metalboss44
It Wandered In From the Wastes
They screwed over us Star Trek fans, whats to stop them with doing the same with Fallout?
I honestly don't get the Fallout 3 hate.
- Thread starter Doidoidoi
- Start date
It Wandered In From the Wastes
metalboss44 said:
Paramount's been screwing with their fans for years. It's a little too late to rag on Bethesda about it.
I still have an unanswered question, and I'll strip my mental meandering out of it: does anyone think Bethesda's listening to customer feedback from the demo and material releases? I'm not just talking the established fanbase; I mean their target audience. I'm thinking of Glutton Creeper and their deal with Interplay to make a tabletop game in the Fallout universe--a deal that Bethesda refused to uphold and tried to sue them for even trying it.
Vault 69er
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Pirengle said:
That's not a case of listening to anyone. That's just Zenimax doing business. Herve made a crappy hole-filled deal with GC and Zenimax was under no obligation to honour it if they didn't have to.
As for feedback... as of the last time I visited the Bethsoft forums it was still a bannable offense to talk to the devs about Fallout 3.
Yes, even after E3.
ejacksonian
First time out of the vault
I believe it's less of hating Fallout 3 as much as fans wanted to see Black Isle's Fallout 3.
I mean, I believe most of us REALLY wanted to see how it turned out. From what I gather, it was almost finished. It's shame they never got a chance to finish their work.
There's other issues, but if they weren't doing Fallout 3, most Fallout fans wouldn't be complaining. Sounds like a "duh" and an obvious fact, but if this game wasn't fallout, but still had the same stuff, Most fans wouldn't complain.
I, for one, am disappointed. Not so much at Bethesda, but at Interplay. Had they Black Isle survived, we would have THEIR Fallout 3.
I mean, I believe most of us REALLY wanted to see how it turned out. From what I gather, it was almost finished. It's shame they never got a chance to finish their work.
There's other issues, but if they weren't doing Fallout 3, most Fallout fans wouldn't be complaining. Sounds like a "duh" and an obvious fact, but if this game wasn't fallout, but still had the same stuff, Most fans wouldn't complain.
I, for one, am disappointed. Not so much at Bethesda, but at Interplay. Had they Black Isle survived, we would have THEIR Fallout 3.
Yeah, it's a shame, but Black Isle isn't around any more, so we've just got to move on.ejacksonian said:
These things happen. Looking Glass Studios was another great developer, it's too bad, but I've reconciled the fact that we'll probably never see a System Shock 3, or a new Thief game.
I'm just glad someone is picking up Fallout 3 at all, and the fact that Bethesda is a good company with some solid games under their belt just makes it better.
ejacksonian
First time out of the vault
Rupert said:
well, "moving on" means different things for different people. Some people criticize Bethesda because they are trying to get the product the want.
If you ask me, people that REALLY hated what bethesda is doing wouldn't even bother to talk about it. They would simply assume Bethesda is going to disappoint them, and simply ignore Bethesda.
People that still are passionate still have SOME hope left in them. Why bother if they have no hope? I wouldn't. If really thought Bethesda was going to disappoint, without a doubt, then I wouldn't even bother talking about it-what's the point?
Of course, I'm not expecting much. I immensely disliked Oblivion, and I'll probably not get this game immediately. I'll probably wait till the price drops.
Jidai Geki
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I think a lot of people are going way overboard in their negative reactions to what Bethsoft have offered up so far. Fallouts 1 and 2 are my all-time favourite games and I still regularly play both, but I'm mostly just really happy to see a Falllout 3 being made, and I'm happy a decent company like Bethesda are the ones doing it.
I liked Oblivion- shock horror. I thought it was a brilliant game. Yes, it had its problems, its dialogue options weren't the deepest to ever grace an RP, and the fact that you were free to join every single Guild with one character was kinda retarded, but it was a good game. It was a enjoyable experience in a vast world, and it was something you could easily clock 100+ hours on without losing interest.
Some of the "innovations" that Bethesda are implementing are, admittedly, not the best. Some of them I'm indifferent to. I don't care that the vault dwellers wear baggier vault suits. It's a minor aesthetic change and frankly, it makes sense that different vaults, over time, would have developed different suits.
Nuclear cars are also a minor point for me. Yes, the original Fallout RPG's (so as to differentiate them from Tactics and the lamentable pile of turd that was BoS) treated nuclear weapons with a certain amount of reverence. They were rarely used. But it also makes sense that in the land of cavalier attitudes and overindulgence, some parts of the country had nuclear-powered vehicles. Granted, the Fatman is retarded, but maybe that will be dropped. There's still a year (at least) to go.
I'm not fond of the idea of drinking water to regain health. I'm not crazy about the ticketing droids that are powerful enough to kill supermutants. I'm sure I'll get over it, though. I'll be able to play a Fallout game that's not utter rubbish for the first time in- what, eight or nine years?
The Brotherhood of Steel's new direction- again, it's a different part of the country. It makes sense that different chapters of the Brotherhood have developed different mentalities. Not a big deal.
Let's remember the flak that Van Buren took before it was cancelled. As soon as it was cancelled, everybody loved it and clamoured for it to be finished. I think that even the most vocal detractors of Fallout 3 are secretly looking forward to it, and I think that the vast majority of contributors to this board are going to buy Fallout 3 in spite of their current antipathy towards it.
If anything, I think we can agree that it's going to be a hell of a lot better than BoS.
I liked Oblivion- shock horror. I thought it was a brilliant game. Yes, it had its problems, its dialogue options weren't the deepest to ever grace an RP, and the fact that you were free to join every single Guild with one character was kinda retarded, but it was a good game. It was a enjoyable experience in a vast world, and it was something you could easily clock 100+ hours on without losing interest.
Some of the "innovations" that Bethesda are implementing are, admittedly, not the best. Some of them I'm indifferent to. I don't care that the vault dwellers wear baggier vault suits. It's a minor aesthetic change and frankly, it makes sense that different vaults, over time, would have developed different suits.
Nuclear cars are also a minor point for me. Yes, the original Fallout RPG's (so as to differentiate them from Tactics and the lamentable pile of turd that was BoS) treated nuclear weapons with a certain amount of reverence. They were rarely used. But it also makes sense that in the land of cavalier attitudes and overindulgence, some parts of the country had nuclear-powered vehicles. Granted, the Fatman is retarded, but maybe that will be dropped. There's still a year (at least) to go.
I'm not fond of the idea of drinking water to regain health. I'm not crazy about the ticketing droids that are powerful enough to kill supermutants. I'm sure I'll get over it, though. I'll be able to play a Fallout game that's not utter rubbish for the first time in- what, eight or nine years?
The Brotherhood of Steel's new direction- again, it's a different part of the country. It makes sense that different chapters of the Brotherhood have developed different mentalities. Not a big deal.
Let's remember the flak that Van Buren took before it was cancelled. As soon as it was cancelled, everybody loved it and clamoured for it to be finished. I think that even the most vocal detractors of Fallout 3 are secretly looking forward to it, and I think that the vast majority of contributors to this board are going to buy Fallout 3 in spite of their current antipathy towards it.
If anything, I think we can agree that it's going to be a hell of a lot better than BoS.
I like how you dismiss all criticism with 'Eh, it's somewhere else, so it could work.'
If everything is changed simply because it's set somewhere else, what still makes it a Fallout game?
If everything is changed simply because it's set somewhere else, what still makes it a Fallout game?
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'm happy your happy but Bethesda decent company? They've alienated parts of their own fan base with the direction of the Elder Scrolls games, they've alienated the Star Trek Fan base with Legacy, and they've alienated the Fallout fan base with what's been shown so far and general lack of communitication with the community. How does that make them a decent company?Jidai Geki said:
The Brotherhood were a small isolationist group, not some global spanning organisation. They didn't have small chapters! It's this sort of lack of attention to detail and rewriting that puts us off, not to forget the total change in gameplay. The changes to the amour and vault suits, the depicition of the Super Mutants (not just in graphics) the toilet drinking and exploding nuclear cars etc as a far off the mark if not further than FOT's or FOBOS' renderings of the Fallout setting. If it's so different, why bother calling it a Fallout game.Jidai Geki said:
Nope, I'd say it's going to be a whole lot worse, if only for the fact it's meant to be a direct sequel and canon, where as at least FOT and FOBOS were only ever spinoffs.Jidai Geki said:
Jidai Geki
It Wandered In From the Wastes
It's a good question, and one that time will answer. I'm by no means a Bethsoft apologist, I'm just trying to maintain a sense of optimism about this because I really wanna play another decent Fallout game.
There will hopefully be enough in this game that it is still recognisably Fallout. I appreciate that sticking a Pipboy and a vault in there and saying "this is Fallout! Look, there's a blue jumpsuit!" will not suffice, but I think it's too early to declare the project an unmitigated disaster.
I can speak only from personal experience. I admit that I didn't play the earlier Elder Scrolls games (I've always been primarily a console player, PC's being prohibitively expensive for me) so I can't comment on the direction they took the franchise. I liked Morrowind and I liked Oblivion, and that's enough for me.
Is it not conceivable that small groups of Brotherhood members broke off and did their own thing, one group making it as far as Washington DC and being radically different from the BoS we know from Fallouts 1 and 2?
I don't think the question of canonicity is pertinent to the quality of the game.
Jidai Geki said:
You don't think if a Star Wars game had Darth Vader in purple and talking with a squeaky voice, people who gravitate towards Star Wars games would enjoy it much less for that very reason?
Jidai Geki
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Per said:
All right, point taken. Obviously if Bethsoft shits all over the fundamental precepts of what makes Fallout Fallout, it will be crap. The supermutant thing is a sore point, to be sure, but is it merely an aesthetic change or, as so many people have claimed, will they be reduced to mindless bad guys without any personality? I've not actually come across any material which reinforces this idea, and if anyone has any links to anything which does just that, I would be grateful.
There's been a lot of talk about things being 'dumbed down' for the casual (read: console) gamer. The question is, what is a 'casual gamer'?
I have some friends whom I would describe as casual gamers. They like sports games, racing games, and mindless FPS's. If a game has an intro, they skip it because they get easily bored with sitting through exposition. The bottom line: casual gamers don't like storylines. They don't like rich, detailed or 'immersive' worlds because they just wanna kill things/go really fast/play as their favourite football team.
The point is, RPG's are of no interest to the casual gamer because they represent the things in games which they don't care for. I have a friend who refuses to play RPG's because they're far too vast, take too long to get into, and are too directionless (in terms of the number of choices, subquests, free roaming etc. which deviates from a specific structure). The same is true of the console market; the casual gamer is not interested in playing Oblivion, or even Final Fantasy, for longer than a couple of hours before they get bored and stick Need for Speed on.
Ditto kids- they also, generally, have no interest in RPG's. So who are RPG's aimed at? They're aimed at the traditional gamer, those of us who grew up with the industry and view it as a legitimate medium, not just some throwaway Saturday afternoon diversion.
With this in mind, why would Bethsoft attempt to dumb down a successful franchise with a fairly niche market in order to appeal to a demographic which doesn't like RPG's and which never will?
Sorrow
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Because they want money?
Jidai Geki
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Sorrow said:
I'm not sure that you read my post in its entirety. Let's assume, for argument's sake, that you're right:
1) Bethsoft wants money. They are developing an RPG.
2) "Casual gamers" don't buy RPG's.
3) From a purely pragmatic, money-grabbing perspective, aiming an RPG at the "casual gamer" demographic is a stupid idea.
4) Bethesda has no reason to "dumb down", since they simply run the risk of losing the traditional RPG market and not getting a healthy slice of the casual gamer market.
This game will obviously be aimed at mature male gamers. It's an RPG, and the mature themes and level of violence will ensure that this is played by men aged, let's say, between 18 and 35. Men of such an age who are playing computer games are more often than not veteran gamers who have played games for years, are fairly savvy with regards to the industry, and who will probably not react extremely well to dumbed down, asinine gaming. Look at BoS's sales figures.
Now lets look at the facts:Jidai Geki said:
1) Oblivion was a terribly dumbed down RPG.
2) Bethesda has a history of dumbing down its franchises.
3) Oblivion sold really well, and your contention that RPGs are not for the casual gamer is silly and elitist, not to mention false. Yes, there are people who won't play RPGs. There are also people who won't play FPS games, and people who won't play RTS games. Oblivion's sales figures prove you wrong.
Jidai Geki
It Wandered In From the Wastes
How so? Yes, the dialogue was non-existent and the main storyline was very linear, but the core of any RPG- character creation- was there, and the number of things that you could do was mind-blowing.
You're obviously referring to TES here, but can you give me some examples?
You're quite right, Oblivion did sell very well. I've been attempting to research amongst which demographics Oblivion sold the best but have come up with nothing. There is not evidence either way that Oblivion was popular amongst "casual gamers".
As for my contention being "silly and elitist", that couldn't be more fallacious. I'm not claiming that RPG players are better than the average gamers, I'm saying that RPG players are different in their expectations. Perhaps a "silly and elitist" argument might be inflexibly demanding an isometric turn-based RPG sequel which contributes nothing new to a franchise, I don't know.
What about choices 'n consequences? And I'm not talking about "don't like this sword? Use another one!" What about character's skill over player's skill?Jidai Geki said:
Sander's probably talking about Daggerfall > Morrowind > Oblivion dumbing down.
For example, if I remember correctly, you could kill everyone in Morrowind. If you killed plot-critical character you received a message that you won't be able to finish the game now.
They dumbed down Oblivion and made plot-critical NPCs immortal.
Another example. In Morrowind your weapon skills determines whether you hit or miss. In Oblivion you always hit.
Another example? In Morrowind your shield skills determined whether you block attacks or not, in Oblivion player blocks..
Oh, and axes are blunt weapons.
And don't forget about minigaes
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
They are developing an action rpg, not the same thing at all.Jidai Geki said:
Who do you think bought Oblivion?Jidai Geki said:
It's worked for them in the past, look at Oblivion's sales. By all accounts Oblivion has lost a lot of Morrowind's features. How is that not dumbing down? They didn't spend a small fortune on advertising just to reach the traditional rpg player.Jidai Geki said:
From a short-sighted penny pushers point of view they have every reason to dumb down, the casual market is far larger than the traditional market. It might make more sense to target the niche market, but the scale of casual sales are so tempting and probably seem like less of a risk.Jidai Geki said:
Que? That's not the core of any RPG. The core of any RPG is choices and consequences to them. Character creation features in so many games, and is so peripheral to any RPG that it isn't even relevant. The choices of *how* you play your character and the consequences to those choices, those are the essential elements of any RPG. Oblivion lacked almost all choices. Any character-development choices you made were irrelevant, since you could be the master of everything anyway. Hell, you could be the leader of every guild and organisation in the game. Quests are forced upon you, and have only one way of being completed.Jidai Geki said:
Hell, more examples of dumbing down lie in the dialogue, the level scaling, the dumbing down of the character system etc. etc. etc.
Meaningless things, yes. There were no choices in the game,Jidai Geki said:
See Oblivion, or Morrowind.Jidai Geki said:
Yes there is. The evidence lies in the huge sales numbers. That's a lot of evidence, in fact.Jidai Geki said:
Nice troll, sir. Don't do that.Jidai Geki said:
requiem_for_a_starfury
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Just read some of the comments on various articles on Oblivion or FO3.Jidai Geki said:
How does perspective and gameplay have anything to do with adding something new to a franchise? Changing the view and gameplay has been tried before, it didn't add anything new to the franchise. Except the generally agreed worst game so far, at least though that never pretended to be anything other than a spinoff.Jidai Geki said:
We are talking a sequel to a game, you'd expect in that case to find much the same gameplay. When you pick up Halo3 you wouldn't expect Halo Wars, if C&C3 had of been in fact Renegade 2, there would of been a hell of a commotion.