Game Informer Fallout 3 article scans

[quillab]

Image from"Good ol' Syndicate Wars Intro"

Good old Syndicate Wars from Bullfrog as they were still independent.
These were truly the days, okay, Syndicate were even more the days,
but none the less.

It was Syndicate that actually inspired me to get Fallout. My cousin was playing it, and at that time, I was blown away with the graphics and iso style perspective.

 

[Bad_Karma]

Darklands hat RT combat wich started paused and wich you could pause again. I just played it a few months ago.
Okay, i remove betrayl at korondor, but when you look through the list there are enough games wich have one or another of 3d / RT

 

[Vehementi]

I absolutely do not agee with this. This is purely subjective. What i want from a fallout sequel is obviously completely different to what you want and the title of 'worthy successor' cannot be defined by just you.

I think this is what concernedcitizen is also trying to say?

Am i rite?!!1one

And yet again a newbie who fails to read even the slightest bit of information on this site. Such as Fallout's core design.

Also, what is it with 'you like something else' when I've stated again and again that it's not about likes and dislikes, but about Fallout's objective design? What the hell is it about the word 'objective' that people seem to be unable to understand?

In response to this, I would like to again respond by acknowledging the views of others. If what I want isn't a Fallout game in your eyes, or the eyes of others, great, you guys can skip calling it a "worthy" Fallout game. If it lives up to my expectations, I will call it a Fallout game, and that's a decision which I will happily make for myself. I don't understand why this continues to be such an issue.

Because it amounts to calling a football game ping-pong. It's ridiculous, and insulting.

If it hasn't been noted in the pages since the quoted post was made, I would like to note that the fallout Core Design linked in the above quote does not, in fact, speak of third person perspective (or perspective at all) or turn based (or time systems at all).

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

If it hasn't been noted in the pages since the quoted post was made, I would like to note that the fallout Core Design linked in the above quote does not, in fact, speak of third person perspective (or perspective at all) or turn based (or time systems at all).

Did you not read this?

The goal of the project was to create a computer game that was “as close as you can get to playing GURPS, short of playing GURPS.”

And if you were unfamiliar about GURPS look it up?

If they had said the goal was to create a computer game that recreated Monopoly would the article really need to explain that the game would feature turn based play and a virtual board?

 

[Salubri]

Uups...

 

[Vehementi]

If it hasn't been noted in the pages since the quoted post was made, I would like to note that the fallout Core Design linked in the above quote does not, in fact, speak of third person perspective (or perspective at all) or turn based (or time systems at all).

Did you not read this?

The goal of the project was to create a computer game that was “as close as you can get to playing GURPS, short of playing GURPS.”

And if you were unfamiliar about GURPS look it up?

If they had said the goal was to create a computer game that recreated Monopoly would the article really need to explain that the game would feature turn based play and a virtual board?

It's funny how the foundation of your objective proofs etc. is that one line. It's extremely easy to argue at length about why it doesn't imply a turn based system, but it's even more obvious why it doesn't imply a 3rd person, isometric perspective. Surely I don't need to explain that..

 

[Brother None]

It's funny how the foundation of your objective proofs etc. is that one line. It's extremely easy to argue at length about why it doesn't imply a turn based system, but it's even more obvious why it doesn't imply a 3rd person, isometric perspective. Surely I don't need to explain that..

Oh. So what do you think Boyarsky was "implying" when he said "I don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based."

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

Gee do you really think that is the only interview they ever did? Or going back to the monopoly ref, that if they had of been designing a real time first person version that that fact would of been mentioned? Just like Beth with their updating Fallout.

Try reading this if you want more insight.

 

[Autoduel76]

Oh. So what do you think Boyarsky was "implying" when he said "I don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based."

In fairness, Brother None, that's an incomplete quote job that doesn't sound nearly as definitive when the whole statement is used.

don’t know how I would have felt about making FO3 anything but isometric and turn based. We did have an extremely high budget idea for another approach, but even in that scenario combat was isometric and turn based. Of course, it’s easy for me to say I wouldn’t have done a paused real time FO3 now, but I don’t know what I would have said if the offer was made.

 

[Brother None]

In fairness, Brother None, that's an incomplete quote job that doesn't sound nearly as definitive when the whole statement is used.

That addendum is misleading if you don't know Troika's history. Boyarsky means "if a publisher had bought Fallout, and offered it to Troika on the express demand that it be RTwP, I wouldn't have said no." Troika always operated under publishers constraints; remember Arcanum's combat?

 

[Autoduel76]

That addendum is misleading if you don't know Troika's history. Boyarsky means "if a publisher had bought Fallout, and offered it to Troika on the express demand that it be RTwP, I wouldn't have said no." Troika always operated under publishers constraints; remember Arcanum's combat?

I don't think that's misleading at all. Its obvious that he's saying he envisions it in TB/Iso, but even with your caveat the fact that he wouldn't neccessarily say know makes it not nearly the same definitive statement that your partial quote makes it sound like.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think that's misleading at all. Its obvious that he's saying he envisions it in TB/Iso, but even with your caveat the fact that he wouldn't neccessarily say know makes it not nearly the same definitive statement that your partial quote makes it sound like.

How doesn't it? He's saying he doesn't know how he would feel about Fallout 3 not being turn-based or isometric. In the full quote he's still saying that. Nothing more or less definitive in either of them.

Or the quote requiem pointed to, from Tim Cain: I think the strength of Fallout's combat system is that it was easy to understand and use, but still complex enough to give you many options on how to fight. Turn-based combat gives you more time to think of battle tactics, so combat feels richer - and a lot of people responded to that.

There's only so much denial you can surround all this with before you face facts.

 

[Briosafreak]

That addendum is misleading if you don't know Troika's history. Boyarsky means "if a publisher had bought Fallout, and offered it to Troika on the express demand that it be RTwP, I wouldn't have said no." Troika always operated under publishers constraints; remember Arcanum's combat?

I don't think that's misleading at all. Its obvious that he's saying he envisions it in TB/Iso, but even with your caveat the fact that he wouldn't neccessarily say know makes it not nearly the same definitive statement that your partial quote makes it sound like.

Read the PCZone interview they gave once, it's on the NMA gallery. They clear state why they made Fallout iso and TB and why making it TB was a way of not going on the same direction everyone was taking at the time, real time or real time with pause.

 

[Autoduel76]

How doesn't it? He's saying he doesn't know how he would feel about Fallout 3 not being turn-based or isometric. In the full quote he's still saying that. Nothing more or less definitive in either of them.

The point is simply that its not a definitive statement. No more. No less, as you put it. He's saying that he envisions it in TB/Iso and, with the additional statement, is not the same as saying that it wouldn't work in real time w/ pause.

Obviously that it wouldn't be his first choice, at this point, but that he might be open to it, depending on the situation.

Read the PCZone interview they gave once, it's on the NMA gallery. They clear state why they made Fallout iso and TB and why making it TB was a way of not going on the same direction everyone was taking at the time, real time or real time with pause.

I've read all of those interviews and all of the articles and editiorials on the design choices of the original dev team. And I'm not arguing against any of them.

I'm only pointing out that that specific quote was being used in a misleading way, by leaving out the followup sentences.

Publisher reasons or not, for that entire interview, Boyarsky was very open to the idea of RT w/ Pause. "Speaking as a hardcore Fallout fan myself (if I’m allowed to put myself in that category), I’d rather see a real time with pause post apocalyptic RPG than not seeing a new post apocalyptic RPG at all. "

And for the other quote he didn't shut the door on Real Time w/ Pause for Fallout 3. That's all I said. That it was hardly a definitive statement against RTw/P for Fallout 3.

Their statements on the design choices for Fallout 1 & 2 are really kind of a different issue, entirely, to anything I said here.

 

[aries369]

The trouble with Bethsoft VATS combat is it is neither Realtime with pause, TB or Realtime combat. It is sort of a hybrid thingie, meshing and smashing all these kind of combat forms together into one form of combat, which Bethsoft probably thinks that everyone will be pleased to play.

I can tell you right now, that I won't. I want either full TB combat or full real time with pause (like in Baldur's Gate) or combat done in Real Time (like in Morrowind and Oblivion and in Prey and Gears of War).

The only differende I see between the combat in say Gears of War is that you use Action Points when paused to aim...(if I've understood the concept correctly....) in Fallout 3, simly because they wanted to use SPECIAL and Action Points for their post nuclear game, Bethesda did....

As for the story, someone should tell someone that at 19! you're probably happy that your father is missing! So is the nature of human psychology, which means that you won't go out looking for him at your own free will. (but so sayeth it in the interview...).

At least in Fallout 1 and 2, you're were forced out of the community....you didn't leave at your own free will (like you're doing in FO3, or so it sounds to me). The whole story, the whole main quest seems, to be rip of the story from Baldur's Gate 1 and a Star Wars movie.

The first quest, you cencounter (if it is the first quest) have you arm a disarmed nuclear bomb - just because a man named Mr. Burke tells you to do it, since he wants to 'set the world on fire' some more.... This is is, I guess, the often 'dark and violent humor' in Fallout, Miller? is talking about. Apparently, Miller still doesn't get it. Fallout's humor were never of the adolescent -ha-ha- brawdy violent variety; it was one to the subtle, underplayed, grotesque, ironic, (and sometimes iconic) bleek side with lots and lots of gallows humor in between. Not the 'hey you let's blow this town up, because it annoys me' variety.'

And didn't Gothic 3 have that feature where you wiped out an orc village and nest time you came around, either the orcs or the humans would have built the village up again??

Apparently, Bethesda and Todd Howard etc. think that of all the things Fallout was, it was only necessary to keep some guys hunting supermutants all the time - as well as making the Brotherhood of Steel the good guys
- saving the day for the little man. (your character).

 

[Brother None]

The trouble with Bethsoft VATS combat is it is neither Realtime with pause, TB or Realtime combat. It is sort of a hybrid thingie, meshing and smashing all these kind of combat forms together into one form of combat, which Bethsoft probably thinks that everyone will be pleased to play.

No, it's not. You can argue that it's RTwP with elements of TB, but it's still RTwP. A shooter with RPG elements is still a shooter. You can call it a hybrid, but it plays like a shooter. The fact that I can take actions in VATS (apparently) doesn't mean it's still not a pause function in a RT combat game. Ergo RTwP.

 

[Smoke_Jaguar]

Whatever it is, it's bogus random crap. Good for old men with shaking hands, but then again how old do they think we are?

 

[alec]

The trouble with Bethsoft VATS combat is it is neither Realtime with pause, TB or Realtime combat. It is sort of a hybrid thingie, meshing and smashing all these kind of combat forms together into one form of combat, which Bethsoft probably thinks that everyone will be pleased to play.

No, it's not. You can argue that it's RTwP with elements of TB, but it's still RTwP. A shooter with RPG elements is still a shooter. You can call it a hybrid, but it plays like a shooter. The fact that I can take actions in VATS (apparently) doesn't mean it's still not a pause function in a RT combat game. Ergo RTwP.

I, personally, (and I think Kan-Kerai as well) see it as no more than an extra 'something' added to a FPS. A bit like bullet-time. I can't imagine using the VATS system continuously, like doing your move, use up all your AP's, and then wait until your AP bar is filled again whilst having the crap beaten out of you by a horde of supermutants before you can do your next move. It's going to be RT combat with a little extra, a stupid little gimmick. I don't even consider it to be RTwP, 'cause then you wouldn't have to wait for your AP bar to fill up again. It's a stupid system in any case. Kinda like the sleaziest way to still have called shots in the game. Pfff...

 

[Tora]

It was Syndicate that actually inspired me to get Fallout. My cousin was playing it, and at that time, I was blown away with the graphics and iso style perspective.

Oh man... Syndicate... I haven't played that game in eons... it was so fun back in the day... I probably tossed out the CD during a clean up though, don't think I've seen the CD around for a while.

 

[quietfanatic]

Unfortunately, I'd now summarise the combat as real time with occassional pause. I didn't accept this at first because it seemed so implausible. I am curious as to how well it is balanced and exactly how it works, as quite a bit of thought seems to have gone into it. But then that could be spin, or stupidity, as it seems like this system would encourage twitch-play and be very frustrating to use.