GFW on Fallout fans

whirlingdervish said:
the wrong signal being:

"we'll happily buy sub-par games if it means that there is a chance that one day in the distant future, we'll actually get something decent out of a proven franchise that already had 2 completely successful titles."
Click to expand...

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of
"So they loved the changes~"
or
"No more need for quality games if these sell like hotcakes too!"
 
I can't beleive I missed my opportunity to say something useful in this thread...Oh well, might as well have a go at it.


When I first arrived at this site, I too dismissed alot of the negativity as fanboy whining and relentless negativity. However, after Brother None pointed me in the direction of a few of the FAQs and articles, I've come to realize the logical arguments behind alot of the opinion here. And while I still maintain a higher then usual level of optimism, I am not nearly the hardcore fan other posters on this site are. I just got the games a short time ago, and havn't waited for nearly a decade for a decent follow-up.

I'd also like to comment on the innovation vs. conservation game debate that seems to form part of the core of what may make or break Fallout 3. While a game series is important for maintaing it's core mechanics and spirit, no game can survive without changing. To exemplify this, I point you in the direction of two classic game series as old or older then FallOut: Tomb Raider, and Resident Evil.

Both are series that where lauded for their excellent gameplay and graphics, and both began to decline over the years as too little of the game changed. Tomb Raider was especially hammered on this way as the games old and increasingly ugly engined was re-hashed into buggier and more lazily produced sequels.

Both games would attempt to crawl out of this decline with nex-generation follow ups. Code Veronica, a Dreamcast spinoff was lauded for it's full 3-d graphics, but still lacked any other eal innovation and suffered from repetetive and un-intersting monsters.

After the semi-next gen dreamcast game, the series moved to Gamecube. Resident Evil would score well with it's superb remaked of the origional, but Resident Evil: Zero, while bearing an interesting double character dynamic, failed to capture alot of what was good about the other games. Uneven difficulty, uninteresting enemies, and unneccessary "Other mansion" setting and story made it a ver "average" entry in the series.

Tomb Raider, on the other hand, did a 180 and tried to re-imagine itself as a dark somewhat RPG-ized adventure game, with leveling stats, side quests, and dialogue trees. While the improved graphics and animations where a bonus, the game was released after several delays vaslty unfinished. And despite the many bugs and loose ends, the game was too dark, to wierd, and lacked the Indiana Jones style spirit of the origional game. It bombed miserably.

Resident Evil would hash out a couple of poorly implemented online games for PS2 as well as numerous spinoffs and lightgun games before a proper sequel was realized. This would come in the form of Resident Evil 4, and while some fans felt it took the series in a too action oriented direction, it was universally heralded as one of the best games of 2004/5.

Tomb RAider, after being ripped from the hands of developer Core, would be re-invented by Crystal Dynamics (with origional Lara Croft creator Toby Gard) as Tomb Raider: Legend. Superbly produced and theroughly modernized, the game celebrated the spirit of adventure and puzzle solving while modernizing the game. Suffering only from overdone combat, unnecessary motorcyvle sequences, and overly straightforward puzzles.

Still, the series would continue to improve with the superb Tomb Raider: Anniversary. A game that re-imagined the origional with all the modern amneties, while providing the isolated adventure, clever puzzles, and large detailed enviornments of the origional. In fact, as a long time fan I would go as far to say as Anniversary may be the best game in the venerable series.

Anyways, I digress. The point here is that innovation and conservation is a hard line to walk, but it can be done. A game can be modernized and improved in numerous large and small ways, but still be a true successor to games of the past.
 
JeffGreen said:
Well, first, I will say that I personally found some of the weapons handling in the OLD games to be a little silly. (Like, I found my suspension of disbelief being challenged when I was missing shots from one foot away, consistently.)
Click to expand...

Well Jeff I usually do not post here but when I see remarks like these it just have to comment.

Now we will set the way back machine to the old west, to October 26th, 1881, the place Tombstone Arizona.

Now remember that the the gunfight was fought in a vacant lot about 18 feet wide, but also in Fremont street in front of the lot. Most of the shooting was done at ranges of about 10 feet or less. The number of shots fired can only be estimated. Estimates vary from 20 to 30 shots total.

Now I must emphasize the closeness of the gunfight once again when I relay the various injuries below.

The Earps injuries; Wyatt came out of the gunfight unscathed, while Virgil was shot through the right calf, Morgan was shot through the upper back above his shoulder blades (by a single bullet), and Holliday was grazed on the hip. Total hits, 3.

Clanton injuries; Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne ran through the middle of the fight and escaped uninjured.

Frank McLaury was shot in the abdomen near the navel, early in the fight by Wyatt, before he was felled at the end of the fight by a pistol bullet hitting him at the base of his skull under his right ear, this shot fired by Morgan Earp. 2 hits.

Tom McLaury, already fatally wounded from a double shotgun blast, was seen running or stumbling westward, when Wyatt shot him in the abdomen. 2 shotgun, 1 pistol hit.

Billy Clanton was shot through the wrist by Morgan, in the right chest through the right lung by Morgan, through the right arm by Virgil, in the abdomen under the twelfth rib by Virgil, in the hip by Wyatt, and a graze across his scalp by Virgil. 6 hits.

Now, you may be asking yourself WTF? Well, think about it, these were 9 men who were known as excellent shots, and at ranges LESS than 10 feet firing between 20 and 30 rounds and they only scored 12 pistol hits! In fact, two ran right through the gunfight and were never touched.

9 men who were known for their accuracy were going at each other guns blazing and they score less than 60%, and if you use the higher total and take out the minor grazes, even less. Then you claim to be disillusioned by not hitting at close range?

Dude, WTF is your problem with not hitting at close range, I have seen morons fire a pistol at a foot range and miss. They were that bad of a shot. So your statement is hilarious at the least, ludicrous at the best. As far as I am concerned, they were too liberal with their hits.

You ever hear a saying that goes like this? "Sometimes the safest place is right in front of the person holding the weapon." There is a reason for that saying.

So, let me get this straight, you think a FPS shooter is more realistic than a ISO TB game? Man dude, I SO hope you are not even trying to imply that, for that would show just how little about gunplay you do know.

Try looking up some statistics for number of rounds needed to be fired to score a fatal hit sometime, it may enlighten you before you make another comment like that.

Sometimes I think folks should smell what they are shoveling. :roll:



Cheers, Thorgrimm
 
But the difference there being that Resident Evil 4, while much more action oriented than other games in the series, kept the origional style. It was still scary, still very isolating at times, and controlled in almost the exact same manner. It was the same core game, but with a new coat of paint, some new features, and a new story; it was what sequels should be.
 
El_Smacko said:
Anyways, I digress. The point here is that innovation and conservation is a hard line to walk, but it can be done. A game can be modernized and improved in numerous large and small ways, but still be a true successor to games of the past.
Click to expand...

I agree with you fully. Except personally I don't believe this will turn out to be a case where a true successor was created based on all the reviews I've seen. Or should I say especially because of all the raving positive reviews I seen. It makes me feel as if that the product sucked so much that they had to resort to manipulating the press into giving great reviews all over. Not to mention all the contradictory points across the reviews.

Its an RPG! Its an Action-RPG! No its a FPS! :roll:
 
Per said:
I read that development of Master of Magic 2 was contingent on the success of Master of Orion 3, and that MoM fans even tried to start a campaign to get as many as possible to buy MoO3. Sounds a bit like Fallout fans being blamed for the cancellation of the first few Fo3s because neither Tactics nor POS did any good.
Click to expand...

I remember that. I was, for a while, in the camp of wanting to buy it in hopes of seeing a MoM2 as well (mind you, this was when I still supported MoO3). In hindsight, though, after having completed MoO3 for the first time yesterday (and to think... I preordered it, intentionally deceiving myself, at the end, in the hopes that it'd be good despite all I had heard and seen)... I hope to God Infogrames doesn't get their grubby hands on MoM2 (assuming they're still around after that travesty, of course). Some things are better left dead in their greatness, than alive in total suckage.

IMHO, if people say we're to blame for the cancellation of the first incarnations of FO3... let'em. If FO3 would've been like POS (in the same vein that MoM2 would've been like MoO3), then I'm glad that version of FO3 failed.

Sub-par is for Javascript and Flash games, and for indie games. If a company has a known title, and has a standard to live up to, then if they've got the $$, they'd better make a dang good attempt to live up to expectations... 'tis the lesson I've learned from MoO3 and Lords of the Realms 3.

Edit:
@ Thorgrimm - I don't know if you know 'bout this... but there was a gunfight in front of the Van Nuys courthouse, in 2003. It was some crazed guy shooting his lawyer who apparently was doing a crappy job he handled a $98,000 trust fund. The lawyer got hit 5 times (6 shots were actually fired), and was seperated from the gunman by a *tree* (ie less than arm's length from each other). He survived but suffered serious, but not life threatening, injuries (but not so serious that he couldn't walk away to get help).

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/10/31/lawyer.shot/index.html - the article
http://cbs13.com/national/local_story_076191839.html - more details, and the guy's sentencing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SFTi7fFmJc - the actual footage
 
He made a point. Fallout is ten years old and people still spend time on the forums and sill play the old game (and make mods :) ). So just sh** up and stop telling us what we have to think about Fallout 3.
 
Seraphim Pwns U said:
I hope to God Infogrames doesn't get their grubby hands on MoM2 (assuming they're still around after that travesty, of course). Some things are better left dead in their greatness, than alive in total suckage.
Click to expand...

Oh they're still around, as Atari.
I suppose there's some irony in them taking the name of the company thought responsible for the 1983 videogames crash shortly after MoO3 bombed. Maybe a form of atonement. :razz:

IMHO, if people say we're to blame for the cancellation of the first incarnations of FO3... let'em. If FO3 would've been like POS (in the same vein that MoM2 would've been like MoO3), then I'm glad that version of FO3 failed.
Click to expand...

Some would blame fans for the cancellation of Van Buren, which looked to be a true sequel. But they're full of crap, VB was cancelled in favour of BoS, and if BoS had been a success it would only have led to BoS 2. Which they were already planning.
 
Thorgrimm said:
Well Jeff I usually do not post here but when I see remarks like these it just have to comment.

Now we will set the way back machine to the old west, to October 26th, 1881, the place Tombstone Arizona.

Now remember that the the gunfight was fought in a vacant lot about 18 feet wide, but also in Fremont street in front of the lot. Most of the shooting was done at ranges of about 10 feet or less. The number of shots fired can only be estimated. Estimates vary from 20 to 30 shots total.

Now I must emphasize the closeness of the gunfight once again when I relay the various injuries below.

The Earps injuries; Wyatt came out of the gunfight unscathed, while Virgil was shot through the right calf, Morgan was shot through the upper back above his shoulder blades (by a single bullet), and Holliday was grazed on the hip. Total hits, 3.

Clanton injuries; Ike Clanton and Billy Claiborne ran through the middle of the fight and escaped uninjured.

Frank McLaury was shot in the abdomen near the navel, early in the fight by Wyatt, before he was felled at the end of the fight by a pistol bullet hitting him at the base of his skull under his right ear, this shot fired by Morgan Earp. 2 hits.

Tom McLaury, already fatally wounded from a double shotgun blast, was seen running or stumbling westward, when Wyatt shot him in the abdomen. 2 shotgun, 1 pistol hit.

Billy Clanton was shot through the wrist by Morgan, in the right chest through the right lung by Morgan, through the right arm by Virgil, in the abdomen under the twelfth rib by Virgil, in the hip by Wyatt, and a graze across his scalp by Virgil. 6 hits.

Now, you may be asking yourself WTF? Well, think about it, these were 9 men who were known as excellent shots, and at ranges LESS than 10 feet firing between 20 and 30 rounds and they only scored 12 pistol hits! In fact, two ran right through the gunfight and were never touched.

9 men who were known for their accuracy were going at each other guns blazing and they score less than 60%, and if you use the higher total and take out the minor grazes, even less. Then you claim to be disillusioned by not hitting at close range?

Dude, WTF is your problem with not hitting at close range, I have seen morons fire a pistol at a foot range and miss. They were that bad of a shot. So your statement is hilarious at the least, ludicrous at the best. As far as I am concerned, they were too liberal with their hits.

You ever hear a saying that goes like this? "Sometimes the safest place is right in front of the person holding the weapon." There is a reason for that saying.

So, let me get this straight, you think a FPS shooter is more realistic than a ISO TB game? Man dude, I SO hope you are not even trying to imply that, for that would show just how little about gunplay you do know.

Try looking up some statistics for number of rounds needed to be fired to score a fatal hit sometime, it may enlighten you before you make another comment like that.
Click to expand...
Wow, that's a great post :) . Do you know any other stories (or sites) about effectiveness of shooters and weapons?
 
Thorgrimm said:
snip
Click to expand...

But in Clownterstrike, I used to be able to lay out people with dinky pistols in a single shot, from half-way across the map! Sometimes while hopping around....

Are you implying that *gasp* the modern FPS may be just slightly inaccurate in its depiction of combat mechanics? :o

- A.S.S.R.
 
@Sorrow, I will see what I can dig up, the .Gov sites are wonderful for this type of minutia. :D

@A.S.S.R. You bet thats what I am saying, to me it is no more accurate in their depiction of combat than a ISO perspective. But since a FPS limits your vision to an extremely narrow field of view, some, including me, say is is less accurate than a ISO game. Because the ISO game lets you see what is all around you, a primitive version of your peripheral vision if you will.

And don't get me started on the BS ability to hit on the fly FPS's let you do. That is, in the extreme, unrealistic. :evil: So that is why it really bother me when these FPS pogues claim their games are 'realistic'. I smell bullshit when someone makes that claim. :evil:




Cheers, Thorgrimm
 
Infogrames/Atari owns Master of Magic as well as Master of Orion, through Hasbro, through Microprose/SimTex. Since MoO3 crashed, they're pretty much regarding the series' as non-viable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top