Moot point once again.
>>alright first off, i don't know
>>what "old school" etc. is,
>>i love rpg's, i wouldn't
>>have a clue if i'm
>>old school or not.
>>& i hate shit like diablo
>>& baldur's gate.
>>
>>>As far as a good storyline,
>>>both XCOM and JA2 had
>>>great storylines. Why damn
>>>the game when you really
>>>don't know anything about it.
>>
>>great storylines compared to fallout?
>>i don't think so.
>>
>>great storylines compared to the other
>>tactical games?
>>yes
>>
>Well that is kinda obvious considering
>the whole idea of an
>RPG is to create an
>"alternate existence" for the player
>to take part in, and
>without a story, it is
>pretty hard to RP.
And what does FOT:BOS do? Yeah you can give it a history and place the player in the middle of the action, hell that was done in STARCRAFT. However does it give you the ability to manipulate your character and truly play out their theme, actions, and ambitions? Hell no.
>>>> Here's a pretty good
>>>>guess at the storyline:
>>>>
>>>>"BOS must protect the wasteland/city/their base
>>>>against -enemy- and thus must
>>>>sneak into their base and
>>>>kill off their leader/trash the
>>>>place."
>>>
>>>So it is _supposed_ to be
>>>a combat game.
>>
>
>Man for someone so enthusiastic about
>RPGs you don't have much
>imagination. For one, the webpage
>say that it takes place
>in the middle-USA so try
>to imagine how and why
>they got there and what
>they intend to do now
>that they are there. I
>know it's got me thinking.
It happens in the mid-USA? Whoa! Man *that* stirs up some real high-brow thinking. It's like "conceptual" if you get my meaning.
Ooo.. and you know what else just BOGGLES my mind for storyline? *Some* books (not all) deal with places that are DARK! Man, that gives me SHIVERS!
It really gets me thinking...
>>fallout is _not_ a combat game,
>>take Fallout out of the
>>"Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood Of Steel"
>>
>>& you will have "Tactics: Brotherhood
>>Of Steel". it will then
>>be a game in it's
>>own right & not a
>>fallout ripoff
>>
>Why is Fallout _not_ a combat
>game? It is an RPG,
>but I resolved most of
>my conflicts through the use
>of superior firepower. And I
>must say that Fallout w/out
>combat would just plain suck,
>because an entire game of
>skillful negotiation would get real
>boring real quick.
*Knocks on Slipknot's head* Hellooo..
The real draw for Fallout is that, yeah you *can* engage in combat if you really want to, but no, that's not your only choice. You can negotiate battles, you can run away, you can prevent battle just by talking smooth. This gives the game a LOT of replay value.
What does FOT:BOS have for replay value? Multiplayer capabilities. Wow..
The sad thing about FOT:BOS's multiplayer is that because of its "tactical strategic gameplay" all you can really do is choose who to attack and walk around the place. No wait.. I guess you *could* cordinate with your friends and flank them.. gee how fun.
Do you know how BORING multiplay will become after playing a few times? Unlike FPS like Quake games your only control is to tell guys to go and kill other guys. You can't aim (wait, I guess you can see the percentage shot right?), your movement is limited, and worst, it is not real-time. Hell you can't even build stuff to give you *some* gameplay dynamics.
FOT:BOS is a bastard child in the realm of multiplay. It is turn-based (no wait, phase based), you have very limited control over your guys, and the game is using a combat system DESIGNED for an RPG. Because you can't build anything you have no way to improve yourself other than find a good position.
Fun.....
>>>>Wait now.. that almost sounds like
>>>>the storyline to Quake II.
>>>
>Hey that is your unimaginitive storyline,
>so any negative comments you
>make about it are a
>reflection on yourself...
Don't turn this against me. Tell me, what could POSSIBLY be made of FOT:BOS in the realm of storyline?
You want to know what? They'll give us a history of what is currently going on, you play through the missions learning a little more as it goes on, and then in the end you learn what finally happened to the BOS.
Sounds like regular Fallout's pattern? Yeah it does but there is one difference, FOT:BOS is linear: there is no way to change your footing in society, manipulate your environment, choose who/what you want to be, and finally, what you want to do in the big picture. Do you think I can be an idiot guy with a huge lack of intelligence in FOT:BOS? Get real, dumb guys don't fight well. Where does my charisma factor into FOT:BOS? It doesn't.
I see as much plot depth coming to FOT:BOS as Starcraft, the only difference is that Starcraft will probably be a lot more fun.
>>>If you don't know the difference
>>>between JA2/XCOM and Quake II,
>>>then perhaps you should try
>>>all three and report back
>>>as to their similiarities and
>>>differences
>>
>>JA2 - NOT FALLOUT
>>XCOM - NOT FALLOUT
>>QUAKE II - NOT FALLOUT
>>
>>this is why these 3 games
>>aren't as goood as fallout,
>>they're all the same.. they're
>>not fallout...
>>
>Last I checked they were all
>quite different. If you categorize
>according to whether or not
>they are Fallout, then you
>are a true fan and
>I salute that, but you
>are also very narrow-minded and
>should ask yourself if this
>is rational thinking. Most people
>with such single-mindedness are usually
>the scum of society, exhibiting
>Nazi, vomitous intentions.
Oh how nice, you're pinning Nazism on us for proclaiming the defilation of a good series with a game that is so contradictory to its series.
Do you want Fallout to be like other games? Fallout is the standard by which many RPGs are graded. It was hailed because it provided an RPG game that had not been found in a long time. It was not watered-down garbage like Diablo where you just kill stuff, grab stuff, and heal yourself. Fallout is not like Final Fantasy where the only experience you earn is by killing stuff. No, Fallout represents a new standard of RPGing proving that Pen and Paper RPGs can be emulated in computer games to a certain extent never accomplished before.
>>i have played all three by
>>the way...
>>i enjoyed ja2 & xcom...
>>& i enjoyed quake 2 not
>>at all...
>>
>Why are we making Quake2 comparisons?
>it has absolutely no bearing
>on the argument? And which
>XCOM game are you talking
>about?
Quake 2 is purely combat oriented as is FOT:BOS. Sad thing is that in Quake II at least you have more control over your character.
>>>>The BOS was supposed to be
>>>>trying to keep a low
>>>>profile and release technology to
>>>>the world at a good
>>>>pace. When did they
>>>>become gladiators of the wasteland?
>>>
>Who says that they are? This
>is once again based on
>your own lame plotline you
>devised earlier in this thread.
>And when the wasteland is
>threatened
>(see Master, The) they took action.
>Who is to say they
>are not defending out of
>necessity.
Then tell me, what kind of intricate plotline could FOT:BOS possibly have? It will obviously be linear, have no character developement, and simply provide a history. Big whoop.
I've outlined the basic structure of FOT:BOS, and I can bet that it won't deviate too much from it.
Here's some stock story outlines that will probably fit:
"The BOS is threatened so they must counter the attack and kill off the invading hordes"
"The BOS has identified an unknown threat, so they investigate and see it is something very dire. They must act and destroy this evil."
Ooo.. and I can guess there will be some real plot twists too, maybe a power struggle within the BOS. Oh wow!
Check out the storyline for Starcraft and play through the game, it will be as generic as that.
>>>I guess all those miniguns and
>>>power armor were just for
>>>looks, right?
>>
>>they're for defence, not running around
>>the desert like retards shooting
>>shit.
>>
>Brilliantly worded. Quite often retards are
>seen running around the desert
>shooting shit. And once again,
>why are you so convinced
>they are on the offence?
Oh great, now we can flip a coin. Now they're on the defense. Of course the only way to resolve the battle is by violence right? Real dynamic there real dynamic.
>Well seeing as how it seems
>all of you guys played
>through Fallout with a really
>high speech skill I will
>explain it. When you engage
>in combat in Fallout, you
>begin a turn-based strategic mode
>of play. How can you
>say Fallout has nothing to
>do with tactical strategy?
It does have tactical strategy, however this is not to say the game is based around it. Do you know how OLD it gets fighting raiders? It is really rewarding to see that you're changing the game around you in Fallout. I doubt I shall feel so rewarded with FOT:BOS.
You can make combat as intricate as you want, but it gets OLD. Do you know that Deathmatch gameplay for FPS games is really declining? Want to know why? Because it is so one-dimensional.
Now team-based games are on the uprise because it introduces variety.
FOT:BOS may have team-based battle but do you really have much control over yourself? Hardly. At least in Quake you are in the perspective of the player, not just ordering the guys about.
Oh and FOT:BOS had BETTER be open-specs (unlike the previous Fallouts) or it will die SOOOOO quick. Quake III is so successful because John Carmack is a genious when it comes to structuring his games for the fans. He releases the full source code knowing that it does him no good to keep. What is DOES do is allow people to MOD Quake III to their heart's desire giving Quake III infinite replayablility. Best of all, the engine is so robust that nearly anything can be done with it.
FOT:BOS will die like Tiberian Sun if it has no moddablility. Starcraft is STILL more popular than Tiberian Sun despite being over a year older for the fact that they continue to fix the game, and more importantly, they allow it to be changed through the excellent map editor.
>>>>Oh uh huh, one person makes
>>>>the game right? Chris
>>>>Taylor is the regular "Sid
>>>>Meier" of Interplay right?
>>>>Stamp his name on it
>>>>and BAM you have a
>>>>good game.
>>>
>>>It certainly won't hurt. It
>>>is certainly more evidence of
>>>quality than the evidence you
>>>have of lack of quality.
>>> On that basis I
>>>win
>>
>>children speak of "I win" maybe
>>now you should start taunting
>>him & saying "I'm better
>>than you, so nyeah!"
>>
>That's beside the point, he is
>simply saying his point presents
>a stronger argument than yours
The fact is that it isn't an argument. One person does not make the game. The only people I really would put my money into a game for is John Carmack and Sid Meier, they have proven again and again that they uphold excellent standards. Also they work on the same kinds of games all the time too so that may factor into it too.
>>there's room, but i don't want
>>to buy a q3a clone
>>that has the fallout name
>>attached, there's room or that
>>also....
>>
>Not really. If you are so
>ignorant to believe that Interplay
>would endorse such a product
>you are dead wrong. You
>all seem to ignore the
>fact that the combat in
>Fallout 1 and 2 is
>rooted in tactical Strategy.
Interplay isn't doing so well financially. They are simply a parent company competing against other giants like Electronic Arts, Blizzard Entertainment and others. They are also quite distanced from their games. Do you really think Interplay has any real direct involvement with BIS other than the knowledge that they produce some good RPGs? What do they see in Fallout? They see a theme that could be expanded to other arenas for money. They see quick cash. Produce a quick game using the foundation built by other games, modify the engine a bit and volia, instant game to market.
>>if ft:bos sells well, we'll most
>>likely get fallout tactics: brotherhood
>>of steel 2, not fallout
>>3
>>it will be the death of
>>fallout rpg's.
>>after all, fallout tactics would be
>>easier to make than fallout
>>3.....
>>
>But Fallout 3 has a much
>larger fanbase, and has cornered
>the true RPG market, hence
>it would be stupid not
>to make it, regardless of
>well BOS sells.
What does FOT:BOS do? It makes people expect that Fallout is a combat-oriented game. They buy FOT:BOS, they play, they say, hey I wonder what the others are like. Ugh, they aren't Tactical Strategies.
Then Interplay gets feedback saying that FOT:BOS's gameplay is more popular than the RPG version. They commission more games surrounding tactical combat in the Fallout arena. The RPG slowly fades away....
Or maybe it's a dismal failure. Then Interplay sees that the Fallout series isn't grossing too much, that fans associate Fallout with a garbage game nobody liked, who will buy Fallout 3?
Take Heros of Might and Magic. It's very popular and there is even concern that Might and Magic (RPG) may be disovlved in favor of making HoMM instead.
>>civ2 was civ except with a
>>lot of enhancments.
>>starcraft was a game in it's
>>own right, it didn't have
>>anything to live up to.
>>
>On the contrary Starcraft had a
>lot to live up to.
>It is the next evolution
>of Warcraft, It used pre-rendered
>graphics when TA had already
>taken the step to RT3D.
>It is also the next
>game from the people who
>made Diablo. It was anticipated
>more than Fallout will ever
>be.
Starcraft thrived on the fact that Blizzard is extremely adept at providing a fair game. They created three races and for the most part they are perfectly balance. TA floundered because it got old REAL quick. People don't want fancy graphics, they want a game that entertains and is well engineered. Blizzard produces those kinds of games.
Fallout doesn't exactly have the most spectacular graphics, and hell Fallout 2's maps didn't load up really fast either. Those are TECHNICAL matters. Real gamers look right past that.
That's also why Tiberian Sun sucks. Technically speaking, it is far more advanced than Starcraft, but Starcraft is so farther tuned. Tiberian Sun has voxel graphics, it has deformible terrain, it has real physics, it can even go into high res modes. Starcraft however is extremely balanced, in fact that's what took most of the production time. Starcraft has notable graphics but it is not techincally powerful. There is only air and ground and damage. No physics, no experience points, nothing. It is balanced.
Gamers are deep, they want better games, not just clones of other games. Duke Nukem never grossed as high as DOOM despite being far more powerful. Yeah DOOM was first, but clones don't attract players.
FOT:BOS is Xcom with the Fallout combat system. It is not dynamic, it is simply point A to point B. Do gamers want another clone? Do they want a game that was whipped out in a marketting frenzy? No.
>>look at battlecruiser 3000ad, it was
>>released, there was a large
>>following, but it had bugs,
>>so it was recalled.
>>everyone waited for the patches, when
>>they were released, there was
>>a tiny group of people
>>who re-bought it.
>>
>But if there is a related
>game released while the anticipated
>title is in development, people
>are less likely to forget.
>Also technology from BOS can
>be re-used for Fallout 3
>if need be.
Forget? But what if that game changes the whole memory/vision of what the game is? Will people expect another FOT:BOS when they buy Fallout 3? Will they anticipate FOT:BOS 2 more than Fallout 3?
>>>Hasn't really been tried alot.
>>>Except the ST and Star
>>>wars universes have been used
>>>alot for various types of
>>>games. And I expect
>>>there is some synergy there.
>>
>>look at starwars games, notice since
>>tie fighter the quality has
>>really died off?
>>
>Yes, but has anyone else noticed
>that since Jedi the movie
>quality has died off also?
>SW has unfortunately become over
>marketed, and is reaching the
>"milking-machine" stage.
>BOS is not doing this to
>Fallout, but rather attracting even
>more gamers to the Fallout
>franchise
Fallout is not a franchise as you call it. It is not a way of life that can be morphed into whatever marketing ploy Interplay wants. It is an RPG created on the basis of dynamic storylines and Pen and Paper bindings. People looking for Tactical Strategy won't go looking for RPGs. If they do, they want an RPG anyway.
What would you think if someone thought to franchise the whole Chess game idea? Real-time chess battling. Rather than basing the game on strategy where the pieces have set moves, now even a pawn has a chance to kill a queen if he's lucky. What does that do to the flavor of Chess? Now it's become a hack and slash battle. It is no longer chess in any way besides name.
>>they claim it's fallout, which it
>>most certainly isn't.
>>once again, if they kill the
>>fallout part of the title,
>>there's no problem.
>>
>Why is it not Fallout, and
>what gives you the right
>to judge whether it is
>or not?
Fallout is an RPG based off of Pen and Paper mechanics and dynamic character interaction. It won an award as RPG of the year for this. It represents a standard of RPG not found in much else. Fallout was revolutionary. Before it were pseudo-RPGs like Diablo and Final Fantasy. They emphasized combat as the center of their game, rather than character developement which is the true nature of an RPG. In Fallout you had a choice as to fight or not to fight, you determined what the character did as far as his life.
Along comes FOT:BOS, which deemphasized all that Fallout did so well. It is purely linear, there is no character developement, it is combat-oriented. What does this say for Fallout? It has fallen to the masses. No longer king of its realm it is among the other games made to please the lowest common denominator: violent battles to achieve an outcome.
>>nothing wrong with fun.
>>but the title needs to be
>>changed.
>>a lot of people who buy
>>it will think "oh wow!
>>a new fallout game", then
>>what will they think when
>>fallout 3 is released "i've
>>been ripped off once, screw
>>them".
>>realistically it might have a negative
>>affect on fallout 3.
>
>Doubtful. And if it didn't have
>the Fallout name you guys
>would be up in arms
>anyway because it would be
>"ripping off Fallout" Besides why
>don't you actually wait until
>more info is released before
>you make snap judgment
Actually any association with Fallout is simply wrong. It is like associating devil worship with the Bible. They contradict all that the other stands for.
-Xotor-
[div align=center]
http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
