'adventure'-genre, if you do it right, you can be succesful with these things.
And as a lot of people here pointed out more then once, what's the strategy behind buying an expensive licence and then kicking of the fanbase, because of wanting to make big money, instead of just doing you're one thing, without having to buy an expensive licence, wich you got nearly nothing for, because you kick the fanbase off?...
Explain it to me you plants/trolls
My theory is, controversy breeds hype, hype breeds sales. Bethesda knew they were taking on a powder keg.. but it's worked in their favor. We may be up in arms, but it's console sales are virtually guaranteed. All the while, Todd Howard gets to claim that he brought Fallout into "modern times" while discreetly hiding the fact that he's raping the series worse than even Chuck Cuevas could have.
Hi The Dutch Ghost
might be so, but if enough players join in they might at least consider it. Or at least make it a part of the game.
I don't mind if there is a option to run around in the fallout world in first person as long as the game is not based on FP.
We have a thread here that is over 40 pages now, mostly with anger-venting posts or some semi-intelectual name callings.
If we could put all that energy into trying to get beth to do the right thing... then maybe... just maybe.
but even maybe is better than just giving up all hope.
I recently made an account on NMA to join in on some of the stuff said recently. And there are many others that have just made their accounts because of the resent news from beth.
I've been using NMA as my #1 source to find info about a possible Fallout 3.
So, for every poster in this forum, there is possibly plenty of lurkers just searching for info. Try to make them to go over there and tell beth what to fix.
Might be grasping for straws here.. but I just can't sit back and watch..
I mean.
with only one bullet left in your rifle.. Do you aim for the eye in hope of a killing-crit or do you do a non aimed shot, only hurting the enemy making it angry and killing you ... 8)
not tring to step on any toes here.. just want to do something
might be so, but if enough players join in they might at least consider it. Or at least make it a part of the game.
I don't mind if there is a option to run around in the fallout world in first person as long as the game is not based on FP.
We have a thread here that is over 40 pages now, mostly with anger-venting posts or some semi-intelectual name callings.
If we could put all that energy into trying to get beth to do the right thing... then maybe... just maybe.
but even maybe is better than just giving up all hope.
I recently made an account on NMA to join in on some of the stuff said recently. And there are many others that have just made their accounts because of the resent news from beth.
I've been using NMA as my #1 source to find info about a possible Fallout 3.
So, for every poster in this forum, there is possibly plenty of lurkers just searching for info. Try to make them to go over there and tell beth what to fix.
Might be grasping for straws here.. but I just can't sit back and watch..
I mean.
with only one bullet left in your rifle.. Do you aim for the eye in hope of a killing-crit or do you do a non aimed shot, only hurting the enemy making it angry and killing you ... 8)
not tring to step on any toes here.. just want to do something
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Bethesda won't change anything. Why do you think they've kept development secret up till now?
They don't want fan input. They'll make their game and sell it to the casual gamers. The fans, the RPG players, we'll all be dismissed as hardcore crackpots.
Bethesda have no financial motive to care, so they won't.
They don't want fan input. They'll make their game and sell it to the casual gamers. The fans, the RPG players, we'll all be dismissed as hardcore crackpots.
Bethesda have no financial motive to care, so they won't.
I know I have been after you guys, and the guys over at D&C, in the past for pnly wanting a sort of rehash of the old Fallout games.
[I'm still a bit concerned about this, though].
However, I clearly and distintly remember playing Fallout 1 about 7 or 8 years ago, I think, and I was into the setting the world, at once. The grim humour, the dark irony, the visuals, all the little things that made Fallout - well Fallout. And no, it wasn't only survival horro game, as someone (cough-todd-cough) wants ud to believe (and i should really go see a doctor about that cought, right??) It was much more, it was a game that took its own premise seriously, sort of a what if game, like an adult child saying, what if the 1950's timeline did continue - and then created a parallel world in which the sci-fi thingies of the 1950's came true, including the nuclear war (and the nuclear winter), which generated the Vaults and the promise of brigther future undergrund when you duck and cover...
This relied heavily on the comic feel and ambience in the 1950's comic books and sci fi movies, making things grotesque, not realistic. The monster movies from the 1950's, I guess??, also were a clearcut inspiration for the original Fallouts... It also, of course, relied heavily on the old (school) propaganda (information) films from the 1950's in which people were told to actually duck & cover -if & when the nuclear bombs fell. Although not being raised or have lived through the 1950's, I can clearly remember the fear of the atomic winter myself, growing up in the late 1960's and the 1970's.
I remember also being shown the duck & cover adverts/film in Danish television when they had a special programme (or show) about this nuclear winter. It was very grotesque to see and filled with irony and black humor that someonme actually once thought that it was enough to duck and cover when a nuclear winter would hit the world. At the same time, it was also very tragic... Tim Cain & Leonard Boyarsky probably did have the same feeling, I guess, as they probably are bit older than me (I hope) and they must have lived through the horrors of the 1950's and the Cold War Era, and had been the target for the US propaganda regarding the Cold War, China, and such stuff. This gave them the perfect background for creating the original Fallout game(s), I believe.
Todd Howard is what, 30something. He, of course, does not have that background, not is it necessary to have this background to create a game similar or alike to the original FO3 game(s), but it helps, imo. I don't know where Todd H. gets his idea that Fallout is survival Horror game only. That is certainly part of the Fallout world and the Fallout setting, but it is NOT the whole Fallout setting (as Todd H. seems to believe).
The Fallout setting is SPECIAL (yes, pun intended 
) because of its use of black humor, dark irony with a grotesque twitch amidst in all that darkness and bleekness. But also because it remains true to its origins and inspirations from the 1950's monster and sci-fi comics and movies, imo.
Contrasts this world to the screenshots and from we now know about Bethesda's Fallout 3 from the GI article. The game looks to be very realistic, near photorealism
: 
, in its graphical and visual presentation while the original Fallut game(s) maintained that comic book feeling from the 1950's (and in a good way, too). It also means seeing the 'for a brighter tomorrow, go underground' or 'enjoy tomorrow today - go into a vault' or 'get stock in nuca cola - it will blow you away' signs and poster or something similar to that all over the place. The screenshots in the GI article didn't reveal any of this, nor did it reveal the lone phone booth at a lone gas station...(it could come later, of course, but I, however, have serius doubts about this...).
It also looks like the game mainly will be about running around killing supermutants, helping the BoS to wipe out these nasty critters/monsters. This, to me, sound much like STALKER or GEARS of WAR, though, than Fallout. I also distinctly remember that there were several ways og doing the same quest in Fallout, at least 2 ways, and often 4 ways (or maybe more?) ways of completing quests. All that seem to be gone now from Bethsoft's Fallout 3, as there only seems to be one way to do quests: by accepting them...
Even Fallout 1+2 had games, like the city in which the Cathedal were (sorry, I have forgotten its name). The game didn't have photo-realistic view or feel to it, what it did have, even in the cities, were visuals that made sense, logically, in terms of trying to recreate a sort of retro-futuristic worldabout 200-250 years from now. That means computers will probably still be some kind of radio tubes (?) thingies, the world would have run out of oil pretty much, and there would be internet (oh, the horror ), I believe. [Ok, maybe there would be some sort of ARPANET which wss meant as a way for the US the miltary bases to continue being able to communicate with each - after the Fallout nuclear winter happened, in the 1950's alternative retro sci-fi universe, that is].
As for the VATS combat, I believe it is some sort of tactical realtime with pause option, similar to the one used in Gears of War where you, too, afaik, can pause and aim at a Locust's knee. I haven't played Gears or FEAR myself, so it would be nice, if anyone can comfirm this. Turnbased combat it most definetely isn't, thus leaving both the TB and the RT fans disappointed....
As for Beth not talking, this isn't Bioware. Beth's PR machine only talks when something needs to get out, simply because it can't wait any longer, while Bioware devs. nearly daily interacts with the fans on the bioware boards/forums. I don't mind this, as I don't go to the BGSF boards to listen to the devs. but rather to communicate with other Fallout (and tes game) fans, and maybe help out the odd person who is stuck in a game somewhere, either in the spoilers section or in the hardware section of Beth's forums.
And at that, I'll leave you with this: I don't want a rehash of either Fallout 1+2, I don't want Beth's Fallout 3 game either, though. (which still looks a lot like STALKER). Don't get me wrong, Beth's Fallout game could (still) be a very good post apoc game, but just not a good Fallout game.
I also want to apologize for any doubts I have at NMA and D&C opinions on Beth's making Fallout 3. In retrospect, you guys had it
(mostly) correct --- all the time. I'm sorry.
/aries369
[I'm still a bit concerned about this, though].
However, I clearly and distintly remember playing Fallout 1 about 7 or 8 years ago, I think, and I was into the setting the world, at once. The grim humour, the dark irony, the visuals, all the little things that made Fallout - well Fallout. And no, it wasn't only survival horro game, as someone (cough-todd-cough) wants ud to believe (and i should really go see a doctor about that cought, right??) It was much more, it was a game that took its own premise seriously, sort of a what if game, like an adult child saying, what if the 1950's timeline did continue - and then created a parallel world in which the sci-fi thingies of the 1950's came true, including the nuclear war (and the nuclear winter), which generated the Vaults and the promise of brigther future undergrund when you duck and cover...
This relied heavily on the comic feel and ambience in the 1950's comic books and sci fi movies, making things grotesque, not realistic. The monster movies from the 1950's, I guess??, also were a clearcut inspiration for the original Fallouts... It also, of course, relied heavily on the old (school) propaganda (information) films from the 1950's in which people were told to actually duck & cover -if & when the nuclear bombs fell. Although not being raised or have lived through the 1950's, I can clearly remember the fear of the atomic winter myself, growing up in the late 1960's and the 1970's.
I remember also being shown the duck & cover adverts/film in Danish television when they had a special programme (or show) about this nuclear winter. It was very grotesque to see and filled with irony and black humor that someonme actually once thought that it was enough to duck and cover when a nuclear winter would hit the world. At the same time, it was also very tragic... Tim Cain & Leonard Boyarsky probably did have the same feeling, I guess, as they probably are bit older than me (I hope) and they must have lived through the horrors of the 1950's and the Cold War Era, and had been the target for the US propaganda regarding the Cold War, China, and such stuff. This gave them the perfect background for creating the original Fallout game(s), I believe.
Todd Howard is what, 30something. He, of course, does not have that background, not is it necessary to have this background to create a game similar or alike to the original FO3 game(s), but it helps, imo. I don't know where Todd H. gets his idea that Fallout is survival Horror game only. That is certainly part of the Fallout world and the Fallout setting, but it is NOT the whole Fallout setting (as Todd H. seems to believe).
The Fallout setting is SPECIAL (yes, pun intended
) because of its use of black humor, dark irony with a grotesque twitch amidst in all that darkness and bleekness. But also because it remains true to its origins and inspirations from the 1950's monster and sci-fi comics and movies, imo. Contrasts this world to the screenshots and from we now know about Bethesda's Fallout 3 from the GI article. The game looks to be very realistic, near photorealism
: , in its graphical and visual presentation while the original Fallut game(s) maintained that comic book feeling from the 1950's (and in a good way, too). It also means seeing the 'for a brighter tomorrow, go underground' or 'enjoy tomorrow today - go into a vault' or 'get stock in nuca cola - it will blow you away' signs and poster or something similar to that all over the place. The screenshots in the GI article didn't reveal any of this, nor did it reveal the lone phone booth at a lone gas station...(it could come later, of course, but I, however, have serius doubts about this...).It also looks like the game mainly will be about running around killing supermutants, helping the BoS to wipe out these nasty critters/monsters. This, to me, sound much like STALKER or GEARS of WAR, though, than Fallout. I also distinctly remember that there were several ways og doing the same quest in Fallout, at least 2 ways, and often 4 ways (or maybe more?) ways of completing quests. All that seem to be gone now from Bethsoft's Fallout 3, as there only seems to be one way to do quests: by accepting them...
Even Fallout 1+2 had games, like the city in which the Cathedal were (sorry, I have forgotten its name). The game didn't have photo-realistic view or feel to it, what it did have, even in the cities, were visuals that made sense, logically, in terms of trying to recreate a sort of retro-futuristic worldabout 200-250 years from now. That means computers will probably still be some kind of radio tubes (?) thingies, the world would have run out of oil pretty much, and there would be internet (oh, the horror
), I believe. [Ok, maybe there would be some sort of ARPANET which wss meant as a way for the US the miltary bases to continue being able to communicate with each - after the Fallout nuclear winter happened, in the 1950's alternative retro sci-fi universe, that is].As for the VATS combat, I believe it is some sort of tactical realtime with pause option, similar to the one used in Gears of War where you, too, afaik, can pause and aim at a Locust's knee. I haven't played Gears or FEAR myself, so it would be nice, if anyone can comfirm this. Turnbased combat it most definetely isn't, thus leaving both the TB and the RT fans disappointed....
As for Beth not talking, this isn't Bioware. Beth's PR machine only talks when something needs to get out, simply because it can't wait any longer, while Bioware devs. nearly daily interacts with the fans on the bioware boards/forums. I don't mind this, as I don't go to the BGSF boards to listen to the devs. but rather to communicate with other Fallout (and tes game) fans, and maybe help out the odd person who is stuck in a game somewhere, either in the spoilers section or in the hardware section of Beth's forums.
And at that, I'll leave you with this: I don't want a rehash of either Fallout 1+2, I don't want Beth's Fallout 3 game either, though. (which still looks a lot like STALKER). Don't get me wrong, Beth's Fallout game could (still) be a very good post apoc game, but just not a good Fallout game.
I also want to apologize for any doubts I have at NMA and D&C opinions on Beth's making Fallout 3. In retrospect, you guys had it
(mostly) correct --- all the time. I'm sorry.
/aries369
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
The problem with Todd Howard is that he's a one-dimensional man who makes one-dimensional games for one-dimensional players.
In all his games he keeps away from variety and sticks to railroading.
Multiple solutions to quests, varied dialogue and different ways to play are alien to him.
Look at how useless non-fighters were in Morrowind, or how every-bloody-thing was amalgamated in Oblivion. It'll be the same here.. because really.. Todd Howard should've stuck to making FPS games instead of half-assed hybrids that suffer due to his lack of imagination.
In all his games he keeps away from variety and sticks to railroading.
Multiple solutions to quests, varied dialogue and different ways to play are alien to him.
Look at how useless non-fighters were in Morrowind, or how every-bloody-thing was amalgamated in Oblivion. It'll be the same here.. because really.. Todd Howard should've stuck to making FPS games instead of half-assed hybrids that suffer due to his lack of imagination.
concernedcitizen
First time out of the vault
Plant #27 reporting for duty.
No seriously though, I've been reading for a while and it's all getting to be a bit much for me. I find myself here constantly in monitoring news on the new Fallout title; everywhere else links back to NMA, and that's no doubt because of the thorough (obsessive? Not a bad thing!) coverage all things Fallout-related receive here. I am monitoring this news because I am quietly, at least until now, optimistic that it will be an enjoyable game and conjure up at least a portion of the enjoyment that the others did. I don't really expect it to surpass the little place in my heart which is held by other Fallout titles, though I'd be certainly open to the idea if Beth pull the proverbial rabbit. Some things I see make me think this could happen, other things I see remind me that it's unlikely. I can live with that though, like I said, I'll settle for a portion of the enjoyment I got from the classics.
What peturbs me, and drives me to comment now after ignoring it a while, is that it seems like we're on very different wavelengths in this regard. I can understand, to an extent, people being unhappy with changes to the originals, or people being unhappy with the heavy-handed nods and homages. What confuses me, is that these objections (or others like them, turn system, camera angle, the lot of them) are magnified in discussion here to an extent where I feel alienated by the way that the game is discussed.
Perhaps it's just a case of people with the same mindset as myself being less vocal, I am unsure, but when I read the forums here, and sometimes even when I read the sardonic throw-away lines in the actual news posts, I get the distinct impression that well, very few people are actually open to the idea of a new Fallout game which does not fit their expectations entirely. Of course, this too is fine, I can understand that people have differing opinions. At the same time however, it is problematic in that I had expected NMA, as what I'd call the leading Fallout fansite (by far), to be the best place to discuss the new Fallout game. Obviously the Beth forums are little more than a marketing tool, and as such aren't the place for satisfying discussion or news, but it seems that the mindset against the game is overwhelming here on NMA make it the exact opposite, to the point where a remotely positive outlook is not welcome. Of course, I will continue to visit this site due to its up-to-date news content, but it takes a little bit out of the enjoyment in following the development when I have to try to ignore the perspective with which the news is shared.
Anyway, to preempt the questions about my point; I guess I mostly just registered to respond to the "plant" comments, and to try to explain perhaps why some people can't understand what they see when they visit NMA. It looks like people like the "us and them" scenario, and the way the lines seem to be drawn around here, I personally, and perhaps some of the other "plants", have difficulty finding a place in that.
(Ahah cunning! I deviated from the standard plant post template they sent us at the beginning of our mission, perhaps enough so that my mission will succeed where others have failed!)
Just spotted the post by Bad_Karma, so I think I may just respond, seeing as I am a "plant".
Personally, I view games, movies and books, as experiences. Gameplay is not central to a game for me, in the same way that words and chapters are not central to a book, or filming techniques to a movie. They exist to serve the greater experience, and are what I would call a means to an end. Sometimes they work very well and obviously help define the experience, while other times they are just workable and don't really contribute to improving or ruining the experience, and other times they are ill-conceived or otherwise ineffective and actually hurt the experience overall.
The obvious exceptions, regarding the focus on these means, are experiences which are established and built entirely around the medium through which they are conveyed, such as the previously mentioned film noir genre. In that case I can understand the objection in this case to a change in the techniques used to provide the Fallout experience, but if you do take such a view, it's obvious from the beginning that your interest in a new Fallout title at all is limited. This begs the question, if I'm not overstepping the mark, of what it is that you bring to the table in discussions regarding a new Fallout, given the lack of interest in anything that would change (perhaps drastically), the style and composition of the originals? It's not a level of critical objectivity, in the same way that someone (crazily) advocating that no component of the original Fallout must be preserved would be balanced.
My Fallout experience was defined less by the nuts and bolts behind the game than it was by the ideas, atmosphere, humour, and all those other things that my fellow plants have been reminiscing about. I enjoyed the interface at the time because it worked (mostly), and didn't get in the way too much. It didn't really define the experience for me though, not as much as the story did, the places I went, the images that were conjured up, etc. The engine, for me, and its intricacies were very much a vehicle through which Fallout was delivered for my enjoyment. If Beth can conjure up a new vehicle, that allows me to enjoy the game as much as I did back in the day (or maybe even a little bit of that, as I mentioned before I got started on replying to this post), I don't really mind how they do it. This doesn't seem to be a "wrong" approach to me, but looking around here, I get the distinct impression I could be crucified for saying as much, which goes back to what I was saying in the first portion of this post.
No seriously though, I've been reading for a while and it's all getting to be a bit much for me. I find myself here constantly in monitoring news on the new Fallout title; everywhere else links back to NMA, and that's no doubt because of the thorough (obsessive? Not a bad thing!) coverage all things Fallout-related receive here. I am monitoring this news because I am quietly, at least until now, optimistic that it will be an enjoyable game and conjure up at least a portion of the enjoyment that the others did. I don't really expect it to surpass the little place in my heart which is held by other Fallout titles, though I'd be certainly open to the idea if Beth pull the proverbial rabbit. Some things I see make me think this could happen, other things I see remind me that it's unlikely. I can live with that though, like I said, I'll settle for a portion of the enjoyment I got from the classics.
What peturbs me, and drives me to comment now after ignoring it a while, is that it seems like we're on very different wavelengths in this regard. I can understand, to an extent, people being unhappy with changes to the originals, or people being unhappy with the heavy-handed nods and homages. What confuses me, is that these objections (or others like them, turn system, camera angle, the lot of them) are magnified in discussion here to an extent where I feel alienated by the way that the game is discussed.
Perhaps it's just a case of people with the same mindset as myself being less vocal, I am unsure, but when I read the forums here, and sometimes even when I read the sardonic throw-away lines in the actual news posts, I get the distinct impression that well, very few people are actually open to the idea of a new Fallout game which does not fit their expectations entirely. Of course, this too is fine, I can understand that people have differing opinions. At the same time however, it is problematic in that I had expected NMA, as what I'd call the leading Fallout fansite (by far), to be the best place to discuss the new Fallout game. Obviously the Beth forums are little more than a marketing tool, and as such aren't the place for satisfying discussion or news, but it seems that the mindset against the game is overwhelming here on NMA make it the exact opposite, to the point where a remotely positive outlook is not welcome. Of course, I will continue to visit this site due to its up-to-date news content, but it takes a little bit out of the enjoyment in following the development when I have to try to ignore the perspective with which the news is shared.
Anyway, to preempt the questions about my point; I guess I mostly just registered to respond to the "plant" comments, and to try to explain perhaps why some people can't understand what they see when they visit NMA. It looks like people like the "us and them" scenario, and the way the lines seem to be drawn around here, I personally, and perhaps some of the other "plants", have difficulty finding a place in that.
(Ahah cunning! I deviated from the standard plant post template they sent us at the beginning of our mission, perhaps enough so that my mission will succeed where others have failed!)
Just spotted the post by Bad_Karma, so I think I may just respond, seeing as I am a "plant".
Personally, I view games, movies and books, as experiences. Gameplay is not central to a game for me, in the same way that words and chapters are not central to a book, or filming techniques to a movie. They exist to serve the greater experience, and are what I would call a means to an end. Sometimes they work very well and obviously help define the experience, while other times they are just workable and don't really contribute to improving or ruining the experience, and other times they are ill-conceived or otherwise ineffective and actually hurt the experience overall.
The obvious exceptions, regarding the focus on these means, are experiences which are established and built entirely around the medium through which they are conveyed, such as the previously mentioned film noir genre. In that case I can understand the objection in this case to a change in the techniques used to provide the Fallout experience, but if you do take such a view, it's obvious from the beginning that your interest in a new Fallout title at all is limited. This begs the question, if I'm not overstepping the mark, of what it is that you bring to the table in discussions regarding a new Fallout, given the lack of interest in anything that would change (perhaps drastically), the style and composition of the originals? It's not a level of critical objectivity, in the same way that someone (crazily) advocating that no component of the original Fallout must be preserved would be balanced.
My Fallout experience was defined less by the nuts and bolts behind the game than it was by the ideas, atmosphere, humour, and all those other things that my fellow plants have been reminiscing about. I enjoyed the interface at the time because it worked (mostly), and didn't get in the way too much. It didn't really define the experience for me though, not as much as the story did, the places I went, the images that were conjured up, etc. The engine, for me, and its intricacies were very much a vehicle through which Fallout was delivered for my enjoyment. If Beth can conjure up a new vehicle, that allows me to enjoy the game as much as I did back in the day (or maybe even a little bit of that, as I mentioned before I got started on replying to this post), I don't really mind how they do it. This doesn't seem to be a "wrong" approach to me, but looking around here, I get the distinct impression I could be crucified for saying as much, which goes back to what I was saying in the first portion of this post.